Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I hate being right
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 81 of 119 (58606)
09-29-2003 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by defenderofthefaith
09-26-2003 12:31 AM


defender writes:
As to the Iraq war, I merely suggest that the French, Chinese and Russians could have been a little more responsible by at least allowing the US to put forward a plan before threatening to veto it; perhaps they also should have considered helping to take out a tyrant
They were more responsible. The only proposal the US was putting on the table was war. That was it. War. A unilateral invasion based on no real intelligence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone, and LOTS of intelligence that it such a war would end badly.
What could the US add to the proposal that would change the assessment that war was not necessary at that time?
By the way the French called the US bluff and said they'd be willing to accept a much more limited weapons inspection schedule. The US turned them down because it would have prevented the war from going on as scheduled.
Stranger still is how you maintain such a position in the post war reality. The French (and most of the rest of the world) were proven right. War sucked. There was never a question of if Hussein's forces would be defeated. The question was if that would deliver anything positive.
While I admit war offered the tantalizing possibility of a new and shining Iraq, that offer was as good as buying a single lottery ticket and counting on the millions rolling in. The much more probable result, which has happened, is a slide into Islamic extremism.
We have actually given it new life and a new foothold in Iraq, where previously it was in decline. Even if they manage to get a real democratic government in place, there is no guarantee that it will stay in place or do what we want.
You do know the British conquered Iraq about 100 years ago and installed a gleaming new Iraqi government that would change the region forever? Yeah, 80 years later western powers put Saddam into power to fix the vaccuum created after it collapsed.
Let's talk in 20 years, and then 50, and then 80.
All we did was kill and injure more innocent people than died in 9-11, left a whole country in ruins (including many cultural ruins), and got their oil.
Maybe the US should have been a little more responsible and listened to the French plan before vetoing it.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by defenderofthefaith, posted 09-26-2003 12:31 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoniNeil, posted 12-22-2003 9:32 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 95 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 2:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 119 (74784)
12-22-2003 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NoniNeil
12-22-2003 9:32 PM


quote:
Anyone who does not know that TWELVE YEARS and SEVENTEEN UN Resolutions are MORE than enough reason for us to FREE Iraq, is so illogical their thoughs are not revelent!
Is this supposed to imply that you don't want me to reply to your post?
Thankfully the above is not my position, so my thoughts must be relevant and here is my reply!:
1) There are other countries with outstanding UN resolutions violations (more than 17) for longer than 12 years. Does this mean we should be invading them right now?
2) Is invasion the only method for dealing with such countries, or are there other options available?
3) If invasion is the "only" option, is it best to conduct it in a way that we're defying the will of the UN and violates international law?
4) And looking back at the Iraq situation in specific, given the world situation as it was, didn't we have more pressing issues to deal with?
I do believe Saddam was a dictator and that his regime had to be dealt with in some way. I just do not believe this was the way to do it.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NoniNeil, posted 12-22-2003 9:32 PM NoniNeil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 12:26 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 119 (74877)
12-23-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Adminnemooseus
12-23-2003 12:49 AM


Ahhhh, someone once criticized a debate I was having as generating more heat than light. With regards to a debate with NoniNeal I really think it would be 90% heat, 5% light, and 5% wasted energy.
The guy attacked me in two different threads at once, using very little substance in both and in the other thread never actually read (or understood) my post or the link I had in it to a more in depth article. He seems more intent on antagonizing me than delivering cogent debate.
However, I LOVE the idea of the Great Debate forum, and if this guy wants to spend the time and energy debating this issue with me, I won't decline... I just think it won't end up being that "great" (other than the amounts of steam available to power some turbine engines).
Since Quetzal volunteered to moderate on this topic, stating that he didn't exactly agree with my opinion, and I thoroughly enjoyed debating him (and hey what happened to that thread Q?) a Great Debate between he and I on the Iraq War might be more fruitful.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-23-2003 12:49 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Quetzal, posted 12-24-2003 8:17 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 119 (74904)
12-23-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 12:26 AM


