The massive anti-war demonstrations everywhere from all peoples, from all walks of life, cultures, economic conditions, religions, and political persuasions, that are still increasing and spreading to more places, seem to indicate a movement of mankind to abandon war altogether as an accepted or if merely tolerated practice of mankind.
Is this phenomenon a transition to another and higher status of human civilization, as when mankind abandoned altogether the practice of slavery?
I feel the conscience of the world is telling rulers of peoples that war is no longer acceptable as the solution to the conflict among nations or governments.
No, it just means that, largely because of the Internet’s ability to disseminate information, more people than ever can be self-satisfying, muddle-headed, naïve, half-baked politicos. IMHO.
FF:I think it would be much more effective if you went to Iraq and protested.
Why would that be more effective? In Iraq, public dissent about the policies of the government is routinely stifled, and public dissent by a foreigner would probably quickly result in imprisonment or even “disappearance”. Why would that be more effective than protesting the policies of our own government where our dissent is (mostly) legally protected and has a chance of reaching many more people?
See, many of you anti-antiwar folks seem to have this persistent delusion that our criticizing US policy must mean that we think everything in Iraq is just dandy. That simply isn’t true.
december:Here, I was merely disputing the phrase, “Rush to war.”
Not very convincingly, IMHO. It seems to me quite reasonable to describe a massive PR campaign for a unilateral attack by the US, with or without UN support, in the face of massive public opposition worldwide, while the UN weapons inspectors’ plan of work has barely begun—a PR campaign that started a mere six months ago, or at most, if you push it back to the first mention of Iraq in the “axis of evil” 2002 SOTU speech, about a year—as “rushing” to war.
LC:No, it just means that, largely because of the Internet’s ability to disseminate information, more people than ever can be self-satisfying, muddle-headed, naïve, half-baked politicos. IMHO.
So objecting to the proposed attack on Iraq automatically makes one a “self-satisfying, muddle-headed, naive, half-baked politico”? Gee, that’s a rather bizarre description of people like the German Chancellor, conservative pundits such as Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman, and current and former high-level Republican politicians like Jack Kemp, Lawrence Eagleburger, Dick Armey, Chuck Hagel, and Dick Lugar.
I don’t know whether worldwide massive public opposition to the proposed war really signifies, as SRS speculates, a deep shift in humanity’s opinion of war in general. But I don’t think you’re going to be able to get away with painting it as simply a sort of Internet-spam-enabled mass delusion.
Nice sarcasm. I said similar earlier…whoosh, instead of realizing they aid Hussein’s position by claiming the US is wrong.
Even while admitting they would be executed by protesting in Iraq.
According to Anti-Slavery International, the world’s oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 200 million people in bondage.
Just another example of selective reality in people. We believe what we want to believe despite evidence to the contrary…:rolleyes:
How 'bout the world’s population unarmed walk into Baghdad and peacefully take control. Disarm the military, free it’s citizens, and hold a free democratic election. Let the Iraqi people govern themselves peacefully.
Then we all turn and walk away in peace, no guns, no suicide bombers, just a few million people (of all nations and religions etc.) walking hand in hand (singing “we are the world” maybe).
If you’ve got an option besides war and just waiting for Saddam to comply, let’s hear it. He’s already refused to comply with HIS OWN signed agreement of terms of surrender. War is NOT an option, so…let’s hear it.
tk:If you’ve got an option besides war and just waiting for Saddam to comply, let’s hear it.
UN inspections, backed up by the threat of war, are not “just waiting for Saddam to comply”. As jr8 already pointed out, most of us in the current antiwar movement don’t think that war is inadmissible under all circumstances—most of us don’t even think that there are no possible circumstances under which we’d support another war against Saddam Hussein. We just don’t think that the US ought to be unilaterally invading another nation without the approval of the international community except when (1) it’s a case of immediate and extreme danger, and (2) we can reasonably expect that the post-war situation will be an improvement over the current one. The hawks haven’t made a convincing case for either of those conditions.
According to Anti-Slavery International, the world’s oldest human rights organization, there are currently over 200 million people in bondage.
Illegally. I think what SRS was getting at is that the vast majority of humankind has abandoned the acceptance of the practice of slavery. Yes, millions of people are still suffering under what Anti-Slavery Int’l. defines as “slavery” (which includes bonded labor, forced labor, some forms of child labor, commercial sexual exploitation of children, commercial sexual exploitation or “trafficking” with nominally consenting adults, and early or forced marriage in addition to traditional “chattel” slavery).
