And the Russians have such a love for muslim extremists. :dubious:
Okay – so my theory is still more plausible than Bush’s dream that a post-war Iraq will “inspire” other Middle Eastern nations into adopting democracy. 
Actually, Bush’s theory is not as implausible as it sounds at first. And by this I mean that there is a sort of academic divide over this. Some, obviously think that it won’t make much of a difference. Others, such as Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins believes that it could be that sort of inspiration. He wrote an article about it a few months ago in Foreign Affairs.
I myself remain doubtful, but it is not the sort random, out-there theory you make it sound.
No. (You should have stuck by your original statement, Nanu, even though it was badly worded.) The United States has initiate an agressive war against Iraq, and any state in the world could legally aid Iraq in its self-defense by attacking the United States. There are two exceptions to the prohibition on armed conflict under international law: self-defense, and when necessary to restore peace and security, as determined by the Security Council. The attack on Iraq fulfills neither of these requirements.
I think that this is a very good debate. There have been some good points made on both sides even though I am all for taking care of this idiot and removing him from the equation.
I think that Bush has made a very good call in taking the bull by the horns. He was elected by this country’s voters (if they did not see our voting system as legitimate then I don’t think they would bother to vote) to be President of the United States. The electoral votes say so and to say otherwise is just wrong. I state that as a democrat who voted for Gore.
Being a poor looser is just pathetic. Our election system has been in place and proven itself as working brilliantly. Maybe you should be screaming at the ballet designers of North Palm Beach County instead of trying to pass the buck regarding the leadership of the country.
I personally believe that Sadam has been harboring, supplying, training and assisting in a number of ways those terrorist organizations that have tried or have commit acts of terrorism against this country and our allies. I think if given the chance he would use any number of the weapons he posses that he is not suppose to have against this country.
The moment he fired the first scud he proved the point the US and England were making regarding inspections not working because he has been saying he did not have any of those.
Now with that being said 1441 that was voted yes on by everyone in the UN back in November gave permission for use of force if there was not a timely schedule put forth.
The problem was it did not list an exact time line. In all actuality that was a loophole that should have been closed before it went for a vote if it was such an issue with the war opposition countries (i.e. the French Chirac Government).
I tell you why France did not close it, because they wanted to grandstand, the only problem is they did not count on the US saying “You know what, we don’t give a damn what you think. You should have asked for more detail before you voted yes”. Not only that Powel ask them if they were going to stand by this resolution if it did not work in a timely manor and even told them the President of the United States has lost patience and they told a bold face lie and said “Oh yes we will stand behind this and support military action if he is not playing ball from the get go”.
We bent like a reed in the wind out of respect to our Allies and the difficult position that they were in (Tony Blair and his cabinet). But I thought it was a great show of resolve on our part that we did not pussy foot around on this and cow tow to everyone.
France never did come up with a concrete reason other than “more inspections” a ridiculous request after 12 years of cat and mouse. They could have been given everything they wanted and they would have never have agreed to a time line on this because they loved the PR…
At no time for the last 12 years has Sadam or his government done anything in good faith or been forthcoming with regards to inspections that would give the powers the impression he was playing by the rules. At no time did the French ever step forth and suggest any restrictions on action until it was too late.
During all of this time Sadam has committed horrible crimes against his own people.
I can assure you that the US government would like nothing better than his Middle-East neighbors to say “Sadam you are a bad seed and your behavior threatens us all” … Thank you for playing and take care of the problem themselves…
But why do that when it becomes clear that he could be a real threat to big brother (the US) and you know they will come in and squash the issue for you and pay for the dog and pony show to boot.
Also for those of you who don’t want war let alone the US wagging it, by us taking care of this it is going to be done with a lot less mess from a destruction and death standpoint than if his neighbors do it out of the simple fact that we do have the most advance military in the world, we are proving that right now. From a time perspective we can probably take care of the problem in 1/10th of the time it might take others around him to do the job and cute casualties to the bone.
In the end yes war does kill but at the end of the day I have to go with the theory that far more will be saved than would have been should we have all set back and let this idiot skip along playing games and undermining authority.
My question is what if we did not step up to the plate, what if we did not risk criticism and let him continue on his course unhindered and he did manage to pull of a huge terrorist attack that killed thousands.
What then do you think the world would be crying out….WHY DID YOU NOT DO SOMETHING!