Whew, that must have been real easy cutting to one of my questions and hinging your entire argument on the weakness of that one issue.
Too bad real life was not just that one issue. It came with all of those others. Answer ALL the questions in my post.
But here is my reply to your criticism of my saying there were alternatives...
quote:
What do you suggest? to Pray?
How ironic that our televangelist President never thought of that angle. Or maybe he did and when his prayers weren't answered overnight he jumped to the opposite side of the stock dilemma he built.
Not being a religious person I don't think prayer would help much. Most assuredly the prayers of the devout Iraqis didn't do much against Saddam's reign of terror.
My own thought was that containment was doing just fine preventing Saddam from threatening other countries militarily. Iraq was also not in much of a position to enact terrorist actions outside the mideast region, and according to all intelligence was unlikely to start any. Thus there was no imminent threat to the US and so should have taken a back seat to other priorities.
Which is not to say we couldn't have done anything else... just that an invasion at this time and under these conditions was putting way too much priority on a sideline figure when we have REAL threats to deal with.
quote:
While we watched Saddass, his sons and his regime imprison, beat, rape and kill more children? To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?
Yes, quite a tragedy. I am curious as to why it was good to let this occur for over a decade, and NOW it suddenly became a top priority. If it were to be stopped, there were much better moments in the past, and there will certainly be better moments in the future.
Where are your tears for the people of Uzbhekistan who are also suffering under the same conditions? Apparently they are not as high a priority as Iraq? How about Africa (damn loudmouth for beating me to the punch on this)?
There are many dictatorships out there crying for overturn. Many are supported by the US, just as Saddam was at the HEIGHT of his slaughter. Why was this the right time and invasion the method for Iraq?
quote:
To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?
Other than the purge directly after Iraq War 1, Saddam did most of his killing (including Iraqi citizens) with the support of the US. He had not been killing people in mass numbers in more recent years. He was unlikely to start again.
Unless of course you are talking about the Iraqi's dying of neglect, by the combo of Saddam being a terrible leader (misappropriating resources) and economic sanctions (which hit the regular guy more than the superbillionaire living on top).
quote:
People like you crack me up as you are aways talking about "some other way' yet you NEVER give a viable and workable "other way"
People like you crack me up, buying into whatever stock dilemma your leader hands you without question.
I started writing up some alternatives and realized I didn't want to go on about what could have been done in some hypothetical past. Whatever I said could just as easily be dismissed with "how would we know that would work?"
I had alternative ideas before the war (which to make very brief added carrots to encourage procedural changes, while maintaing a very strong stick if he did not comply), and if you want me to explore them, open a thread.
To be more practical, let us look at the statement "this war was the right thing to do", because we did it and now we can look at the results.
1) Was it necessary for US national security? No. This became evident as the war progressed and ended so quickly. Iraq posed no military threat to its own neighbors much less to the US. Ironically this was given as reason number one to go to war.
2) Was it necessary to fight terrorism or the spread of WMD technology? No. Although I myself figured he still had remnants of his earlier chem/bio programs, they were not really useful to terrorists (Homeland Security announced after the war had started that most terrorists would just make the same chem/bio weapons where they were). It is pretty obvious he had no active or "real" WMD programs going on. He also had less ties to terrorist groups than the CIA. This was #2 on the list of reasons to go to war.
3) Did we need to invade when we did? No. The only thing we accomplished by launching our invasion in the manner we did, was to divide the international community and violate international law. The damage done to Europe alone was not worth invading in the manner we did. It was Bush's claim that we simply had to go in at that time, but this has been proven false.
4) Did we free the Iraqi people? Now that's an interesting one. Certainly we removed Saddam from the picture. Clap clap clap. It is also arguable that the only way we were going to get him and his sons out of power was violent force. That deserves a thread all on its own.
But did we really free the Iraqi people of all those problems of having their money stolen by robber barons, use of torture on prisoners, propaganda as a form of state control, and no true democratic form of government?
