posted
It's very easy for some people to ignore and dehumanize Arabs they have never met, so let me see if this makes a difference (at the risk of violating one of the great rules of internet debate):
If Hitler had failed in his initial attempt to invade another country, and instead had only murdered Jews within his own borders, would neighboring nations have been justified in using military force to overthrow him? Or would they have been right to sit on their hands and say, "Oh well ... sucks to be a German Jew"?
Granted, we had more than one motive to attack Iraq. We needed a foothold in the Middle East, we had a job that we had left shamefully unfinished in 1991 (an act which condemned many Iraqi rebels to their deaths), and we believed that there were WMDs within Iraq's borders.
But even if none of those reasons were good enough, as many of us believe ... could any amount of slaughter of Shi'ites, Kurds, and dissidents have warranted an invasion? If so, how many deaths would it take?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Out of interest, why pick out Iraq? Saudi Arabia's openly funding terrorist organizations, and most of the 9/11 terrorists came from there -- any particular reason you can think of why Bush chose Iraq over Saudi Arabia? Beyond, of course, that Saudia Arabia's already extremely friendly to his oil interests?
And I can think of a crapload of other countries that need regime changes.
But all this is besides the point in the first place -- are you honestly going to pretend Bush marketed this as a human rights crusade rather than a false imminent-threat Al-Queda-related WMD-developing story designed to throw fear into the American public? Fear really does seem to be the only reason why Bush has ever been popular...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
errrm... The US military was under orders from the BushAdministration to allow the Iraqi regular army and the RepublicanGuards safe passage through American lines to quell the southern Shiite rebellion while Bush was actively encouraging the uprising. Low estimate of Shiite deaths during that particular 1991 Iraqi democide is ~80,000.
quote:But even if none of those reasons were good enough, as many of us believe ... could any amount of slaughter of Shi'ites, Kurds, and dissidents have warranted an invasion? If so, how many deaths would it take?
See, unlike most anti-war protestors, I would have been for the war if 1) Bush had not lied to me, 2) it was clear that the people of Iraq wanted it, and 3) if we had gone about it in a much less patronizing and ignorant manner. For me, the issue that is at the heart of the matter is that Bush lied to me and the rest of the world and caused damage to this country that we have not even begun to feel. I also distrust the motives of this nation's leaders because they are easily corrupted by money and power. If I did not fear that the imperialistic nature of the Bush administration and the staggering power of the PNAC doctrine would lead to terrible consequences for the US, I would not be so vocal in my condemnation of the Bush administration.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I can think of a crapload of other countries that need regime changes.
That's true, though most are even LESS diplomatically possible to invade than Iraq was. And as we've seen, despite many halting attempts by our administration to build international support for this war, it was a diplomatic disaster.
There are other times when we should have intervened, and did not. Rwanda comes to mind. If only ...
quote:are you honestly going to pretend Bush marketed this as a human rights crusade rather than blah blah blah ...
No, I'm not saying that Bush marketed this as a human rights crusade. He based his public justification for the war, particularly to the UN, on the threat of WMDs because that seemed like the most persuasive "marketing" strategy at the time. It was by far not the main reason for going in, but I think when you're trying to build support for something, you're allowed to play to your audience a little.
But as I said above, there were a LOT of different reasons to go to war. One of them was the debt we owed to the suffering Iraqi people.
quote:I would have been for the war if 1) Bush had not lied to me
Wait a sec. It's a just war, except that your president lied to you, so now you're against it, just to spite him? Sounds a little petty.
[ February 20, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I reject the idea that the Iraq war was waged for the people of Iraq. I know the Bush admin. trumpets this reason up and down, but it doesn't add up. The United States military should never be used to carry out moral cruisades. Those who serve sign up to protect the US from the bad guys, not to save Liberians or Iraqi's or anybody else.
Iraq seems also to be a special case. We obviously created the mess by funding Saddam and encouraging his militarism. I think we had a special obligation to keep him in line.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, unlike most anti-war protestors, I would have been for the war if 1) Bush had not lied to me, 2) it was clear that the people of Iraq wanted it, and 3) if we had gone about it in a much less patronizing and ignorant manner.
I'm with you on this one.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you on 1) and 3) but I'm not sure about 2) With someone like Sadaam in power I don't know that it is ever "clear" what Joe Shmo on the Iraqi street actually wants.
posted
I think that Bush himself was actually an obstacle to my support of the war. That is, I probably would have been quicker to support it if it weren't for him and the way he approached it. I didn't trust him.
