Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Iraq Updates V

Iraq Updates

  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#41 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 07:21 AM

Yes G, in *my* opinion Bush=Bad.  Nay, Bush=Evil.  

And Chiron and Norville, THANK you.

Look guys (looks at G and others), I know this is something we aren't going to agree on.  Thus far we've done a damn good job of understanding that  people of good conscience (thanks for the term jon) CAN disagree about this.  I don't condemn you for supporting Bush.  I WISH I supported Bush.  It seems a natural thing to support the leader of the country.  But I don't.  I never have, and chances are excellent I never will.  That does NOT mean that I equate those who support him with the wrongs I think he's guilty of.  We simply disagree.

*shrug*

Vive La Difference (and YES I'm using FRENCH on purpose)
Posted Image

#42 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 07:28 AM

Quote

I know this is something we aren't going to agree on. Thus far we've done a damn good job of understanding that people of good conscience (thanks for the term jon) CAN disagree about this.

Amen.

Quote

(thanks for the term jon)

APOTS, m'dear.  :blush:

No hard feelings?
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#43 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,498 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 07:44 AM

Quote

And Chiron and Norville, THANK you.

You're very welcome, Lil. I keep saying I should be quiet, but then, something moves me to say more. I think it's the "speaking truth to power" recommended by Quakers.

Quote

Look guys (looks at G and others), I know this is something we aren't going to agree on. Thus far we've done a damn good job of understanding that people of good conscience (thanks for the term jon) CAN disagree about this.

I'm doing it in good conscience, yes. I can't get much more straightforward than I already am, which makes it a laugh when anyone here tries to twist my words to say something they want to believe I said, in order to attack it (such as the freaky case of my saying I'd heard a news report of an Iraqi woman in Egypt, and this person saying "Not an Iraqi. Nice company you keep!").

C'est la vie... c'est la guerre... yes, French again. ;)

Quote

I WISH I supported Bush. [...] But I don't. [...] That does NOT mean that I equate those who support him with the wrongs I think he's guilty of. We simply disagree.

This is what's become of debate and disagreement in recent times, however. Since everyone has an agenda, then to disagree with one person means we're attacking everyone who agrees with that person. It's paranoid and flat-out hostile, attack-dog style. I'd like some sort of return to civility, but I guess everyone's just so cynical these days, civility is boring.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#44 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 08:25 AM

jon3831, on Apr 12 2003, 05:17 AM, said:

APOTS, m'dear.  :blush:

No hard feelings?
{{{{{{{{{{{jon}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

No hard feelings.

And thank you.

Lil
Posted Image

#45 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 08:27 AM

Norville, on Apr 12 2003, 05:33 AM, said:

This is what's become of debate and disagreement in recent times, however. Since everyone has an agenda, then to disagree with one person means we're attacking everyone who agrees with that person. It's paranoid and flat-out hostile, attack-dog style. I'd like some sort of return to civility, but I guess everyone's just so cynical these days, civility is boring.
Word!

I think you summed it up perfectly!
Posted Image

#46 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 08:39 AM

Quote

Zack: On the one hand, Iran might be restrained by seeing American troops knocking off regimes (albeit ones they hated) on two of their borders.

I wonder if moving MOAB into the area so late in the conflict wasn't more so a message for Syria and Iran.  Kind of a if you come pouring over the border then big one gets dropped on your head.  

Quote

Zack: With the Zagros mountains as a natural barrier, a much more advanced nuclear program, three times the population of Iraq and a government that hasn't been diplomatically isolated and weakened by 12 years of sanctions, they'd also be a lot tougher nut to crack.

Agreed.  Toss in that they have their Kilo class subs and a good natural chokepoint to the Gulf that they can block.  All together a more formidable opponent than Iraq.

Though Iran most likely can keep score and see that Coalition Forces in the area weren't at their peak when Iraq was knocked out. You still have 4 ID and 1 ID currently being transported in and 1st Armor and 1st Cav slated for arrival.  So it is fairly obvious that rather than being stymied by the conflict US power in the region is still building.  The good news is the captured air bases in Iraq are very important not just for humanitarian aid but also for USAF tactical air.  The lions share of our air support for this conflict was either the heavy bombers or USN carrier based aircraft.  Meanwhile USAF's tactical aircraft were hindered severely by the lack of basing facilities that they could launch from.    

