What plan do you mean? Assassination? I already explained why that’s a bad idea. Quite honestly, if you think that you came up with a credible plan while people like Colin Powell have been incompetent, it should make you think something other than that “the alternatives to war have not been thoroughly explored”. It should make you think you might have overlooked something.
If they voluntarily choose to have their tongues cut out, their children poisoned, their daughters raped, and their villages wiped out, then I have no problem with it. But going, “Gee, maybe they don’t mind … I can’t know what they think about it,” is disingenuous beyond belief.
gobear said:
I honestly don’t know. But the young woman and I may not be of the same mind anyway.
Since I agree that the original question-“How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?”- is somewhat loaded, I’ll try to phrase it in a more useful way. How will the cause of peace and justice be served without removing Saddam by force, AND, how will your alternative(to force) work where 12 years of diplomacy have failed?
Amen
Did I miss a memo? Is Chirac the king of the world all of a sudden?
Maybe France is simply wrong to oppose us. So what? Are they that much of a military superpower that we can’t do without them? Are they that much of a political power that we should value their judgement above our own? (Seriously, how much of a political and military power are they? I could be wrong about that.)
What I regret is not having Germany on our side, but maybe they’re wrong too. Regardless, they’re not the only countries in the UN, and they’re not the majority by any means. We’ve got a total of 45 countries supporting us. I don’t call that a frightening level of international opposition.
I’m not bothered about France. I’m going to keep using my Lancome cosmetics and enjoy my Three Colors trilogy and eating my French fries. I buy these things from American stores staffed by Americans; why take it out on them? The potatoes were grown in Idaho, so the French don’t get any benefit from my consumption of them. (And the director of Three Colors was Polish.)
I’m not going to waste time being petty about a country whose support we don’t need. I’m just glad we have Britain, and, recently, Australia. No offense to Brits or Aussies here who oppose the war; I do, however, extend thanks in advance to your armed forces.
I guess that would depend on how defined support. Last I heard, only us, the Brits and Australians were sending any troops.
Then clarify, please, Xenophon. I gave you my school bully analogy, and I still believe it works quite well with the situation: People are afraid that punishing Iraq for human rights’ violations will cause Iraq to undergo more human rights’ violations, and thus we shouldn’t attack him.
With the added comment that I am well aware that this characterization doesn’t apply to anyone else, how, exactly, does my accusation of people “being afraid to get their hands dirty” not apply?
No. I am saying that war is not the only option. Peaceniks, typically, are saying that war is the worst option.
I am hardly gung-ho or bloodthirsty. I dislike the idea of a war, especially since I know precisely how unpredictable a war - any war - can be. I also am well-aware of what possible atrocities might happen, whether it’s due to an off-course cruise missile or Saddam’s plans to use human shields. Which reminds me…
Since you picked on me, Xenophon (deservedly so… keep me honest, bucko), I’m gonna pick on you right back, and ask you, specifically, the question I asked right above: If Saddam were to announce to the world “If one bomb goes off in my country, I will kill a thousand Iraqi’s,” would that make more or less opposed to a war?
spooje, I meant we’ve got 45 people telling us they don’t think this war is wrong. As opposed to three loud ones telling us they think it is. That’s why I only thanked the servicepeople of Britain and Australia.
45 countries in the UN, that is.
Actually, as far as coallitions go, I’m forced to admit that this one is a bit silly.
**
So 15 countries are supporting the U.S. but are too embarrassed to admit it? Gee, thanks! That really enhances the U.S. diplomatic position!
I sort of picture the U.S. running one of those pledge breaks they have on public television in the U.S.
"You know, it’s the support of countries like you that allow us to bring you these quality conflicts. For a pledge of only 1000 troops, as our gift to you, we’re offering this lovely SCUD missile and this procurement guide to re-building postwar Iraq. If you pledge at the 10,000 troop level, you’ll receive the SCUD missile, the procurement guide AND your choice of an infrastructure or oil services contract!
Assistant secretaries of state are standing by to take your pledge so call now and help us reach our goal of a broad coallition of the willing!"
No, I’m not the one who suggested assassination - my master plan basically involved infiltration and subversion. It’s back on page two, I’m not typing it all out again … I don’t believe Colin Powell is incompetent. I do believe he is being constrained by people (President Bush foremost among them) who, for whatever reason (and it may seem a good reason to them), actually want a war. And I do not believe that war is the only option, or the best option, still open to us.