The governing council was appointed by the US and it is now being said that the Iraqis may not be allowed to have a true democratic nation, which is to say they vote for who they want. This is because the end result of a true democracy will be the rise of fundmenatalist Islam. So now US officials have begun saying as long as the government is representative of all people (hmmm wonder if that will include gays, and athiests) it doesn't have to be elected.
One member of the council by the name of Chalabi, essentially the head of the council, is a convicted criminal along the lines of Ken Lay (of Enron fame). Not sure if you know this but he now owns the main press in Iraq, and swamped the media with photos of a captures Saddam sitting beneath Chalabi. Guess regime change is in place huh? Trust Chalabi everyone, he won't steal any money... he's only guilty of bilking millions to get to the position he is in now: running Iraq. After all, his own newspaper won't lie will it?
While a constitution gets firmed up there is no reality being set up on the ground for adequate resource "rearrangement" to make up for the years of getting screwed at the hands of Saddam. If they follow the US model, they may even lose health and welfare coverage.
There is also no sense that humanitarian rights will be followed in the coming regime. They are already being violated in order to crack down on insurgents. Hmmmmm... that's exactly what Saddam was doing! We even enjoyed having people "rendered" into his hands for torture that we could not commit in the US. You think that will change?
And if one looks at the past, this really does not look good. Britain did this very thing almost 100 years ago. It was from the ashes of the wonderful government they installed (which was supposed to become the example for great governments in the region) that Saddam appeared.
I grant that with Saddam gone there is an opportunity for a better Iraq. I really do believe this. But we are not helping this possibility become a reality as we continue to follow the failed policies of the past (installing a government we like), and knowingly put into power a ruthless man who is without question a criminal. The latter is exactly what we did with Saddam.
I am unsure if this opportunity was worth the price we paid, and forced Iraqis to pay. Many Iraqis are stating this themselves, and may raise there voices louder when the final government has been installed. We'll have to see.
quote:
I'll bet you were against us freeing Kuwiat or stopping the killing in Bosina, Crosia and Kosovo.
What a maroon. We freed Kuwait? When did we do that? Sure I was for freeing Kuwait (so you lost that bet), but all we did was free Kuwait and then turn it back over to its original dictatorship. You really think they have a free government and no torture?
All we freed was oil fields for the emirate and ourselves. When confronted with this fact (Kuwaitis are not free, only the oil was freed) Cheney admitted this was our goal and said there was no moral problem with that position. Yeah.
You also lose your bet with Bosnia and Croatia. Feel like an idiot yet? I am against INVASIONS which break INTERNATIONAL LAW. It just so happens that's what we did in Iraq. What that makes me is consistent.
Your only correct guess was Kosovo. Ironically Milosevic was actually fighting a real menace in that region... Islamic terrorist groups. He had a heavy hand, but just as ruthless as his opposition. His only mistake it appears was timing. If he had waited till after 9-11 he could have waved the "war on terrorism" banner and did all he wanted. That would put him on par with that guy in Uzbekistan, who is just as ruthless as Saddam, but our best bud.
quote:
Guys like you sit around wringing your hands and talking while people are being tortured and killed by the thousands while people like me take action to stop it.
This is material for a standup act you're working on right?
Uhhhhh... It was Rumsfeld, Reagan, Cheney, and Bush (both jr and sr) that wrang their hands and talked while Saddam killed. All but Jr even gave him materials and intelligence to do so. That's why he was in a position that when he finally turned on us, we had to resort to force to get him out.
But mr action hero, do tell what you did for the Iraqi people to try and oust Saddam during his reign of terror under the Reagan administration (and so were a traitor to our country at that time)? Or how about under Bush Sr when he was still our pal? Or after he was our enemy? How's about during this last war? What action did you personally take to stop it?
And why are you relaxing? Uzbekistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Israel (which is to say Palestinian children tortured in Israeli jails) and the people of many impoverished nations of Africa and South/Central America are crying for your help!
Tell us very clearly what you are doing for them tough guy.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 12:26 AM NoniNeil has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 4:28 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 119 (74922)
12-23-2003 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by gene90
12-23-2003 2:22 PM


