Just a couple of questions. No comments just questions.
Is Saddam the only despot in the world? Is Iraq the only country with weapons of mass destruction? Is Saddam currently or actively threatening anyone? Are other countries “rescued” from inhumane leadership better off now? Is the UN either valid or useful as “world policeman” if some members fail to listen? Do we trust those we send in to do a job eg: the weapons inspectors? Do the people of any country (democracy or not) have any impact on the decisions their leaders make?
When are you anti-war people going to get it through your heads that even if Israel had ignored 1,000,000 U.N mandates, it has absolutely NO bearing on Iraq’s violations? This is like going to court charged with murder and arguing that you can’t be guilty because the guy in the next courtroom was just aquited of robbery.
Seperate issues, people, seperate issues. Argue the case at hand, not the first strawman you can stuff.
I’ll get it through my head when it’s no longer the first stick used by war supporters to beat the anti-war crowd. If, as they claim, it’s a matter of principle, then the principle should be applied equally.
elucidator, your response, “My point, as I’m sure you already know, is that to pretend to justify war on the basis of UN resolutions is specious when that justification is applied only when convenient.” does in fact clear up any prior confusion I had with your argument. Thank you.
mhendo, you state: Couch it in the form of questions all you like, your political prejudices still show through. As do yours throughout your post. I’ll attempt to not make broad generalizations in the future. It was not my intention to state that all anti-war folk held the position for the sole convenience of being anti-Bush. Mea culpa.
I’ll be happy when you drop the patronizing attitude.
Well, yes, of course that’s correct. They wouldn’t be two of American’s most ardent regional supporters if we didn’t protect them with votes in the Security Council. It’s politics plain and simple; all countries do it. (Yes, it’s a bad argument, I know. I only wish to point out we’re not alone in this tactic). As for your comments concerning “feeding the rich” tax cuts, violations of civil liberties, and a “roll back” of Roe vs. Wade, I can only note your hypocricy in stating that my political prejudices shine through, while yours are just as transparent.
calm kiwi, just because Saddam is not the only despot in the world does not mean we should ignore him. Also, what do you mean by saying Are other countries “rescued” from inhumane leadership better off now? I would certainly hope that Germany, Japan, Italy, and a host of others are better off now than they were when they were under “inhumane leadership.” Heck, for a more recent example, Afghanistan is better off now than they were 2 years ago. It ain’t pretty, but it’s getting better.
mhendo, you said, “I’ll get it through my head when it’s no longer the first stick used by war supporters to beat the anti-war crowd. If, as they claim, it’s a matter of principle, then the principle should be applied equally.” Agreed. Let’s begin our “matter of principle” with Iraq. Afterall, if we have been inconsistent in the past, the only way we can become consistent is to begin somewhere, right?
Once again, I am not “pro-war.” It is my contention that inspections have been tried and have failed; they have been attempted on and off for 12 years. I see no reason why the current situation should be any different. Besides, it is not the task of the inspectors to play hide-and-go-seek. Iraq was supposed to show the inspectors that the weapons they harbor have been destroyed. They have failed to do so. So then, what is the solution? Should we just pack it in, throw our hands in the air, and leave Saddam alone? Or should we actually enforce a UN resolution for once and do something about Iraqi non compliance?
Until a month ago, I was staunchly against any possible war (I know that must be hard to believe). Out of the 350 College Republicans at this University, I was only one of two who were against any forceful disarmament. However, I began to think about the citizens of Iraq. I even heard a few of them at my University speak in favor of U.S. intervention. That is when my mind began to change. I firmly believe the Iraqi citizens have suffered enough under the Hussein regime, and it’s time for a change. I honestly don’t know how else a regime change can be accomplished other than through forceful means. I believe Iraq’s refusal to abide by 17 UN resolutions, including an important one to completely disarm, are a means to an honorable objective. Inside, I’m still praying for a peaceful outcome; I just don’t see how it’s possible.
I hope I did not offend anyone with my original post. It was written out of frustration, and contained some pretty broad generalizations. For that, I apologise. Thank you.
I wouldn’t worry too much about that if I were you, ShaneVA. This is the BBQ Pit. If you’d offended anyone, they’d have told you immediately and in no uncertain terms. In fact, the entire tone of this thread is so mild, it probably doesn’t belong in the BBQ Pit at all.
Then the debate you want to have is “Consistancy of U.S. foreign policy in reguards to U.N. resolutions”, a valid topic, to be sure, but it has sweet fuck all to do with the specific case of Iraq.
I’d also like to point out that while it may be the first arrow in the bow of those who support ousting Saddam now, it’s far from the last. The “But U.N. resolutions are being ignored by other countries” off-topic screech is often all you hear from anti-war folks.
