No, it hasn’t. There seem to be a number of people who are convinced that we have only two choices, Righteous War and Spineless Appeasement, but in fact there is a middle ground between them, diplomatic and economic pressure to force reform, which has not been explored to its limits, and should be.
If “diplomacy has failed”, it is not so much down to the intransigence of Saddam, as to the rhetoric of President Bush, who has painted himself into a corner - he cannot, now, go back on his plans for war, without destroying his own credibility. So the thousands of people who are going to die in Iraq, are going to do so, not for the sake of peace or justice or freedom, but for the sake of preserving the US President’s chances of re-election - a cause for which I would not willingly stub my toe.
And, Libertarian? Things are very bad in Iraq right now. But not so bad that they can’t get worse, and this is what i’m afraid of.
Because I believe America and our allies have been blessed to an extent that we can come to the aid of those who cannot help themselves. That is my firm belief. Through our actions they will receive the liberty that they deserve.
Excuse me, but exactly in what way were Reuben’s statements not selfish as I stated? How is “I’m against this war because there is zero benefit for Britain as far as I can see.” and “And, for some mysterious reason we’re obliged to contribute billions to ‘rebuild’ the damn place after the conflict. Well fuck that.” not selfish? Also, I never attributed cowardice to those who oppose the war.
I agree that war is not cheap, and that innocent lives will be lost. However, I disagree that this war will cause more trouble than it will solve, and that there will be no benefit. It seems clear to me that Saddam should not be allowed to remain in power. He is a mass murderer and tyrant.
The purpose of this war is not to bomb the Iraqi people. I never said that it was. Regrettably, innocent lives will be lost, and I do not expect anyone to be grateful for this.
I don’t have any proof. There can be no proof in such an area of uncertainty. The only certainty that I have is that whatever regime is installed, it would have to be rather homicidal to top the one currently in power.
Frankly, I don’t know how the muslim countries will view this. I would of course prefer them to see it as altruism and the removal of a dangerous and deadly regime. As for our previously close allies, I believe that they lack the fortitude to back up the UN resolutions. They would rather do what is politically expedient than what is (in my opinion) morally expedient.
I totally accept that there are other reasons to be wary of war. It is not something that should be entered into lightly, and there are a MULTITUDE of decisions to be made, and the ramifications of those decisions need to be analyzed. Perhaps where you and I disagree is that I feel that those ramifications have been sufficiently analyzed, and the benefits of this war outweigh the possible problems.
Food and medicine are explicitly allowed. That Hussein doesn’t let any of it get to his people is just more proof that he needs to go - not a reason to bitch at the US for doing what the UN wanted done at the end of the Gulf War.
Well, I disagree. When have we been oppressive occupiers? Maybe the Reconstruction after our Civil War – but even that was a cakewalk compared to the massive oppression that Iraqis suffer under now.
Keeping in mind the old saying (and I paraphrase), “Insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”, what specific ACTIONS over what specific TIMELINE toward what specific ENDING would the Peace Promoters espouse? I honestly believe there are intelligent and strategic thoughts out there, but this poor ill-informed little girl missed the memo.
The German Ambassador the the UN said it beautifully after Kofi Annan spoke Monday noonish. (I paraphrase even more here) ‘It is the right thing to do to NEVER give up on a peaceful solution, even if it is only remotely possible it could ever happen.’ I respect that position. I believe it unreasonable, but I respect it.
Option A: Invade, destroy, overthrow, rebuild.
Option B: More of the same impotent crap we’ve done the last 12 years.
Option C: Pull out, ignore, and hope it goes away.
I can, and (on occasion) do, read Amnesty reports. I am no more in favour of Spineless Appeasement than I am Righteous War. But if, in the process of removing Saddam, we ruin the country and leave it open for factional hatreds to run riot, things can, and will, get worse.
You miss the point. It’s not that our guy would be worse. It’s that the Iraqis may veiw him as being worse and hate us all the more. You can never tell.
Funny, last time I checked, terrorist threats were carried out by Egyptians and Saudis, HQ’d in Afghanistan and operating out of Boston. Where does Iraq figure in to this, again? And how will an unprovoked attack against the Mideast reduce terrorism?
Perhaps, for answers, we can turn to that bastion of freedom, that America-loving, flag waving, free market icon of Democracy, Afghanistan. Isn’t it great how we bombed them into Freedom?
I just saw Saddam’s spokesman, Nick Robertson, on Al Jazeera’s western bureau (CNN), reporting about the “massive protest” against the US there and concerns from Iraqi people that mirror your own. Unfortunately, I had already seen the uncut feed on a competing network of the “massive protest”, which consisted of about 36 old men waving rifles, filmed by Saddam’s son who owns the television station. If there is a more clear-cut case of a modern loaves-and-fishes miracle in that incident constituting a “massive protest”, I haven’t seen it.
As we all know, Saddam won his recent election unanimously. 100% of more than 40 million people voted for him. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, I suppose, that a less popular leader might conceive and execute worse things than genocide, infanticide, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing, cultural destruction, and wholesale repression of dissent. One thing is certain: if there is a single Iraqi who is displeased, Nick Robertson and CNN will let us know.
This Pit Thread was begun because a caller to a radio show asked a Peace Promoter a specific question, to which she had no answer. That may not have been worded very well, so I tried to reword it back on page 1. There are intelligent people on this board. There are Peace Protestors/Promoters on this Board. Do those two circles not intersect?
Second, I’m a bit mystified at the implication you make that CNN is a forum for Iraqi-government propaganda, or controlled/influenced in some major way by Al Jazeera. Am I reading you wrong, or do your actually believe this?
The US government is not going to deliberately install a dictatorship in Iraq. The danger is that, in the subsequent unrest, the government they do install is either forced to become a dictatorship, or falls and is replaced by one. Neither option benefits the Iraqi people one whit.
It’s not that peace advocates are not intelligent, but that they are more anti-Bush than they are pro-peace. In addition, judging from the posts I’ve read here, the peace advocates have a sweetly naive view of Middle East geopolitics and Saddam’s regime.
For those who think nothing needs to be done, you might want to look here for an article about some first-hand reports.
There are those who said when Hitler’s “camps” were found that they had no idea such things were happening, and that had they but known they might have done something sooner. Whether that is the case or not, Saddam and his sons make Mengele look like Mother Teresa.
Diplomacy and containment have been being tried for years. They did not work. It’s long past time to get on with it. What’s the alternative? “Disarm in 2 weeks or… or… or I’ll give you another 2 weeks”? Interesting that now the speculation is that SH will begin by deploying those bio-chem weapons that he doesn’t have.
