War is stupid and insane.

Great Debates
1

War is unintelligent and insane, from the part of the war makers.
Since I started on a life of intelligence and sanity, war has always been for me unintelligence and insanity, in particular when I consider the actuations of the war makers.

For the present discussion, let us examine the war on Saddam Hussein launched by Bush and his colleagues.
The words ‘unintelligent’ and ‘insane’ are clinical descriptions.

The corresponding attitude from intelligent and sane minds at the sight of the war, and Bush and his colleagues who launched the war on Saddam Hussein, is one of sorrow for the war, and scorn for its protagonists.

To do justice therefore to the enterprise called war, in particular for our present examination, the war on Saddam Hussein, and its perpetrators: Bush and his colleagues, I want to state that:

The war on Saddam Hussein is stupid and crazy; and Bush and his colleagues are stupid and crazy.
Consider the money so far spent by Bush and company on the war, sixty billion US dollars (US$60,000,000,000.00).

Am I right here with the figure?

Anyway, correct me if I am wrong here and there in this message.

Let me concentrate on the issue, however.

Where does the money come from?

Not from the private pockets of Bush and company.

From the hard-working taxpayers who put Bush and company in the government to be their servants, not to be profligates with their money, in war adventures.

Now, what have Bush and company as servants of taxpayers intended to achieve in spending all that US$60,000,000,000.00 on a war against Saddam Hussein?

To remove Saddam Hussein’s regime from Iraq, take over Iraq, and pursue all the purposes Bush and company want for the U.S. taxpayers, their masters, and for the Iraqi people.

What are these purposes?

First and foremost, so that the U.S.A. will be safe from the dangers posed directly or indirectly by Saddam Hussein, with his so-called weapons of mass destruction.

That’s for the U.S. taxpayers who appointed Bush and company to be their servants.

For the Iraqi people, to bring them liberation from Saddam Hussein, the dictator, and introduce them to the democratic system of government.

So far what have Bush and company in fact achieved?

Lives horribly slaughtered, bodies still alive but dreadfully mangled, homes, buildings, infrastructures, specially electrical and water systems, all destroyed, civil disorder and social chaos.

That’s for the Iraqi people.

For the U.S. taxpayers who put Bush and company in the government to be their servants, are they safer now than before?

Do the Iraqi people welcome the U.S. and want the U.S. to install a democratic system of government for them?

Are U.S. taxpayers more lovable and appreciated by peoples around the intelligent and sane world with this war of Bush and company, their servants?

Let us however see whether there are intelligent and sane ways and means to spend just one-tenth, six billion dollars, to remove Saddam Hussein, than blowing away all that $60,000,000,000.00, with nothing to show but death, destruction and anarchy, more ill-will from the world community, by waging war on Saddam Hussein.
I think it is much more intelligent and sane and very possible and workable to just spend six billion dollars (US$6,000,000,000.00), instead of ten times that amount to remove Saddam Hussein.

And that without all the killing and destruction of war and the consequent ill-will and hatred against the U.S. from many peoples around the world.

With just six billion dollars, for example, (to prescind from ethical considerations), an assassination of Saddam Hussein was very possible.

Within ethical limits of a more practical character, six billion dollars will effect the removal of Saddam Hussein, if Bush and company used it to buy over the critical and crucial personages of Saddam Hussein’s regime, namely, his cabinet ministers and his generals.

On a commercial vein, with six billion dollars, Bush and Company could launch massive business investments in Iraq, whereby Iraqis would improve their economical situations and – I might appear simplistic – absorb capitalistic democratic values, with Saddam Hussein eventually becoming a political irrelevancy.

Lastly, if Bush and company really wanted to liberate the Iraqi people and bring them a democratic system of government, the most effective and constructive way to do it is by education.

With six billion dollars you can establish many many institutions of learning and culture in Iraq, of the Western mold, where the top pins of Saddam Hussein and even he himself will want to send their children and their children’s children for schooling.

And with Western education, again Saddam Hussein would eventually become a political irrelevancy, as the new generation of Iraqi elites arise from families of Saddam and his top pins.
In light of these possible alternatives to war in order to remove Saddam Hussein and procure the safety of U.S. taxpayers:

The war by Bush and company on Saddam Hussein is stupid and crazy.
Maybe I am the one stupid and crazy for entertaining the above alternatives to war.

