I like the moral angle although it sounds naively idealistic-We are freeing the Iraqi people from one of the most diabolical leaders ever. You ask: Why not the Iranians then? or the Saudis? But for me, if we cant stop them all, toppling a single one of these madmen will give me immense satisfaction. In the long run, having a democratic state in the middle East might put pressure on the others to reform.
Secondly, he does have biological and chemical weapons and is developing mukes. Can you imagine Saddam with nukes? And no, the inspectors would never find them until it is too late.
Did someone say A war to boost Bush’s ratings?After 9-11 he was remarkably popular and even more so after the war in Afghanistan. Going to war against world opinion is too risky a strategy to win him popular approval (altho its working now…waddya know?)since it could very easily have backfired. He would be seen as the trigger happy president all too eager to send off young men to die in foreign lands for vague reasons. I think they are motivated by genuine paranoia that Saddam will use his weapons against the USA or develop nukes and sell to the highest bidder. Whether this paranoia is justified is another story of course…
Diplomacy doesn’t work if you refuse to accept any solution but the one you’ve already decided on from the outset.
Even if the inspections had not lead to the disarmament of a single weapon, they would have given us a much stronger argument for war. We could have then gotten real support from other countries for this war, so that:
-
We wouldn’t have to pay for it. (We paid for less than 10% of the cost of the first Gulf War.) We wouldn’t be solely responsible for occupying an unstable, chaotic country after Saddam’s government is removed.
-
We wouldn’t look like a dangerous aggressor, especially to the Muslim world. We don’t really need millions of young Muslims hating and fearing us enough to give their lives to hurt us.
There is simply no excuse for being as impatient and reckless as Bush has been. Regardless of whether you think war with Iraq is necessary, he couldn’t have made it more difficult and dangerous for us, without getting anything in return.
I think times have changed for Junior. What GHWB faced is a totally different thing than GWB is up against. The phone campaign that GWB tried didn’t go as his father’s did, obviously, but he tried. But regardless of this… what do you think could have been done? You still haven’t answered that question.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Giraffe *
So, your defense of Bush’s lack of focus on the economy is that it’s actually just fine? Interesting. We should mention this to all the people without jobs, I’m sure they’d be glad to hear it.
The fact that some people are without jobs hardly proves that the economy is in bad shape.
Now here is something we agree on. Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But how can you say he doesn’t pose a threat?? Al Qaeda successfully attacked the U.S., killing thousands of civilians.
Yes, they did, and a number of things have been done since then that have significantly muted the threat.
They have publicly pledged more attacks.
Talk is cheap.
How can you discount that threat in favor of starting a completely unrelated war with Iraq?
Putting aside that the Al Qaeda threat is being put in perspective rather than discounted, what has that got to do with the price of wheat? As you said above, bin Laden has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
If Saddam doesn’t have WMD, he should have cooperated with inspectors and turned them over right away and we wouldn’t have invaded. Right.
Come on. He was instructed to show evidence of the presence or destruction of the weapons he was known to have had from previous inspections. Instead he jerked everyone around, especially the inspectors. If you think Saddam cooperated in any meaningful way, I’ve got this nifty bridge I’d like to sell you.
To maintain a world ruled by law rather than might, we needed to present convincing evidence of an immediate threat from Iraq, not demand that he prove he doesn’t have weapons immediately or else we start a war.
Says who? We’re trying to enforce law here. Unlike U.S. police departments, though, we don’t have to wait until the victim has been killed to go after the assailant.
We presented no such evidence, beyond reminding people of Saddam’s misdeeds over a decade ago. While those might be grounds for an eventual invasion, they in no way justified abandoning inspections and diplomacy.
The fact that the “inspections” were a collossal useless joke and the fact that Saddam does not participate in diplomacy were the justification for abandoning them.
There is simply no excuse for being as impatient and reckless as Bush has been.
I certainly don’t agree. I would say there is simply no excuse for the U.N. and the world to have let this fiasco drag out for over a decade. And I have seen no evidence that there’s any realistic hope for the “inspections” to accomplish anything or for other nations to get off their rumps and do anything meaningful and constructive about the situation.