I remember saying to my wife that if Saddam really wanted to get at Bush, all he would have to do is get rid of the WMD's so that none were ever found. (I assumed he had them). I thought that would be a huge political and international disaster. Go figure.
Anyway, I agree that the war in Iraq really was/is justified/justifiable/just. It just turns out that WMD's may not have been the most compelling of the reasons for the war (although I still believe that is a legitimate, though not major, justification).
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
As keeps being pointed out, we used to back him. We were responsible, in a way, for all he did and it was our job to get rid of him.
WMDs were an after the fact justification which is why it got twisted. I think it was wrong for Bush ever to accept pressure to use them as a justification.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Hitler had failed in his initial attempt to invade another country, and instead had only murdered Jews within his own borders, would neighboring nations have been justified in using military force to overthrow him?
Or how about this analogy:
If Hitler had failed in his initial attempt to invade another country, and instead had only murdered Jews within his own borders, would it be okay for neighboring peoples to send in terrorist suicide bombers to try and disrupt the Nazi regime? And would this mean terrorism is always okay?
Isn't it fun to justify things with Hitler?
----
How about this analogy:
If America had been killing a whole race of people (the Native Americans perhaps) or had been enslaving a whole other race (like African Americans), does this mean France or Britain should have invaded America and replaced our government?
----
Also, how can the Bush administration talk about interfering with other countries' internal affairs in the name of human rights? After all, remember the Internationl Criminal Court that the U.S. rejected? Their reasoning for that rejection was essentially that other nations should not be able to govern the U.S.'s internal affairs. Now, how can we possibly say it's wrong for a jointly recognized legal court to interfere with human rights in the U.S., but then turn around and say it IS okay for a single nation to unilaterally decide to skip legal maneuvers and invade a country to interfere with human rights in that country?
posted
I love GWB and all, but I thought the WMD argument was always kind of roundabout and also, I don't see a visible leader of the troops. This may just be the media, but I've never seen a president so personally linked with an armed conflict.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you build a just war on unjust pretenses?
The question here is, if you build a war on just pretenses, but publically market it with faulty ones, is the justness of the war invalidated?
TRES
quote:If Hitler had failed in his initial attempt to invade another country, and instead had only murdered Jews within his own borders, would it be okay for neighboring peoples to send in terrorist suicide bombers to try and disrupt the Nazi regime? And would this mean terrorism is always okay?
Far as I can see, killing more civilians is never a morally effective way to protest the slaughter of civilians, so no, that would be really stupid.
quote:If America had been killing a whole race of people (the Native Americans perhaps) or had been enslaving a whole other race (like African Americans), does this mean France or Britain should have invaded America and replaced our government?
In our case, it wasn't the nature of our government that contributed to our savage treatment of the Native Americans. If anything, it gave us plenty of unused opportunities to stop ourselves.
But yes, I think it would have been really nice if another country, or group of countries, had been enlightened enough in those days to protest our annexation and annihilation of nations of Native Americans, even going so far as to use military pressure to stop us if we refused to respond to diplomacy. But no one was there, and now we've done something that will live in infamy throughout all of history.
Today, we at least claim to be a more enlightened nation, and we sometimes find ourselves in a position from which we could stop atrocities across the world. Maybe there is a way we can atone, to some degree, for our own past mistakes by stopping new ones from occurring. Or do any of you think that once our nation committed an atrocity, we lost the right to condemn anyone else for theirs, and must let them all slide, for fear of having our own sins pointed out?
quote:Now, how can we possibly say it's wrong for a jointly recognized legal court to interfere with human rights in the U.S., but then turn around and say it IS okay for a single nation to unilaterally decide to skip legal maneuvers and invade a country to interfere with human rights in that country?
As I said, if at any point, we begin the wholesale slaughter of dissidents or second-class citizens within our borders, our rights to our own sovereignty begin to crumble. I think there should be an understanding between national governments that any government's sovereignty depends on its ability to avoid decimating its own population. The more brutal your massacres, the less your sovereignty will be respected abroad.
That said, however, you're right that the US has a much better claim on the legitimacy of a war when it faces a direct threat to its own security, slightly less of one when an allied nation is threatened (as Israel was by Iraq's rewards for Palestinian terrorists), and not so much when it simply perceives a government to be a threat to its own people. It has a claim in all three situations, but the former claim is far stronger, and much more justifiable, which is why we used it in the UN. (The second strategy might have worked, to some degree, if anyone in the UN besides us cared a bit about Jewish lives lost in Israel.)
