Iraq. Alternative solutions?

[Reginald]

So some missiles are being destroyed.

However, where would you go from here?

Given that one of the arguments often put forward buy people opposed to the war is that the US once supported the regime when it suited them, completely ignoring Saddams human rights record, so now how can France, Germany, China and Russia justify proposing a course of actions which will, in effect extend the lifespan of Saddams Rule and the disregard for human rights that go with it?

Sorry but IMHO the destroying of a few missiles (or indeed the destroying of all saddams "WMD") and the presence of a few inspectors will not turn Iraq into Teletubby land.

I personally had difficulty coming to terms with the moral reasons for continued military action, I think in honesty I have a greater diffeculty coming to terms with leaving saddam in place to continue torturing and killing people on a day to day, casual basis.

I would be genuinely interested to hear from people opposed to the war (for any reason) as to just what course of events they would like to see in order that the people of Iraq can enjoy a fear free life?

Disarm, removing of sanctions? I will tell you that I am not beyond "redemption" on this issue, but I need to hear the arguments that will change my view, so far I feel all I have heard is "War=bad".

[Badger]

Ideally, what I'd like to see is the UN with teeth.

What I mean is a world parliment/senate with a force that has the authority to go into any country and police them, when they're out of line WRT such things as human rights issues, WMD's, pollution, etc. It would be set up with each country in the world having one seat/senator/representative, and therefore one vote. And of course all members would be altruistic, wise, humble, and compassionate.

That's my ideal.

I'm not sure if that's the answer you wanted, so I'll give you another on a different tack.

WRT the situation in Iraq, if I was GWB, I'd say "Fine. You think he's doing such a good job, you take the responsibility for it. I'm pulling my troops out of here, and you better make sure he toe's the line. If he doesn't, I'll be back to solve it my way." I'd do this to basically call everyone's bluff. I'd put the pressure on Arab nations to be responsible for their area of the world. It'd put pressure on France, Germany, et al to be seen to be following up on things.

I'd give the UN a chance to prove their mettle. This is going to be ugly, no matter how one slices it, but I'd prefer to give people the chance to prove what they really are.

How's that?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Badger
Ideally, what I'd like to see is the UN with teeth.


WRT the situation in Iraq, if I was GWB, I'd say "Fine. You think he's doing such a good job, you take the responsibility for it. I'm pulling my troops out of here, and you better make sure he toe's the line. If he doesn't, I'll be back to solve it my way." I'd do this to basically call everyone's bluff. I'd put the pressure on Arab nations to be responsible for their area of the world. It'd put pressure on France, Germany, et al to be seen to be following up on things.

I'd give the UN a chance to prove their mettle. This is going to be ugly, no matter how one slices it, but I'd prefer to give people the chance to prove what they really are.

How's that?

On your non-quoted point, Nice ideal, if only...

On the point above, this is my problem. In order for you to come back and "solve it your way" the thing has to be seen to fail. And in order for it to be seen to fail, people must continue to be tortured and die. Where do you draw the line? 1 death, 1000 deaths or "dissapearances" (although I dont think the iraqi regime are quite that subtle TBH). You would also be accused (again) of making a unilateral decision about when to go back in, almost where we are now, since one party would be reluctant to admit a failure.

On the other hand the plan could succeed, but could possibly require the presence of a "policing force" for forever and a day, how would they address the "mind-set" of the Iraqi regime?


Oh I agree that there is a bluff to be called in there somewhere. The Fr/Ge/RuCh method is at the moment dependant of 100,000's of US/UK troops chomping at the bit. Somewhat Ironic that they claim that their method is starting to bear fruit at the [financial] expense of the US and UK Govs.

[Badger]

At what point do you draw the line? That's a good question, to which I think there are many answers. Let me run my thoughts out for a moment.

The US could flood the country with journalists investigating everything, finding unseemly situations, and broadcasting these to the world, thus swaying public opinion. Or they could make a unilateral decision that 10 000 deaths is the number. Or they could ask what the UN would consider a failure, and thus require them to step back in.

Personally, if I were GWB, I'd pick the first option. Investigative journalism, satellite photos, intelligence reports. See what the world thinks when the country is put under a magnifying glass. Media blitz, spin doctoring, bringing things to light, whatever you want to call it. Use the media to sway opinion. GWB could still do that now, if there were some piece of clear evidence he could trot out, rather than the farce that's been presented.

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Reginald

Given that one of the arguments often put forward buy people opposed to the war is that the US once supported the regime when it suited them, completely ignoring Saddams human rights record, so now how can France, Germany, China and Russia justify proposing a course of actions which will, in effect extend the lifespan of Saddams Rule and the disregard for human rights that go with it?


Isn't there a difference between
a. actively supporting a repressive regime and
b. not accepting war as an instrument to overthrow that repressive regime?

A war that would kill many of the oppressed people along with their oppressor... Such a war might turn out to be benefactive for those citizens who will survive (uncrippled) along with their families, but extremely malign for those who won't.

BTW:
I grew up under a communist regime and hated that regime with all my heart and mind (and I still detest it's memory). But I always thought "better dead than red" was one of the dumbest things to say.

Originally posted by Reginald

Sorry but IMHO the destroying of a few missiles (or indeed the destroying of all saddams "WMD") and the presence of a few inspectors will not turn Iraq into Teletubby land.


Definitely not, and it won't turn Saddam into a nice guy. But it would probably keep him from becoming a threat to his country's neighbors again.

Edit: But I mean the presence of a lot of inspectors.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Badger
Personally, if I were GWB, I'd pick the first option. Investigative journalism, satellite photos, intelligence reports. See what the world thinks when the country is put under a magnifying glass. Media blitz, spin doctoring, bringing things to light, whatever you want to call it. Use the media to sway opinion. GWB could still do that now, if there were some piece of clear evidence he could trot out, rather than the farce that's been presented.
There are 2 problems with that...

First, it assumes people are smart. They aren't. They loose interest in important things, overlook facts, and often don't have a sense of history.

Secondl, it assumes the media will be unbiased. We all know that there are enough anti-american outlets in the world, and places like Europe would view any journalistic findings by American media as propaganda.

[a_unique_person]

I've already come up with an alternative idea.

Since the cost of this action will be around 200 billion dollars, offer the Iraqi people 200billion dollars to share around if they get rid of Saddam, commit to a purely conventional, small defence force, like Japan, and behave themsellves.

A lot easier. No one gets hurt. US looks like the good guy.

[Reginald]

Posted By Badger
The US could flood the country with journalists investigating everything, finding unseemly situations, and broadcasting these to the world, thus swaying public opinion.
An interesting proposition. I will think longer on this.

Originally posted by Nitpick


Isn't there a difference between
a. actively supporting a repressive regime and
b. not accepting war as an instrument to overthrow that repressive regime?

A war that would kill many of the oppressed people along with their oppressor... Such a war might turn out to be benefactive for those citizens who will survive (uncrippled) along with their families, but extremely malign for those who won't.



Yes there is a difference, however, the end result remains the same, in both cases you choose to accept that ciivil rights abuses are happening and that your conscience can "live with it", as you point out there is a trade off between the benefits of overthrow and the price paid by those who die in that overthrow.

A terrible moral judgement to make.

I will tell you what made me raise this issue, and indeed turned me towards the possition I currently hold.

One of the most anti-war MPs (Ann Clwyd) in this country visited Iraq, and spoke to the people there, she came back and altered her views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,903808,00.html

I don't believe Saddam has lots of WMD, I dont honestly believe he's that great a threat, locally or world wide. But when I hear people speak in the way Ann Clwyd did, I have to accept that he's doing these horrendous things.


Its a shame that it was almost the last reason stated, and in my view the strongest reason stated to justify action. How unfortunate that it was so weakened in its impact because it was used after several other badly presented excuses.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I've already come up with an alternative idea.

Since the cost of this action will be around 200 billion dollars, offer the Iraqi people 200billion dollars to share around if they get rid of Saddam, commit to a purely conventional, small defence force, like Japan, and behave themsellves.

A lot easier. No one gets hurt. US looks like the good guy.

