Well, someone invaded Kuwait, unless it was just a spontaneous movement of the Iraqi military.
Then there were some rules put into place that he needed to abide by to get all his trade rights back. This is pretty standard, I would think, in international diplomacy, although I dont’ know for sure.
He had refused, from the very beginning , to play by these rules. HE shoots at planes in areas where he’s not supposed to, he gets aggresive with UN reps and such… in fact, he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
So I think that yes, it is his fault, directly, that the sanctions have not been removed.
Oh that really does put you in the line of fire, doesn’t it. Two slight points for you to consider:
You honestly think that DC is the only, or even primary target? How about other US cities, or London, or any of a large number of equally valid targets? For you to make comments like “BanquetBear. do you live and work in Bali? No? Well, I and many other Dopers live and work in DC. You risk far less than we” is sheer amateur dramatics.
So is the fact that I live in Chicago and work about 100 feet from the Sears Tower enough to give me credibility in your eyes, gobear? I thought not. Apparently my being a pacifist negates any right I may have as an American to form my own political opinions and/or express them.
Again, I wish nobody any harm, Armed Forces personnel included, with the exception of Mr. Hussein. And when anyone shows me information that, by a preponderance of the evidence, indicates that a war in Iraq would fix more problems than it would create, I’m all ears. Until then, you can think I’m a misguided moron all you want; I don’t really give a damn.
What? It is not. The Iraqi people are suffering under the current regime. The sanctions are in place because of the actions of the current regime. After a war, that regime be changed. Show me the circle.
I’m trying to walk away, but I can’t let this pass.
Read what I wrote:
Again 9/11 happend here and in NYC, not in London or other US. cities. In my previous job, I saw the Pentagon burning on that day. In my new job, I’m a stone’s throw from the White House. It doesn’t make my argument any more valid, but that’s notwhat I said. I said ONLY THAT LIVING IN DC PUTS ME MORE AT RISK OF TERRORISM THAN SOMEBODY IN MELBOURNE.
If you’re going to vilify me, at least try to be accurate in youraccusations.
…to be honest, I think it is wise, and brave of you to walk away from this thread. However you claim that ** “My ire was raised because Kambucta said that she in Australia was an equal or greater target for terrorism than those of us in DC or NYC” ** yet you are blatently either misreading Kambucta’s post, or doing it on purpose. Kambucta never said this, or even implied it-hence the fact that people are upset with your line of arguement.
I want to point out that the anti-war crowd has done a great job of pulling this thread away from facts. A while back i issued a challenge, remember? Here, I’ll repost it for you:
The only one to really step up to the plate was tomndeb, (talk about cleanup hitters!) but what he did was turn the question around. I made three points for the war, 2 of which completely agreed with and one which he partially disputed, but the point is that I’m still waiting for a viable alternative from the peaceniks. Anyone else want to take a shot at it? I’ve made points that even war oponents see as valid, where are yours?
Ahem…here is the relevant post that pissed me off:
Do you still say Kambuckta never said or implied it? Think twice next time before you accuse me of “blatently either misreading Kambucta’s post, or doing it on purpose.”
GaryKumquat
True, but that’s not my point, which is that DC is still a main target for terrorism.
Bali is in Indonesia, not in Australia. As I said, unless Kambucta and Banquetbear live and work in a main target area, they are not at as much risk as those of us in the US, and especially DC and NYC. I 'm not saying terrorism can’t happen there–obviously it can–but the odds are not equal. If you think that someone who works near the White House is at lower risk than someone in Melbourne…well, no amount of argument can persuade you.
Nope, no secret info here, but then I don’t work with the NSA or military information, as Bluesman does. I know Bluesman and he is not prone to self-aggrandizement. If he says he knows what’s up, I believe him.
gobear, your implication was that people who are less at risk of becoming victims of a terrorist attack, with risk criteria as defined by you, and/or whose relatives were not about to be sent into harm’s way, were somehow in less of a position to judge the validity of the war alternative. I wholeheartedly disagree.
Certainly 9/11 and Bali have shown that we should expect it when we least expect it. We can only make semi-educated guesses as to what the next target will be.
And **Weirddave, ** why is turning the question around any less a valid way to go? I’m not the one who’s proposing war; if those who are proposing war want my agreement (and I have a sneaking suspicion they really don’t give a damn about my agreement), then they need to convince me that war is the best alternative now, when apparently containment worked just fine (in their view) toward the Soviet Union, is working just dandy (again, in their view) toward Cuba, Libya, and North Korea, and somehow isn’t necessary toward China.
I disagree with the current administration because they have been behaving like a bunch of condescending hypocrites. If you want me to agree with you, then show me why I should believe otherwise.
I don’t think I had any opinion of him previously, but I’ve been very impressed by his posts in these threads. He is obviously intelligent and informed…and I don’t think the level of action one thinks should be taken against Iraq is proportional to one’s IQ now, is it? I expect to see intelligent and informed posts from the opposing side as well.
Well gobear, think whatever you want. My only point was that arguments should be based on facts, and that location generally has little to no bearing on facts unless the location (like, say, Iraq) controls one’s access to information. I don’t see how that’s dishonesty.
Someone in Australia has the same right to her opinion as someone in Greenland, or Kansas City, or the moon for all I care, providing they’re operating on the same set of facts. It *is *possible to have valid points without being in harm’s way oneself.
Gobear, I’m well aware of where Bali is, I’ve been there. The point I was trying to make is that there is an inherently unpredictable nature to terrorist attacks that makes an absolute mockery of your claim that DC is more likely to be the next target than another city. That is why I asked if you saw Bali coming - if not, then on what basis are you quantifying DC’s risk of another terrorist strike?