So, here's a question. Since Saddam has been largely discounted as having been an immediate threat to our own security, would it have been more justifiable for us to invade a country that is known to sponsor large-scale terrorist attacks, such as Syria or Iran?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I do not think we can or should leave until some order is presented for the Iraqi people.
Last year, on this board, I was pro-war.
That doesn't mean I am not mad at President Bush for trying to "market" this war to me.
Yes, there are great things that have happened on account of this war, and more will continue to happen. However, to abuse the American trust, and dismantle the reputation of the Presidency to do it angers me.
For all I know, trying to save the Iraqi people, and taking responsibility for our neglect may be the reasons why President Bush went to war in Iraq.
But how can we know?
Do we trust him that this is the reason? Why? The other reasons, followed by his "Trust me" comments have proven to be wrong.
It is just as possible that President Bush was seeking the Holy Grail buried in the Iraqi desert.
There is one argument why this was not the foremost reason the US went to war with Iraq. The President's staff spent many solid months building the international case for war with Iraq. They planned far ahead, getting Congressional approval long before it was needed. The military has spent years preparing for the invasion of Iraq (or re-invasion).
Yet if the reason we invaded Iraq was to free the people of Iraq and offer them a better government, why had no one planned on how this would be done?
In April and May of last year, through most of last summer, the rioting and looting and chaos that was the political void left by Saddaam fall caught us off gaurd. We had not police to send in, no plans on how to restore order.
If the number one goal was to safegaurd the Iraqi people, why were we not prepared to do so as the war ended?
One final analogy.
WWII helped spawn the creation and use of Anti-biotics. Penicillin was first synthesised and produced to help save allied troops. Since then Anti-biotics have saved millions, if not billions of lives. Does this excuse the Nazis?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMHO, we MUST stay in Iraq. Whatever dubious reasons got us there mean nothing at this point. We are there. If we leave now or before the country is stabilized then the entire region will meltdown: Chaos and civil war and neighboring nations trying to get their own piece of territory. Thus a huge breeding ground for death, terrorism, and more hate towards the USA. When we first invaded a large part of the military ran away and melted into the cities. Those people and weapons are still out there, plus all the foriegn terrorists come to Iraq to kill Americans and Allies. The reason, in my opinion, for this upswing in rebellion is because we plan to hand over power back to the Iraq provisional government at the end of June. These people are trying to make it so impossible to make the transfer, forcing us to stay to keep civil war at bay, thus proving to the area that the West are evil imperialist and plan to keep Iraq forever. We cannot give into that.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Far as I can see, killing more civilians is never a morally effective way to protest the slaughter of civilians, so no, that would be really stupid.
What if the terrorists bombers were not targeting German civilians, but rather centers of Nazi power, or Nazi ships, or Nazi bases - and they only "accidently" happened to kill lots of civilians at the same time, in the way America acciently killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians when it was targeting Saddam's power structures? Would this be okay then? And would it mean all terrorism targeted an noninnocents, such as the attack on the Pentagon (military target), are okay?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think people really worry a lot about the Pentagon attack. How many of the 9/11 survivors that we see on the TV are relations of Pentagon military?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a force (be it "good" or "evil") attempts to achieve their goals through the sacrifice of human lives, through their co-operation of not, must be stopped. Though I detest any form of war, WW II was a war that had tp be fought. The Nazi regime, Hitler, and their beliefs had to be stopped.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I know you didn't mean that in a hurtful manner, but to people in Northern Virginia and the DC area, the Pentagon attack touched many, many lives. More people were killed in NY, so there are more surviving relatives, but that doesn't minimize the pain of the Pentagon survivors.
posted
I think that what pooka was trying to point out was that Americans don't get as offended about the pentagon attack. It's more of a valid target. But the Trade Center -- these were civilians that had nothing to do with anything the terrorists were mad about -- that was pure terrorism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my fear. A new "Hitler" will come to power somewhere. His danger will be recognized, but because this Iraq war has been such a political and diplomatic disaster, nobody will have the guts to do anything about it, he will go largely unopposed, just like Hitler. If that happens, I sure hope that the world wakes up before it's too late. We almost waited too long with Hitler.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that. But I know a lot of people who are hurt when the attacks are referred to and only NY is mentioned. I just wanted to point out that a lot of people are being unintentionally hurt and attempt to raise some awareness on the subject.
quote:The question here is, if you build a war on just pretenses, but publically market it with faulty ones, is the justness of the war invalidated?