Without convincing evidence of a real danger to the U.S., I wouldn’t have done anything regarding Saddam. I personally think the decision to invade Iraq was based on how this administration thinks it will help the U.S., not based on either a threat from Iraq or a desire to help the Iraqi population.
If I had evidence of a direct threat to the U.S., my response would depend on the immediacy of the threat. If it was truly immediate, I would invade. Otherwise, I would work with the UN to solve the problem, starting with sanctions and escalating once we hit an impasse, either because we wanted access to someplace we weren’t allowed or because we found weapons they refused to destroy. If we didn’t know where the weapons were, I would take the time to gather intelligence and use surveillance, so that we could insist they be destroyed. If we did evenutally invade, we’d know where to find these weapons before they fell into the wrong hands.
But none of this matter, really. The burden of proof lies on those who would start a war, not on those who ask why it is necessary.
For those of you who missed it, or should I say YOU who missed it, the original post was:
Incidentally, a lot of people think that what Giraffe said is what happened:
Depends on what you call and impasse, I guess. But you’re still stuck in the mindset that at some point, a unilateral decision to go ahead is okay.
Here are some viewpoints
The war is not against Iraq, or the people of Iraq, it is against the government. Anyone who says it is against the people is wrong, if that were the case the coalition would shoot indiscriminately.
Iraq does not comply with international law. 11 resolutions telling Iraq to pull out of Kuwait peacefully were ignored in 1990, and i don’t even know how many resolutions were ignored by Iraq or broken after the war.
The iraqi government supports terrorism camps. One of the camps taught non Iraqis how to hijack a boeing 707 which may or may not be tied into 9/11. It is circumstantial evidence at best.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/
A militant group called Ansar Al-Islam, which is supposedly tied to Al Qaeda is stationed in Iraq. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030331/pl_afp/iraq_war_us_ansar_030331150052
Based on the finding of atropine & gas masks, the Iraqi army probably has chemical weapons, which it isn’t supposed to have since it signed the cease fire after the gulf war.
The war to remove the Iraqi government will lift the sanctions, saving roughly 80,000 people from starving to death & dying from lack of medicine every year. After the war the iraqi economy will pick up, and Iraq will become more literate, industralized, liberal & physically healthy. More Iraqi civilians will probably die in 2-3 normal months under the iraqi regime than will die in the Coalition war to oust Saddam Hussein’s government.
There was never technically a peace treaty with Iraq, only a cease fire. The verdict is out, but under resolutions 678, 687 & 1441 war is authorized to attack Iraq for violating the cease fire. To say war is unjustified for non compliance with UN obedience is like saying suing someone who signs a contract then breaks it is unjustified.
According to Iraqs ex top nuclear scientist Khidhir Hamza, Iraq is about 2 years away from possessing a nuclear weapon which it could launch at Israel, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Remember, the Iraqi government has no problem using WMD on civilians, as it has shown in the Iran-Iraq war and the gassing of the Kurds.
People say this war is unjust because it is unilateral, but the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 4 years ago was unilateral too, and no one complained then. In fact, the greatest critics of non-UN approved warfare were involved in the non UN sanctioned NATO bombing. France, germany & Canada. The reason NATO went around the security council is because it was afraid of a Russian veto. The same applies here, i think the US tried to get NATO approval but the French vetoed, just as they vetoed the UN resolution.
these arguments aren’t bulletproof, but they are much of the pro war argument
that interview with Hamza took place in October 2001, when he said Iraq was 2 years away from possessing a nuclear weapon. With a nuclear weapon Saddam could easily hold Israel hostage. Hamza is not some lone nutball mind you, he spent 20 years in Iraqs nuclear department was the head of the Iraq nuclear program from 1987-1994.
A few 18 year old female anti-war liberal students in my office are big on the ‘no war for oil’ movement.
I asked them why the U.S hasn’t yet attacked countries that produce gasoline, since gasoline is obviously so much more important. They weren’t sure but said ‘cars need oil or they won’t work’. But I still wanted them to explain why gas is so volatile and expensive and how a gas shortage could really cripple the economy, yet we were only concerned with oil.