The United States and Britain knew and would not stand up to this maniac. Well we are damned if we do and taking a huge gamble if we don’t….
I would rather take the “safe than sorry option” as oppose to being faced with the possibility of watching bodies stack up after a dirty bomb, so that I could have the satisfaction of telling those that want to take the liberal road “well we told you so”….
I’m afraid that you are going to get both.
TS: If you were walking down the street and saw someone viciously beating a child with a stick you, being a decent person, would take whatever action necessary to stop it immediately, up to and including running the perpetrator over with your car. Sure, you might prefer other, non-violent means, but you would do what you had to do.
Two objections (besides a general feeling of discomfort with an analogy that casts the people suffering under tyrannies in the role of helpless “children”—kinda paternalistic):
-
Many pacifists would point out that in fact, you can be a “decent person” and intervene against abuse and violence without resorting to violence yourself. Non-violent resistance in a case such as you describe would involve, say, shielding the child from the stick by interposing your own body, while screaming like mad for the police. (Contrary to your suggestion, I think a deliberate murderous assault on the abuser such as running him over with a car would not be considered an acceptable response in the eyes of the law. I imagine you’d be facing charges at least of manslaughter/assault, although you could argue extenuating circumstances.)
-
If you encounter such situations fairly often, and don’t bother to interfere to protect the child being abused unless that child happens to possess something you want for yourself, people are understandably going to be skeptical about your motives, not to mention your claims to be a “decent person”.
The Taliban regime was a festering blot on the face of humanity. It is to the world’s great shame that we let the situation go on for as long as we did.
In fact, right up to the point where we decided it was in our interest to go after them, because their harboring al-Qaeda was a threat to us. Similarly, the war on Iraq is much more about US strategic control of the Middle East and its resources than about saving Iraqis from suffering.
That’s indicated by the fact that there are quite a few such blots currently “festering on the face of humanity”: e.g., the Colombian government’s collusion with paramilitary groups carrying out massacres and assassinations, China’s horrific human rights abuses, religious repression in Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, etc., etc. But you don’t see us going in to take out their leaders to protect the “abused children” suffering under their regimes.
I’m not saying that our foreign policy shouldn’t take into account the question “What’s in it for us?”. I’m just pointing out that when we don’t bother to attack and overthrow brutal regimes unless there is something significant in it for us, we can’t expect the rest of the world to award us big humanitarian brownie points for our selective attacks and invasions. The message the world is getting is not “The US is willing to stand up for the oppressed against brutal bullies”, but “The US is willing to attack other countries to get what it wants, while claiming that it’s liberating their people from oppression.”
“Invasion for liberation” was not a very convincing line when the old Soviet Union used it in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and I think we’re massively kidding ourselves if we imagine that the world is going to like it much better coming from us. Mind you, I personally believe that the US is more humane, freedom-loving, and respectful of other countries’ sovereignty than the Soviets were; but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the victims of invasion (or the people worrying that they’re going to be the victims of the next invasion) to be equally discriminating.
Sua: So the left’s approach is to punish the victims of a tyrant (that’s what economic sanctions do), and when the tyrant doesn’t give up, say “oh, well”? Consistent or not, a pretty asinine policy.
The thing is, nobody has a consistently effective policy for dealing with tyrants. As I pointed out above, the right is often perfectly content to coexist with (and even to arm and support) tyrants (e.g., Hussein himself, back when he was still politically useful to us), when it’s not advantageous to us to invade them.
Sorry, but the right has absolutely zero claim to the moral high ground here, even if the left also fails to offer a reliably effective alternative to war in combating tyranny. “Maybe we’ll rescue you from your oppressors if we find it pays better than cooperating with them!” is not a noticeably more heroic slogan than “We’ll refrain from attacking your country, even if that means letting you suffer wretched oppression!”
Will a democracy even work in Iraq?
These are not people that have been taught democratic principles or values, they don’t know the benefits of a democracy.
It is probable that a strong fundamentalist movement will surge and to keep it at bay, the US set up democratic government will become increasingly authoritarian until a civil war brakes out.
Not all people believe so strongly in democracy and freedom as Americans do. I think democracy might be to strong a pill for Iraq to take so soon.
**
Terrorists don’t seem to need to need much incentive to lash out at the US or its allies–or anyone else, for that matter. I’m immensely skeptical that this war will add very much more fuel to the the terrorist fire.