Yes it is.
The costs of war are far too high to treat it as if it were an infomercial. Besides, you cannot have a just war when the people who are dying in it are playing predator and prey for causes unknown to them.
President Bush got his War because the Constitution states in its preamble that our government has an obligation to provide for the common defense, and he told us that in this one case the danger was so urgent that it warranted outright and immediate invasion of a sovereign nation. Most of us gave him the benefit of the doubt. Myself included.
That you are not outraged by this blatant usurpation of government of-for-by the people, Geoff, is troubling to me. I know you maintain that it was necessary for BushCo to become super-spindoctors because we are all so suicidally squeamish about doing what must be done; but I'm wondering at what point you think the most powerful office on Earth ought to be held to a higher standard than the appearance of justness.
posted
"But the Trade Center -- these were civilians that had nothing to do with anything the terrorists were mad about -- that was pure terrorism. "
I'm not certain this is true. There is a reason that the WTC was targeted twice within the same decade for a terrorist attack. I am ignorant of the exact nature of the the business that takes place at the WTC but would it be naive of me to assume it has something to to do with World Trade? Isn't one of the terrorist objectives to make the "west" stop profitting off the these "poor" middle east countries? I thought that is one of the reasons they comdem us for "interfereing" with their society. Makes the WTC, although a civilian target, not less connected with their cause.
quote:The question here is, if you build a war on just pretenses, but publically market it with faulty ones, is the justness of the war invalidated?
When you sell the war on one false pretense and hide the real reason for that war, the implication is that the public would not think the true justification alone would be enough. And in a democracy, it's the public that gets to decide, or someone who we presume represents them. President Bush can claim all he wants that helping the Iraq people justifies this war, but the fact that he did not offer that justification to the public beforehand indicates that his administration knew the people did not agree that that was enough.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit the following as true statements from which to draw an opinion about Iraq about. Please refute them if you feel they are erroneous:
1) Saddam Hussien was the leader of a country that was: a) Openly hostile to the US over the last decade and continually so until the present time. b) Had fired upon US military aircraft sporadically. c) Openly defied the terms under which a cease fire had been established in the previous Gulf War by seeking banned weopons systems and installing ofensive radar installations in he no fly zone. d) Repeatedly denied UN weapon inspectors access to sites suspected of containing research for WMD type weapons. e) Supported terrorist organizations including but not limited to providing money to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers.
2) Saddam Hussien maintained his power by slaughtering and torturing those within his country that spoke out against him. Including women and children.
3) We along with the rest of world beleived that Iraq probaly had some sort of WMD. (Yes including France and other nations that opposed the war. It is my understanding that they also beleived that they had them, but they disagreed with invasion for other reasons or beleived that ten years of negotiating with Saddam to give them up ws not enough andd more talking would have been a better solution)
4) Ten years of talking to Saddam had resulted in no notable changes in his regime. The UN had been largly ineffective in persuadng Saddam to anything but pay lip service to it's edicts.
It's also true that, at the threat of American invasion, the inspectors had once again been allowed to do their jobs. It was an American leader who cut their work short this time.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
What if Gore won and had done exactly this? Would you justify him or not? Really? I mean, reach deep: is it just because Bush did it that makes it bad. Or would have disagreed with it no matter what?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you ask that I "reach deeply" because you assume my disapproval of the Bush administration and subsequent judgments about Iraq 2.0 are motivated purely by partisanship? And if so, did you understand any of the reasons provided in this thread by myself and others for said disapproval, or did your love of BushCo make the points too hazy for you to make out? Reach Deep.
Um, yeah, if Gore had done exactly the same thing I'd be exactly as pissed off. Seeing as how none of the PNAC boys were on Gore's short list for White House jobs, that seems pretty unlikely, but it's your hypothetical situation.
Please remember that I supported this President's decision to go to war when I believed he was being candid with the American people. My views on Iraq 2.0 have nothing to do with political parties.
posted
"It's also true that, at the threat of American invasion, the inspectors had once again been allowed to do their jobs. It was an American leader who cut their work short this time. "
I think that is an opinion not a fact Mr. Keats. Hans may have claimed that this was the case, but why, after ten years of playing this game of selectivy playing the "allow inspector to look here, but not there" type game would it be reasonable to beleive that they would cooperate? And as I recall we gave them extended deadline after extended deadline. And they pretendd to comply until we got too near something and then changed their tune. At least that as the appearance that they made by being so variable in their policies of when and where the UN could look. This only strengthened the world oppinion that they were in fact hiding things.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't the inspector's given free reign in the early months of 2003, or is my memory just an opinion?
