Point of order, yourself. George W. Bush was ELECTED president, by the Electoral College, on Dec. 18, 2000.
Polycarp: If and when we do go to war, I’d hope that every decent American will back our troops.
IMHO, “backing our troops” does not preclude continuing to voice objections to an ongoing war if you consider it misguided and/or wrong.
yep, and as an Illinoiser, you helped vote for Gore!!!
Well, i disagree, why should we suddenly clam up when troops are in action? It doesn’t mean i want them dead, it means i want them back home. If they are not going to come home soon, voicing opposition is not akin to leaving them stranded because there is no backups because they are bogged down in anti-war politics. Stop trying to paint us as Anti-American and Anti-Troops. I’m not going to spit on servicemen and women when they return. Honestly, do you even know what America is? It’s a place where i am FREE TO VOICE DISSENTION.
Tars pssst. I believe you’re in agreement with Kimstu who says that troop deployment wouldn’t preclude continued protests.
If his people are going to die whether or not we overthrow that government forcefully, we can leave them out of the equation.
I question your use of “certain”. In fact, I outright wonder at even using it as a hyperbole.
Yes, yes, everything but inaction should be looked at skeptically, right? Because if there’s one thing we know works, it is more UNSC resolutions, heavy with… what are those things called? Consequences? No, wait… I’ll think of it in a minute…
What is your measure of “bad”? What has changed, then? —Anything?
Forget the law issue, that’s a red herring. The whole point of pressing for war is to get the key member of the security council on board. In fact, referencing the illegality of the war as any reason to not do it is roughly circular.
Here’s an interesting article from the Jerusalem Post by an Iraqi (free registration required). As an added bonus it catches Jesse Jackson in a rare moment of candor. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1045716158864
So, i USED to be someone who was literate.
(Sorry, Kimstu)
From ** Giraffe **
Dammit!! No one ever tells me anything!!! What day did this war start again?
erl: If his people are going to die whether or not we overthrow that government forcefully, we can leave them out of the equation.
Irrespective of numbers? Do you think the number of civilian deaths in Iraq in, say, the next six months will be about the same whether or not we invade them? Sounds pretty unlikely.
*“Certainly, his people and his neighbors don’t want us to invade Iraq, and it seems to me that their opinions ought to count for something.”
I question your use of “certain”. In fact, I outright wonder at even using it as a hyperbole.*
Well, forgive my providing cites in the Pit, but as for Iraq’s neighbors, Egypt doesn’t want an invasion, Saudi Arabia doesn’t want an invasion, Jordan doesn’t want it, Qatar, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, and the UAE don’t want it. Most of them are pretty hostile towards Saddam, and with good reason, but they obviously think an attack by the US would be worse. As for the Iraqi people, they too have good cause to hate Saddam, but they also associate the US with bombing, sanctions, and immiseration. Moreover, a US invasion would have immediate and disastrous consequences for their food and water supplies. Although some Iraqis may feel it would be worth it to get rid of Saddam, the price paid would be extremely heavy.
Yes, yes, everything but inaction should be looked at skeptically, right?
No. Inspections are not “inaction”, and neither is a redesign of the sanctions program so that it works better at preventing WMD development while not immiserating the Iraqis. Neither is continued pressure on the other governments of the region to continue pressure on Saddam. No, there isn’t an easy non-military solution to the problems of Iraq, but that doesn’t mean that we should get carried away with the fantasy that the military solution will be easy, or good in the long run.
What is your measure of “bad”? What has changed, then? —Anything?
“Bad” is poverty, hunger, disease, violence, and repression, in my book. A lot of those have been alleviated in the area of Afghanistan’s capital, but there is much less change elsewhere:
Forget the law issue, that’s a red herring.
Well, if the chief casus belli against Hussein is supposed to be that he violated international law in the form of the UN resolutions on disarmament, I don’t see how we can logically take the position that it’s acceptable for us to violate international law by attacking him without UN approval.
TearsOfGlass: I was just looking for clarification of your point. I agree that the US should certainly assist in developing Afghanistan’s infrastructure (although not on its own).
Seen the budget deficit lately?
What – you mean it’s not “Morning in America” anymore?
I meant that Bush is in the process of starting war with Iraq, which is making people mad. Clearly, I need an English litmus test.
I was thinking adding the deaths that occurred under him, and are likely to occurr under him, rather than pick a specific time frame which seems to me to be a poor way of analyzing that information.
Most of them are pretty hostile towards Saddam, and with good reason, but they obviously think an attack by the US would be worse.
[/quote]
Let’s reason this one out, shall we? Is it because last time we attacked we suggested to them to rise against the Iraqi government, which they did to capture IIRC three cities and some arms, at which point we abandoned them? Think that has anything to do with it? So we fucked up. They want Hussein gone, we want Hussein gone. No one likes the man but somehow the rest of the world is just supposed to sit by. While… what happens? We pull his teeth?
Then this is a good way to get passed this, instead of leaving them in their propagandized hole. More sanctions, no matter how creative, aren’t going to change that, and anti-US sentiment will always be there.
Which is why it is important to control the area, not just remove him from power, so we can set up facilities to overcome this. We dump grain into the fucking ocean, I’m sure we can help these guys out.