History will judge, but we can ourselves as well do the judging now, by simply exercising intelligence and keeping ourselves sane, all the time.

Susma Rio Sep

2

As far as I know, SH was not receptive to US overtures to set up schools in Iraq.

But your subject title is broader. Is ALL war stupid and insane?

Were the Allies stupid and insane to declare war on Nazi Germany and Japan?

Or are you just after Bush here?

3

Dear John Mace:

I said:

War is stupid and insane.
War is unintelligent and insane, from the part of the war makers.

Since I started on a life of intelligence and sanity, war has always been for me unintelligence and insanity, in particular when I consider the actuations of the war makers.

I make clear that the stupid and insane war is one of aggression, not one of self-defense.

Of course if wars are launched against peaceable peoples by stupid and insane leaders of hoodwinked states inebriated with military power, then a just war of defense is definitely an essential right of every people against the unjust aggressor.

Susma Rio Sep

4

OK. My misunderstanding.

I know you offered other alternatives to the Iraq war besides “education” but do you really think the US could’ve set up schools in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

5

While some of your ideas may be OK, there was no way to implement them with Saddam in power. He had to go bye-bye so that a new, more democratic, less prone to invade its neighbors, regime could take over.

6

Note to self: Next time preview, please.

7

What I know is that the U.S. will succeed if it sets its mind and heart to what it wants to succeed in – from the history of the U.S.A.

For example, sending the first humans to the moon and back.

What so formidable or insuparable to establishing schools in a country that is not sympathetic to the U.S.?

Ask big business to do it; they get anywhere where the U.S. government does not ban them from going there.

And even if the ban is there, they will get in just the same, by all kinds of legalistic manneuvers and indirect navigations.

How to open schools in Saddam’s country:

Finance Muslim schools where Islam is taught, and start from there.

Win over the Imans by socializing with them.

Open schools of science and technology, and socialize with the students and teachers and trainees there.

Before you know it, the Iraqi elites will be sending their kids to these schools financed by Americans but supposedly taught by local talents.

That’s how the Catholic Church win over families of elites in the lands they set forth to proselytize.

Susma Rio Sep

8

Not sympathetic is one thing. Outright hostile is another. You won’t meet anyone more anti-war than me, but why would Saddam Hussein let America open schools in his country? Anyone who sent their kid would have worried about being murdered anyway. And thanks to the sanctions, there isn’t much of an Iraqi elite left. The people left with money were mostly connected to Saddam.
Oh yeah - and war IS stupid and insane.

9

To Payne N. Diaz:
Thanks for your inputs.

Still, look at the bright side.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

The fall of communism, is it due to U.S. winning the arms race or infiltration of U.S. lifestyle into the consciousness of peoples under communist regimes?

Susma Rio Sep

10

>> Win over the Imans by socializing with them.

You’ll find few who have opposed this war as much as I have but I got a chuckle out of this one. Susma, your heart is in the right place but the OP is too simplistic and idealistic.

As long as there are conflicts among peoples and no other ways of resolving them there shall be wars. The way to prevent wars is to create and develop ways of resolving conflicts. That was the purpose of the UN when it was created by the Allies after WWII. It os sad that the US is undermining it rather than strengthening it.

11

Dear sailor:

“I have a dream!”

Yes, the U.N. is a very essential move in the right direction.

And now the U.S. has effectively emasculated the U.N.
Susma Rio Sep

12

Unless you are diagnosing the participants as licenced medical professional, they are hyperbole.
Let me ask you a couple questions:

-Do you think a brutal dictator should be allowed to remain in power to brutalize his people?

-If you answered no, what methods do you feel are legitimate for removing such a dictator? Another 12 years of useless sanctions? Waiting for him to die of old age like Castro? Military force?

13

Huh!

Good God, y’all!

What is this thread good for, exactly?

14

A bit of idealism backed-up with some solid reasoning and common sense never hurt anyone. Lord knows we have enough of the opposite around here, “the pragmatic albeit reluctant warmongers.”

Good job, Susma.

