I did not mean to imply they are drooling idiots. I was taught not to criticize someone unless I had a better solution. Through the fog of those naive people like that unfortunate woman on the radio, I have not seen an intelligent and realistic perspective from someone who DOES have a clue about Iraq and the Middle East. I am confident there is one out there, at least I hope so.
In my post, I said that food and medicine were not allowed for several years. The Food for Oil program was not established until 1995. Before that, food and medicine were sanctioned along with everything else.
And don’t hide behind the UN – both the Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions were U.S. policy that the UN agreed with. We took the lead, carried out the war, and enforced the sanctions.
tdn raises an interesting point – would any of you regime-changing freedom lovers care to explain why we’ve cancelled the aid we promised to Afghanistan? Don’t we have a responsibility to follow through on our mission there? Are we going to do the same thing to Iraq?
See, this is my main objection to the war. Despite the atrocities that Saddasm InHumein has committed, he’s mostly left us alone, and has kept that country from being a theocracy.
Is there anyone on this board that doesn’t believe that in 10 years, Iraq will be a led by a new Taliban? And if so, what is the basis for your delusion?
Bush never said that the reason we’re going to war is to liberate Iraq. He’s made it very clear that his intention is to disarm Saddam. Liberating the Iraqi people is just a bonus. If you argue against BUSH’s policies regarding Iraq then be sure to argue HIS policies and not the benefits that other people see as perhaps an even better reason for war.
Xeno
Thanks for the welcome. I’m not sure I’m really “back”. More like a brief visit. Regarding CNN, I believe that their slant on things is entirely voluntary rather than forced by Al Jazeera or Iraq. Whether it’s Judy Woodruff opining with her glares and sighs or Wolf Blitzer calling a 20-nation coalition “unilateralism”, I’m afraid that CNN has lost all credibility in my view.
As you probably know, I oppose this war. But I’m not going to pretend that Saddam is not the very bottom of the barrel. I’m not going to criticize Bush for pronouncing “nuclear” the same way Jimmy Carter (and half the South) does. And I’m not going to acknowledge any legitimacy arising (or not) from a UN resolution. My opposition isn’t based on what Bush, France, or the UN has said.
Even so, I’m not going to tolerate deceitful and irrelevant spin from people who I wish were concerned about things that used to concern them: civil liberties, human rights, and individual sovereignty. What has happened to liberalism? I used to identify more with liberals than with conservatives, but that has changed. CNN should be leading the charge with reports about atrocities in Iraq, connections between Saddam and Chirac, and so forth. It shouldn’t be making up stories about protests, ignoring facts, and making faces when it quotes the president.
Uncle Bill and gobear, I submit that you probably haven’t been looking for intelligent objections to the US invasion of Iraq. If you assert that objections are based on “sweetly naive” evaluations of geopolitics or that “intelligent and realistic perspectives” among the opposition are difficult to find, then I counter-assert that “the pro-war folks” must be diplomatically cretinous, geopolitically ignorant and moronically credulous to support the official reasons for this war as presented by the Bushistas.
But I say that in the nicest possible way; I’m sure there are intelligent and realistic supporters of this war. I’m confident there is one out there, at least I hope so. I’ve just not seen a cogent and reasoned analyses from someone who DOES have a clue about Iraq and the Middle East.
Uncle Bill and gobear, I submit that you probably haven’t been looking for intelligent objections to the US invasion of Iraq. If you assert that objections are based on “sweetly naive” evaluations of geopolitics or that “intelligent and realistic perspectives” among the opposition are difficult to find, then I counter-assert that “the pro-war folks” must be diplomatically cretinous, geopolitically ignorant and moronically credulous to support the official reasons for this war as presented by the Bushistas.
But I say that in the nicest possible way; I’m sure there are intelligent and realistic supporters of this war. I’m confident there is one out there, at least I hope so. I’ve just not seen a cogent and reasoned analysis from someone who DOES have a clue about Iraq and the Middle East.
Bush never said that the reason we’re going to war is to liberate Iraq. He’s made it very clear that his intention is to disarm Saddam. Liberating the Iraqi people is just a bonus. If you argue against BUSH’s policies regarding Iraq then be sure to argue HIS policies and not the benefits that other people see as perhaps an even better reason for war.
Ahh, and for the record - I posted the call because I thought it was a good dig against a certain type of knee-jerk college kid protester (though she is press relations for a huge peace org), not everyone who is anti-war. His points would have been even stronger without the ad hominem attacks but they were a breath of fresh air anyway. Had “little girl” been more schooled in argument she would have been seen that Mo’s question created a logical dodge of sorts. Having said that, his points were still excellent (Not to mention that you have an Iraqi national all for a war on Iraq).
Alternative to war or status quo? OK, I’ll give it a shot, just off the top of my head…
The food and medical aid programme isn’t working? Right. Let’s get a UN resolution, to say that it only continues if Saddam allows UN peacekeepers into the country to supervise the distribution. If Saddam turns it down, at least we have one more example of his intransigence to lay before the UN and build a consensus for military action. If he doesn’t, we get several thousand troops inside Iraq without a shot being fired …
Then, we use the carrot and stick approach. UN forces can’t be allowed to ignore human rights violations, we can work on a new UN resolution that allows them to intervene. Meanwhile, we try to trade loosening of the embargoes for improved human rights, all the while insisting on UN peacekeepers as overseers of the solution. Yes, this is backed by the threat of military force. And, as a last resort, that option must be genuinely available. But this way, Saddam has something to gain by cooperating … what makes him truly dangerous right now is that he has nothing left to lose.