‘Bush sells oil, so he wants their oil’, goes their arguement.
Overall, they are very confused right now. Additionally, one of them uses home heating oil, so I asked her to do without heat tonight, to support her cause.
They are talking about it at lunch right now. I don’t know what they will come up with.
I am pointing out an obvious lie snuck into an arguement to elicit an emotional rather than a logical response. Drawing unemployed workers is an obvious tactic to muddy the arguement. Are you implying that all people without jobs are anti-war? Another subterfuge is to say that the administration is not working on the economy. This economy is stagnant with fear and if you saw the stock market reaction to the war starting (and the fantasy that it would all be over in a week) you would surmise that when this war is over, the economy will jumpstart itself. It is imperative that we win this war and quickly for the economy to get better.
How is this caveman logic? If Saddam had cooperated, we couldve verified all of his claims. He left too may suspicions hanging in the air and that allowed this war. If you agree to a full search, dont squawk when they say “now its time for the body cavity part…”
Excuse me. Point of Order here. We didnt declare war on the nation of Iraq. We implimented military action to disarm a brutal regime of suspected WoMD. It was Saddams choice whether to disarm with the UN in peace or with the US in war. The US is there to remove an oppressive govt that has defied the UN for over a decade. If this has been an actual war, we would have no qualms about bombing the hell out of Baghdad and sort thru the peices later. As it is, we are taking extraordinary efforts to prevent any civilian casualties, efforts that Saddams Regime have capitalized on by using their own people as shields. I agree the handling was not refined, but certainly not the worst.
I am implying that they havent protested because they know that resolution 1441 provides language that allows military action. What they (UN) object to is the USA making the decision as to when that action is warranted. We didnt disregarde international law. The US believes international law has failed.
I am arguing that the “open arms” of the Iraqi people are being tied by the Iraqi regime. We were suprised that the regime’s control was more prevalent than in 1991. Their support wouldve been a moral victory but not essential in the overall military strategy. It would be surprising, however, if they do not welcome the US after we prove that Saddam and his sons are dead.
You want my opinion?
Drop out quick and drop out now. To the extent you’re unable to collect and evaluate facts in order to reach independent conclusions, your education has obviously failed.
KoalaBear
The stated point of the OP was to collect new information. Deathstatic is worried about hearing only one point of view, and about being surrounded by people who cannot accept that their might be other, valid, points of view.
While Deathstatic’s schoolmates are preaching to the choir, this admittedly ignorant poster would like to instigate true debate and came to the SDMB for help. Seems like a laudable effort at getting an education.
Did the OP really essentially say, “I am for this war, and want to oppose the liberals, but I have no clue as to why I am pro-war in Iraq”.
Do the ‘right’ a favor and look into the facts first. You might consider yourself a conservative, but you should fact find and work an opinion around that. You’ve taken a stance based on nothing.
Bail out now.
I’ve seen more than a few people claim that Osama bin Laden is not directly tied to Iraq. Maybe, maybe not.
My personal thoughts are he is.
Right after 9-11, GWB made a speech where he said we would go after all terrorists and the countries that harbor them (maybe not a direct quote, but that was the gist of it).
Iraq seems to fit that description, no?
And just like they said GWB should have stopped 9-11, they would have cried bloody murder had Iraq popped a dirty bomb in NYC, “Why didn’t GWB stop this before it happened??”
As for Iraq and oil. I’ll wager (now don’t get mad about generalizations) that the same people who think we are only at war to steal Iraqi oil are the same ones who don’t want to drill in the Arctic National Wildife Refuge. They just want to cruise in that cute new SUV.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Philster, reading can be fun. You should try it some time. I never said I was for this war. Please read j.c.'s post before your post.
True enough, but this distinction might be lost on many of the Iraqis who lose friends and family in the conflict. And those opposing the war have made the point that, whether intentional or otherwise, civilian deaths are inevitable, and so diplomatic solutions under UN auspices should have been pursued further.
Again, true. I think that it was 17 at last count. This compares to 24 UNSC resolutions currently being violated by Turkey, and 32 by Israel. Of course, violation of such resolutions is not the only reason being given for invading Iraq, but Iraq’s persistent snubbing of the international community (i.e., the UN) has been a key plank in the US government’s reasoning. It seems that the will of the international community is more binding on some countries than others.