15

I dunno, I’m skittish about anyone who doesn’t write in paragraphs. A lot of the short Hemingway-esque sentences in the Susma’s posts present simple ideas that are probably unworkable, i.e. “Win over the Imans by socializing with them.” You might win over some Imans, but there are others who will always get a big power-rush by describing the U.S. as “Satan.” This isn’t a fault specific to Islam, but simply the fact that some people love to have power over others and will try to get such power through negative means, mostly by fostering hatred and intolerance.

As for calling war “stupid and insane”… well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. I personally don’t think the recent invasion of Iraq was stupid or insane, but just long overdue.

16

To the first question, may I propose that we do not one-sidedly exaggerate his brutalization of his own people?

At least – of course correct me if I am wrong – Saddam has his good points and has done good for his people.

If anything, women in Iraq would seem to have the best deal there from Saddam; he is a pioneer of women’s equality among Muslim societies in the Middle East.

Remove him, of course, but without the kind of war waged by Bush and company.

I think we should try other alternatives first before resorting to war.
To the second question, even though Saddam is a dictator, nonetheless I think he is a civilized person in the sense that he has regard for his wife or wives or the mothers of his children, for his own mother and father, he loves his children, he maintains a home and heads a family, as compared to uncivilized ones who don’t have any such sentiments.

A dictator with such sentiments is susceptible to reasons designed to convince him to no longer do harms to his own people and not certainly to the American people.

Too idealistic?

Yes, even more than that.

Listen to this:

I was thinking if Bush and Saddam get together on a one-on-one stay-in, to talk about their frustrations, their aspirations, their misrepresentations by their enemies, and their best hopes for their peoples and for the world in general, they might come to very good solutions for the relief of Bush’s preoccupations and those of Saddam, from each other.

Remember, Saddam offered to have a one-on-one debate with Bush; but Bush and company declined.

You know, Bush should not have just refused; he should have proposed something else but along the same line.

Like:

"We’ll have something better than a debate; we will isolate ourselves together under the same roof, where we have to do the cooking ourselves and everything to live decently and comfortably together.

“Then we will get to know how to resolve our differences, and save our peoples all the slaughters, horrors, and catastrophes of war”.
Wouldn’t that be a better option, and much much more economical in lives preserved, homes, buildimgs, infrastructures left standing and operative?
The trouble with people is not too much talking and too much waiting, but not enough.

Susma Rio Sep

17

Is it even possible to exaggerate the brutalization of the Iraqi people under Saddam, short of invkoing references to Auschwitz? I’m pretty sure Iraqi citizens were subjected to a colourful variety or rape, torture and imprisonment during the last 25 or so years, plus a few chemical-weapons attacks to liven things up.

I won’t call you wrong just yet, but I’ll just ask you to list some of Saddam’s positive accomplishments, particularly the ones that would not have happened but for his guidance.

Well, that’s what happens when you establish a secular dictatorship instead of a religious dictatorship. Incidentally, what were Iraqi women equal to? Iraqi men? Soooo, does that mean they could all be imprisoned and tortured equally?

Well, had it been possible to just assassinate Saddam, his sons and 100 or so other senior officials without launching any missiles into Iraq, I would have been in favour of it, but that alternative wasn’t really available. How should he have been removed?

He’s probably kind to his pets, too, but so what? The problem was that in order to show his “regard” for his family (especially his sons), he was perfectly happy to kill lots of people.

“Idealistic” isn’t the word I would use, unless a new definition meaning “completely divorced from reality” was added in the latest edition of the dictionary. Dictators respect only power, not reason. Offhand, I can’t think of a recent dictator that was “talked” into stepping down.

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! And maybe they could stand around the campfire, toasting marshmallows and chanting “Kumbaya.”

Saddam isn’t a vicious bloodthirsty tyrant! He’s just misunderstood!

18

Trust you won’t mind if I take a stab at the above for I find the inherent irony too delicious to pass up.

Would you not agree that the best way to avoid having to topple dictators by any means is not propping them up in the first place? I mean, don’t you find it just a tad hypocritical for the main hawk in this Administration, Mr Rumsfeld, to have met with Saddam in order to express solidarity with his regime? Or how about the fact that the USA backed – and through the CIA, helped rise/keep in power – men such as Pinochet, Noriega, Somoza, Suharto, Marcos, Mobuto and the Sha? There are more, to be sure, and not all of them are American creations. But the point stands, a dictator, apparently, is only a “dictator”’ if he runs against US’s interest.