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:4) Ten years of talking to Saddam had resulted in no notable changes in his regime. The UN had been largly ineffective in persuadng Saddam to anything but pay lip service to it's edicts.
Are any of these false?
Four is definitely false. As we now know, Saddam got rid of hiw WMDs at some point during this period of "talking". That was one of the biggest demands and definitely qualifies as "notable".
Also, although #3 is true, it should be added that that "belief" was not backed up by any proof, and the U.N. inspectors that were allowed into Iraq specifically stated that they found no WMDs and nothing that would clearly indicate they still had them. Saddam also repeatedly denied he had any. Thus our belief was little more than that - a belief.
Also, you have only submitted pro-war facts. If you are going to draw an opinion from a list of facts, you've got to include ALL the facts - or else the opinion you draw will be skewed.
quote:What if Gore won and had done exactly this? Would you justify him or not? Really? I mean, reach deep: is it just because Bush did it that makes it bad. Or would have disagreed with it no matter what?
Of course! I'd really question anyone who'd allow this war just on the grounds that the person they voted for wanted it.
I voted for Gore, but at the time I had difficulty deciding (they both seemed bad chocices). It is Bush's actions that have clearly marked him as a poor decision-maker and leader of this country, in my mind.
posted
Paladin, the question then becomes who do we target next.
And it still doesn't answer the question, if the main reason we were invading Iraq was to save its people, why were there no adequate plans in place to help the people instead of just conquering their army.
The crime in Iraq, that President Bush will avoid discussing tonight, is not the war, or the mistakes made before 9/11.
The crime is that President Bush and his neo-conservative friends got what they had wanted, a premptive war to topple one crazy leader and allow us to prove that Democracy can thrive in a muslim country.
However, their entire post-war plan was built on neo-conservative premises that were based on ideals that held little or no association to reality.
1) That Iraqi's, freed of Sadaam's rule, would welcome the US as a father figure, allowing themselves to be remade in our image.
2) That the Iraqi people would behave as docile, scared, children, hiding in their basements, until the war was over and we could save them. Looting and crimminal behavior would not happen. After all, these people have been too beaten down by Sadaam.
3) The extremists in the Muslim world would be so shocked by our military might that they would stay out of Iraq until we had time to set up our democratic/western institutions.
4) All Iraqi's would automatically know we are doing only whats best for them and behave like good boys and girls.
5) They would welcome back their exhiled kinsmen, who are trained in Western/American ways of doing things, and could take dignified control of the country.
6) Such exiles would never lie to their American sponsors to a)get the war they wanted, b)get the jobs they want, or c)steal from their own homeland.
7) Democracy and capitalism, once begun, would sweep the country in a wave of peaceful political freedom, totally non-violent and free from ancient ties of clan or Ba'athist party.
8)In exchange for us freeing them, the Iraqi people would cut off all support and association with Palestenian terrorist groups like Hamas.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit the following as true statements from which to draw an opinion about Iraq about.
1) In 1990, Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, among other things: "...we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
2) In 1991, Iraq began mustering its forces to invade Kuwait. Up until two weeks before the invasion, Amercian arms were still arriving in Iraq.
3) In the summer of 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and was promptly invaded by America.
Based only on these three facts – all of which are true – it's obvious that America blatantly set Iraq up for some unfathomable reason. That's the only logical conclusion.
See, I can make conjectures based only on a limited number of true facts too!
(Just in case anyone didn't get the joke, I'm quite aware that this is a gross oversimplification – just like PaladinVirtue's list. That's the point. This post has been brought to you by Mr. S. A. Tire.)
posted
Even if we accept Geoff's suggestion that President Bush and his adminstration had the liberation of the Iraqi people as their primary goal from the start (and I find this rather far-fetched), we still have the problem of the dishonest, manipulative way they went about it.
As I said before, the idea that, because the American people don't agree with doing something for the reasons that their leaders think they should, the leaders should lie and manipulate the public to get them to do it anyway is extremely elitist and, I think, an affront to the ideal of populist government.