Perhaps the 32 resolutions against Israel, vs. only 14 against Iraq, are an indication.
It would also be interesting to consider why the list is construed so as to exclude resolutions against terrorists, but to include those against nations. Thus Israel would come in for condemnation for not abiding by resolutions, and the terrorist groups who are at least partially to blame for the situation pass under the UNSC’s radar.
Besides, elucidator tends to argue that the UN gets to pick which of its resolutions really mean what they say, and which are not really serious. Thus, if the UN passes a resolution to condemn Israeli actions or to call for the enforcement of sanctions against Iraq, but does not specifically authorize war to enforce the resolution, they don’t count.
Perhaps if Gobear had directed his comments directly towards the UN, then you would be right in citing resolutions, but he wasn’t that specific. He painted a large portion of the anti-war folk as being in favour of military action against Israel.
the reason the Israel comparison is ever made is to show how the US will use the UN as a tool when it wants, but wouldn’t support the same claims it is making against Iraq if other countries made them against Israel.
Its not that people actually want to see action against Israel, but rather to point out hypocracy.
the resolutions against Israel are only meant to create pressure against a country that could act upon the resolutions if enough pressure were put upon them. the UN don’t see Israel as an offensive threat to its neighbours, which is why the resolutions aren’t “enforced” as such. plus, the Resolutions don’t contain the threat of Military force within them.
You’re correct that it’s not the last arrow for all people who support war, but it was pretty much the only arrow (apart from anti-Dem screeching) used by the OP in this thread. Oh except, of course, for the laughable contention that because Iraq’s oil-related infrastructure is outdated, the US has no interest in controlling its 112 billion barrel crude oil supply.
Look, i’m perfectly well aware that we need to deal with Iraq’s violations as a separate topic. My main irritation in this thread was that the OP marched in with all the same stuff we’ve heard a thousand times; it was nothing but a party political screed, and accused anti-war people of using the whole situation as nothing more than a pretext for slamming the Republicans.
I’ve detailed my opposition to war on quite a few other threads, and in those threads i went well beyond the issue of UN resolutions and looked at problems that i believe are central to the Iraq issue, such as, for example, the belief held by many anti-war people that Bush et al. have failed to adequately make their case that Iraq presents a direct threat to US security, and the belief that the administration has yet to show any real connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. I just wasn’t interested in rehashing all the same arguments over again.
I realize that defiance of UN resolutions cannot be taken, by itself, as a determinant in whether or not we go to war against a country. But i believe it is a relevant issue in the broad scheme of things, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, i’m sure that most people here would agree (correct me if i’m wrong) that simply violating a UN resolution (or even more than one) should not be an excuse to attack a country. If it were, Israel, Turkey, Morrocco, Armenia, Croatia, Sudan, Cyprus, India, Pakistan and Indonesia would all have been invaded. Well, if it’s true that we shouldn’t invade just because of a violation, then other reasons need to be given to justify a war. And i believe, and many other anti-war people believe, that the American (and world) population has not been presented with sufficient cause to justify a war against Iraq at this time. I’ve outlined the reasons, as have many other people, on quite a few other threads. You may disagree with our assessment of the threat, but it’s a strongly-held position and is not, the OP notwithstanding, based purely on anti-Bush dogmatism.
Secondly, i think that, given the importance of the UN, and the US’s position vis-a-vis the UN in this whole problem, the point made by another poster is worth restating. TwistofFate points out that:
That’s exactly the case. Despite the fact that i bring up Israel and Turkey, i have no desire to see those countries invaded in retaliation for their snubbing of UN resolutions. I simply seek to point out that it is rank hypocrisy for the United States government (Dems and GOP alike) to assert the primacy of the UN as an arbiter of world opinion when it’s convenient, and to shun the UN as an irrelevant body when it suits.
And in his most recent post, ShaneVA uses another common piece of rhetoric designed to make the issue one of simplistic black and white opposites. After asserting a belief that inspections have failed, he asks:
Well, i can’t recall ever saying that we should “pack it in,” “throw our hands in the air,” or, for that matter, “leave Saddam alone.” I support further pressure being brought to bear on Iraq regarding the issue of weapons production, but i believe that this should be done under the auspices of the UN. I also believe that the UN should be the one to decide if and when it is necessary to take military action, without being constantly pressured by the bully on the corner to move more rapidly than is necessary. It is the bellicose unilateralism of the United States that is the most troubling aspect of this whole affair, for me, especially when it is acompanied by constant derision and abuse of European and other countries who dare to have their own opinion on issues that affect the whole world.