In times of crisis, people turn to strong leaders; this is how dictators arise. The aftermath of a US-led invasion will be a time of crisis for Iraq. This is why I think it’s likely - overwhelmingly likely - that the overthrow of Saddam by force will result in him being replaced by somebody every bit as bad. (Most likely, some fundamentalist Islamic theocrat who will rise to power by blaming everything on the Great Satan America.) And the people of Iraq will end up just as oppressed as they are now, only with more of their economic infrastructure destroyed by the war. If you can guarantee that the war will result in the actual liberation of the Iraqi people, then you’ve got a point … but if the only result is to change dictators, then it’s not worth doing.
You really are an idiot, aren’t you. Donald Rumsfeld :
In other words, Saddam has used the obvious tactic of intermingling civilian and military facilities, just to make sure you cannot target one without hitting the other.
Assasination is illegal, but somehow war isn’t? Listen, the US and the UK have both demonstrated they’re prepared to ignore international law on this one. Why worry now?
And let me repeat the original quote in context, just so you can try to answer the actual point
Your entire argument relies on the premise that there are only two options : War, and do nothing. The fairly simple point I’m trying to hammer in through this jingoistic bullshit is that there are a number of other options, none of which have been even moderately entertained.
What a very CNN statement! 
They’re not embarrassed. Kuwait is hosting 149,000 troops. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and even France are allowing usage of their air space. Turkey will vote today to allow troop movements through their country and usage of their airspace. Another silent member is Iran, who has pledged to accept refugees.
The main reason the fifteen nations want to be listed separately, according to the State Department, is because they do not want to flame anti-U.S. sentiment. Rather than being embarrassed, their motivation is to protect their relations with the U.S.
I answered your “actual point”. Let me repeat the original response just so you won’t miss it again:
“Aside from the fact that assassination is illegal, I think there are obvious tactical and strategic disadvantages. Saddam commands an army, and his government is a military dictatorship. Merely assassinating him will result in merely a new military dictator rising from the ranks.”
Assassination is a jejune suggestion, and work against a despotic military regime.
That’s already been done. Special forces have been inside Iraq for quite some time. But this isn’t a game of Civilization. Just because you plant a spy in the embassy doesn’t mean that the capital is going to begin to lust after your culture.
Your plan fails for the same reason assassination does. Neither will break apart the military ranks. In a military rank structure, when one node topples, the others immediately realign and the structure is immediately restored. Only elimination of the structure itself is effective.
Once again, I believe that it is a mistake to presume to have some sort of epistemic superiority to the diplomatic and military professionals who are handling this.
It’s also a mistake to follow our leaders blindly on the assumption that they know what they’re doing and are acting solely from the purest of motives. History has shown this repeatedly. For whatever reason (and I hope you notice I’m refraining from speculation as to what reason), the leadership of the West wants war. So of course they’re telling us it’s necessary and inevitable … whether this is actually the case or not. In a free society, I believe it’s positively my duty (if said society is to remain free) to question my leaders and examine alternative plans of action.
And I can’t help feeling you’re not addressing an issue I’ve raised, which I feel is central. As you correctly point out, this is not a game. Which means, when it’s over, we will not be turning our computers off and making a cup of tea … we will be faced with the reconstruction of the Iraqi government. How, having deposed Saddam, do you propose to guarantee he won’t simply be replaced by another dictator? And if he is, what’s the point of deposing him? Your stated objective is the liberation of the Iraqi people from torture and oppression. Not only am I not convinced war is the only way to achieve that, I am not convinced it will even work at all. And I will require better arguments than “Mr President knows best” to convince me, thank you very much. If this is a presumption of epistemic superiority on my part, so be it. Quite honestly, I think I am brighter than George W. Bush.
One man’s duty is another man’s dream, I reckon. Here’s to the hope that one day soon, we will have Iraqi Dopers who can voice their views as you and I are doing now.
Non sequitur at its best Lib. You dream of freedom in Iraq. So what?
You’re confused. I wasn’t refering to my dream.
Imagine yourself in a circumstance where voicing your opinion would result in your tongue being cut out while you bleed to death in the town square. Where being suspected of dissent would result in your daughter being raped in your presence or your son being tortured while you are forced to watch. Where your whole town is poisoned as you stumble over the bodies of dead children in a vain attempt to escape.
Who would be dreaming of freedom?
If only we had built temples and cathedrals in Israel a hundred or so years ago.
We could send them a bunch of entertainers!