But most of these practices are illegal even in most of the countries where they’re practiced, and they are banned under international law. This does represent a significant shift from the traditional human view, held for many millennia, of slavery as explicitly socially acceptable. I think SRS can reasonably consider that a progress indicator for humanity (even though, as you point out, it doesn’t mean that slavery in its broader modern definition isn’t still widely practiced illicitly).
The SOTU speech was Jan. 29. 2002, and we’re not at war yet. So, we’re talking about at least 13 months.
How long did Lyndon Johnson debate whether to go to war in Vietnam before sending troops? How long did Bill Clinton debate attacking in Kosovo before beginning the bombing? How long did John F. Kennedy debate invading Cuba before the Bay of Pigs? How long did Clinton debate attacking the Sudan, before bombing what turned out to be an aspirin factory? None of these wars was debated for anywhere near 13 months. The phrase “rush to war” is a mismoner. (Or, maybe it’s only a “rush” when Republicans do it. )
Let’s see. december is saying that…because some military actions have been decided upon in less than 13 months, then taking 13 months to decide upon a military action automatically means you’re not “rushing” to war.
Even if you don’t have adequate convincing evidence to justify invasion, even if you have very little international support, even if public opinion worldwide is strongly opposed to a unilateral attack—hey, as long as you took longer to make up your mind than Kennedy or Clinton, nobody’s allowed to say what you’re doing is premature.
Does that really make sense even to you, december?
(And just out of curiosity: do you really think that, say, Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs or the Sudan bombing are persuasive arguments in favor of a short lead time for military aggression?)
december, I think it’s funny that you cite several of what I consider to be the biggest military blunders in U.S. history as support for why there’s nothing wrong with going to war as soon as possible. Who needs a plan? Invade!!
Most of the international community seems to be of the opinion that it’s worth spending more time trying for a peacful solution before starting a war. The fact that Bush’s rhetoric insists on disregarding these opinions, along with any chance of tangible economic and military support from other countries, so we can get on with the invasion, feels like a rush to me. In any case, the burden of proof lies on those who would start a war sooner rather than later, not on those who advise being cautious about starting wars unless it’s absolutely necessary.
Also, could you say a few words about the post-war plan? How long do you think we will have to occupy the country? How will we find and destroy Saddam’s hidden weapons of mass destruction? How will we prevent them from being acquired by terrorists? Is it worth spending tens, maybe hundreds, of billions of dollars to finance this war ourselves while we’re in a recession, instead of taking more time and gathering support like we had in 1991? (We paid only a small fraction of the cost in 1991, thanks to the economic support of our allies.)
Congratuations, that now is first place for the most ignorant thing i have ever read. Please accept this crowbar as an award, which you can use to pry your head out of your butt. By the way, i love America and would die for it, but i oppose policy at this time. You are allowed to have different views on matters here, that is why we vote, instead of serving under the King Bush family. Grow a brain.
Giraffe:Also, could you say a few words about the post-war plan?
Yes, december, I’d be interested in hearing your views there too. In addition, how do you recommend we monitor the stability of known WMD in nearby countries like the Central Asian republics and Pakistan during the heightened regional instability that an invasion and occupation of Iraq will entail? Where should we get the resources for increased international anti-terrorism defense due to the increased anti-US hostility and rifts with our allies that a unilateral attack will entail? How will a new war affect our currently-inadequate commitments in Afghanistan and the worsening situation there? What will be the consequences, domestically and internationally, if military action provokes a devastating use of WMD by either side? What policy should we and the UN adopt if another country unilaterally and in breach of international law invades an opponent and claims our invasion of Iraq as justifying precedent?
Hey, you’ve had thirteen whole months to think about this; let’s hear your well-reasoned, detailed, and evidence-supported answers.
I have no idea what the above means. I’m sorry it just seems hopelessly … muddled
The Germans and others aren’t objecting to an “attack” as you term it. They’re objecting to one process (under Res 1441) being usurped by another second Res. They don’t want to be railroaded (yet) into accepting the logic of war – which is the essence of a second Res – when 1441 is still alive and implicitly supports the logic of peace. Their position, IMHO, is perfectly reasonable. And it’s about as far from a simplistic ‘anti-war’ peacenik position as it’s intellectually possible to be.