Which is well and good, but I don’t know him, or have any reason to believe or disbelieve him. Perhaps he is well informed, perhaps he is lying, perhaps he has been passed bad information…all is complete conjecture until he or his agency actually makes their claimed info public. Until then, how the hell can I seriously look at “we have good reason which we can’t tell you” as a convincing argument?
And the longer this goes on, the more suspicious it becomes. What price could there be in making this evidence public that would be more disadvantageous than basically dividing Nato and the UN? What sort of tactical gain could there be that would make this worth it?
First of all, what tomndebb said. This is not meant as a cop-out; he just said it first, and more articulately than I probably would have.
Second, end sanctions. Zillions of people have noted that they are doing far more harm to peacable ordinary Iraqis than to anyone we are pissed off at, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Besides, I find it highly ironic that the U.S. is essentially using a mirror-image spinoff on a Marxist tactic; Marx always thought that small reforms were less likely to help the proletariat in the long term, because they would just forestall the necessary revolution. The only halfway sensible argument I’ve seen for continuing sanctions is that eventually the Iraqi people will get pissed off enough to revolt.
Third, in 1991 I recall some veiled promises to the Kurds that if they revolted, we would back them. In the end, we screwed the Kurds, no-fly zones or no, so I don’t see why they should believe us this time. In retrospect, that was probably the best prospect for a organic regime change. I don’t know whether the end result would have been any better though. (And why did we screw the Kurds? Was it solely out of consideration for Turkey, or were there additional reasons?)
Fourth, this is one of the few times I would be a fan of covert action (who knows, maybe we’re doing it already). Not being a military expert, I have no idea what might be feasible, but how about providing technical assistance to those already inside Iraq who might be able to overthrow the current Iraqi regime themselves?
Any other ideas which might be less appalling than war? Sure, there are lots banging around; I just don’t know what’s likely to work. Anyone with more background in military strategy care to help me take this on? I simply can’t believe that bombing is the best alternative.
Actually, if you’ll go back and read the OP, you’ll see that this whole thread is based on Bluesman’s assertions that he has the facts and the anti-war people do not, and that this “invalidates [the] opinion” of those who oppose the war.
Also, JonScribe offered an alternative when you asked for one, suggesting containment as a reasonable strategy. Just because you don’t believe it will work does not make it an invalid answer to your question, which was “What realistic alternatives are you proposing?” When you ask a question like this, then surely it’s obvious that the person responding has a right to determine what he or she feels constitutes “realistic.” You may not agree with JonScribe, but it doesn’t mean he didn’t answer your question.
You accused tomndebb of turning the issue around when answering your question. Well, i’m afraid you’re going to like my response even less. As i said to someone else on another thread a couple of days ago:
And, in my opinion at least, the Administration and its supporters have failed to make a decent case for war. This site points out some of the contradictions in Colin Powell’s recent assertions. And, even more importantly in my opinion, the author points out that Powell’s claims do not even pass the “even if” rule. That is, even if everything Powell said was true, it is still insufficient cause to start bombing.
Well there you go, that’s a very good point…I don’t know what the tactical gains are but I suspect that having sources of sensitive info within Iraq or about Iraq must be weighed against the possibility of not having them anymore once things are made public. Regarding the UN - it serves as a sort of governing body among nations and participation is basically voluntary. I think the concerns raised by people that our actions be sanctioned by the UN are valid…but please note that some are raising valid concerns about the integrity of this governing body, exactly like the integrity questions surrounding the current US administration. There’s no sense in accepting everything Bush tells us without question…there’s also little sense in accepting the view or the recommendation of the UN, particularly the UNSC, without question. There is no point in assigning the administration all the guilt for ‘dividing the UN’ when the initial actions of key members was staunch opposition, before the full evidence was even presented.
I’m going to take this point by point because it’s a perfect illustration of what I’ talking about:
See, this is exactly what we can’t do. Doing so would end the effectiveness of sanctions forever, the regimes so targeted could hold out waiting for sanctions to be lifted when they became unpopular. SH would certainly use the lifting of sanctions as a justification of his policies and it would strengthen his position, not weaken it.
A lot of mistakes were made in '91, not removing SH at the time being foremost amongst them. Unfortunately, in reguards to the Kurds, it’s a no win situation: Turkey won’t stand for a Kurdish nation on it’s borders and the iraqi people wouldn’t accept a Kurdish run government. I don’t know what to do about the Kurds. Personally, if they’d have it, I’d give them Kansas.
Popular literature to the contrary, a team of CIA hit men is not a realistic option. Kill SH and his sons, who are by all accounts worse than he is, take over. There is no Northern Alliance in Iraq, no undeground opposition front that could sweep to power in a popular revolution. SH has been too effective in killing any and all who opose him, and many whom did not but who simply didn’t support him fervently enough at one given moment.
I agree, war is appalling, but you say it yourself:
Your arguement is based on the fact that you see a war coming and feel for the lives that will be lost. I understand that and agree. I think it should be done quickly and gotten over with, with minimum loss of life on both sides. You want to do something else. The problem is that nobody has suggested a "something else’ that has any posibility of working.
Airman, you seriously overestimate people who work in military intelligence. I served in the Navy (Cryptologic Technician Interpretive, i.e. a Chinese linguist). Naval Security Group is affiliated with NSA, so I learned that most of its members are incompetent about anything in current affairs. They’re too unintellectual and afraid of other cultures to learn anything about current affairs, and even if they were motivated to learn, they couldn’t get a big picture because of compartmentalisation. Never assume that because a person works in an interesting branch of the military they’re smart on any topic (most of military linguists are in the military because they can’t succeed in getting a job in translation or interpretation outside).