So while Iran has some areas where they can say yay we are tougher than Iraq I think there is enough to make them think, “well this might not be the best course of action for our health”.

Quote

Hawk: Rov, that constitutes a material breach, you're in possession of weapons of mass derision.... and now, the folks who live in New York might have to demand some EI regime change!!!

Down with the EI regime!  Rise up New Yorkers and take down Rov. ;)  Meh sounds like too much work.  It is far easier to pick on say Canada. :D

Quote

Lil: What do you expect from an administration that refers to civillian losses as collateral damage?

Lil, respectfully I think you are off on this one.  I can’t think of a US administration that hasn’t used that term in recent history.  It should have been the Clinton Administrations catch phrase and nearly was so. Every administration Democrat or Republican uses the term.

Quote

Jon: We have gone out of our way to minimize civilian casualties, to a degree unheard of in history.

To a degree that often places the people on the front in greater danger than if they went into the situation full bore.  

Quote

Lil They started this war for unjust reasons and nothing that has happened since they did so has changed my view that they did that. And I don't know about your definition of murder but unjust killing certainly comes within my definition.

I think the point is that many of us don’t think this is a unjust war.  Consider a situation that has a guy running around waving a gun on the street next to you.  He has all ready shot members of his own family with the gun and knifed the next door neighbor.  How many people are going to argue with whoever shoots him if they spend say a decade telling him to put down the gun?  

Quote

Norville: My use of freedom doesn't involve going out and behaving like a terrorist.

Your use might not or anyone else here might not use it that way; however consider how those “wonderful” protestors behaved in San Francisco.  People do regularly abuse their freedoms to the detriment of society.  That is part of the risk of having a free society and I think myself it is outweighed by the advantages.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#47 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 08:52 AM

Quote

I think the point is that many of us don’t think this is a unjust war. Consider a situation that has a guy running around waving a gun on the street next to you. He has all ready shot members of his own family with the gun and knifed the next door neighbor. How many people are going to argue with whoever shoots him if they spend say a decade telling him to put down the gun?

I'm well aware that many people view this war as justified (I've got family that feels that way).  So?  Do you see me condemning you?  Calling you a War Monger or some other inflammatory term?


No.

And your analogy is so off it's almost not worth responding to because it flagrantly ignores a little old thing called sovereignty.  Something that just doesn't apply to your analogy.

BTW, the guy in your scenario would still be tried for murder.

Think about it.

Lil
Posted Image

#48 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 09:10 AM

Quote

Lil: I'm well aware that many people view this war as justified (I've got family that feels that way). So? Do you see me condemning you? Calling you a War Monger or some other inflammatory term?

I don’t recall my calling anyone here a “inflammatory term” at any point especially you.  If I did say something offensive other than just stating I disagree with your viewpoint then do tell me so I can apologize.  
  

Quote

Lil: And your analogy is so off it's almost not worth responding to because it flagrantly ignores a little old thing called sovereignty. Something that just doesn't apply to your analogy.

This situation doesn’t just involve the sovereign rights of the Iraq but also the sovereign rights of the United States.  Iraq violated the terms of a cease-fire that had been established between the forces of the United States and Iraq.  The last conflict never ended it just ceased with the understanding that Iraq would abide by a series of restrictions.  This was stands up the structures of international law as being a valid war in fact it is still the last war.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#49 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 09:10 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 11 2003, 07:15 PM, said:

No DevF I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing between the policies of the leadership of this country, policies which I think are reprehensible, and the conduct of good people doing a job.
I know. But what I am suggesting is that, by challenging the very idea of "collateral damage," a concept that is not exclusive to the leadership nor to this conflict, you are muddying the distinction.

Norville, on Apr 11 2003, 09:27 PM, said:

Quote

Ask yourself, Lil. How many would've died under Saddam's regime if we had let him go for another 10 years?
Ah. One of those emotional manipulations along the lines of: if you don't support war, how many more skyscrapers have to fall, and how many more planes will be hijacked, and what will you say when North Korea nukes the West Coast? :glare:
That is not a fair charge. Why is it less appropriate to point out the cost of inaction than for someone else to point out the cost of our actions, as you yourself did in this same post:

Quote

Go ask those who've lost family in the bombings if it's worth it to them. Or ask some kids who've lost limbs.

