WSJ editorial: When Will Americans come? There are seven million free Iraqis. I hope we don’t forget them.
You and Saddam are on the same side here. Wouldn’t that make you a supporter?
Saddam, and anyone who thinks I support him, simply because I don’t think attacking Iraq pre-emptively is a acceptable, can bite me.
How would they become less free if the US won’t attack?
Um. Er. Even the beloved administration doesn’t buy this sort of ultra-reductionistic logic. Ignorance is strength!
I’ll rank this thread up in the growing list of bookmarks I need next time december asks me to justify my comments about the nature of his posting history.
It may be assumed that they speak for their friends and relatives in Iraq. Since residents of Iraq cannot speak freely, the free Iraqis are the best source we have.
This cuts to the nub of the OP. In general, I agree that not supporting strong action against a bad regime isn’t the same as supporting that regime. However, when action is imminent or actually in effect, then the situation tends to get polarized. E.g., before the sanctions on Zimbabwe, there was no onus on dealing with Mugabe. However, now that Europe has begun to try to deal with the problem, I would say that France’s resistance to sanctions does indeed equate to support for Mugabe.
I agree that GWB pretty much knew that Saddam would never comply with the mandate, for the simple reason that he never had complied after 12 or 13 years. However, note that this “mandate” is precisely what Saddam promised the UN he would do in the treaty ending the 1991 war. So, you are arguing that the world should have known that Saddam would not keep his word. I agree with you.
But, where does this thought lead? There’s no point in negotiating an agreement if you know that the other party will violate it. So, the only choices are:
– regime change by force, or
– letting Saddam stay in power and build an arsenal of WMDs, including nuclear weapons.
Given that these ugly choices are the only possible options, I prefer the former.
I certainly do not support SH. I do oppose war because I am not sure why we are fighting.
To promote democracy: Both the US and UK support many unsavoury dictactors and undermine legitimate governments (Chile, Venezuela, Nicuagua etc). What the US and UK really want to promote is free trade (read non-socialist), and they don’t really give a toss about the governments as long as they don’t make too much noise and generally support the US. If the US had a consistent moral stance that supported human rights all the time, I would buy this argument. Unfortunately…
To depose SH: If in the last gulf war the US had carried on up to Bagdad I would have supported them, if only because the damage was done and the extra damage was probably going to be minimal. This time you will have to kill an extra 40K or so soldiers (sorry, soften up their positions) just to warm up. Second guessing the future is impossible, will more people suffer if SH is left alone or not? Who can tell. The only thing we can do in such questions is use our moral compass as best as we can. I am just very reluctant to support the deaths of tens of thousands fathers, sons and brothers just because Iraq might or might not be a better place.
To disarm SH. The inspectors are doing a good job. Ok the threat of invasion probably helps a lot. I am not even certain there is much in the way of WOMD in IRAQ. The US and UK “evidence” has been laughable, and even the weapons inpectors have not found any of the evidence remotely useful. there are unaccounted stocks of weopons, but as a chemist I suspect much of the stock will be fairly useless by now even if it exists. As we have seen, anthrax etc is a pretty poor way of killing people. Napalm, cluster bombs, air incendary devices are much better (all given to the world by the US - thanks)
Try this: Waging war against Iraq is highly likely to lead to an upsurge in terrorist acts against Americans. Thus, backers of war are supporting terrorists.
The above is a dumb and needlessly polarizing argument.
Much like the OP.
december and NaSultainne,
America has long upheld the belief in our legal system that individuals are innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I will grant you that we have never promised to provide the same courtesy to foreign governments or citizens, but in general we have, at least publicly, attempted to provide justification for aggressive military action.
The current administration has not met the burden of proof. There is still “reasonable doubt” that Hussein is guilty. Whether you consider the jury to be the american public or world opinion, there is obviously not unanimous verdict.
There are admitted weaknesses in this analogy. However I have to ask one question. Is the judge, jury, the legislature that makes the laws, the police force that enforce the law, and penal system that executes the sentence “helping” the accused by demanding proof of guilt? If you answer no, then why is it so different in the current situation with Iraq. If you answer yes, then might I suggest that you provide evidence of the suprioirity of systems where the burden of proof lies with the accused.
Do murderers go free in our system? Abso-friggin-lutely. It ain’t a perfect system and no one claims that it is. But its the best we have.
To claim that the demand of proof is somehow undemocratic, un-american, or pro-hussein is simply ignorant, simple-minded, and is more likely meant to get those “durned liberals” all fired up, rather than spark serious debate.
Fang wrote:
And december responded:
Wanna take a whack at this one, december?
A couple points right off the bat. First, I will not tolerate any aspersions on my patriotism, and adherence to the principles on which I think this country is and was founded. I think that these matters have already been adequately established by my five years of active duty as a volunteer in the nation’s armed forces in the middle of a divisive war, and by thirty years and more involvement as a citizen of my city, state and nation. Second, I am not about to accept December’s or anyone else’s attempt to establish a dogma for patriotism. As I see it, the premises of this thread is just as dishonest and maliciously provocative as the sort of “liberals hate America” balderdash that has decorated these threads since the present administration discovered its apparently imperialist ambitions. I am not about to be bullied by the “my country right or wrong” people now any more that I was as a serving soldier in the late 1960s.