As you say, “may or may not be,” “circumstantial evidence,” “supposedly,” “probably.” Wow, that’s a pretty impressive accumulation of evidence; it should really help the OP make a rock-solid case for invasion.
You assume that with a US victory Iraq will undergo sudden and miraculous improvement, when even many of those prosecuting the war concede that military victory is no guarantee of substantial long-term amelioration of many of the problems currently faced by Iraqis. You also neglect to mention that illogical enforcement of the UN sanctions, most often by the US but also at times by countries such as the UK, France and Russia, led to many essential and non-military items being barred from importation. This included medical equipment, water purifying equipment, etc., etc. While the excuses often given by the vetoing power - again, especially the US - was that such items could possibly be used for other things like weapons, even the UN’s own scientists and officials often described such assertions as ridiculous.
Your final sentence here is an absolutely awful analogy. No anti-war protester, to my knowledge, has made the argument that Saddam Hussein is justified in breaking the terms of the UN Resolutions. The key argument, especially in the legal sense that you bring up here, has been that the US (and its allies) has no right to act as judge, jury and executioner in defence of the UN Resolutions.
Some (e.g. the UK Attorney General) argued that a violation of the terms of the cease-fire (SC687) acts to reactivate SC678, which was the original resolution allowing the US and its allies to take action in 1991 after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. A close reading of each of these reolutions suggests that such an interpretation is rather debatable; nowhere does 687 give such authorization explicitly, and in the absence of explicit authorization it is a display of considerable hubris for the US and UK to assume that this was the meaning of the resolution.
It is certainly true that SC1441 threatened “serious consequences” for Iraq if it failed to abide by UN resolutions. But, as the term implies, they are UN resolutions, not US resolutions, and punishment for non-compliance should rest in the hands of the Security Council. The Security Council made this quite clear in the final paragraph of each resolution (including SC687) by expressing its intention “to remain seized of the matter” - that is, the Security Council committed itself to continued monitoring of the situation, to dealing with problems as they arose, and to determining when the “serious consequences” promised in the resolution needed to be meted out. Nowhere did the Secutiry Council delegate to the US (or any other nation) the authority to decide what those serious consequences would be, when they would be applied, and how it would be done.
Iraq’s nuclear weapons program could have been stopped without the current invasion. Many (although not all) anti-war people have expressed support for a much stronger UN presence in Iraq, even supporting the idea of an armed UN force that would both monitor Saddam Hussein’s regime in order to prevent human rights abuses, and assist the UN inspectors in finding and dismantling any facilities that could be used for the manufacture of WMDs. The SC resolutions, and the violation of those resolutions by Iraq, would certainly have justified such a force. I think the UN should have acted on this earlier and with some severity, because such action might have headed off the US push for invasion.
So, ignoring the United Nations because the result might not be to your liking has suddenly become and acceptable strategy. Why is it so bad for countries like Iraq to snub the UN, but totally acceptable for the US? I realize that Iraq is in direct violation of actual UN resolutions, while the US has simply chosen to circumvent the process altogether, but the distinction is a rather thin one in terms of the purpose and the efficacy of the United Nations as an organization of global order.
And the US is hardly in a position to take the moral high ground regarding the use of the Security Council veto, considering that it has used it veto power more than any other country since the formation of the UN. Indeed, the UN might well have passed a resolution to condemn the current US action in Iraq, but there was no point because the US (and the UK) could have vetoed it. Finally, the focus on France’s veto ignores the fact that, if it had gone to the Security Council seeking a resolution allowing invasion of Iraq, the US was not even certain to win the vote, in which case a French veto would not even have been necessary.
I completely agree with both halves of this sentence.
Iraqi war crimes. The links along the left lead to other info/violations that you may want to look at.
Just as an aside, I had great fun one day with signs that read “Nuke Mesopotamia.” I had to explain several times just what Mesopotamia was. I then got out of there.
You could always show how shooting down a dove holding an olive branch could cover an Iraqi’s diet for both veggies and meat.