The problem with the passage that i quoted above from Shane VA is that it implies, once again (and i’m getting tired of this), that those who oppose war are somehow supporters of Saddam Hussein and his policies. His phrase “leave Saddam alone” implies that anti-war people think they are standing up for the poor oppressed Saddam, when we have made it clear that this is not the case. In fact, quite a few people prominent in the current anti-war crowd were have been highly critical of Saddam since the 1980s, since the years when the United States was helping him out in his battle with Iran. Anti-war people are opposed to Saddam’s treatment of certain ethnic groups within his country, and of people who oppose him politically. But we also wonder why those government officials who are so concerned when Saddam kills a bunch of Kurds did not make a hue and cry when similar oppression of the Kurdish people occured (and continues) across the border in Turkey.
And finally, Shane, i have no problem with someone being party-political. You’re a Republican? Bully for you! All i was pointing out is that your OP accused people of being anti-Bush as if it were the main - almost only - reason for opposition to the war. And it also implied that the issue of party politics was somehow irrelevant to the issue at hand. I simply sought to point out that we all have opinions about America’s political parties (even those, like me, who can’t vote here), and that to criticize others simply for having a party-political position is hypocritical in the extreme when your own post is filled with party-political epithets.
As i stated in my earlier post, i was no fan of Bill Clinton, especially not in the later part of his presidency. I’m happy to concede that i like GWB even less, for the reasons that i gave in that post. But it’s not some blind hatred; it’s an opposition based on his policies. I don’t care that much if he can’t put together a coherent sentence; what i care about is the policies, and i find many of his abhorrent. If this excludes me from taking part in rational debate in your mind, then feel free to ignore me.
Finally, for the love of Og, if we’re all going to keep accusing one another of HYPOCRISY, can we at least learn to spell it correctly? There must be at least three different, incorrect spellings of the word in this thread alone.
Is Iraq the only country with weapons of mass destruction?
It is not yet proven that Iraq has WOMD, that is what the intelligence agencies of the world have been unable to produce convincing evidence for.
Is Saddam currently or actively threatening anyone?
What ? You mean like the US is doing right now ?
Who is Iraq threatening ?, not Iran, not Kuwait, not Saudi Arabia, not Turkey, the US is out of reach as are most other European nations. There has not been any real evidence that Saddam has any direct connection with the operation of terrorist groups, so where is the current Iraqi threat, with weapons we cannot prove he has ?
Are other countries “rescued” from inhumane leadership better off now?
How about fromer Soviet states, they have been “rescued” from one lot of inhumane leadership, and some are not doing at all well now, how about Iran being rescued from the US backed Shah, and odious git if there ever was one.
Do we trust those we send in to do a job eg: the weapons inspectors?
The US was instrumental in getting the weapons inspectors there, are you suggesting they did this in such bad faith that they set the inspectors up to fail deliberately ?
Is the UN either valid or useful as “world policeman” if some members fail to listen?
Currently there are fifteen members of the UN security council, 4 of those advocate military action aganst Iraq, 11 do not.The US is responsible more than any other nation for destroying international consensus and thus more responsible for undermining the authority of the UN. December that lasr was embarrassingly easy to turn back on you, surprised that someone of your level of discussion could walk right into it.
Do the people of any country (democracy or not) have any impact on the decisions their leaders make?
Evidently not, given such a narrow vote to elct Bush, and the massive protests in the UK, seems we are not democracies at all, Iraq is not a democracy either.
Don’t you think we should have some impact on such important issues, that we should be fully informed, that the relevant information is presented to us ?
Because what has happened is that we, the plebs, are not being trusted to process evidence of WOMD and come to the kind of conclusion that our warmongering leaders have.
Iraq has used WMD against both the Iranians and the Kurds. You appear to be the only one in the entire world ignorant of this fact, and I’m including newborn babies living in caves in Mongolia in the total. I suggest that you do just a little bit of reasearch on FACTS before you rush out with your call to appease another dictator.
I am anti-war, in general, as all reasonable people are.
I am also against the current hypothetical war. Why? Because extraordinary actions require extraordinary justifications. Bush wants the US to premeditatedly conquer a sovereign nation. He wants to take the entire US military might and throw it against another country. Furthermore, he wants us to do this despite the protests of a large number of the nations which have traditionally been our allies and friends.
Am I going to claim that the US should never ever ever under any circumstances do the above? No. But I think that a truly extraordinary and unprecedented action such as this requires incredibly clear and strong justification. Justification which has, as of yet, not been provided. Why, precisely, are we going to war? What reason do we have for taking such an incredibly drastic ad unprecedented step?
As of right now, I see no reason anywhere near compelling enough. And honestly, I don’t see any need to convince others of my position. The default position should always be that we don’t invade other countries. If someone wants us to invade a country, it is up to that person to give an awfully compelling argument. Otherwise, no invasion.