First of all I am NO fan of Clinton. Bush may make him look like a genius, but that's all relative.
The problem with your line of argument is that it had nothing to do with my statement. Clinton's issue was preventing Saddam from holding on to remaining WMD stocks as well as continuing to build WMDs. He never stated that Iraq posed an imminent threat, only that he was defying UN controls.
You may note that he did not attack because there was no support in the UN for an invasion at that time.
I was actually behind Bush's interest in reestablishing inspections and greater UN control in Iraq. Unfortunately Bush only became active on this post 9-11 and then rushed to the "final solution", rather than working at this thorny issue as something that needed to be solved intelligently.
There were many issues that should have been taken into consideration. First and most important was dismantling the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9-11. It's interesting how unpatriotic this position has become lately. Secondly there were other (greater) threats to our national security, as well as the security of other nations, than Iraq.
But more integral to Iraq itself there were very real issues of national sovereignty and international law. Civilization had been working toward establishing that "ends do not justify means" in international affairs, but Bush has set civilization back decades with this one rash move.
In a later post (to schraf) you essentially outline my own position. Iraq was not the right target at that point in time (it still isn't) and the way it was carried out was neglectful of what international precedents it set, as well as its effects on Iraqis.
Saddam has been removed, and so HIS threat has been removed. When you have a region filled with people willing to step into his shoes, or Osama's, removing this one guy seems like pulling an M-80 out of a firework factory and then telling people they don't have to worry about explosions anymore.
If anything there will now be more opportunities for extremist organizations to take root in Iraq and act as a base against US interests. And this is true despite having no WMDs. Homeland Security pointed out after the invasion began, terrorists were unlikely to import Iraqi bio/chem weapons anyway. That would be way too risky. It'd be easier to put together near the site of the attack. That's just how easy bio/chem weapons are these days.
Iraq already has a criminal, guilty of bilking millions of dollars from those under his control, established in the governing council. He now owns one of the principle news media sources as well. When Saddam was captured one of the first things he did was cover the media (which he controls) with images of him seated above Saddam Hussein. Such things do not make it look like we have ended the Iraqi peoples' problems either.
Iraq may not have missiles anymore, the one bit of "forbidden" technology which was found, but those missiles were unwieldly anyway and not exactly posing a threat to neigboring nations (or the US).
Other than that, Iraq now poses a greater risk to US national security and regional instability than at any time in the past 10 years.
That makes them a greater imminent threat now than they were then.
The best argument I have heard for why we actually invaded Iraq was to remove a bad man from power. He was a jerk who abused his own people, and posed a vague sort of threat that while not even close to threatening our nation as a whole, it dwindled resources (continuous containment admittedly being that) distracted attention (though running Iraq won't?), and could result in some loss of life somewhere down the road.
I do not believe achieving that end justified the means we used.
By the way... why has this really old thread come back to life? Those who said there was no real imminent threat, especially from WMDs have been proven right. No matter what Clinton or Bush thought. I guess this just goes to show how bad US intelligence is with facts or analysis. The intelligence community as a whole said exactly what I said (including former CIA officials)... that was one of my most important sources. Why it didn't reach Clinton or Bush I have no idea.
More to the point though, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to discuss current and future policy decisions in Iraq and the rest of the world? Frankly, I was hoping his capture would end debate about the war because it would mean the war was OVER.
That would leave us to ruling the country to get it back on its feet, as well as protecting the US in real ways, rather than telling us we need to capture some bogeyman and all our problems will be over.
Oh yeah, and if everything would be so much safer without Saddam, what's with the Orange Xmas we're having?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 2:22 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 6:10 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 119 (74924)
12-23-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by gene90
12-23-2003 4:28 PM