**
Innocent civilians die in every war. If you absolutely insist that innocent civilians must never die in any war, then you will find yourself impotent in the face of threats from Hitlerites, Stalinists and Saddamites (marvelous pun there).
**
All nations tend to consider their political and military alliances in terms of the practical benefits and disadvantages that such alliances present. I am skeptical that any nation will refuse to cooperate or ally itself with the United States simply because they didn’t like what we did in Iraq.
**
Inasmuch as we are far from the first nation to ignore the UN when the UN’s pronouncements clashed with what we saw as our own best interest, it matters to me not at all. Pakiston will do what Pakiston will do, and it probably won’t matter very much if the UN doesn’t like it. The same holds true for most other nations.
**
No. Inasmuch as the UN never had much moral or legal credibility in my eyes to begin with, the UN’s loss of credibility doesn’t strike me as an immense tragedy. I am continually amazed by people who seem to think that UN pronouncements are sacred writ which must not be questioned, rejected or defied.
And anyway, Saddam has certainly been defying the UN for quite a long time now, but for some reason the anti-war crowd doesn’t seem to think that this undermines the UN’s credibility. Obviously the peaceniks are very, very selective when comes to specific examples of a nation’s actions damaging the stature of the UN.
**
Well, here you are. Do try to undertand that most other folks are not much impressed by ivory tower idealism and Sunday school moralizing.
LonesomePolecat:
So what do you suggest, give up on the UN and go back to 19th century Realpolitic? That will probably mean that some alliance will have to rise to mach the power of the US. It is difficult for the world to take in the fact that the US is the dominant power if they don’t have the UN to at least feel comfortable that the US won’t invade them any day soon.
Well, if your point is that a majority of Egyptians are not willing to face water canons and risk arrest while clashing with police you are quite right. But if you’re trying to suggest that the majority of Egyptians (or any other Arab people with the possible exception of Kuwaitis) support this war, you’re way off. Indeed, I think you’ll find that the majority of Swedes do not support this war.
If you look at the rest of the article I posted you’ll find this paragraph next to the report of the 5,000 Cairoans who clashed with police:
“In a rare statement, Egypt’s Interior Ministry appealed to citizens to vent their frustration in an orderly manner through previously authorized demonstrations.”
I suspect those demonstrations will draw very impressive-sized crowds.
The United Nations is impotent. The United Nations is a sad joke. The UN didn’t stop the slaughter in the Balkans. American military power, under the auspices of NATO, did that. The UN didn’t stop the slaughter in Rwanda. French military power did that. ** I can’t think of any instance in which the United Nations put a stop to any such horror, and I am extremely reluctant to put my life, rights, liberty, or well-being in the hands of the United Nations. **
If in my native state of Georgia, USA, a situation should ever break out in which thousands of people were being killed because of their racial, ethnic or religious affiliation, and the federal government of the United States was powerless to put a stop to it, I pray to whatever God or gods there may be that the fate of my native land will not rest in the hands of the United Nations. Better the British. Better the Canadians or Australians. Better the French or Germans. Better the Mexicans. Better the Russians. Better the Chinese. Better India, Brazil, Egypt, Jordan, Japan, Poland or damn near anybody else. But not, for the love of sweet bleeding Jesus, the United Nations!
You can rave and rail about “nineteenth century Realpolitic” all you please, but the fact of the matter is that ** international politics is power politics. **
Any other view is damn foolishness.
"You can rave and rail about “nineteenth century Realpolitic” all you please, but the fact of the matter is that international politics is power politics.
"
All politics involves power, Lonesome, and international politics will involve power whether or not its exercised within or outside of the framework of collaborative institutions such as the United Nations. The United Nations is far from perfect but it is also far from useless. While it makes sense to discuss how to reform the UN–perhaps even to replace it with a superior embodiment–it makes no sense to pretend that the isolated acts of individual nations offer some inherent advantage to world peace and stability over a collaborative framework of some kind. There’s simply no evidence for that.
Darn right, LP! Spoken like a hard-headed realist, not some namby-pamby fuzzy thinking one worlder! And boy, now that everybody’s getting nuclear weapons, these little international tiffs are gonna get a lot shorter. What do we need a UN for, when everybody loves us so much?