Which is not to say that I’m opposed in principle to any exercise of military muscle in the region, or even in Iraq. If Iraq loses a war, agrees to disarm, and then doesn’t allow inspectors in, I have no problem with using military might to force the issue. But I would do so with clearly stated goals, ultimatums, etc., and I would do everything possible to have the support of as much of the world as possible.
mhendo: First and foremost, hypocricy is accepted by my spell check. In any event, is this a debating forum or a fucking spelling bee?
Secondly, maybe the anti-Bush sentiment is not being tagged with the anti-war movement in other parts of the country, but it is certainly evident here. Please excuse my broad generalization (this is the third time I have apologised. Do I need to throw rose petals at your feet and beg your forgiveness before you’ll cut the condescension?)
Aww, hims gettin’ tired of being mis-labeled. Well, guess what? SO AM I! I did not say that those who oppose war are supporting Saddam Hussein. What I was trying to convey is that I (and many others) believe we are heading down the same road we’ve faced the past 12 years (i.e. Saddam will tire of having inspectors in his country, refuse them access to sites, the inspectors will leave, and we’ll be back at square one AGAIN). Here’s a valid question: Let’s say we don’t go to war. Then let’s assume the inspections continue for another six months or so. What if the inspections reveal further Iraqi noncompliance? Where do we go from there? Do we request an eighteenth resolution against Iraq? Do we tell Saddam, “this is your last chance” for the eighteenth time? What alternatives would you offer? Just out of curiosity…
In closing, please don’t continue to twist my arguments. I’ve apologised before for my OP. I did not mean to paint with such broad strokes. For the second time, I was frustrated because the hypocrisy (happy now?) over this situation is extremely thick on this campus. As you stated: “All i was pointing out is that your OP accused people of being anti-Bush as if it were the main - almost only - reason for opposition to the war” I hate to say it, but my original argument is a very valid argument where I live.
Nothing you have said excludes you from taking part in rational debate in my mind. I only wish you could quit being so God damned patronizing. I don’t believe any debate is “rational” if the only thing you continue to do is twist my arguments to support your condescending attitude towards my posts. BTW: Thanks for responding.
There’s a lot of hypocrisy surrounding the war in Iraq.
Most of it is coming out of the mouths of people who claim to be going to war over human rights.
HA!!
I want to see a televised debate between George Bush and Saddam Hussein on the one side, and an 8 year old Iraqi boy suffering from Leukemia (caused by depleted uranium from GW1, untreatable because of the sanctions). I’d like to see the both of them try and blame the other one in circles.
Both sides are to blame for the chronic humanitarian situation in Iraq. The Iraqi people won’t buy the idiocy about “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.” They don’t like Saddam, and they don’t like us, because we helped Saddam screw them with a big fuck-off pole. Whoopee! Go the hell our human rights, as long as you don’t live somewhere strategically importance to Full Spectrum Dominance, eh?
This is the rant forum, yeah?
McDuff: So because we made mistakes in the past, it means we cannot rectify them now? We had industries in Germany before WWII. Should we have said, “Sorry, we can’t go to war against Germany. We gave them some of the supplies they currently have, and though the Versailles treaty, we put them in a situation that was ripe for war; therefore, we have no one to blame but ourselves, and it would be hypocritical to go to war against them now.”
Look, I do believe a war can be fought for humanitarian reasons. Saddam Hussein, through the oil for food deal, has had ample opportunities to provide for the basic needs of the Iraqi people. Instead, he has used the money from those deals to not only re-arm, but also build extra palaces for himself. Iraq has recieved over $50 billion in the oil for food program. It is Saddam’s fault for not seeing that this money is applied to the needs of the Iraqi people, no one else’s. What is your solution to the current problem? From my perspective, it appears that any solution other than regime change does nothing to solve the plight of the Iraqi citizens. If you can show me an alternative to regime change that would liberate the Iraqi people, in all honesty, I would love to read it. Thank you.
mhendo: I forgot to address one of your claims. You said, "Oh except, of course, for the laughable contention that because Iraq’s oil-related infrastructure is outdated, the US has no interest in controlling its 112 billion barrel crude oil supply.
I read an article in The Economist recently which stated that the cost of a war, along with the cost of re-building Iraq’s outdated and inefficient infrastructure, would cost an enormous amount of money, and that we would therefore receive no profit from such action in the next twenty years. And once we did receive a profit, it would be scant due to a few reasons. First and foremost, we would not control the oil in Iraq. Such a move would be politically and socially disastrous. So therefore, we would only take a slight percentage of any profit, to cover the cost of our rebuilding efforts plus a small profit for ourselves. Second, many predict that 20 years from now, we should have alternative energy sources on the market which would decrease our demand for oil. You may consider such a contention “laughable,” but I hope you understand that it puts you in a minority. Your left-tilting bias is pretty damn evident.