quote:
Didn't the invasion of Afghanistan break international law?
No. We were attacked by members of Al-Queda, which threatened more attacks. The ruling government was protecting that group and so posed a threat against US national security.
I do not believe anyone would argue that a nation would not have the right to attack another to get at a group that killed over 3000 people in one day in one of the most heinous, unprovoked, and shocking terrorist acts in history.
Add to it that those 3000 contained residents from many other nations than the US and you now have them involved (legitimately) in pursuing a war against the Taliban as well.
There was the added issue that the Taliban were not officially recognized by most of the international community. They were essentially the ruling warlords of Afghanistan. It gave the Taliban even less legal claim to sovereignty, which they would have lost anyway for protecting Al-Queda.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 4:28 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 12-23-2003 5:40 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 113 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 6:24 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 119 (74927)
12-23-2003 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoniNeil
12-23-2003 4:36 PM


quote:
As for the WMD, I am sure glad that some people here know more about it than the intelligence agencies of MANY countries, the UN, the people who worked on them in Iraq and the people killed by them.
Everyone knows the guy had WMDs. The US gave Saddam tech and info to use them against Iran and his own people.
The question was how much remained of those original stocks and what programs he might have in place for obtaining more. ALL INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES except the US, Britain, and Italy said there was little to no evidence that there were ongoing programs (of any merit) and only a small chance that any of his original stocks remained.
Yeah, I am unaware what international intelligence sources you were listening to, but I was reading plenty. And the UN most assuredly did not say there were WMDs present. That's what the inspectors were all about.
Have you read anything Hans Blix wrote on the issue? Maybe you can pick up a copy of his book when it eventually comes out... skewering US and British intelligence for manufacturing intelligence.
I should note that not even US intelligence was on board with the whole WMD threat thing. Not sure if you missed all that stuff about republicans blowing the cover of a CIA operative because she found out certain info was not real. And many former CIA officials banded together at the time to criticize the manipulation of intelligence by the Bush administration, in order to drive policy.
Frankly the fact that you are so misinformed and illogical makes me wish you'd stop screaming that you are an athiest in every post (for what reason I cannot figure out). You are making me wish I wasn't, or question whether I am right about that.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoniNeil, posted 12-23-2003 4:36 PM NoniNeil has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 111 of 119 (74928)
12-23-2003 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by crashfrog
12-23-2003 5:40 PM


Yep, our "type" are underachievers.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 12-23-2003 5:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 115 of 119 (74963)
12-24-2003 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by gene90
12-23-2003 6:10 PM


quote:
If Bush is a liar because he claimed that Iraq had WMD, does that not make Clinton a liar as well?
If there is a question how bad intel was under Clinton, one must only look at our bombing a milk factory (they made a chem weapons call based on one ground sample), and bombing an embassy (that was targeted even though it was clearly printed on easily available maps).
That said, at least Clinton did not intentionally mislead the public about the extent of our knowledge. Powell presented evidence that had already been discredited, and then the US stepped on the media not to release that fact till the war was well under way. And Bush's attempts to rewrite history by claiming he never said Iraq posed a nuclear threat was much more abominable.
I must also repeat that while Clinton said Iraq's having WMDs posed a serious problem, that is different than an imminent threat.
A serious problem is one that must be dealt with. An imminent threat is the only kind of threat that excuses unilateral invasion. That is why Bush equivocated between the two, and built a myth regarding his nuclear capabilities.
quote:
So, should whatever happens to be popular in the UN dictate whether or not the US has a right to defend itself against perceived threats?
China perceives that the existence of Taiwan is a threat. India and Pakistan both view each other as threats. Many middle eastern countries view the US as a threat. Are you suggesting that they should ignore UN demands and attack at will?
In the end no country should have a right to "defend" itself against a "perceived threat". That is a recipe for chaos and a return to feudal era empire building.
However countries do have a right to defend themselves against real attacks, or in very select instances of IMMINENT attack, a pre-emptive action.
I realize Bush's whole line was that once WMDs enter the picture one cannot wait for an attack to be imminent, because it may be too late. At this point is this not an obvious falsehood? Iraq was simply not a threat at all.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made that a nation cannot wait for an attack if very credible evidence exists that WMDs not only exist, but have entered the playing field as an option. But that did not exist in this case.
And the idea that existence of WMDs means a country is an active threat must be thought through carefully. After all we have plenty of WMDs... does that mean everyone that we don't like has a right to attack?
Bush himself appears to have accepted this same idea when WMDs are known to exist (NKorea).
Okay I had more to say but I'll have to wait until tomorrow, my gf says it's time for bed... and she's got more clout with me than the UN.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 6:10 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 117 of 119 (74993)
12-24-2003 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Quetzal
12-24-2003 8:17 AM


Fair enough. About the irritating side discussion, what was it? Is it something I was doing wrong?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Quetzal, posted 12-24-2003 8:17 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 12-24-2003 11:06 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 119 of 119 (75021)
12-24-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by gene90
12-23-2003 6:10 PM


