So does it matter to the Antiwar folks if Iraqi citizens thank us?

[Tigers2B1]

Mandelstam posted

Really? Then you must be talking to some fairly clueless “anti-war folks.” Since you are obviously pro-war I wonder where you meet the folks you know (do you crash anti-war pot lucks just to get a gist for the chatter there?). You’ll have to pardon me if I’m a little skeptical towards this kind of anecdotal information. One sometimes gets the sense from posts such as yours that pro-war posters expect others to believe that they spend their time conducting in-depth interviews with anti-war protesters.

Actually Mandelstam, you missed the main point of my post — and you mischaracterized the part you did address. On the mischaracterized portion - I’m not sure where you’re coming from with the “anti-war pot lucks” and “conducting in-depth interviews” statements. If you’ll take the time to look you’ll note I simply used the words - “who I’ve talked to.” Nothing more - nothing less. So read it as you want.

Articles in The Nation, a mainstream liberal publication, have been very clear in pointing to the potential humanitarian benefit of regime change (of the right kind) for Iraqis of various stripes. The editorial page of Times, a centrist newspaper that has, by and large, supported the potential use of force,…

Again, this WASN’T the central issue of my post. Fine, “mainstream liberal publications” see Saddam for the unspeakably brutal person he is. That’s fabulous! But I’m not sure of your point. I didn’t say that those who take the “anti-war” are taking the position that Saddam does charity work.

I sure the “mainstream liberal publications” you mention also indicate that Saddam wants nuclear weapons with a passion. Saddam has wanted and attempted to get nuclear weapons since he came to power in Iraq. In fact, it has been reported that Saddam may have been able to build a nuclear bomb during his attempts but the result was a bomb too physically big for practical use. So I was pointing to Saddam’s well know penchant for intentional unabashed human destruction on the grandest scale. My post was about what happens when a person of Saddam’s mindset, a person who shows no scruples when it comes to mass slaughter, a person who uses child torture, gains access to nuclear weapons. This was what my post was about and this is what is left unaddressed by those who take the “anti-war” position, here, and to whom I speak with in my real life. In fact, your response to my post seems to be an example of that.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**A hell of a lot more than GeeDubya’s doing to protect you from Kim Jong-Il. **

Well, that’s an irony. The US wants to pass on the North Korean problem to the UN, but the UNSC doesn’t want to take it on. Why’s that? I mean, isn’t the UNSC the only organization that can legitmately deal with Kim Jong-Il?

Sua

[Monty]

A minor point, but important nevertheless: The United States is not doing this “all by ourselves.” Last I heard, there are over 50 countries involved in this with us.

[Sam_Stone]

Well, at least seems to have mattered to this anti-war protestor:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip “had shocked me back to reality.” Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera “told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn’t start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam’s bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head.”

I don’t imagine it will change any minds here, however.

[elucidator]

Well, that kind of depends, Sam. Your position seems to mutate, rather like our governments. Is it your position that the US should, and shall, take out evil dictators wheresoever they occur? We shall be the nuclear-armed Don Quixote and go forth and slay the unrighteous, regardless of whether or not they are a direct threat to us?

Or is this latest merely a convenient opportunity to take a swipe at your opponents while claiming the moral high ground?

Do advise us, won’t you? It is so tiresome to debate a moving target.

[Stratocaster]

Why would Sam’s position have any bearing at all on whether or not your opinion has changed as a result of Iraqis showing gratitude for the attack?

[Sam_Stone]

Well, that kind of depends, Sam. Your position seems to mutate, rather like our governments. Is it your position that the US should, and shall, take out evil dictators wheresoever they occur? We shall be the nuclear-armed Don Quixote and go forth and slay the unrighteous, regardless of whether or not they are a direct threat to us?

My position has never changed. Since I was young, I’ve believed that free people who had the ability had an obligation to help those who were under tyranny. That was the basis of my support for American strength in the Cold War.

I felt tremendous pride when Ronald Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”. Not because I felt that I personally was threatened by the Soviet Union (although we all were), because I thought it was simply right to stand up for the oppressed. I was ashamed of the protestors in the west who turned their backs on those people.

I supported Clinton’s actions in the Balkans for the same reason. And I was ashamed of the Clinton administration when it opposed my government’s effort to get the U.N. to step in and prevent the slaughter in Rwanda.

And today, I’m ashamed of my own country for refusing to stand beside its long-time ally in what is a moral and glorious effort to free a country enslaved by a fascist dictator.

Does that mean that we should target every dictator in the world? No. You do what you can. If I could figure out a way to depose Kim Jong Il without killing 50,000 innocent South Koreans and 37,000 American servicemen, and possibly causing nuclear strikes against Japan or South Korea, I would support it. I would not support a decision to go to war with Communist China, because the costs would be too high, and because China is on a path of democratization from within. Same with Iran.