Ah but wars have pay-back, things get broken, fuel gets used, soldiers die. All these need replacing, there is an associated stimulus to your ecconomy that just wouldn't be there if you handed out the dollar notes. Sad but true.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I've already come up with an alternative idea.

Since the cost of this action will be around 200 billion dollars, offer the Iraqi people 200billion dollars to share around if they get rid of Saddam, commit to a purely conventional, small defence force, like Japan, and behave themsellves.

A lot easier. No one gets hurt. US looks like the good guy.

Well since Saddam isn't going to leave without a war of some sort, doesn't this essentially amount to using the Iraqi people as mercenary soldiers paid to fight a civil war? Not that it will happen, but even if it did, there would still have to be a war.

[Saturn]

First off, I don't care all that much about turning Iraq into a paradise, or even a relatively democratic state that cares about human rights (not that I believe for one second that U.S. military force would accomplish such a thing). If that was my goal, then I would start my own private army to "free" Iraq or donate my own money and services to some existing resistance group. My primary concern is that war with Iraq would generate huge anti-American feeling around the world and motivate many more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

However, here's a suggestion. How about a real offer of exile for Saddam. By this, I don't mean Bush's phony rhetorical demands that he step down. Find a relatively comfortable neutral country to host Saddam (France or Switzerland would be good), allow him to take $100 million or so out of Iraq's treasury (less than one percent of what war would cost, and we would reimburse for it), exempt him from the host country's criminal and civil laws for his actions while president of Iraq, and also have the UN courts offer amnesty. Sure, this would not meet any metaphysical idea of "fairness," but it's hell of a lot better than killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Reginald

Ah but wars have pay-back, things get broken, fuel gets used, soldiers die. All these need replacing, there is an associated stimulus to your ecconomy that just wouldn't be there if you handed out the dollar notes. Sad but true.


Unproven. You don't know if the losses incurred during a war would be anymore stimulative than the opening up of a new market as part of the world economy. How much more food, goods, services, etc., would the Iraqi economy engage in if it was no longer under sanctions?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Advocate

Well since Saddam isn't going to leave without a war of some sort, doesn't this essentially amount to using the Iraqi people as mercenary soldiers paid to fight a civil war? Not that it will happen, but even if it did, there would still have to be a war.


Ah, but there are two outcomes to this:


A People's Revolution (a la the Philippines) that overturns things with less fuss than a war and the new government would be more disposed to dealing with the U.S.
Saddam attempts to harshly put down the will of the People and clearly demonstrates why the U.N. should agree to regime change in Iraq.

[karl]

Originally posted by Saturn
...
However, here's a suggestion. How about a real offer of exile for Saddam. By this, I don't mean Bush's phony rhetorical demands that he step down. Find a relatively comfortable neutral country to host Saddam (France or Switzerland would be good), allow him to take $100 million or so out of Iraq's treasury (less than one percent of what war would cost, and we would reimburse for it), exempt him from the host country's criminal and civil laws for his actions while president of Iraq, and also have the UN courts offer amnesty. Sure, this would not meet any metaphysical idea of "fairness," but it's hell of a lot better than killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

While such an offer may sound fine to us, don't forget that Saddam is a raving paranoid. Every form of exile would mean that he, at some point, was forced to put his personal safety in the hands of strangers. And this is a guy who uses doubles, didn't trust the 60 Minutes people with the location of his recent TV interview and allegedly never spends two consecutive nights in the same place. A lot of people do want him dead, amnesty or no amnesty. He wouldn't feel secure in a country like France -- even if he was given a castle to live in, with a moat and all. I think he'll take his chances with Iraq, sadly, and call it patriotism.

[Mike B.]

Hey Reginald,

How effective do you think Ann Clywd was?

I saw PM question time and Blair seemed to put some emphasis on her upcoming speech.

The strangest thing was the Tory backbenchers were supporting Blair on Iraq more than his own party...

Thanks

[Reginald]

Oh I thought she was very effective, As Ive said in another post Its a mighty shame that to me, what is the best arguement for action, his appalling human rights record, has been diluted as a reason because it followed several badly (imho) and weak primary reasons.

The whole Labour Party thing is a bit wierd. The vote taken was passed by a fairly good sized majority, it seems that because most of those voting against the Gov line were labour MPs it somehow weakens the result. However the Iraq issue is not really a party issue (not in the same way as tax reform and health care reform etc) so I dont see the problem. If you simply keep the numbers the same and swap Tory Mp's for Labour mp's a similar result on a party specific issue would have been heralded as another Major Gov Victory, landslide etc.


In a way I feel the same applies to the peace marches, Labour moving to the right has caused a lot of people to feel unrepresented in the house of commons, hard socialists, greens, CND other anti-war groups. Anyone who could traditionally tack their more specific agenda to that of old Labour (in some cases not being taken up by the Lib Dems). So its my belief that the surge of feeling included a degree of this frustration.

A useful parallel is the fuel protests, normal everyday bods supporting a cause, amplified by the feeling that this Labour Gov very much gives the impresion that it dosnt listen. (people were quoted as saying the did it to wipe the smile off TB's face).


Sorry I digressed badly there.

Back to AC, my politics is wishy washy, I would be the first to admit it, If I see a good idea it dosnt make that much difference to me who thought of it, so to see (and I think it always makes a powerful case) a labourt MP who has, in the past been quite outspoken against forms of military action, presenting a case FOR military action, then I listen. I would like to think that the open minded in the commons would feel the same way.

[Mike B.]

Thanks Reginald,

After reading what she said, I think the title to your thread here is very appropriate.

It seems the Iraq people will be the big losers in any case.

Without war they will continue to be living in an absolute horror world that is apparently committing genocide.

With war many will no doubt die...

It is a tough one.

But few are actually raising the question you raised.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ideally, what I'd like to see is the UN with teeth.

Hell yeah I would!

Sucha plan would be ideal, just a step or two below the idea of a world government.

Nitpick:

Isn't there a difference between
a. actively supporting a repressive regime and
b. not accepting war as an instrument to overthrow that repressive regime?

Yes of course there is. In regards to how effective the regime is and how morally responsible the nation is that helped it.

However for the peole, in terms of consequences there really isn't that big a difference I imagine other then hope for foreign intervention.

It's kind of like whether or not I am as guilty as a murderer if I could have easily prevented the murder....I'm not wholly guilty as an accomplice of course but I believe I still share some guilt.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by dsm


Ah, but there are two outcomes to this:


A People's Revolution (a la the Philippines) that overturns things with less fuss than a war and the new government would be more disposed to dealing with the U.S.
Saddam attempts to harshly put down the will of the People and clearly demonstrates why the U.N. should agree to regime change in Iraq.


Any "People's Revolution" supported by the US would immediately be branded illegitimate. As I recall the one in the Philippines was opposed by the US. The US has attempted to support a revolution like this in the past, especially in Central America. I don't think there would be any advantage of this over a war followed by setting up a government controlled by the Iraqi people. In fact the latter might be seen as more legitimate than a US funded revolution.

As for Saddam putting down a revolution and this clearly demonstrating the need for regime change, he has already done this after the first Gulf War. Why would doing it a second time make any difference?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Advocate

Any "People's Revolution" supported by the US would immediately be branded illegitimate. As I recall the one in the Philippines was opposed by the US. The US has attempted to support a revolution like this in the past, especially in Central America. I don't think there would be any advantage of this over a war followed by setting up a government controlled by the Iraqi people. In fact the latter might be seen as more legitimate than a US funded revolution.


Actually, I don't think the US supported it initially, but they saw the writing on the wall and gave President Marcos the exile option that allowed the Marcos' to leave.

Any government put in power by the US through war would also be branded as illegitimate.


As for Saddam putting down a revolution and this clearly demonstrating the need for regime change, he has already done this after the first Gulf War. Why would doing it a second time make any difference?


People have short memories...

[corplinx]

We can just hide under a pile of coats and hope everything turns out right.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by dsm


Actually, I don't think the US supported it initially, but they saw the writing on the wall and gave President Marcos the exile option that allowed the Marcos' to leave.

Any government put in power by the US through war would also be branded as illegitimate.

Of course. But if elections followed shortly after the war, the relationship between the US and the new government would be weaker than with a struggle that lasted over several years, with US funding coming in the whole time.