If they wanted to liberate the Iraqi people, they should have made that case and let us evaluate it on its merits. If they are just going to lie and manipulate, why should we even ask for reasons? How much different is the situation where they take actions without providing any justification and where they take action under false justifications?
Seriously, Geoff, aren't you pretty much saying that it was not just ok, but actually the right thing that they ignored the opinion of the American people in this matter? As you said in the other thread, you seem to believe that the American people have a suicidial desire and the Bush adminstration did the best thing to protect them by tricking them.
For myself, I hopw that we aren't electing a king every four years, but rather a representative that bears a responsibility to the people that he is representing. If we live in a system where the President not only can, but should be allowed to do whatever he can trick people into letting him do, I don't see how we can even pretend that we live in a populist country.
One of the worst parts for is that there are times when the government has to rely on the trust of the people. However, at present, I have no trust that when President Bush tells me, "We can't tell you about the information we're basing this on, but it's there and it's serious." that, if I knew what he knew, that I'd support his position, or in fact that there is actually any secret information at all. It could be another case where he thinks that we should do something for some reason that won't come out until way after the actions have been taken and our course is set.
I'm not willing to extend this trust to any politician based solely on their office, especially one that has, in my opinion, never even tried to demonstrate his trustworthiness and has already violated my trust, such as President Bush.
I think that it is especially telling that apologists such as Geoff have had to go against their previously stated values (Geoff, in my experience, has always been very anti-elitist) in order to account for Bush's actions. When, as happened with Clinton, even your supporters can't defend you without violating their principles, you've pretty much shown how little trust you deserve.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I add anything intellectual to this discussion, I would just like to point out that in a thread with exactly *one* smiley used (and the rolling-eye smiley at that), the Google ads are pointing us to sites offering "1,000 Free Smileys!"
(Okay, now there's two.)
Considering how many smiles are in the *average* Hatrack thread, I find this rather ironic.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side issue, I supported the war based on the false information I was presented and told to trust. I made the argument to my more sceptical friends that the government wouldn't have the effrontery to lie about such a big issue. I have since had to appologize to them for trusting my government to tell me the truth.
If the government had made the "liberating the Iraqi people" justification in the same manner that they are now pushing, I would not have supported the war. For one thing, I would have regarded it as diverting attention from the more serious problem of terrorism. Anothe extremely big issue is that the way that it is now being justified almost completely ignores the rule of law. I don't support a foreign policy where we can attack people because we think that they are bad. This is not an adequate reason for foreign interventions of this magnitude.
There are reasons that we have laws. The line between good and bad is far too blurry and subjective. We don't allow police to arrest people because they're bad people. It is on;y when they break laws that the police are authorized to arrest them.
This is not to say that a case couldn't have been made that Saddam Hussien had broken laws that authorized us to go to war. But, even now, this argument is not being made. We have abandoned the idea that we need to respect the rule of law. As soon as you do that, you enter the world of might makes right. Our real justifiation is not that Saddam Hussien could be proven to have done bad things deserving on punishment, but that we didn't like him and we had enough power to attack him. By that rationale, we could attack anyone else we didn't like unless they or someone else who cared had the power to stop us. I really don't want to live in that sort of country or that sort of world.
edit: To put it in perspective, America has been castigated by a large section of the rest of the world for applying the death penalty to children. They think that we are bad guys because of this and that we are killing people who don't deserve death. By the logic I've been referencing they'd be justified in attacking us to stop us, as long as they were strong enough to pull it off.
posted
"(Just in case anyone didn't get the joke, I'm quite aware that this is a gross oversimplification – just like PaladinVirtue's list. That's the point. This post has been brought to you by Mr. S. A. Tire.)"
Umm, Twink, would like to read my post again? I did not make any "over simplified" conclusions, or any conclusions at all. I was simply asking if those statements were true or not. Although it was slightly transparent that I supported the decision for the war, and did so for those reasons, I was not trying to use that list to persuade anyone really. My point was not to draw a conclusion as to whether the war was just or not, I just wished to remind everyone why the decision to make war was made and what we beleived the facts of the war to be at that time.
As far as them being considered a limited list, please feel free to add any other facts that you feel are pertinent. But please don't add hindsight because that was not available to us before the invasion. I invite a freindly reply.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your other points are good, and I do support the war, but until there is an Iraqi bomb in US hands, I will not believe that they have them. I know they had the at one time, but they were probably either used up, destroyed, or sold to neigbouring countries.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