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 11 2003, 11:41 PM, said:

And your analogy is so off it's almost not worth responding to because it flagrantly ignores a little old thing called sovereignty.  Something that just doesn't apply to your analogy.
I still do not see why "sovereignty" should be considered an absolute good worth defending in and of itself, even when it is being abused by tyrants and terrorists.

--
Dev F

#50 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 09:20 AM

I also think a point not given enough attention to is this:

If we refuse to enforce something as basic as a cease-fire, then all of our treaties and diplomacy becomes meaningless. Reading the terms of the cease-fire, Iraq has clearly violated it <And I've yet to see anybody even try to argue that Iraq *has* abided by the cease-fire.>.

We probably won't end up all agreeing, of course, but it's interesting to know where the objections really originate from.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#51 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 09:41 AM

They've been violating the ceasefire for more than a decade, every time a US, French, British or other allied national's plane was shot at by Iraqis in the No-Fly Zones the ceasefire was broken until it became almost somekind of joke. A missile or AAA fire was launched at Coalition planes, and then the site would be bombed, over and over again for ten years until it became routine. As many others have said, these are not the actions that happen when true peace has been established. The Iraqis leadership was given a decade to comply with all the agreed upon conditions of the ceasefire between it and the original Gulf War Coalition. This did not happen, attacks continued, weapons inspectors were given the run around, banned weapons like the Al Samoud missile were manufactured, and around and around while the people of Iraq suffered. I really wish the current administration could have managed a diplomatic solution or at least have been better in its diplomatic dealings with the rest of the world and call me naive I truly thought a UN based solution was possible up until the moment that weapons were launched. This is not the best of all possible worlds but we don't live in that.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#52 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 09:57 AM

The problem I have with the cease fire argument (and again this is my opinion) is that I never acknowledged the validity of the conflict that led to the cease fire so even if it *was* violated it is still all a house of cards in my view.  But let's just assume for the sake of argument that the Gulf War was righteous and just and the attendant cease fire enforceable.

The question I've had from day one of this whole thing is "why now".  If, as you point out, these violations have been ongoing then why now?

There is no response to that that I have seen that does anything but enforce my belief that this is all about political opportunism and greed.

Some people believe that the motives were far more altruistic.

Others believe that the end was just, and therefore the means was just.

Some people believe the fact that some good may come of it is enough to overcome the motive behind it.

We all have our own view of it.  My view is that it was not only not the right thing, it wasn't even for the right reasons.  And all the good in the world that might come of it doesn't change this for me.

Lil

p.s.  CJ Aegis, I apologize for letting my frustration and upset over other peoples' personalization of this thing to spill over onto you.  You have conducted yourself in an exemplary manner and I did not mean to imply otherwise.
Posted Image

#53 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 10:47 AM

Your question is "why now?"  My shortest answer to that is another question: "why not?"

Longer answers are just as telling.  Just because one does not take action on one's duties or rights in the past does not necessarily preclude the right or duty to do it later.  Just because you don't take out the trash doesn't mean the trash goes away by itself.  Instead it starts to rot and smell horrible.  

Why now?  Because Papa Bush and Bill Clinton didn't do it before.

Since you opposed Gulf War I, it would take too long to item by item address points you might bring up, but the fact is that Saddam is a unique character.  It's not a matter of "why is Iraq getting it while every other evil dictator isn't".  Though not alone in being aggressive, or a state supporter of terrorism, or oppressive, or of having a weapons of mass destruction program, he is unique in that he is all of these things at once.  In addition, he has brought all of those things into the field, even weapons of mass destruction.  

Simply put, Saddam Hussein's regime was the most advanced and active rogue state in recent times.  Iraq is a rich country in a way that North Korea is not and has weapons programs far in advance of those of Iran.  While both Iran and DPRK are hostile, neither country has aggressively invaded a neighbor in decades.  In the 80's Iran, due to its much more radicalized regime would arguably have been a bigger threat than Iraq, which is why we made an alliance of convenience with Hussein when he fought Iran.  Now Iran is still fundementalist but is moderating while Iraq remained in the same place.  Iran has actually let in IAEA inspectors into its nuclear sites...Iraq denied it had any programs.  DPRK and Iran are dangerous, but they are playing ball.  Iraq thought it could get away scot free.  