People have short memories...

Umm... what were you saying? ;)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Advocate

Of course. But if elections followed shortly after the war, the relationship between the US and the new government would be weaker than with a struggle that lasted over several years, with US funding coming in the whole time.


Key words are "followed shortly". Isn't it amazing how things that start out looking as simple as a bicycle trip from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore seem to run into a detour that leads through Honolulu? :eek:

[Advocate]

Originally posted by dsm


Key words are "followed shortly". Isn't it amazing how things that start out looking as simple as a bicycle trip from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore seem to run into a detour that leads through Honolulu? :eek:

Definitely. I didn't say that this is exactly what would happen, just that if it did happen, that it would be better received than a long term conflict using the Iraqi people (probably the Kurds mostly) as proxies. I have been saying for some time that this is what needs to be done. It won't install a pro-US regime, but if we can avoid one that is actively opposed to us as well, then we are better off then we are today and we will have been seen to put the fortunes of the Iraqi people back in their own hands. Will it happen? I don't know. But if it did happen, it would probably be the best possible result as far as the US is concerned, and one of the best results as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Maybe not so good for Iraq's neighbors, though.

[ScottDYelich]

I'm in favor of the war.

Of course, I was for removing saddam in '91 ... not just
appeasing SA.

Scott

[dsm]

Originally posted by ScottDYelich
I'm in favor of the war.

Of course, I was for removing saddam in '91 ... not just
appeasing SA.

Scott

In the name of "open and honest":

Are (or were) you a member of the military that would fight such a war?

[Thumper]

I know this sounds harsh, but I'll say it anyway...

Our military is a professional one. That is, they are all paid to be in the military. They knew the risks when they signed up. They were told they could find themselves on the front line. I have a marine in my class, and he's shipping out within a week. He said he'd rather not go, but he also said he swore an oath to go where sent, and to do so with all the pride of the marines.

To say that (or even hint that) a person's views on the war are more or less valuable because he/she was/was not a member of the military is irrelevant.

I, too, will be open and honest here. This is not a war for oil. But, even if it was, then I would still support it, since it would help human rights in the area. If Saddam steps down volutnarily and a democratic governmment is put in his place, that would be awesome, but I am beginning to doubt that's a possibility.

That's my $0.02 worth. =)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Thumper

To say that (or even hint that) a person's views on the war are more or less valuable because he/she was/was not a member of the military is irrelevant.


Actually, I am hinting at no such thing. I am simply curious about the reasoning of an individual who comes into a thread and says only "I am for the war" with no supporting reasoning. The reasoning is what, in my opinion, makes a person's views "more or less valuable" and not whether they were/were not a member of the military.

I have heard other "military" people express the opinion of being for the war (just as I've heard some civilians express anti-war feelings) without supporting reasoning before. My question was meant to bring out the reason while being only mildly provocative.

[alancarre]

The title of this thread presupposes what I believe is a false dilemma. And that is, that the problem is Iraq's human rights violations or possession of WMD. In that case, the problem might be solved in a variety of ways not including an invasion of the country; for instance, weapons inspectors, support of local insurgency groups and so on. However, if we correctly identify the real problem, then I think we have a different set of choices. Here is what I believe to be the 'problem':

1) Iraqi Nationalized oil industry puts too much power into the hands of Saddam Hussein to control the world economy.

2) America's lack of major military bases in Iraq, a crucial strategic position.

3) French, German, Chinese and Russian deals with the current Iraqi government concerning development of the oil industry there.

There could easily be more to add, but I think those are some of the major 'problems' to do specifically with Iraq.


So, NOW we can correctly ask "what are the alternative solutions?". And the answer is, I think, not many.

See here for some interesting background reading:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html

Have a look at the map there (under PLUS:). It's very telling.


- Alan

[Reginald]

False dilemma? I dont think so.

I Simply asked if there are alternatives to military action.

Ive not asked if we should do something for reason a) or reason b).

Any points made from that point on, including other postings to this thred, made by myself have stated my convictions, that the reason I feel we should do "something" is because of the human rights issues in Iraq. It's been a pleasure to see some interesting ideas discussed, and the variation of opinion is refreshing.

As you correctly say there are other problems, it just depends on your point of view as to how you rate them and after that what you see as the solution.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Reginald
False dilemma? I dont think so.

I Simply asked if there are alternatives to military action.



That begs the question: "aternatives to miliary action for what purpse? Here is another question:

"Are there any alternatives to nuking Paris?"

The question implies that there is some reason to nuke Paris in the first place. This is a false dilemma.

However, this question is not a false dilemma:

"Are there any alternatives to nuking Paris following the outbreak of a 100% fatal flu epidemic there?"

In the second case, nuking Paris might save humanity, so asking the question makes some kind of sense.

- Alan

[Reginald]

I'm sorry If I insulted the intelligence of the posters on here.

Ok I assumed (maybe wrongly) that the majority here would appreciate that military action was on the cards (for any number of stated and implied reasons).

and on the basis of this assumption, posed a question.

I'm no professional debater, I'm an ordinary guy with some interests in some subjects, knowledge of some, ignorance of others.

I was seeking opinion, thats all, just other peoples opinions.

I'm certainly not upto argueing semantics or whatever it is.

Aologies to all posters again for my nonsensical post.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Reginald
I'm sorry If I insulted the intelligence of the posters on here.

Ok I assumed (maybe wrongly) that the majority here would appreciate that military action was on the cards (for any number of stated and implied reasons).

and on the basis of this assumption, posed a question.

I'm no professional debater, I'm an ordinary guy with some interests in some subjects, knowledge of some, ignorance of others.

I was seeking opinion, thats all, just other peoples opinions.

I'm certainly not upto argueing semantics or whatever it is.

Aologies to all posters again for my nonsensical post.

No reason to apologize. I merely wanted to point out that the question is incomplete, hence unanswerable.

That said, even if the question were well-formed, I believe it is the wrong question to be asking. That is, it's entirely incumbent apon those advocating the use of violence to present strong arguments in support of it. Hence the question should be:

"Are there any alternatives to the diplomatic approach"?

And then we can argue whether or not military intervention has any merit as one possibility for resolving the crisis. Interestingly enough, this question has never been posed, nor argued. It's always assumed that the default approach is terror and destruction, and that we need to find strong arguments against this approach if we want to avoid it.

- Alan

[richardm]

What's the difference between asking "Are there any alternatives to military action" and "Are there any alternatives to the diplomatic approach"?

They're just different ends of the spectrum :confused: The answer to the former might be "Yes - a diplomatic approach", and an answer to the latter might be "Yes - a military approach". It seems a perfectly valid question to me.

Or perhaps my brain isn't very highly attuned to the minutiae of debate.

Meanwhile, back at the argument, Corplinx:

We can just hide under a pile of coats and hope everything turns out right.

What many people seem to be overlooking is that we've tried the equivalent of hiding under the coats, and it doesn't appear to have worked. The only reason we're starting to see any concessions from Saddam is because we have the tanks revving up on the border, and he is hoping to hold them off. In my view, there is nothing that will deflect Saddam from his current course of action, and the only way to stop him is to slap his wrists.

Unfortunately, that will mean that we will kill innocents on the way, but I agree that enough is enough, and he needs to be stopped regardless.

[ahirst]

Here's one person's idea of how a ground war may turn out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2821213.stm

'Question:How strong is the Iraqi army ?'

'I will go further and say that senior officers will defect once they are sure that the invasion is comitted.'

It may be that 'innocent' casualties can be kept to a minimum. I know that sound terrible (especially if you are one of the innocent casualties) but isn't this a case of The Devil's Alternative :'Whatever action (or inaction) we take some people are going to die'.

I'm not exactly gung-ho about it but I do think that a ground war will be the 'least worst' of all the real solutions.

I agree that seeing Saddam go into exile, and allowing the Iraqi people to sort out their own 'regime change', would be much better, but I can't see it happening.

Just my 2p worth.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by richardm
What's the difference between asking "Are there any alternatives to military action" and "Are there any alternatives to the diplomatic approach"?