Why ? Because they accept the validity of the UN (legal) process as a means of dealing with Saddam - a way that will, ultimately, end his domestic tyranny and international threat. Where is any of that in the ‘anti-war’ argument ? It isn’t. Instead they say ‘No war’ Period. They support no process.
To get the two positions confused is ‘muddle-headed, isn’t it ?
Why, how smugly dismissive that was. London Calling, care to support your suppositions? Specifically,[ul][]that there’s some sort of monolithic “anti-war argument” which consists of nothing more than relexive support of “no process”,[]that Kimstu confuses in her muddle-headed way such an [hypothetical] argument with all arguments against invasion, andthat massive public opposition to a US led invasion is driven by ignorance and naivety, rather than by support of the process you so eloquently described.[/ul]
LC: *[The German] position, IMHO, is perfectly reasonable. And it’s about as far from a simplistic ‘anti-war’ peacenik position as it’s intellectually possible to be.
Why ? Because they accept the validity of the UN (legal) process as a means of dealing with Saddam - a way that will, ultimately, end his domestic tyranny and international threat. Where is any of that in the ‘anti-war’ argument ? It isn’t. Instead they say ‘No war’ Period. They support no process.*
And who here is defending a “simplistic ‘anti-war’ peacenik” position of “No war, Period”, not for any reason under any circumstances? Not me: didn’t you notice my comment just a few posts ago that “most of us in the current antiwar movement don’t think that war is inadmissible under all circumstances—most of us don’t even think that there are no possible circumstances under which we’d support another war against Saddam Hussein”? Apparently not.
Look, SRS speculated as to the significance of the worldwide demonstrations against the proposed war in Iraq. You snidely quipped that “it just means that […] more people than ever can be self-satisfying, muddle-headed, naïve, half-baked politicos.” I pointed out that in fact, that’s hardly an accurate description of many of the people who object to the war.
Now you’re retroactively trying to claim that your comment only applied to the “simplistic ‘anti-war’ peacenik” position, not to all critics of the war—the implication being that all, or at least the vast majority, of anti-war protestors were just “simplistic anti-war peaceniks”, instead of “perfectly reasonable” people with an intelligent reason to object to the war. Sorry, but I’m not muddle-headed enough to be fooled by that.
Should we tag now or just gang up on the Brit?
(Sorry for the chip on my shoulder, LC… your responses just kind of suprised me after all the thoughtful stuff you’ve posted regarding this subject.)
Kimstu we’ve got a lot of common ground here. I agree w/ the idea that slavery IS considered illegal in the world’s communities generally speaking. But, that doesn’t mean it is adhered to.
By the same token, the UN has already given Hussein an ultimatum regarding violations of 1441. He has violated this resolution numerous times. The most recent being the range of the missles which he absolutely refused to destroy.
The threat of serious consequences means nothing if it is not enforced. As far as approval of the UN goes, it’s not like we have NO support. The US would like to have unanimous approval by all UN members. That’s NOT going to happen.
Also, it’s not been ONLY 13 months since Iraq began violating it’s terms of surrender. It has been 10 years and in those 10 years Saddam has several illegal activities to his credit. Has the world community forgotten the numerous atrocities he has committed during the past decade.
I’ve gotta run…if I need to list his violations I will.
t-keela, no one disagrees that Saddam is a bad guy. That alone is not reason enough to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. Diplomacy hinges on respecting other countries and dealing with them fairly and reasonably. Once we abandon that notion, we alarm the rest of the world. To do so has severe consequences, and should not be done lightly.
If we believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is likely to use them or give them to terrorists, then first we need to make a convincing case of that fact. We haven’t presented much solid evidence so far. However, based on his record, there was still support for renewed inspections, which are currently underway. Now we want to cut that short and invade over infractions which are in no way a threat to us. It’s not reasonable, and makes us look like we want war, not disarmament.
If both inspections and U.S. intelligence can’t supply proof of weapons programs, then how do we know they actually exist? And if they do exist, how will we find them during and after the war? Wouldn’t it be better to bide our time and gather intelligence, if we don’t have enough data right now? If we do have proof, why not try to disarm them peacefully before resorting to war? These are the questions being asked all around the world, and making people wonder if we aren’t invading Iraq for other reasons.
Telling the world we know Saddam won’t disarm so we might as well not even bother trying looks like childish impatience. Being impatient with something as serious as war reflects very badly on our country, and ourselves.
I said similar earlier…whoosh, instead of realizing they aid Hussein’s position by claiming the US is wrong.