The fact is that I'm sure the oil companies and other American businesses will benefit from Iraq, but I don't see the problem.  The fact is that oil or not, Saddam Hussein was a leader that had to go.  If oil is what it took to get the government off it's butt to do it, then so be it.  I don't really believe that, but even if it were the sum total of the motivations involved, the fact is that the nation and the rest of the world won't let the US government get away with simply colonizing Iraq.  Not in a post-colonial world.  Even if we are there to colonize de facto, we will still have to do it differently than in the past.  There's no way anyone could be stupid enough to believe that it would be possible.  You may think that Bush is a chimp, but his advisers are not.  Not by a long shot.  

In the end, I think we're going to kill a lot of people doing this job, many of them innocent civilians.  But the fact is that in the end, Hussein has killed millions of people, and he meant to do it.  For every picture of a child with an amputated leg from a malfunctioning JDAM blast you see on TV or the web, there would be three instances of the same thing that would have happened behind closed doors in a so-called '"peaceful Iraq".  Because as much as we might miss with some bombs, we won't be gassing civilian populations on purpose anytime soon or throwing people in jail for questioning George Bush.  And you know that because here you are doing that very thing, free and in no danger whatsoever of having that happening to you.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#54 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 11:01 AM

Thank you  Uncle Sid for your very concise expression of the situation as I feel it stands.  I agree whole heartedly with every point you made.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#55 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 11:13 AM

so now it is the "right" or the "duty" of the United States to engage in War against any regime that does not pass its smell test on human rights?

You're kidding right?

And with all due respect you're kidding YOURSELF in terms of Saddam being "unique" if you think that there is not an extremely dangerous precedent being set here.

We are NOT here to police the world.  We are NOT the arm of God.  We DON'T get to decide which rulers stay in place simply because in our view they are wrong.

My God.

I'm sorry I must go now.  

Otherwise I'll just say stuff I'll regret.

Wow.:(
Posted Image

#56 Julie

Julie
  • Islander
  • 777 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 11:32 AM

Quote

Quote

Civilian casualties happen. That's the nature of the beast. But the point of the matter is, they've already happened. So, the issue here now isn't so much whether this war was justified, it's now a question of making that "collateral damage" worth it.

Hey, don't ask Lil or me if it's worth it. Go ask those who've lost family in the bombings if it's worth it to them. Or ask some kids who've lost limbs.

And while you're at it, make sure you ask the people who were cheering American soldiers and dancing in the streets if it's worth it to them.  Or ask some kids who've been freed from prison.  

It works both ways, doesn't it?

Anyway, I think the point of the quote you're using is that yes, those casualties are tragic.  And that's why, whether the war was justified or not, we're now obliged to at least make sure that such losses weren't completely in vain.  

I don't think that's something that, to use your examples, even those who've lost family in the bombings and kids who've lost limbs would disagree with.

#57 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 12:50 PM

Quote

so now it is the "right" or the "duty" of the United States to engage in War against any regime that does not pass its smell test on human rights?

Interesting, I don't recall saying that.  The only right or duty that I was implying was to enforce terms of a cease-fire agreement and a clutch of UN resolutions.  

Iraq has not complied with its committments.  Committments, I might add, that it brought on itself after a war of pure aggression.  The right or duty, thereof stems from our witholding taking out his sorry butt in return for the regime agreeing to a number of (frankly) simple things to do if they were serious about disarming.  The US was a major party to those agreements, by nature of having the most invested in kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, and therefore maintained the right or duty to deal with a default on those agreements.  This default, I will further add, had been going on for over a decade.


Quote

And with all due respect you're kidding YOURSELF in terms of Saddam being "unique" if you think that there is not an extremely dangerous precedent being set here.

Precedent for what?  For enforcing international committments that it is a party to?  

Like it or not, the situation is unique, if not in abstract, then in reality.  We simply don't have the ability to take on North Korea or Iran or Syria.  Not right now.  Not unless they force us to though agressive actions.  Further, you have not addressed the point that no other so-called rogue state has actually had a war of aggression in almost half a century.  North Korea was the last aggression and Iran was invaded.  Neither used WMDs in those wars.  