Because the first question assumes that the default approach is a military one and demands arguments showing reasons against the use of violence, whereas the second question assumes that the default approach is diplomacy and demands arguments for the use of violence. That is, in the first case, it is assumed that violence is justified unless otherwise demonstrated wheras the second assumes that violence is NOT justified unless there are compelling reasons for it. That's a major difference.


What many people seem to be overlooking is that we've tried the equivalent of hiding under the coats, and it doesn't appear to have worked. The only reason we're starting to see any concessions from Saddam is because we have the tanks revving up on the border, and he is hoping to hold them off. In my view, there is nothing that will deflect Saddam from his current course of action, and the only way to stop him is to slap his wrists.

Unfortunately, that will mean that we will kill innocents on the way, but I agree that enough is enough, and he needs to be stopped regardless.

Actually 'we' haven't tried 'hiding under the coats'. We've done everything we can to try to strengthen Saddam. We love that guy, he's a great friend of 'ours' (or was until fairly recently). And what's this 'current course of action'? What the Bushies happen to be peddling on the news today? That he's amassing a terrible arsenal of weapons-of-mass-destruction that he intends give to any 2-bit terrorist in order to destroy the USA and eventually all of mankind? Ok, well believe what you want. I only hope that when the same argument is repeated again and again (as it has been, as it always will be), that at some point you will get the picture and see what a crock of s***t it is.

- Alan

[richardm]

Originally posted by alancarre


Because the first question assumes that the default approach is a military one and demands arguments showing reasons against the use of violence, whereas the second question assumes that the default approach is diplomacy and demands arguments for the use of violence. That is, in the first case, it is assumed that violence is justified unless otherwise demonstrated wheras the second assumes that violence is NOT justified unless there are compelling reasons for it. That's a major difference.



The current approach is to go to war in Iraq, so the default question doesn't apply.




Actually 'we' haven't tried 'hiding under the coats'. We've done everything we can to try to strengthen Saddam. We love that guy, he's a great friend of 'ours' (or was until fairly recently).



"Until fairly recently", right. It is a common cry that it's all our fault, that we strengthened him, and sold him a whole bunch of terrible weapons. Which is all true. And he's used them for (predictably enough) internal suppression and external aggression. So now we want to take them off him again.

To my mind, this is the responsible thing to do.


And what's this 'current course of action'?


The same one it's always been over the last 20 or 30 years: continuing development of weapons he's not supposed to have, (edit: Okay, he's only not-supposed-to-have had these weapons for the last 12 of those 20 or 30 years), internal suppression, and so on. For many people, the fact that he's not currently indulging in external aggression means it's okay to let him continue.


What the Bushies happen to be peddling on the news today? That he's amassing a terrible arsenal of weapons-of-mass-destruction that he intends give to any 2-bit terrorist in order to destroy the USA and eventually all of mankind? Ok, well believe what you want. I only hope that when the same argument is repeated again and again (as it has been, as it always will be), that at some point you will get the picture and see what a crock of s***t it is.


Well, leaving aside all the "Bushies" and 2-bit terrorists intent on destroying the USA, do you believe, in spite of what the weapons inspectors have already said, and in spite of Iraq's recent past history, that he's not trying to amass an arsenal of weapons-of-mass-destruction?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by alancarre


Because the first question assumes that the default approach is a military one and demands arguments showing reasons against the use of violence, whereas the second question assumes that the default approach is diplomacy and demands arguments for the use of violence. That is, in the first case, it is assumed that violence is justified unless otherwise demonstrated wheras the second assumes that violence is NOT justified unless there are compelling reasons for it. That's a major difference.

Perhaps the reason that war is considered the 'default' is that people looked at all reasonable options (war, continued sanctions, or lifted sanctions with no war) with no assumptions as to which was the 'best', and decided that war would be the optimal (in both saving lives and preventing future problems).

Originally posted by alancarre


Actually 'we' haven't tried 'hiding under the coats'. We've done everything we can to try to strengthen Saddam. We love that guy, he's a great friend of 'ours' (or was until fairly recently).
What in the blue hell are you talking about?

Iraq has been under sanctions for more than a decade, in order to 'weaken Saddam'.

Are you referring to that brief time in the 80s when the U.S. supported Iraq? Well, remember, at the time they were in a war against Iran (which the U.S. thought was the bigger problem.) It was more of a convienience thing.

Also something to keep in mind... most of the weapons the Iraqi army uses were supplied by the Communist countries. (They fly migs, use Soviet tanks, and the Scuds they were lobbing at Israel last gulf war were not American made either.)

Currently, Iraq is getting a lot of help (in terms of trade) from France and Germany. Are they trying to 'strengthen Saddam'?

[alancarre]

Originally posted by richardm


The current approach is to go to war in Iraq, so the default question doesn't apply.



The current approach of a few people in Washington ya. That's not the default approach of 95% of the rest of the world though.




"Until fairly recently", right. It is a common cry that it's all our fault, that we strengthened him, and sold him a whole bunch of terrible weapons. Which is all true. And he's used them for (predictably enough) internal suppression and external aggression. So now we want to take them off him again.

To my mind, this is the responsible thing to do.



Well if you think that all of a sudden:

We are so noble, we are so righteous and good. We'd NEVER do THAT again. No siree, we're all good and we learned our lesson. Never again nope!... Errr, well except Saudi Arabia right now, I mean gotta give some slack there, and well Pakistan... oops, well maybe we'll deal with that at some point later, and... oh my, there are a few dozen others. Ok, so we're making a start right? That's good no? I mean we're going to finally end the tyrany that is our support for repressive regimes by giving them terrible weapons and money! And Iraq is just the place to start. Oh dear... and in doing so we promised 15billion to Turkey... and they're another major human rights violator. Oh, well we'll get to that later... yes we'll bomb Turkey right after Iran. Oh dear, Israel... well that'll have to come under a new category...

Don't you see the hypocracy?


The same one it's always been over the last 20 or 30 years: continuing development of weapons he's not supposed to have, (edit: Okay, he's only not-supposed-to-have had these weapons for the last 12 of those 20 or 30 years), internal suppression, and so on. For many people, the fact that he's not currently indulging in external aggression means it's okay to let him continue.



He won't be engaging in any agression. That's a mathematical truth. He simply doesn't have the means anymore. Nor did he against Iran btw, which would've been a disaster without US assistance.



Well, leaving aside all the "Bushies" and 2-bit terrorists intent on destroying the USA, do you believe, in spite of what the weapons inspectors have already said, and in spite of Iraq's recent past history, that he's not trying to amass an arsenal of weapons-of-mass-destruction?

I think he, like everyone else on planet earth, is trying to get WMD. That's not a special distinction. Nor is it a motivation for the US. There are ways to stop proliferation, but they are complicated diplomatic ways that involve treaties, inspections, promises and eventually concessions.

- Alan

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Perhaps the reason that war is considered the 'default' is that people looked at all reasonable options (war, continued sanctions, or lifted sanctions with no war) with no assumptions as to which was the 'best', and decided that war would be the optimal (in both saving lives and preventing future problems).


And perhaps not. I don't see the rest of the world jumping for joy over this planned conflict.


What in the blue hell are you talking about?

Iraq has been under sanctions for more than a decade, in order to 'weaken Saddam'.

Are you referring to that brief time in the 80s when the U.S. supported Iraq? Well, remember, at the time they were in a war against Iran (which the U.S. thought was the bigger problem.) It was more of a convienience thing.



Correction: The US Supported Saddam, NOT Iraq. The US was, and always has been, interested in what they call "stability in the region". Saddam was a good partner for that cause.



Also something to keep in mind... most of the weapons the Iraqi army uses were supplied by the Communist countries. (They fly migs, use Soviet tanks, and the Scuds they were lobbing at Israel last gulf war were not American made either.)

Currently, Iraq is getting a lot of help (in terms of trade) from France and Germany. Are they trying to 'strengthen Saddam'? [/B]

Yes, actually. Saddam is "one of us". He knows how to make the tough choices when the time comes. He knows how to disregard the poluation and look out for #1 (ie. him and whoever he's allied with). Only problem is he's not allied with the right people anymore. France, Germany, China, Russia? Those are all enemies of the US. You have to realize that this war is not between the US and Iraq, it is between the US, Europe and Asia. There's a serious reason why everyone isn't falling into line on this one...