While we’re engaged in this humanitarian effort, of course, we are most definitely engaged in intelligence and subversion - identifying Saddam’s (surviving) opponents, and trying to build a working coalition between them. That way, when we insist on free and fair and UN-moderated elections, there is a credible and organized opposition which can take power from Saddam and use it effectively to rebuild the country.
That’s off the top of my head. I’m sure there are people around who could come up with something better. It’s risky, difficult, and would take a heart-breakingly long time - but it would be a good faith effort, and if it failed, there would be no problem in convincing the UN to back direct military intervention. As a last resort.
Lib (sorry about the timing of my double post, btw; wasn’t directed at you), I agree wholeheartedly that CNN’s reportage has been abysmal. I just disagree that they represent liberalism in any way, even if some of them (by your report) make faces when quoting the President.
I agree that Bush et al has been diplomatically cretinous but only within the UN, not with Saddam. Are you against the war or just the “official reasons” for the war?
Bless you Steve Wright, you sweetly naive little Brit.
KC, I’m against this war at this time and with this level of international opposition. -NOTE please that I am not seriously calling all who are in favor of this war cretins, ignoramuses or morons; the sentence you quoted was provided as counter-rhetoric for those who persist in painting all peace protestors as ignorant little hippies.
Well, see that’s the trouble; despite having read several books on Iraq plus keeping up with the news via CNN and the Washington Post, I’m no expert on Iraq. The reasons that I(reluctantly) support this war are as follows:
-
We know Saddam has plans of aggression. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 and if the US had not intervened he would have moved on to Saudi Arabia. In 1996, he moved troops to the Kuwaiti border to test Clinton’s resolve. The only restraint on Saddam’s plans of regional conquest is the threat of US might. How long must we hold him down in order to assure regional stability?
-
We know he has WMDs that he has not accounted for.
-
We know that diplomacy is useless with a dictator who does not keep his promises. If there is no coercion, what incentive does Saddam have to go along with the UN disarmament resolutions? What’s in it for him to voluntarily divest himself of weapons if there is no punsihment for not doing so? Sanctions don’t work because they do not inconvenience him or prevent him for selling oil for his own profit. All sanctions have doen is to beggar the Iraqi people and Saddam does not care what happens to Iraqis. His only concern is his hold on power.
You know I respect you, Xeno as an intelligent, thoughtful poster, but I must disagree with your position. Allowing dictators to do as they will unimpeded is not peace, it’s appeasement.
Actually, he said that many times.
But let’s pretend that what you say is true – the only goal here is to remove Saddam from power. Let’s indulge in Bush’s insane fantasy, and pretend that Saddam packs his bags in less that 24 hours.
What then?
Are we then to ignore any implications this might have? Are we to not predict any likely outcomes of this? Are we to merely wave our flags and go in with guns a-blazing, and not think about any possible negative consequences?
Are we that short-sighted?
Not all, but definitely a large segment as exemplified by the girl on the radio show. I would expect Xenophon41, for example, to put up a much more intelligent argument than the girl in the OP’s “war is, like, totally grody” tactic.
You know the respect is returned, gobear, but that’s not my position!
(Gotta go to lunch now, but I’ll return to give my reasons for opposition to the war, as a response to your -cogent and reasoned- statement of support for the war.)
I, for one, feel that Iraq has much more is the areas of Natural Resources and International Trade than Afghanistan did in 1979, or even 1999, which would resist the Taliban-like repeat. I further feel that there will not be a superpower arming and supporting the opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, as we did in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
xenophon41, I have NOT been actively looking for that, you are right. I am not sure the current US approach is the best one, but it is the best one I have heard, as I listen to what is being batted about.
Steve Wright, thank you, this is exactly the thing I was looking for. What type of UN force left Iraq yesterday that had been supervising the distribution of food? They may not have been armed Peacekeepers, probably not, I think they were Observers. Having a change so that Peacekeepers can intervene militarily who put some teeth into the UN that is sorely missing. That would be a radical shift. While the top-of-your-head plan has merit, why would France change their position on the veto? As Germany stated, it is the right thing the NEVER give up on Peace, which means they would ALWAYS vote NO on UN Resolutions to use force. France’s position may change, but I have no reason to believe it would.
The UN resolution was about disarmament not liberation. His main argument is disarmament and the liberation of Iraq is a nice bonus that is certainly in line with American values.
I don’t think Bush has an insane fantasy that Saddam is actually going to step down. It just doesn’t hurt to ask.
We certainly should not ignore the implications but I never said that we should (nor implied it). Most of the trouble we’re in today is because of backlash from operations conducted without consideration of the consequences. I’m on the fence about the war. I wish I had more information because I can’t make a decision without it. Unfortunately I’m not privvy to it all.