It’s not about the greatest arsenal of weapons tomyoung, it’s about Bush starting a war, despite the progress the weapons inspectors made.
Bush could have had his war with international consent, if he had played his cards right.
Presenting false evidence to the UN and then declaring a war without the “blessing” of the UN does make Bush the aggressor in this one and this time it is impossible to twist the facts around to change that. If you can’t see that he’s actively threating world peace by declaring wars, then this is a very dark hour for humanity indeed.
The ONLY point Bush has got going for him is that he is targeting Saddam, a dictator that everybody wants to see removed from power. But that doesn’t immediately make him a saint, Bush is still guilty of trying to manipulate the UN with false evidence, of ignoring the UN when they didn’t vote in his favour, of putting and end to the work of the weapons inspectors and of starting a war. Period.
While I don’t necessarily mean to single you out here, this post is a perfect example of the lack of nuanced thinking that surrounds this whole issue (in both camps, I want to add). This statement is every bit as valid as the “Its all about oil” coming from the protesters.
See, the question was which leader is the greater threat to World peace. As far as it goes, given how clumsy and foolish Bush seems to be and the sheer might that he has at his disposal, there is a strong argument for naming him as the greater destabilizing force.
Part of the problem that I am having with this whole crisis is that it seems to me as if the human rights abuses (legitimate and horrific as they are) are being used cynically as a case for war. Please don’t get me wrong, I am pretty sure (depending on how bumbling our reconstruction efforts are) that the people of Iraq will be better off after we are through, but I don’t pretend that we are there on their behalf.
The flaw in the reasoning of some here is the false assumption that Bush is wrong when he takes military action against Saddam. He’s not wrong. In fact, getting rid of Saddam NOW has to be done. Simply put, Saddam cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Stop and think about who we’re dealing with here. When Saddam acquires nuclear weapons he will use them if he sees an advantage. Saddam has displayed not only the personality that indicates he will use nuclear weapons but also the actions of someone who has no regard for the lives of others. Saddam’s personality even displayed itself in his childhood with his reported animal burning / animal torture experiments. Saddam is no johnny-come-lately on the torture scene. Following the natural progression, his total disregard for other sentient beings has graduated to his present use of child torture. In addition to torture Saddam’s absolute disregard for innocent life is displayed in summary executions, “prison cleansings,” use of gas and biological weapons and god only knows what else. Anyone who thinks Saddam would not use nuclear weapons in any situation where Saddam’s logic sees an advantage - has a blind spot big enough to fire one of Saddam’s non-existent Scuds through.
The term “threat” is prospective, not retrospective. What Saddam has done in the past gives insight into what he is willing to do in the future, but not what he is capable of doing in the future. Many Iraqis died between 1979 and 2002. Those facts and figures only hint at how many iraqis would die in 2003 and beyond. If the world would have continued its policy of containment, keeping the no-fly zone intact, there is no reason to believe Saddam would have had the capability to start another war, thereby leading Iraqis to their death. Yes, you can expect that he would continue to kill dissadents, but would those numbers come close to the UN numbers quoted above?
Addendum: taking a closer look at The Calculus of Logic’s quoted sources, I will retract #4. It appears that while Bush is a greater threat to the Iraqi people in the short term, over a period of about 10 years Saddam would have caught up to the projected casualties that will occur over the next couple of months.
Saddam has shown he is willing, able and “capable” of a wide variety of human atrocities. Allow him the nuclear weapons he badly wants and which he will acquire one day – and his “capabilities” become a nightmare.
Pencil Pusher:
where are you getting your “projected caualties” numbers from? And what exactly would be happening “over the next couple of months”? Fighting terrorism, a drawn out war – all of it’s impossible to analyze because you haven’t provided any scenarios or numbers. And what of the prospective threat of Saddam intentionally or inadvertantly letting WMD fall into the hands of terrorists? Explain why you so casually write that off.
Sorry, Pencil Pusher, I overlooked that post. Incidentally, are these the same agencies that predicted millions would starve if the U.S. overthrew the Taliban? I seem to recall that none of these dire Afghanistan studies took into account the food distribution that the allied military eventually performed, which is why none of their assesments were born out. Do you think the UN estimates take into account the fact that 1) the US is planning to distribute food and medicine; 2) the U.S. is deliberately avoiding using methods that will harm the civilian infrastructure, like e-bombs; or 3) that once Saddam is gone, sanctions will be lifted, so prices for food and medicine will drop, making them more available? I bet that they do not, and I bet that their casualty estimates will be proven wrong as they were in Afghanistan.