And Hussein ruined his own water supplies, too. He ruined that country’s economy and its people and when it comes time for him to leave what should probably be one of the wealthiest nations on earth it will be a husk whether we bomb it or not.
Yes, and the price already paid is also heavy.
And how do you suppose this will happen without removing Hussein from power? The reason these other sanctions have failed is just because everything flows through him and his government, so he controls all the aid, too. Sounds a lot like doing nothing to me, unless you want to call it helping him.
Fantasy of who? Nothing is every easy, this way or others.
Less change or got worse? And what are the chances of improvement now?
We are trying to get UN approval, that’s the point. That’s why pointing out that doing it without UN approval is a little strange. Not only that, but it can’t be a reason to resist the sanctioned use of force. Just think about it for a second.
US: We need war!
UN: It would be against the law without our approval.
US: I know! We need war!
UN: I’m sorry, but…
etc.
From our standpoint, this is a very reasonable argument. We admit we made a mistake, we move on and look to the future. That’s a lot easier for us than for the Iraqis – that mistake hasn’t cost us what it has cost the Iraqi people. Do you have any idea how many people died under the sanctions, due to easily preventable causes like malnutrition or lack of simple medicines? Over a million, according to UNICEF. Many of those were children. That means that every person in that country lost a child, or has a relative or a friend who lost a child. We initially blockaded even food and medicine for the first several years, after which we allowed Saddam, and only Saddam, to buy and distribute food.
Certainly Saddam shares responsibility for those deaths. But, since we knew he didn’t care about the welfare of his people before we wiped out their infrastructure (water, power, etc.) and imposed these sanctions, we can’t push it all off on him. We fucked the Iraqi people over and left them to starve. That’s a pretty big mistake to just dismiss.
I don’t believe we intended to harm the Iraqi people as badly as we did. But the fact remains that our actions were directly responsible for incalculable suffering and death. They have good reason to hate and fear us along with Saddam. So you can make the case that they should just forget the past and recognize the logic of working with us to get rid of Saddam, but it’s not really reasonable. Occupying this country is going to be incredibly difficult and costly because of those mistakes and ten times more so because we insist on attacking as soon as possible, without any real support from the rest of the world.
I ask again: why is it so critical that we go to war as soon as possible? Bush is poised to attack by March, with or without UN approval. This situation can be so much easier if we take our time and convince others to join us (not just on paper, but with troops and money). It will also be easier if we work with other countries in the region, to make sure they feel that their concerns are taken seriously. It will be easier if it looks to the Iraqis that we take going to war against their country seriously, and will only do so as a last resort. Even if the end result (war) is the same, it will accomplish much more than the war which is currently scheduled.
The attitude and image projected by the Bush administration are as dangerous as their actions. We gain nothing from our harsh words and unyielding demands except loss of allies and validation for the people who already fear us.
Frankly I don’t want to know because it sickens me that the pressure we’re applying to the government has a result like this.
And that is appalling. Starvation for oil sanctions at the cost of the people we were supposed to be helping peacefully.
I don’t want to. I want us to take responsibility for not helping this country like we told them we would.
I don’t expect them to listen to us at all. But I expect us to rectify this situation, and I wish we could hurry up and get some world support for it so something can be done.
Real support? I don’t know. I hear shit from both sides on this one, everyone’s got countries they list. This is a real polarized issue if I understand things correctly, not a US issue.
I agree. I still think we won’t act without UN approval. Maybe it is my idealism, but I absolutely have to trust my government in some fundamental ways or there’s no point in even discussing this at all.
erislover, I don’t think we are coming from very different places, in how we would have our government act and how we would treat other people. I believe that for the most part we try not to do harm to others while pursuing our interests. However, I do believe that our government has sometimes been careless about human life in the past, and that this adminstration is being downright reckless. We are powerful enough that we can easily do enormous damage to large numbers of innocent people if we don’t act with care, and it makes me angry that even with the memory fresh in our minds of how painful the loss of innocent people is, we would be so careless with the lives of others.
And regarding world support: I think we’ll get a lot more support from other countries when we present a realistic long-term post-war plan.
Currently, the plan is to leave everything exactly the way it is, except for a U.S. civilian governor replacing Saddam. That’s not exactly us fixing our previous mistakes to help the Iraqis, and it is certainly not likely to promote democracy and stability in the region.
You mean “elected” in the same sense that Saddam Hussein gets “elected” to office, right?
Thought so.
I protested and recieved a few nasty comments such as:
“Support our troops!”
Now really… I think I’m supporting my troops by protesting. If someone sees my sign and decides to vote for representitives who don’t believe in war (or if it becomes apparant that few people are for the war), then maybe… just maybe, the troops I am supporting WON’T GET KILLED.
Just a bit of food for thought.
I missed the video of Pres. Bush shooting people in the head that didn’t support him.
So evil captor, did you go to public school or are you just a natural fuckwad?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Giraffe *
And regarding world support: I think we’ll get a lot more support from other countries when we present a realistic long-term post-war plan.[/quot]I have no disagreements with your previous post, and I wholly agree with this one, as well. In fact, a solid post-war plan might even assuage some concerns regarding the motives behind the administration as well. Right now it is a crapshoot.