I say that this country should go to war only to defend its vital interest from a clear and present danger. To go to war on any other grounds is stupid and, worse than stupid, unnecessary. The only question for discussion is whether the vital interests of the United States require war now. It just does not make any difference that the people running Iraq are despots, it doesn’t matter that Iraq does not enjoy the blessings of democracy and personal liberty. It does not make any difference that my judgments on the matter gives Saddam a warm and fuzzy feeling. Those factors do not present a clear and present threat to the vital interests of the United States.
If I say that Iraq does not present that clear and present threat and that the impending war is not necessary I am doing precisely what the principles on which this country exists require. No more and no less. I am expected to stand up on my hind legs and let my government and the rest of the citizens know my views on matters of public concern. That the government and the citizenry may reject my views and go off in a pursuit of folly is also the way this system works. That is the nature of public debate.
To attempt to squelch that debate by equating people who disagree by holding them up as adherents to a foreign power, however, is dishonest and disingenuous, at least in the context of this discussion. In the absence of a flat statement of “I support for Saddam and the Iraqi regime,” you can not fairly say that opposition to war in general or to this war in particular is a betrayal of the United States. Show me that Iraq presents a clear and present danger (not a speculative risk some time in the unknowable future) to the vital interests of this country and I reconsider my judgment that this war is not necessary and therefore worse than stupid.
Not only do I applaud and appreciate your sacrifices for my country, I also thank you for protecting my priviledge to live in a country where dissent is not only tolerated, but the true lifeblood of democracy. I am embarrassed to no end that the greatest threats to those freedoms come from inside our own country in the form of those who wish to quietly fall in line with those in power simply because they say so.
WILD APPLAUSE!!!
This is as ridiculous an arguement as claiming that those who believe we should attack Iraq want to see American Servicemen/Iraqui Civilians die. A straw man of the most offensive sort.
Enjoy,
Steven
This seems to be the point that is being missed. No one should be saying that your opposition to war means that you side with Saddam, or that you approve of his actions. The debate, to me, is whether the unintended consequences of the anti-war movement end up aiding Saddam, and whether or not those consequences are worse than the consequences of the invasion.
My opinion: In the long-term, doing nothing will be more destructive (for the Iraqis and for the U.S.) than going in. But, I still struggle with whether or not the difference is great enough to warrant setting the precedent of pre-emption.
As an aside, I see by the paper that my old reserve unit, a heavy combat engineer battalion, has just been mobilized. On the 15th they are off to Fort Lost In The Woods for further deployment to an undisclosed location. Guess where they are going to be building roads and airfields and barracks. Good luck, the 389th.
Ah, good thing then that neither the UN nor the Security Council member nations which oppose war are advocating the “doing nothing” approach. Whew!
Gadarene, ISTM that Fang’s argument was similar to one I did answer. I wrote:
As you say, international relations are different from prosecution of individuals. In my opinion, the risk of allowing Saddam to obtain a nuclear arsenal is so great that I wouldn’t wait for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. When we let a murderer go free, he may kill a handful of people. If we let Saddam obtain nukes, he might kill millions.
However, in this case there is no doubt at all that Saddam has violated Resolution 1441 and violated his 1991 treaty obligations.
I do not understand the question.
This is true. Nevertheless, I do believe that the anti-war protestors are in effect supporting Saddam, even though they don’t mean to. (Except for AHunter3, whose honesty I applaud.)
Spavined Gelding, this thread is not intended to impugn anyone’s patriotism. It’s unfortunate that the words of the OP sound that way. This thread is meant to impugn the judgment of anti-war protestors. I know that the anti-war folks do not in any way mean to support Saddam Hussein.
I don’t know if this has been said before, and I realize that analogies fly like a lead balloon in the GD…
If you saw a man beating up someone smaller than him, and you are big enough to stop him- would you stop him?
I think it says something about your character whichever answer you give.
Yes, I would try to stop him, and force the two to appeal to prevailing legal authority. If I couldn’t stop him, I would protest his actions as loud as I could.
What does this say of my character.
You know one way to “stop a small man beating up a smaller man”?
You can shoot the smaller man. That’d stop it. However, it wouldn’t SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Perhaps, just, maybe perhaps, those of us on the anti-war camp have been on the side of the Iraqi people for as long as we’ve been campaigning against the sanctions against Iraq that starve them to death and deny them vital medicine. That is, since about 1992. You know, just like we were against the Taliban for about six years before 2001?
Blaming us for your problems because you didn’t listen to what we had to say at the time is, well, it’s rather obtuse. Especially when our criticisms are not of the stated aims, but of the methods by which you are intending to go about achieving them, with special emphasis placed on the incongruity between the two.
December claims:
I am curious why December assumes that letting Saddam stay in power automatically means he will build such an arsenal. As far as I can tell his arsenal is no better now than is was ten years ago. I am aware of no evidence that shows Saddam is getting stronger, or that he is currently engaged in any significant slaughter of civilians. I think that this is obvious to most of the world except that segment under the spell of Bush’s scare tactics. At such time as Saddam does engage in a WMD buildup or attack on the civilian population, we should have relatively little trouble getting a broad coalition against him, and Saddam knows that. He has been relatively ineffectual over the last decade and is likely to stay that way even if left in power. That’s why it’s not worth billions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and worldwide animosity toward the U.S. in order to oust him.