part 2
quote:
But is it your position that war is categorically wrong even if it precipitates positive results?
No. The idea that ends do not justify means suggests that just because there is a positive result from something, that does not mean the use of categorical wrongs to achieve it was justified.
War is a negative, but not a categorical wrong. Obviously when one is attacked, one has a right to defend onesself. When a force is preparing for violent action against you there is also arguably a right to proactively defend onesself.
Unilaterally attacking a country which was not actively threatening anyone, in order to overthrow its government which we claim no one wants, but it is clear they do not want us either, and we will have to kill many of their innocents to win... This is not quite the above two scenarios. Add to it the deception enacted to drive public support including use of the nuclear card, and the 9-11 card and we have sufficient wrongs already to question whether the ends justify the means.
The international repercussions in going to war the way we did (actively degrading relations with longtime allies, and pitting European countries against each other) heap many more dangerous wrongs on the situation.
quote:
For example, would you say that it is wrong that Lincoln did not capitulate to the Confederacy, even though it resulted in the end of American slavery? Or that the Revolution was morally wrong even though it brought American sovereignty? Or had we attacked Germany early rather than waiting on Pearl Harbor, would that have been wrong, even though it would have prevented or ended the Holocaust?
These are all different issues which have no cookie-cutter answer based on ends and means (or at least not without launching into hypotheticals). I'd be interested in discussing them but not in this context (or thread).
quote:
That's what we know now. But beforehand our leaders (both parties) were convinced that Saddam had or would soon have WMDs. It is my opinion that the presence of the illegal missiles, and Saddams disturbing unwillingness to dispose of them even with war imminent, demonstrate that he could not be dealt with any other way.
I hate to say this but it is not what we know now. It was well known back when I made my statements, and which is why I made my statements. Other than credulous comments of "The government must know more than we do" there was no rationale or evidence given to support the idea that he had an active weapons program.
More to the point, there was vast intelligence pointing out he was probably never going to use them, even if he did have them, in a first strike on anyone. This was especially true for his giving such weapons to Islamic terrorists.
I don't think Clinton ever made such comments. If he did then he was a liar, or exaggerating the threat for effect.
And I should note, I still believe it's possible that he had remnants of his older WMD stash. Some of this may even be found. But this has to be measured against their likely use in war or as part of a terrorist attack. As Homeland Security itself announced, it is unlikelt such weapons would ever be used against the US.
As far as Saddam not destroying missiles even with war imminent, the missiles posed no real danger to anyone (as their use in the war demonstrated), and if it looked like someone was gearing up to attack you no matter what, would you destroy any weapons that you have available? We put him in a position that it was unlikely he would destroy them.
That's the difference between a carrot and stick approach, and a just stick approach.
quote:
This is why I felt like protesting the war was immoral. Regardless of whether or not there were WMDs, Saddam was going to be gone. Therefore opposing the war meant (indirectly) advocating allowing Saddam to remain in power.
Killing leaders of foreign countries that we do not like, even if they are despots, is not a good thing if the only reason is that we think the people of that country would be better off. This is made doubly true when it will require us to blast through innocent people to get to him.
I think that is a valid reason to protest the war. The bad war was about to be waged, where we would become just as bad.
In fact, using your reasoning, other countries who felt Bush was going to far (and after all his election was under a shadow... appointed by members of his party and not the people) they would have a right to attack the US in order to remove him? Heck they could blast his destruction of the environment (which effects everyone), robbing money from the poor, and attempting to install a fascist Xian fundamentalist government.
Remember, Saddam had about just as good of reasons for attacking Kuwait.
But I want to add a totally different reason for protesting, which is why I felt sympathetic to the protesters. You said to be against the war was advocating that Saddam stay in power. But much to the contrary, it was the act of going to war with Iraq which allowed Osama and Al-Queda to not only stay in power, but to grow!
Thus to support the war was to support a more dangerous threat against the US and the world.
quote:
But, if invading Afghanistan made us safer, why are we at Orange Alert?
Heheheh. Isn't the answer obvious? We are at Orange Alert because we invaded Iraq instead of fighting the only real war we should have been fighting... the war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) against Al-Queda.
We caught Saddam which means that war (and his threat) are over. If he was truly a threat then we should be be somewhat safer... but Al-Queda is stronger because of our detour into a wholly unrelated country, and so we have an Orange Xmas.
If we busted up Al-Queda and its leadership (which is not just Osama but that would go a long way), I feel pretty certain we'd be in a safer position, and that is whether Saddam remained in power or not.
By the way I want to address your comments regarding the UN as a specific topic. I think it is very important to discuss as we move away from the wreckage of the Iraq War. Your question regarding UN's control of national security issues for the US is valid. Keep checking the Coffee House. Sometime before the end of this week, I'll have a thread opened discussing this sticky issue. I'd love to have your input.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-23-2003 6:10 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024