- Alan

[Reginald]

Woh there!

As I said I'm no professional debater but I have an opinion and you are doing a good job of pushing me over to the dark side.

Sod the semantics. At the moment the US and UK will go to war, the debate about the second resolution is now becoming irrelevant. Why? Quite simply because the US/UK dont need a second resolution to continue the war. So I withdraw what I saw as my error in posting my question. I asked for alternatives to war and thats what I ask again. Ok now to what you say...

The current approach of a few people in Washington ya. That's not the default approach of 95% of the rest of the world though.

How do you know? Evidence for this statement please?
It is the stated possition by the UK Gov in the event of non compliance , my Gov, so your comment that its a few people in Washington is in error.

We are so noble, we are so righteous and good. We'd NEVER do THAT again. No siree, we're all good and we learned our lesson. Never again nope!... Errr, well except Saudi Arabia right now, I mean gotta give some slack there, and well Pakistan... oops, well maybe we'll deal with that at some point later, and... oh my, there are a few dozen others. Ok, so we're making a start right? That's good no? I mean we're going to finally end the tyrany that is our support for repressive regimes by giving them terrible weapons and money! And Iraq is just the place to start. Oh dear... and in doing so we promised 15billion to Turkey... and they're another major human rights violator. Oh, well we'll get to that later... yes we'll bomb Turkey right after Iran. Oh dear, Israel... well that'll have to come under a new category...

You seem to base this whole diatribe on the basis that once you have made a mistake, there is no way you can possibly start to make a change in possition. From a human rights point of view (my main concern as I have previously stated here) I welcome the possibility of a regime change in Iraq.

He won't be engaging in any agression. That's a mathematical truth.

No it isnt, if there is one gun in the country, one missile, he's capable, as to any success he could expect, thats another matter,
however IMHO he's a chaos merchant, being doomed to failure has not restricted him in the past.


I think he, like everyone else on planet earth, is trying to get WMD. That's not a special distinction. Nor is it a motivation for the US. There are ways to stop proliferation, but they are complicated diplomatic ways that involve treaties, inspections, promises and eventually concessions.

And of course Saddam H is held in high esteem world wide for his unconditional and whole hearted acceptance of these treaties, inspections, and promises !!

France, Germany, China, Russia? Those are all enemies of the US. You have to realize that this war is not between the US and Iraq, it is between the US, Europe and Asia. There's a serious reason why everyone isn't falling into line on this one...

Why do you continually ignore the fact that the UK is involved here along with the US, I think it shows anti-US bias on your part. Oh and FYI, The UK is in Europe.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Reginald
Woh there!

As I said I'm no professional debater but I have an opinion and you are doing a good job of pushing me over to the dark side.


Nor am I. Professional debater == politician, and I would never aspire to such a miserable condition.



How do you know? Evidence for this statement please?
It is the stated possition by the UK Gov in the event of non compliance , my Gov, so your comment that its a few people in Washington is in error.


Well I could cite recent polls from all over Europe (including the UK) and those polls show extremely strong opposition to a war. Particularly exceptional European examples are Germany, France, Italy, Spain (the latter two being official 'supporters' of the US). In England the last poll I read indicated something like 80% opposed with no UN mandate (which looks likely to be the case) and 60% with. That's not what I'd call 'supportive'. What about the UK government's position? Well their position is simply exactly what the American position is. They have no opinion of their own. Whatever the policy in Washington is, they simply adopt that policy as their own. The present case is quite a dramatic demonstration, and a clear indication of the UK government's disdain for democracy.


You seem to base this whole diatribe on the basis that once you have made a mistake, there is no way you can possibly start to make a change in possition. From a human rights point of view (my main concern as I have previously stated here) I welcome the possibility of a regime change in Iraq.


Well, that would all be great if we hadn't heard the story a million times over already. It's kind of a "boy who cried wolf" situation instead. And it's particularly difficult to trust people that were the best friends of the ones that they now consider to be the incarnation of evil to be the ones that will remove the menace and replace it with something better. If say, Iran was going in to replace Saddam, then I might actually believe their motives. But the US/UK have destroyed any and all credibility they might've had with respect to this situation long ago. Not to mention that they are 'interested' parties, and so, certainly have alterior motives.



And of course Saddam H is held in high esteem world wide for his unconditional and whole hearted acceptance of these treaties, inspections, and promises !!



Like the US/UK? Who consistently break treaties and promises, develop WMD and preemptively attack countries, regularly use chemical warfare, support repression and international terrorism, use starvation as a diplomatic weapon and so on etc etc etc... Come on, there's nothing new in Iraq. Other than a whole lot of black gold that is. Take a rational look at it.


Why do you continually ignore the fact that the UK is involved here along with the US, I think it shows anti-US bias on your part. Oh and FYI, The UK is in Europe.

The UK is following along reflexively, as usual. Everyone in the UK should be hanging their heads in shame.


- Alan

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by alancarre
Well I could cite recent polls from all over Europe (including the UK) and those polls show extremely strong opposition to a war.

Bush and Blair were elected to lead. It is their job to make the hard decisions which will improve the security and well being of their people (even if it goes against the wishes of the very people that voted them in). If they make the 'wrong' decision, they will be removed from power in the next election. I want a leader who leads, not follows opinion polls blindly.

It should also be known that leaders usually have military intelligence that regular citizens do not, and are thus in a better position to make decisions on national security.

Actually, one important note: There is ONE country where the majority of people actually support the idea of an invasion and overthrow of Saddam, and the country isn't even in the 'coalition'.

Want to know what country? Its Iraq. The people want to get rid of Saddam. (There have been surveys done in Iraq, covertly, which show that.)
Originally posted by alancarre

Well their position is simply exactly what the American position is. They have no opinion of their own. Whatever the policy in Washington is, they simply adopt that policy as their own.

Ummm... Has it ever occured to you that Britian is supporting the U.S. because its the right thing to do? Over a dozen countries in the world also support the U.S. Are they all adopting U.S. policy?

Originally posted by alancarre

Like the US/UK? Who consistently break treaties and promises, develop WMD and preemptively attack countries, regularly use chemical warfare, support repression and international terrorism, use starvation as a diplomatic weapon and so on etc etc etc...
Ok, there you are loosing it...

Regularly uses chemical warfare? That desparately needs explanation. Same with 'starvation as a political weapon'. The U.S. gives millions in aid to foreign countries. Often it sits unused when it gets there.

Breaking treaties is common with all countries. The difference is, the 'treaty' that Iraq broke was a U.N. Enforcable resolution which put a cease fire to the gulf war. That is more serious than other treaties that may be broken. (I'd like to know what important treaties you are referring to.)

As for 'develop WMD', they have in the past. Well, duh, it was the cold war, and the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction was in place. (You DO know what MAD is, don't you?) Since that time, the U.S. has actually been reducing their supplies of WMD. (It should be noted that the Soviet Union had more of these materials than the U.S. did.)

Originally posted by alancarre

Come on, there's nothing new in Iraq. Other than a whole lot of black gold that is.

Ah, no "war for Oil". Got you. Never heard that one before :rolleyes:

I admit, oil may be a small factor. I doubt the U.S. expects to control Iraqi oil once the country is democratic; however ensuring the rules of supply/demand are in place (without too much control from a dictator, as may have happened had Saddam kept Kuwait and perhaps gone into Saudi Arabia) is an issue.

However, the question is, if oil is the only reason why the U.S. is interested in Iraq, why didn't they just make a deal with Saddam? You seem to think they are happy supporting evil dictatorships, and they are likely to get a better deal from an appreciative Saddam than a democratic Iraq that they have no control over.
Originally posted by alancarre

Take a rational look at it.

Most of us on the pro-war side have, and find the anti-war arguments severely lacking (as I've pointed out above). Why do you assume that it is the anti-war (pro-Saddam) side which is rational?

[Pyrrho]

Solution to Iraq and all terrorism:

Nuke all of our own cities and military bases. Then we can sneer and say "There! Who you gonna blow up now?"