But Saddam is a different case. The horror he is inflicting on his own people exceeds any possible deaths caused by military intervention. That alone makes a war a moral choice. The fact that he is in violation of numerous UN resolutions, and still under the restriction of a negotiated cease-fire adds legal weight to an invasion. And the effect of his toppling on the dynamics of the middle east and the ability to fight the war on terror makes it smart.

I think the anti-war protestors are going to have a lot to answer for, once this war ends and evidence begins to emerge about just what they were fighting to save. Evidence like the 14 hours of video the anti-war protestor above brought home.

But I don’t think they will answer for it. I think they’ll jsut fade away and go on to the next protest. I don’t hear a lot of mea culpas from the people who opposed the overthrow of the Taliban, nor have I ever heard apologies from the ‘fellow travellers’ who opposed Reagan’s attempts to show the Soviet Union for what it was, and instead uttered platitudes like, “The Russians love their children too.”

[elucidator]

Well, gee, Sam, you seem to have skipped over several regimes that equally fill the bill. Need I point them out to you? Regimes that your beloved Ronnie not only looked upon with benign eyes, but willingly flouted the will of Congress in order to support.

Do the names Trujillo, Batista, Somoza, Pinochet…these ring any bells? Have they an honored place in your pantheon of Heroes of Freedom?

I hesitate to scorn the Big Golden Book of Geopolitic, but Ronnie most assuredly did not bring down the Soviet Union, the Soviet state collapsed because nobody wanted to wear Bulgarian shoes, much less buy them. As happy a conclusion as that may be, Ronnies geopolitical strategy was as brilliant as his supply side economics, that is, too stupid to make its own oatmeal.

Offered the opportunity for systematic change in the USSR by Gorbachev, in exchange for a defense system that did not work, does not work, and most likely can not work, Ronnie scorned his entreaty to let him take something back from Reykavik, and delivered him into the hands of that lumbering, drunken bufoon, Yeltsin.

Brilliant. Fuckin’ brilliant.

[elucidator]

…And the effect of his toppling on the dynamics of the middle east and the ability to fight the war on terror makes it smart. …

Can’t let this go by. Smart? Really? You have been paying attention to how this is playing in the Middle East, haven’t you? This may be good for GeeDubya, Arial Sharon, even Vlad (the Impaler) Putin. But the happiest man alive today is Osama bin Laden. We are wiping out an enemy of his while assuring that his recruitment programs stay brimming full for years to come.

Smart? Dead Meat, the hamster who spins the power generator unit here at SDMB could tell you better.

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**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):

**
The analogy is actually pretty good. Adult is to child as government is to adult.

**1) 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.

**
Sometimes you can and sometimes you can’t. I respect people who practice strict non-violence as a philosophical position. However, it is seriously loopy to insist that everyone else must conform to your philosophical perspective. Sometimes, the violent can only be countered with violence. Ghandi was succesful, in part, because the British had a moral conscience. Non-violent resistance would not have worked in Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

**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.

**
While you’re not willing to use force yourself, you’re expecting the policeman to do it for you. But if it is morally correct for the policeman to act, it would be morally correct for you to act as well. You may certainly choose not to use force but your reticence does not mean that others should not.

**2) 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”.

**
People may, indeed, suspect your motives. What of it? Does that mean that protecting the child is not in and of itself a righteous act? It is a logical fallacy to suggest that if the United States does not remove every dictator it should, therefore, never remove any dictator.

If a week or two from now, Al-Jazera is showing footage of Iraqis dancing in the wreckage of Baghdad and welcoming the coallition forces with tears of joy, it will be manifest that getting rid of Hussein was well-worth the cost, regardless of what comes after. Any honest, thoughtful, anti-war person will, at that point admit that going into Iraq was a morally justifiable thing to do.

[elucidator]

And if people are dancing for joy in the smouldering wreckage of a US embassy?

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Offered the opportunity for systematic change in the USSR by Gorbachev, in exchange for a defense system that did not work, does not work, and most likely can not work, Ronnie scorned his entreaty to let him take something back from Reykavik, and delivered him into the hands of that lumbering, drunken bufoon, Yeltsin.

Brilliant. Fuckin’ brilliant. **

Assuming, for the purpose of argument, that your synopsis is correct, is was, indeed, brilliant. Total, bloodless collapse of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe in the EU, greatly reduced threat of nuclear conflict – geopolitical wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Good thing Ronnie didn’t throw Gorby a lifeline, I’d say.