If you prefer to hold the one-sided opinion that Bush is a greedy bastard who works for the oil companies, then you still have to admit that these interests have nothing to gain by attacking Iran or North Korea.  If we attack Iran, free passage through the Persian Gulf will be seriously imperiled.  With Iran moderating anyway, would any of Bush's alleged oil cronies support an attack on Iran?  Heck no.  Little to gain and a lot to lose.  And as for North Korea, what possible value does that place have for an oil company (or any company for that matter).

Even if this somehow sets up any sort of precedent other than the enforcement of a cease-fire and UN resolutions, it is one without teeth because the US will never use it.  


Quote

We are NOT here to police the world. We are NOT the arm of God. We DON'T get to decide which rulers stay in place simply because in our view they are wrong.

First off, who's talking about God?  Let's not ratchet up the rhetoric here.  This is no Crusade.  Quite a few Muslims are perfectly happy we are there.  Many of them are Iraqis.  

What I actually believe God is sorely disappointed in us for fighting this war, but I believe that He'd be even more disappointed if we allowed this mistake to compound until it could only be ended by a regional or world war.  

And, as to deciding who stays in power well whose view do we have to have to make up our own mind about what is in our interests?

The other Arab states?  You know the ones with the dictatorships?

The French or the Germans who have contracts and debts that they sorely want to collect from Iraq and whose leaders have a vision of making themselves the new power to counterbalance the US and dominate the EU?

The UN?  You mean the one that already approved resolutions for this which were ignored and the world's will to enforce was steadily weakening?

Are we special?  To your horror, I'll answer yes.  But not because of some moral superiority.  While this country has both abortion and a death penalty I'll never argue that.  But the US is a very central pillar of a world that stands on the edge if nothing more than the fact of sheer power.  If the US can be flauted or be ineffective in face of a tin-pot dictator, then the world becomes a dangerous place.  As much as our policies could be much better, they are many times better than what we would get if a consensus of dictators and extremists had the initiative.  While we certainly cannot stop every dictator or terrorist organization, we can show that the worst offenders will not be able to perpetrate extreme acts.  We can draw the line which cannot be crossed, and hopefully having someday solidified that line, then raise the bar for both ourselves and the rest of the world.  That is progress, and it only happens slowly and painfully.  

Iraq would not deal with the world and it so was dealt with by the world (this is not just the US, I'll remind you).  Iran and DPRK, for all of their problems have (so far) worked (grudgingly) through diplomacy, and not just pretended to do so.  That's a small distinction, perhaps, but a crucial one.  Its a place we the line can be drawn.  

Finally, as for policing goes, it's sort of funny that when we police a place we get yelled at for our police actions, but when we fail to, we incur complaints that we do not help police.  It seems to me that the only places that others want us to police are places that they can't be bothered to spend their own time or money on policing.  Yugoslavia, anybody?  It's only the places where we might actually garner some small side benefit from policing that the complaints start coming out.  I wonder why that is....

Obviously, I don't necessarily think I'm going to change your mind, and I'm not necessarily even trying to.  I think war represents a failure of US policy and for humanity in general, but failing to correct the mistake is an even greater failure.  If the administration starts pre-emptively attacking anyone remotely considered a threat to us, then I'll be out on the street will the anti-war protesters myself, but I don't see that happening.  No one is talking about regime change in the DPRK or Iran or Syria like it was being discussed by Bush before.  Unless we're pulled into something else, it stops with Iraq.

Edited by Uncle Sid, 12 April 2003 - 12:59 PM.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#58 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 05:12 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 12 2003, 02:02 AM, said:

so now it is the "right" or the "duty" of the United States to engage in War against any regime that does not pass its smell test on human rights?
Smell test? The regime was raping and murdering people. Holding families hostage to make people obey their will. Torturing prisoners with electricity as a matter of procedure, and locking innocent children in jails. This is not a matter of some culturally relative difference of opinion. This is horrifically evil. I believe it, and I'm sure you believe it, and so do all the decent people of the world.