Secondly: I am no huge fan of the military, but you have to give it credit for preventing wars where it is stationed. Of course, none of these prevented deaths can be tallyed, but I would argue that the cumulative positive effect on world peace by having troops stationed across the world in places like Europe, Yugoslavia, and East Asia has prevented a tremendous amount of bloodshed and aggression over the years. Bush maintains this, so he should get credit for it. Even in places where it is, shall we say, problematic – like in South Korea or Saudi Arabia – the deterrent value against aggressors is worth a considerable amount in human life and peace. I certainly think South Korea (as well as Western Europe and Japan) owes life, liberty and prosperity to U.S. troop deployments in their parts of the world, even if the peninsula is a very troubled place. On the whole, Bush is the head of a system of security that, more often than not, protects and sustains whatever progress we are able to make in the world.
Here’s a fun argument:
The U.S. maintains a huge standing army, which it uses to police the Middle East and ensure that the world’s oil supply continues to flow from producers to consumers. Because it maintains this army, parts of the world that consume Middle Eastern oil in much greater proportions than the U.S. (esp. Europe, East Asia) do not have to create large navies, an extensive worldwide series of bases or large mobile armies and air forces of their own. Instead, Europe and East Asia can spend that unused proportion of GDP on, in Europe’s case, comfortable welfare states; and in East Asia’s case, massive corporate subsidies. So Bush gets some amount of credit for European and Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese, among others’, peace and prosperity.
America’s military has the additional benefit of rendering unnecessary intercivilizational conflict over geopraphically concentrated energy resources. Neither Europeans nor east Asians have ever felt it necessary to deploy troops to the M.E. to secure their oil supplies. So, let’s tally:
Bush gets some credit for European welfare states, meaning all health, housing, employment programs, public broadcasting, Benny Hill, etc;
Bush gets some credit for world’s cheap energy;
Bush gets some credit for making world a less armed, less dangerous place for children and other living things;
Bush gets credit for helping prop up East Asian economies;
Bush prevents WWIII over oil.
I guess Bush really is better for the world, after all. And is anyone going to address Tiger’s argument?
The principle underlying the goal of world peace is that of defensive war only. If all nations are committed to the notion that they will not engage in wars except in self-defense, there will be no war.
Therefore, any nation that launches offensive war is an enemy of world peace.
Bush’s doctrine of “pre-emptive war” is a euphemism for offensive war, a repudiation of the principle upon with world peace must be based.
Before Bush’s “pre-emptive” invasion of Iraq (for the imperialist goal of “regime change”), the last offensive war was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991.
Like Bush’s invasion, Saddam’s war against Kuwait was unilateral and contrary to international law.
It follows that Bush’s war, especially insofar as it dishonestly claims to be based on Saddam’s “threat to world peace,” has no moral legitimacy, which is why most of the world has condemned it.
Bush and Saddam are each threats to world peace in the same manner, but Bush is by far the greater threat, because Bush has:
a. far greater military power at his disposal; and,
b. far greater imperial ambitions, including military dominance of the entire middle east (for economic reasons).
"The principle underlying the goal of world peace is that of defensive war only"
By confining our acceptable policy choices to ones that are reactive, you would ensure the destruction of any kind of meaningful peace in the world. Wise policy in an age of such terrorism of such awful capability must always be proactive, not reactive.
If nations rely solely on defensive wars when
the world community fails to take away WMD from nations who hate the world system;
said nations could, through intent or neglect distribute WMD to terrorist groups who might leave no calling card to tell us whom to launch a defensive war against;
therefore the world stands a good chance of falling apart.
All it would take is a couple of well-placed dirty bombs or a few tons of weaponized anthrax, and we could see another great depression. That is what American policy seeks to prevent, because today’s enemy is very different from previous ones we’ve faced. Mischaracterizing it as imperialism simply makes you look unserious. Both policies carry risks, yes, but Bush’s seem far less risky than the status quo. Too many people on this board have a “wait and see,” “it’s all speculation,” “Middle East terrorism couldn’t be that bad” attitude.
But I’m sure it’s really all about oil and father/son issues, right?
You are implying that the Middle East can only be made stable through military pressure from the outside. What makes you think that economics alone will not insure a steady supply of oil?
Even if you accept that a military presence is necessary in the middle east, I don’t see how it leads to this conclusion:
The US military itself is not necessarily a danger to world peace, and used correctly it will help achieve world peace. The question is whether Bush is using it correctly. He certainly is using it recklessly without international consent. Military forces don’t kill people, government leaders do.
Do you people even read the whole thread? It has already been explained several times that we are not asking who does the worst and sickest things to people. Some sadist two bit dictator has nowhere near the ability to damage world peace as a leader of the most powerful nation on earth stumbling a bit. That is the question. Not who has the worst track record for humanitarian attempts.