I apologize in advance. I know full well that what I am about to say is probably not fair, and must surely be due to some deep error on my part. But dammit, I can’t understand it.
So, I’m saying to those who preach peace with Iraq, “Where were you?” To those who want to stand atop Iraqi installations (military or otherwise) in the belief that you will protect it or become a martyr, “Where were you?”
I admire, on some level, people who are willing to go that extra mile for peace. Yet I have to wonder, when tyrannical dictators crush their populace, “Where were you?” Why didn’t you help then?
Now I am a young man. I couldn’t have stopped men like Kim Jong-Il and Hussein and Mugabe from destroying their nations. I wish I could have. But WHY do you want peace now, after what was worth saving has been kicked and muddied and stained with blood so much already?
Do your really believe that blatant military intervention is the only solution to ghastly problems? Do you believe that the repercussions of such interventions will necessarily be better than exploring other means of solving them?
I don’t want to debate the minutae, because this isn’t what the thread is about, but what I was attempting to illustrate with my “leading” questions is that (some of) the peace protestors are saying there is still a way to remove Saddam peacefully. That military intervention now might be worse than Saddam is now. That, since 1998, Iraq disappeared from everyone’s radar, and has only recently been a global issue since the 2002 SOTUS. Given that, many people think there is a way out that doesn’t involve aerial bombing campaigns and occupying forces.
It’s not a case of standing by and doing nothing, but urging the US and UK to exhaust every available diplomatic means before invasion.
Also, the OP is implying that the forthcoming military intervention is on human rights grounds, and muddles wannabe tyrants with tyrants-in-residence. smiling bandit, you and your nation could still stop Mugabe: he’s been around as long as Saddam. But you won’t, because it’s not strategically beneficial.
You could say that they are doing that right now. There is some reason to believe that after we crush Iraq things will get better there. Things could also get worse.
And I am saying that if the protestors are using your tactics to push their agenda, then they are ignoring the last twelve years.
NO i do not really believe that blatant military intervention is the only solution to ghastly problems. NO i do not believe that the repercussions of such interventions will necessarily be better than exploring other means of solving them?
What the hell does that have to do with the last twelve years and what we are trying to do today compared to what we have been doing?
I don’t know if this is pertinent or not, but back in 1935 the world stood around watching Adolf Hitler built his military machine. He was not supposed to do that. There were sanctions against Germany and how big a military it could have. When FDR wanted to do something about it the doves yelled to the skies for peace. Several years later World War II begin and it ended with 150 million causalties. Now if Germany had been stopped from building its military I don’t think that would have happened. So what is best, small war now, or huge war later.
I believe that crying peace in the face of aggression is a sure fire way to encourage an aggressor.
There is no way of removing Sadam peacefully…short of him dieing of old age…like Castro. He will never step down so either the Iraqi people must remove him (which they can’t) or some outside force (like the USA) has to. So take your pick…so we allow an insane dictator to continue to run Iraq or do we simply issolate him and his sons for the next 50 years and hope for the best?
Sorry about that - I was still in school believing that world leaders were honest people seeking only altruistic goals. Well, that’s immature youth for you…
That’s not really a very helpful reply to a request for a cite. If people don’t have to back up what they say, then they could say anything: “We need to invade Iraq because otherwise they’ll invade the U.S. again, just like when the invaded Iowa back in 1982.” So, if you make an assertion about a question of fact (“the US and UK arming of Iraq, since the early 80’s”), and someone asks for a cite, give them a cite.
So you’re saying your excuse for not doing anything is that you are young and cannot do anything to stop the evil men of the world. And yet you expect more from people just like yourself who want peace. You’re right, this isn’t a fair argument. It also doesn’t make any sense.
One could argue that protesting IS doing something. Hell, it’s a lot more than throwing your hands up and saying, “I’m but one person, there’s nothing I can do.”