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Bush and Blair were elected to lead. It is their job to make the hard decisions which will improve the security and well being of their people (even if it goes against the wishes of the very people that voted them in). If they make the 'wrong' decision, they will be removed from power in the next election. I want a leader who leads, not follows opinion polls blindly.


That doesn't excuse a leader who makes a bad decision. Also, it is incumbent upon the people of the nation to ensure that their will is being carried out. It is not necessary to wait until the next election to remove a leader from power (the word is "impeachment").


It should also be known that leaders usually have military intelligence that regular citizens do not, and are thus in a better position to make decisions on national security.


It is also a sign of "good leadership" to be able to articulate a decision such that:


The majority of regular citizens are swayed to the leader's side.
The leader does not give away secrets unnecessarily.



Actually, one important note: There is ONE country where the majority of people actually support the idea of an invasion and overthrow of Saddam, and the country isn't even in the 'coalition'.

Want to know what country? Its Iraq. The people want to get rid of Saddam. (There have been surveys done in Iraq, covertly, which show that.)


Appeals to sympathy doesn't make any approach to solving the problem right. Besides, this is not the issue that Bush is seeking to address by warring on Saddam.


Ummm... Has it ever occured to you that Britian is supporting the U.S. because its the right thing to do? Over a dozen countries in the world also support the U.S. Are they all adopting U.S. policy?


Has it occurred to you that they were bribed (a la Turkey)? (and bribes do not necessarily consist of money)


However, the question is, if oil is the only reason why the U.S. is interested in Iraq, why didn't they just make a deal with Saddam? You seem to think they are happy supporting evil dictatorships, and they are likely to get a better deal from an appreciative Saddam than a democratic Iraq that they have no control over.


You presume that a deal could have been made after the Gulf War!


Most of us on the pro-war side have, and find the anti-war arguments severely lacking (as I've pointed out above). Why do you assume that it is the anti-war (pro-Saddam) side which is rational?


Most of us on the "other" side find the arguments of the pro-war side severely lacking as well. However, since the pro-war side is the side of "take action", under the leadership principle above, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate the need to "take action". All the anti-war side has to do is play the role of "skeptic".

:p

[Reginald]

posted by dsm

That doesn't excuse a leader who makes a bad decision. Also, it is incumbent upon the people of the nation to ensure that their will is being carried out. It is not necessary to wait until the next election to remove a leader from power (the word is "impeachment").

An unpopular decision is not automatically a bad decision.


It is also a sign of "good leadership" to be able to articulate a decision such that:......

Many people who have been hailed as good leaders have done things that their populace have been totally unaware of at the time. I agree however that the case could have been put better, as I have said earlier.

Appeals to sympathy doesn't make any approach to solving the problem right. Besides, this is not the issue that Bush is seeking to address by warring on Saddam.

True, but I think it should be. IMHO I feel that in this case the side-effect (Removal of a tyrant) is more beneficial to the patient than the medicine (Removal of wmd, terrorist threat)

Has it occurred to you that they were bribed (a la Turkey)? (and bribes do not necessarily consist of money)

Evidence? How? when? Why? We value our ongoing relationship with the US. You dont need to bribe one of your best allies.

Most of us on the "other" side find the arguments of the pro-war side severely lacking as well. However, since the pro-war side is the side of "take action", under the leadership principle above, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate the need to "take action". All the anti-war side has to do is play the role of "skeptic".

Point well made here. However I would say that people have been tortured and killed on an hourly basis within Iraq for the last 12 years, no one on the "Anti" side has been very forthcoming with ideas to stop this ongoing "action" by SH.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Reginald

An unpopular decision is not automatically a bad decision.


For an elected official? Of course it is. It's only a question of whether it's considered "bad enough" for the electorate to choose to do something about it.


Many people who have been hailed as good leaders have done things that their populace have been totally unaware of at the time.


Secret issues does not apply here -- Bush (et.al.) have already made us keenly aware of the issue.


True, but I think it should be. IMHO I feel that in this case the side-effect (Removal of a tyrant) is more beneficial to the patient than the medicine (Removal of wmd, terrorist threat)


If human rights violations were the only issues on the table, you would not be behind a Bush war. You would be clamoring for the UN to be doing more (with US, etc., urging). Allowing the US to depose the tyrant without UN backing would cause quite a backlash in the right of the "state" to govern itself area.


Evidence? How? when? Why? We value our ongoing relationship with the US. You dont need to bribe one of your best allies.


That, in itself, is (part of?) the bribery! I wasn't using the term "bribery" purely in the sense of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". It can also be in the express or implied form of "look at all we've done for you in the past and what we could do for you in the future".


Point well made here. However I would say that people have been tortured and killed on an hourly basis within Iraq for the last 12 years, no one on the "Anti" side has been very forthcoming with ideas to stop this ongoing "action" by SH.

What makes Iraq, though, any more of a special case in this regard than any of the dozens of other countries that practice torture? If torture is the issue, why isn't Bush (et.al.) actively working with the UN and Amnesty International to provide teeth to their initiatives to stop it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

What makes Iraq, though, any more of a special case in this regard than any of the dozens of other countries that practice torture? If torture is the issue, why isn't Bush (et.al.) actively working with the UN and Amnesty International to provide teeth to their initiatives to stop it?
Ah, back to the old "other countries do it too" argument.

A number of reasons why Iraq makes a better target:

- They have existing UN resolutions against them. They are also under a cease fire (which they have broken the terms of). This give a legal foundation for a war. Saudi Arabia is a place that has a bad human rights record, but they aren't subject to the terms of a cease fire or UN resolutions. (Yes, its unfair to the people who live in other 'bad' countries, but the world has to start somewhere)

- The U.S. can probably easily win. North Korea and China abuse human rights. But, the fact that they already have nuclear weapons (plus big armies) makes taking them on much more difficult. The U.S. and its allied forces have to pick their battles carefully

- Iraq is relatively secular compared to other countries (like Iran and Saudi Arabia). So, it stands a chance at becoming a democracy (well, at least more of a chance than Saudi Arabia)

- It has attacked neighbouring countries in the recent past (Iran and Kuwait); if allowed to rearm they may do so again. Many of the other dictatorships in the world oppress their own people (which is bad), but they have not tried to expand.

I do want to see more democracies throughout the world. But, the free world has to start somewhere. For better or worse, Iraq is the 'best' choice.

[Reginald]

Secret issues does not apply here -- Bush (et.al.) have already made us keenly aware of the issue.

But have they told us everything??

If human rights violations were the only issues on the table, you would not be behind a Bush war. You would be clamoring for the UN to be doing more (with US, etc., urging). Allowing the US to depose the tyrant without UN backing would cause quite a backlash in the right of the "state" to govern itself area.

Ok what would you propose against Iraq? UN resolutions? Sanctions? Lets give it a go and see what happens?

That, in itself, is (part of?) the bribery! I wasn't using the term "bribery" purely in the sense of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". It can also be in the express or implied form of "look at all we've done for you in the past and what we could do for you in the future".

Are there any other types of alliances?

What makes Iraq, though, any more of a special case in this regard than any of the dozens of other countries that practice torture? If torture is the issue, why isn't Bush (et.al.) actively working with the UN and Amnesty International to provide teeth to their initiatives to stop it?

This dosnt answer my point. Where were all the currently "anti" people over the last 12 years? Mass demonstrations outside the embassies of these rogue states havn't occurred on any kind of regular basis.
You seem to imply that the US has to lead any efforts in this area, yet when they do they are open to critisism. Via what mechanism would you propose that the US with the UN get countries like Iraq to start respecting basic human rights? Do you think that Iraq would be paying attention at all if the US and UK didnt have 100,000's of troops on their doorstep?

Do you think that for one moment that Iraq, SA, N Korea et al would welcome Amnesty International in with open arms saying "Oh yes look thats where we keep the rubber hose and electrodes"???

Maybe they should knock on the door and say please?

:rolleyes:

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Regularly uses chemical warfare? That desparately needs explanation. Same with 'starvation as a political weapon'. The U.S. gives millions in aid to foreign countries. Often it sits unused when it gets there.