[CaptBushido]

I’m skimming this so I might be repeating something already said, but I just thought I’d come out of lurkerdom to say that, no, it does not matter that it is illegal because I do recognize the right of the UN to regulate nations. I’ve always thought this, long before the current onflict, so don’t accuse me of being hypcritical. The UN is nothing but a (bad) attempt at forming a world government, which is one thing which I oppose utterly. Every nation has the right to attack any other nation for any reason, just as the rest of the world has a right to retaliate in outrage. Though most of the world wants no part of it, the US for the most part has justified its attack on Iraq in the world community. Pakistan or India, on the other hand, would have a very hard time explaining a preemptive strike on the other. I believe that America would be involved in LESS armed conflict if we were to look out for our own interests only. Read the history books, people, remember the Original President George saying something about entangling alliances? Remember World War 1? It’s foolhardy to form an international union that claims to look after all its members because sooner or later its going to have to take up on that promise. The UN, fortunately, has chosen not to do so in this instance, and now I get to laugh gleefully as this absurd mock World Government® passes further into irrelevance.

In conclusion: A rule is only illegal if a government (the UN) can enforce it, and frankly, I’d like to see them try!

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**And if people are dancing for joy in the smouldering wreckage of a US embassy? **

Sheesh. Don’t they teach courses in moral reasoning anymore? The cost to the U.S. is irrelevant to the question of whether the U.S. was morally justified in invading Iraq.

If y’all want to abandon the moral posturing and have a discusion of the realpolitikal ramifications of invading Iraq, that’s fine. But this is a tawdry calculation of interest and makes for lousy protest signs.

[Mandelstam]

*Originally posted by Tigers2B1 *
**

I’m not sure where you’re coming from with the “anti-war pot lucks” and “conducting in-depth interviews” statements. If you’ll take the time to look you’ll note I simply used the words - “who I’ve talked to.” Nothing more - nothing less. **

Not to worry, Tigers. I did take the time to read your words, so perhaps you’ll return the favor by acknowledging the meaning of “anecdotal information”–which you, very kindly, have confirmed is indeed the extent of what you have to add to this discussion. Your testimony as to the ignorance of some anti-war folks is, as you say, not based on in-depth interviews, not based on your reading of anti-war journalism, and not even on the crashing of pot lucks ;). No, it’s just anecdotal information–the people you talked to–of which, as I said, I am very skeptical.

Why? Well perhaps it’s because I have talked to hundreds of anti-war people, read scores of articles by anti-war columnists and journalists, and received e-mails and mailings from a variety of anti-war groups. And I have never once come across any individual who was unaware of Saddam Hussein’s extreme brutality.

So let me be the first to assure you that you appear to have had the misfortunate of having randomly bumped into some of the stupidest anti-war people to be found. Nothing more - nothing less ;).

*“This was what my post was about and this is what is left unaddressed by those who take the “anti-war” position… In fact, your response to my post seems to be an example of that.” *

Well before you conclude that I too can’t and don’t address the issues that concern you based on one post, why don’t you click on my profile and read the 100 or so posts I have written in the last few weeks on the subject of the war. If that is too much trouble feel free to ask me a question directly so as to test the bounds of my address: though preferably one that has to do with the question of Iraqi citizens’ thanking us, so as to stay on topic.

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
**Sheesh. Don’t they teach courses in moral reasoning anymore? The cost to the U.S. is irrelevant to the question of whether the U.S. was morally justified in invading Iraq.

If y’all want to abandon the moral posturing and have a discusion of the realpolitikal ramifications of invading Iraq, that’s fine. But this is a tawdry calculation of interest and makes for lousy protest signs. **

Just a second, now. I was responding to the previous posters image of Iraqis weeping for joy. I posited a different image in response. You got a beef about staying on focus, take it up with him.

And by the way its “ya’ll” not “y’all”. If you’re gonna type with an accent, do it right.

[xenophon41]

Um, 'luce… I agree with your message in this thread, but I must step in and correct a misstatement of great import. And, as always, I’ll make allowances for ignorance, you bein’ a Texas boy ‘n’ all, but the word in contention between you and Truth Seeker is a contraction of “you all”, and TS has contracted it correctly: “y’all.”

[Zoe]

Truth Seeker said:

Still, I have nothing but contempt for intellectually and morally lazy anti-war demonstrators who bleat mindless rhetoric from the top of a very tall hobby horse rather than really engage the issues.

I would ammend your comment only slightly to express my own feelings:

I have nothing but contempt for intellectually and morally lazy war supporters who bleat mindless rhetoric from the top of a very tall hobby horse rather than really engage the issues.

Your simplistic analysis is just that: simplistic. The moral and practical issues are much, much more complicated than that.

[elucidator]

xeno, you ignorant slut!

As you point out, I am a recovering Texan, and hence may reasonably be considered an expert on correct and proper peckerwood protocol. I would not presume to lecture you on the nuances of Star Trek conventions, and expect the same deference to my own area of expertise.

[xenophon41]

Expertise which I would presume may include the minutae of cow-pie fort assembly, but not, sadly, assembly of non-Texican English elements.

er… podnah.