There is no “evidence” to the contrary, either. The fact remains that the United Nations, as currently constituted, is powerless to enforce its decrees, and in any case its decrees are by no means guided by some superior moral insight and benevolence. For the life of me, I don’t see how some truly effective “collaborative framework of some kind” could be established when that organization lacks any real power to enforce its decisions. Nor, for that matter, can I see any reason to believe that such a body would be guided by some kind of superior morality that would in any way ensure its decisions are right, just or humane. I am not in the least inclined to trust the United Nations, as it stands today, with my life, liberty or rights, and I do not see that the UN contributes to “world peace and stability” when it can not even deal effectively with a third rate power like the Serbs or force Saddam Hussein to cooperate with weapons inspectors.
Give me some reasonable assurance that the United Nations or any other “collaborative” body can take effective action against the likes of Al-Qaeda, and I will concede that you have actually made some kind of point here.
And why, exactly, do you suppose that the UN does anything to protect the people of the United States from the likes of Kim Il Jong, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? I’m all ears here. Please do tell me exactly what the UN did to protect me, or anybody else, from these sociopaths and all the others like them.
They passed resolutions, duh.
A hell of a lot more than GeeDubya’s doing to protect you from Kim Jong-Il.
**LonesomePolecat **: The fact remains that the United Nations, as currently constituted, is powerless to enforce its decrees…"
Say what? In what sense is the United Nations powerless to enforce its decrees? So long as the Security Council votes to enforce, the UN can enforce its decrees with all the collective power of its member nations!
“…and in any case its decrees are by no means guided by some superior moral insight and benevolence.”
Moral insight is a relative thing. What is clear in the present instance is that most people in the world, including the majority of Americans, sought out the moral imprimatur of UN approval. Although the UN isn’t infallible, the idea that its approbation counts for something is built into the democratic frame of mind that tends to stand for legitimacy in the world’s “free” nations.
“I am not in the least inclined to trust the United Nations, as it stands today, with my life, liberty or rights…”
Well that’s a real no-brainer since no one is asking you to. 
Membership in the United Nations doesn’t supercede whatever constitutional guarantees are enjoyed by a particular nation-state’s individual citizens.
…and I do not see that the UN contributes to “world peace and stability”…
That’s actually very obvious since you don’t seem to understand very much about the United Nations at all.
“…when it can not even deal effectively with a third rate power like the Serbs or force Saddam Hussein to cooperate with weapons inspectors.”
The situation in Serbia was very complicated b/c it involved intra-national rather than international conflict. To the extent that it is involved in encouraging human rights via treaties, the UN can play a role in legitimizing intervention in such civil conflicts but it is absolutely true that, as currently constituted, it is not designed to handle them expediently. That is indeed a problem. In theory UN functions could be expanded so as to facilitate such handling better; but you seem determined, instead, to deny to the UN the functionality that it already as.
Of course the UN has the power to “force Saddam Hussein to cooperate with weapons inspectors.” It has the power to do that as soon as the Security Council agrees: which, in the current instance, they were not ready to do. When the war began the majority of members of the Security Council (and of the world) felt that the weapons inspectors were making substantive progress with the threat of force. Some were asking for a deadline extension of as little as three weeks.
“Give me some reasonable assurance that the United Nations or any other “collaborative” body can take effective action against the likes of Al-Qaeda, and I will concede that you have actually made some kind of point here.”
As has already been pointed out to you, the UN approved the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.
Since Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign nation, but a transnational terrorist organization, effective action against it will consist largely in the united police actions of countries where it has a presence. For example, the recent Pakistani capture of a leading Al-Qaeda figure. Similar police work in (to name just a few) Britain, Germany, the United States and Pakistan is being conducted on an ongoing basis as we speak. The UN provides a framework for such countries to cooperate with each other as and when these countries face the possibility of a war between nations. As such, it builds trust between these nations–or, when any particular nation dismisses the UN (as the Bush administration has done)–it diminishes such trust. Trust is an essential component to efforts involving international cooperation: whether they be police efforts, nation-building efforts, famine-aiding efforts, or what have you. It’s as simple as that.
But, since you seem to think that effective action against the likes of Al-Qaeda constitutes the bar for any kind of legitimate activity, please tell me what exactly you think that Bush’s war against Iraq will contribute to effort to rid the world of Al-Qaeda. According to U.S. intelligence, the effect thus far has been to enhance its recruiting efforts dramatically. Any thoughts there?