It is well known that the British air force used chemical weapons in North Russia against the Bolsheviks. They also used chemical weapons to put down a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq in the 20s. WW1 is no exception either, where all sides used chemical weapons. The US used/uses chemical weapons in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Columbia just to name a few. The US and UK also supports/supported countries that use chemical weapons (notably Iraq) and provide/provided the means to develop them.


Breaking treaties is common with all countries. The difference is, the 'treaty' that Iraq broke was a U.N. Enforcable resolution which put a cease fire to the gulf war. That is more serious than other treaties that may be broken. (I'd like to know what important treaties you are referring to.)


How about the Geneva Conventions? Or more recently the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? But anyway, as you've pointed out, Iraq hasn't broken any treaties recently. It may only have failed to implement some technical restriction in some UN resolution. The UN that is, the organization which the US/UK have decided to declare irrelvant.

Speaking of UN resolutions, who's in the lead for breaking them? Well, I know what you think I'm going to say, but I'm not going to say it. It's the USA! But how is that possible you ask? Well, you're right it is not possible for the US to break a UN resolution. That's because they have a veto. So they just make the law suit whatever purpose they like. The US is by far and away the largest UN resolution veto-er btw, something on the order of 75 vetos.


As for 'develop WMD', they have in the past. Well, duh, it was the cold war, and the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction was in place. (You DO know what MAD is, don't you?) Since that time, the U.S. has actually been reducing their supplies of WMD. (It should be noted that the Soviet Union had more of these materials than the U.S. did.)


So it's ok to develop WMD only if you are successful at it? That seems an odd statement. Well, if so, I think we can find an easy way out of the crisis. We simply help Iraq develop WMD to such a point that MAD is in place. Then their actions would be wholly justified according to your 'logic'. The truth is, that AD (assured destruction) is already in place for Iraq. So they would never initiate a WMD attack on the US, or any other nuclear power (including Israel).


Ah, no "war for Oil". Got you. Never heard that one before :rolleyes:


That's not an argument. Consider trigonometry class... student puts up hand:

Ah, "the old pythagorus therom" argument. Heh ya, never heard that one before! (rolleyes).

Just because an argument is used extensively does not prove it is wrong.

- Alan

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by alancarre

It is well known that the British air force used chemical weapons in North Russia against the Bolsheviks. They also used chemical weapons to put down a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq in the 20s. .... The US and UK also supports/supported countries that use chemical weapons (notably Iraq) and provide/provided the means to develop them.

First of all, you said regularly, yet you trot out examples from the firt half of the century? I'm sorry, the use of weapons a couple of times more than 50 years ago does not count as regularly.
Originally posted by alancarre

How about the Geneva Conventions? Or more recently the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? But anyway, as you've pointed out, Iraq hasn't broken any treaties recently. It may only have failed to implement some technical restriction in some UN resolution. The UN that is, the organization which the US/UK have decided to declare irrelvant.

Actually, its countries like France that are making the UN irrelevant, by first passing a resolution saying "Iraq, you must comply or else" and then saying "just kidding, you don't really need to." Such an organization does not deserve any respect.

And the 'technical resolutions' are the ones that are the basis of the cease fire. (And Saddam has been violating them since the end of the gulf war.)
Originally posted by alancarre

Speaking of UN resolutions, who's in the lead for breaking them? Well, I know what you think I'm going to say, but I'm not going to say it. It's the USA! But how is that possible you ask? Well, you're right it is not possible for the US to break a UN resolution. That's because they have a veto. So they just make the law suit whatever purpose they like. The US is by far and away the largest UN resolution veto-er btw, something on the order of 75 vetos.

It should be noted that in the first 2 or 3 decades of the U.N, the U.S.A. almost never used its veto. In fact, it was the soviet Union that was vetoing everything. In the last decade, the U.S. has exercised its veto more often, but most of the vetoed resolutions centered around Israel. (i.e. they were very narrowly focused, on issues which condemed Israel but gave no blame to other parties.)

By the way, something else... vetoing a resolution is NOT the same as breaking it. I suggest you look up the definitions for veto and break.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by alancarre

So it's ok to develop WMD only if you are successful at it? That seems an odd statement. Well, if so, I think we can find an easy way out of the crisis. We simply help Iraq develop WMD to such a point that MAD is in place. Then their actions would be wholly justified according to your 'logic'. The truth is, that AD (assured destruction) is already in place for Iraq. So they would never initiate a WMD attack on the US, or any other nuclear power (including Israel).

If you had any sense of history, you'd know that Mutually assured destruction only works when the governments in charge care about its citizens enough to not want them all dying in a war.

Saddam does not care about his own people. Therefore, him having WMD is a bad thing. He's more likely to use them, because he doesn't care if the rest of Iraq gets bombed.

Originally posted by alancarre

Just because an argument is used extensively does not prove it is wrong.

In this case it doesn't prove it right either...

The anti-war protestors seem to mindlessly parrot 'no war for oil', without thought that the U.S. could have made a deal with Saddam either before the gulf war, or a few years later to get easy access to oil.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

First of all, you said [B]regularly, yet you trot out examples from the firt half of the century? I'm sorry, the use of weapons a couple of times more than 50 years ago does not count as regularly.

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Columbia are from the second half of the century. I suppose you snipped them out of the quote for convenience? And that is 'regular' by the way. It's a consistent pattern of behaviour that spans the entire century. Unlike Saddam, for instance, that only used chemical weapons during one war. And he only did so after getting permission and instruction from his buddies in Washington and London.


Actually, its countries like France that are making the UN irrelevant, by first passing a resolution saying "Iraq, you must comply or else" and then saying "just kidding, you don't really need to." Such an organization does not deserve any respect.


Is that what they said? I need to see some documentation on that. From what I heard, they said that they want to increase the inspections regime and force Iraq to verifiably disarm. Unlike the US/UK that only hope that their actions will do the trick.

If you had any sense of history, you'd know that Mutually assured destruction only works when the governments in charge care about its citizens enough to not want them all dying in a war.

Haha... ya, I guess you're right. Like take the USSR and China for instance. There's a couple governments that have historically cared for the people! I guess that explains how come MAD worked eh?

The anti-war protestors seem to mindlessly parrot 'no war for oil', without thought that the U.S. could have made a deal with Saddam either before the gulf war, or a few years later to get easy access to oil.

You don't understand the 'blood for oil' argument so you shouldn't be commenting. I already posted a fairly detailed description of the argument. Clearly you didn't bother to read it.


- Alan

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I do want to see more democracies throughout the world. But, the free world has to start somewhere. For better or worse, Iraq is the 'best' choice.


Ah, the old "the only good state is a democratic state" argument. :rolleyes:

Editted to add:

Whether Iraq makes a "good target" is not the issue with the "other countries do it too" argument. The argument is more about whether there is a coordinated, fully thought out strategy for dealing with the issue worldwide rather than a piecemeal, "we're mad at Saddam, so we'll get him first" strategy.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Reginald

But have they told us everything??


They don't have to tell us everything (at least at this time!), but, under the leadership principle, they should "lead" us into the war and not simply compel us because they are currently in power. Understanding where the line is is part of being the leader.


Ok what would you propose against Iraq? UN resolutions? Sanctions? Lets give it a go and see what happens?


I'll answer that in two ways:


If human rights was the issue, the leader of the US should deal with it (perhaps, forcefully) through the UN and recognize that his authority ends at the US borders.
If the issue is Iraq as it is now, there is still a lot that the UN could do if pushed properly and, if they sanction removal of Saddam, then war becomes an understood possibility.



Are there any other types of alliances?


Perhaps not, but the world's only superpower has to be careful in how it applies pressure (or, said another way, the other countries have to be careful in accepting pressure from the US). Think of Microsoft implying to Gateway "maybe we won't support your computers in the future".


This dosnt answer my point. Where were all the currently "anti" people over the last 12 years? Mass demonstrations outside the embassies of these rogue states havn't occurred on any kind of regular basis.


Umm. By "anti" you mean "anti-war", right? What "war" did they have to protest over the last 12 years?


You seem to imply that the US has to lead any efforts in this area, yet when they do they are open to critisism. Via what mechanism would you propose that the US with the UN get countries like Iraq to start respecting basic human rights? Do you think that Iraq would be paying attention at all if the US and UK didnt have 100,000's of troops on their doorstep?