Further, please point me towards any specific speech, either to the UN or the American public in general, where your beloved leader of free men, Mr Dubya, gave “the toppling of the Saddam regime” as his main reason for invading Iraq. See, you won’t be able to, because A-he never said it and B-there’s this little institution called the “United Nations” (and yes, I know how annoying some of you find it because they refuse to cowtow to your will, but hey, you did sign on) that maintains that regime change is no legal reason to invade a sovereign country. Not that legality stopped you from invading under the second pretext of course. But that’s a whole 'nother subject that has some of you all pouty – I understand that you’re now going to “punish” France for being so uppity, while ignoring Germany, Russia, China and most of the rest of the civilized world who was gainst your little tour de force.

Anyhow, let’s pretend none of the above really happened for the purpose of this exercise, shall we? Good. Then when will you be moving on to your next target? Shoot, allow me to suggest a few:

[ul]
[li]Kim Jong-il (North Korea)[/li]
[li]King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)[/li]
[li]Charles Taylor (Liberia) [/li]
[li]Charles Taylor (Liberia) [/li]
[li]Than Shwe (Burma)[/li]
[li]Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea) [/li]
[li]Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan) [/li]
[li]Muammar Gaddafi (Libya) [/li]
[/ul]
I am sure there are plenty more I am forgetting, but I did save the best for last. See, this guy is literally only miles from your shore – in fact, you yourself mentioned him – and his repressive regime has been acting up as of late. Besides, there’s no doubt in my mind he is in possesion of eviiiiiiil WMD close to your shores! Drum roll please…Mr Fidel Castro!

Now, as far as I know, there’s very little oil in Cuba – although apparently they are exploring offshore deposits, so don’t lose all hope – but imagine just how happy all those Cubans will be once you “liberate” them. Brings a tear to the eye just thinking about, doesn’t it?

So, how about it? You wouldn’t want the rest of the world to keep thinking you’re acting like hypocrites with this whole Iraq business, do you? Because we already know that might makes right, and no one’s as mighty as you. Cuba needs you for all of the same reasons Iraq did, and more. Then again, as the OP of another recent thread implies, maybe it’s true and most of you simply “don’t care.”

If that’s the case, the future doesn’t look too promising. For anyone.

19

And you’re obviously not power hungry capitalist using Saddam as an excuse to invade Iraq for geopolitical gains and control of the oil flow in OPEC! Misunderstood indeed!

LMAO!

20

For people loyal to him, yes. The problem is, this amounts to Baathists from Tikrit. Everyone else was screwed. The whole regime of Iraq wasn’t based only around Hussein, but around the baathist party structure. Basically, Iraq was a little USSR.

We did, and assassination is verboten. Aside from which, the problem was not just Hussein but the Baathist party. He controlled Iraq through the party, as the Communists in Russia did. That means we need a very big tool to “stick” them with, since we have to affect a whole class of people. That proved to be impossible. The sanctions did nothing but impoverish those not loyal to Saddam. The regie eadership just took more from the people and funneled the oil profts to themselves and the Republican guard.

Oh, yeah. Thing is, he HATED us for the Gulf war humiliation. And quite frankly, I don’t think Bush wanted to deal with Saddam at all. The man was a human monster. He was slime. He didn’t want to deal, he wanted to rule.

I’m sorry, I am still trying to understand how anyone could possibly state this with a straight face.

You’ll note we’ve tried with about half of these guys or their predecessors.

Him, too. Last I recall, we failed and decided it was better to wait him out.

First of all, your assertion this war wasn “really” about oil is rather uncited. Second, even if it were about oil, so what? I can think of many things worth going to war over, and energy resources are one of the tops. Third, don’t be too sure there ain’t peope who would love for the US to take out Castro; there are thousands upon thousands of Floridians who left Cuba, and Castro’s regime is still a brutal and autocratic one. The secret police still throw people into prison, and dissidents are still crushed. It isn’t as brutal as Baathist Iraq, but its a difference of degree rather than kind.