I can understand saying that we are applying judgment unevenly, letting one evil regime stand but forcing another one to fall. (Though the phrase "one does what one can" comes to mind.) I can understand arguing that the human rights violations are not the real reason we're at war. (Though it doesn't change the fact that the actions being pursued are good.) What I do not understand is the notion that the very idea of standing up to evil regimes is wrong.

Why do we have a duty to "police the world"? Because we're decent people, and it is the duty of decent people to confront evil and end suffering where we can.

--
Dev F

#59 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 06:57 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Apr 12 2003, 04:02 AM, said:

We are NOT here to police the world.  We are NOT the arm of God.  We DON'T get to decide which rulers stay in place simply because in our view they are wrong.
I'm not part of that 'we' but I have to ask-- who would you rather see do it?

The UN? They didn't. They had a mandate under Resolution 1441 to do it. And they passed up the opportunity. I have to believe that Bush was more than patient with them.

NATO? Not their field to play on. It's hard to argue collective-security to a group without a dog in the fight.

The EU? With France protecting its arms-trading and business history in Iraq, and the Russians following suit, no deal. Besides which, I don't know if they're ready, or capable, of authorizing use of force yet.

The CIA? They couldn't stop bin Laden, I doubt they could've stopped Saddam. And any "regime change" they effected would've been temporary, or counterprogressive at best.

No, I'm sorry, but it's an extension of national security, an offensive-defensive maneuver, to attack the enemy before he develops the ability to launch the first strike. While it's dubious at best that Saddam ever had the weapons or the capability to hit the US, at least his regime's collapse takes the wind out of the sails of a lot of Palestinian groups, whose suicide-bombers saw their lives recompensed in some part by Saddam's funding. That plays well in Israel, and might make the extremist groups docile enough in the short term to make them think about a new peace deal.

However, it might play into al-Qaeda's hand. Seeing the visuals coming out of "liberated" Iraq make me think twice about the war, too. And there were large groups of foreign nationals willing to defend, if not Saddam's regime, then to defend an Arab brother-state against infidel crusaders. Unfortunately for them the crusaders have really kick-ass stuff this time out. But that never stopped al-Qaeda before. They view this as a colonialist, imperialist maneuver. The last time the British were in Iraq was as conquerors-- coincidentally, the last major battle the British fought in Iraq was also around Tikrit. Needless to say, they won then, too.

Just because it's a fait accompli at this point does not make it right. And I don't mean to imply anything of the sort.  Nor do I particularly agree with the 'uniqueness' of Saddam's situation requiring his removal. Rather the opposite: I see him as really small potatoes. I supported this war in part because I expected a free Iraq before the middle of April. And look at that. It's only the twelfth and the fighting is mostly over.

Saddam was only a psychological threat to the western world, because of his open refusal to play ball with the UN and the US. To his people, to the Kurds, to Israel, he was a big deal, but on the global scale he's inconsequential. Compared even to most of his neighbours (Iran, for instance) he ever was a paper tiger.

Yet the slaps in the face that paper tiger gave to the UN and the US went on for far too long. Either they kept losing face or he had to go. A full blown Paris-in-'44 liberation was the best way to get him out of there. They needed to level the infrastructure of terror and repression he'd built into the country with sheer force of numbers. And as has been said repeatedly before, the caution they took in removing him from power was quite remarkable.

Yet the fallout, the psychological effect of the liberation --of what progresses in Baghdad and elsewhere even as I type this-- will determine what will follow. One of the chief reasons that Iraq appears so lawless and anarchical at present is because the marines refuse to 'police' the city. They don't want to be seen as the next logical step, as being the replacement for Saddam's regime. With good cause. Because while this liberation may, in the long term, prove to be little more than a 'police' action, the presence there of foreign national soldiers IS viewed as an extension of the arm of God, and the last thing anyone there wants to do is present the wrong idea of what they're doing there. Saddam's gone, order's going to be restored, a civilian government's going to be put in place, and the soldiers will be on their way out of the country.

What happens after that --with the Kurds, with the Iranians, with the Syrians, with the Turks, with the terrorist groups-- is all stuff we get to look forward to seeing determined hereafter.

For now, however, the decisions have been made, and, right or wrong, they're the new reality in Iraq.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#60 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 12 April 2003 - 07:12 PM

Oh, and Jessica Lynch returned to the USA for the first time since her rescue today.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Updates

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users