The difference is why aren't those 100,000 US/UK troops on Iraq's doorstep directly under the auspices of the UN?


Do you think that for one moment that Iraq, SA, N Korea et al would welcome Amnesty International in with open arms saying "Oh yes look thats where we keep the rubber hose and electrodes"???


They might if the representative of Amnesty International had the full and complete backing of the UN (and, therefore, the US) behind it such that when these countries opened their door, not only would they see the AI representative, they'd also see the military guns of the UN (et.al.) behind him.

[Advocate]

Concerning the argument that the US has no business opposing Iraq since we had helped Iraq build its military in the 1980's - I don't think this has any merit. The US was trying to help Iraq against Iran (considered a bigger threat at the time). If you believe that this makes the US opposition to Iraq now illegitimate then you must also accept that both sides in the Cold War were illegitimate since the US and USSR were allies against Germany in World War II. Also, by this reasoning France could not oppose the US since they were also allies in the Cold War and previously. Alliances aren't forever, and just because the US supported a rogue regime in the past (in order to oppose a worse one) does not mean that we can never oppose them in the future. If anything, I would think that the role the US played in empowering Saddam makes it all the more necessary for us to bring him down.

[dsm]

Leave it to Gary Larson's Doonesbury to make the point:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/cx_db_uc/latest

:D :D :D

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Advocate
Concerning the argument that the US has no business opposing Iraq since we had helped Iraq build its military in the 1980's - I don't think this has any merit. The US was trying to help Iraq against Iran (considered a bigger threat at the time). If you believe that this makes the US opposition to Iraq now illegitimate then you must also accept that both sides in the Cold War were illegitimate since the US and USSR were allies against Germany in World War II. Also, by this reasoning France could not oppose the US since they were also allies in the Cold War and previously. Alliances aren't forever, and just because the US supported a rogue regime in the past (in order to oppose a worse one) does not mean that we can never oppose them in the future. If anything, I would think that the role the US played in empowering Saddam makes it all the more necessary for us to bring him down.

Everyone has the right to oppose Iraq. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the reasons they give for their opposition are genuine. Those reasons are crucial in deciding whether or not any actions taken would lead to the stated outcome of said actions. All evidence indicates their stated reasons are false and that the real reasons have to do with US global dominance and the oil industry. If that's true then the result of the war might be disasterous for the entire world and have little or no positive effect on ordinary Iraqis.

- Alan

[Reginald]

Posted by dsm
Umm. By "anti" you mean "anti-war", right? What "war" did they have to protest over the last 12 years?

Call them what you like, they suddenly develop a concience, I say again, if loss of life means that much to them, why have they not been outside the Iraqi embassies around the world, protesting against the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people for the last 12 years? Why are they not Protesting against Saddam on this issue now?

The difference is why aren't those 100,000 US/UK troops on Iraq's doorstep directly under the auspices of the UN?

The UN took 12 years to come up with what? More resolutions, sanctions, all of which have no effect on The leader of Iraq.
The French and Germans et al, state that inspections are working, they make the case that the inspectors need more time. If all the US and UK troops were to return home tomorrow do you honestly think that the co-operation (albeit limited as it is at the moment) of the Iraqis would continiue? You dont even have to guess blindly at that answer, just look at the past.

They might if the representative of Amnesty International had the full and complete backing of the UN (and, therefore, the US) behind it such that when these countries opened their door, not only would they see the AI representative, they'd also see the military guns of the UN (et.al.) behind him.

And here is where we have the "cake and eat it" scenario. Could the French bring to bear the kind of force that could apply the kind of pressure that is needed in these cases? Doubtful, ok then the French and the UK? Still doubtful. French, UK and Russia? Possibly but Im not sure the Russians could maintain a large standing army on foreign soil for very long anymore. So what we are saying here is that the pressure needed can really only be provided by some combination of countries and the US. The same US that has asked the rest of the world community to assist it in ridding the world of a regime that it considers a threat, and the world it seems has said no (or rather non).

Posted by alancarre

All evidence indicates their stated reasons are false and that the real reasons have to do with US global dominance and the oil industry. If that's true then the result of the war might be disasterous for the entire world and have little or no positive effect on ordinary Iraqis.

I would agree that the evidence for WMD in Iraq is looking shakey, I base this on the reports of arms inspectors, what evidence can you give for you claim that this is a global domination/oil thing?

And may I recommend that you go away and read something of the actual conditions (wrt human rights) that a large proportion of the Iraqi people live in before you restate this claim of yours that there might be no possitive effect on ordinary Iraqis.

maybe start here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/2805509.stm

[Advocate]

Originally posted by alancarre


Everyone has the right to oppose Iraq. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the reasons they give for their opposition are genuine. Those reasons are crucial in deciding whether or not any actions taken would lead to the stated outcome of said actions. All evidence indicates their stated reasons are false and that the real reasons have to do with US global dominance and the oil industry. If that's true then the result of the war might be disasterous for the entire world and have little or no positive effect on ordinary Iraqis.

- Alan

I guess I am still missing the part as to why the reasons stated are invalid even if there are other motivations. Of course the US is not going in solely for the good of the Iraqi people. But just because there are other motivations does not mean that the stated reasons are not justified.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Advocate

I guess I am still missing the part as to why the reasons stated are invalid even if there are other motivations. Of course the US is not going in solely for the good of the Iraqi people. But just because there are other motivations does not mean that the stated reasons are not justified.


Has the reasons been well thought out? Have the potential results been well considered? What will happen if the US goes it (essentially) alone in removing Saddam? How much devastation will the war cause Iraq and the US forces? How much cleanup will be required? Will there be "fallout" into the other countries in the area and, if so, how will that affect the US relationship with those countries? Will the other "factions" in the area accept a US controlled regime in Baghdad and, if not, will they retaliate openly or covertly? What sort of "jihad" will be put in place against the US and how long will it last? When the US suffers further 9/11 attacks, will the other "allied" nations get involved and risk attacks against themselves or will they be inclined to think that the US got itself into it's predicament? How much has the US truly done since 9/11 to mobilize the UN against terrorists (as well as the nations that support them) and how much more could they do? Why has the US strategy for dealing with Iraq been so different than it's strategy for dealing with North Korea when they were both part of the "Axis of Evil"? What if NK turns out to be an equal or greater problem than Iraq? And what about Iran (the third in the "Axis")? If the US has potential answers to these questions, is it not time to prepare the world (through the UN) for the answers by establishing precedents, international laws, sanctions, war resolutions and such that can be immediately put into place if (or when) these things come to pass?

Many of these questions have been answered in dribs and drabs, but they all fit together in answering the first question and they should be leading into developing a strategy that answers the last question. My feeling is that Bush (et.al.) is beginning to realize these issues and, so, is taking a different tack with North Korea than he did with Iraq, but he's already committed the US to doing so much against Saddam that now, even if Saddam disarmed, he cannot back away from this war without making himself (and the US) look bad.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Advocate


I guess I am still missing the part as to why the reasons stated are invalid even if there are other motivations. Of course the US is not going in solely for the good of the Iraqi people. But just because there are other motivations does not mean that the stated reasons are not justified.

No it doesn't. But that's not the argument. If one Mafia don says that another Mafia don is guilty of some crime, then he's probably correct. The point is that the culpability of one lends zero credibility to the other. And if one of these parties is making grandiose claims about morality and rule-of-law and so on, we should be deeply suspicious and question their motives for doing so.

The point is (and it's a very important point) that human beings, particularly those that have been the victims of various forms of 'Mafia dons' in the past, have struggled to create something called "the rule of law". Rather than "the rule of the jungle", people now believe that any institution, be it a Mafia organization, or a company, or the United States of America, must conform to some miniumum standard of behaviour which is agreed upon by consensus.

The United States has clearly stated that the UN is now irrelevant. So the ONLY way to resolve differences apparently, is to resort to force. That is, there is no legal body to appeal to anymore. Another way of saying this is that from now on there will be no more justice for the weak. Maybe some feel that that's the way it should be. Don Corlione would agree.

- Alan

[dsm]

Originally posted by Reginald

Call them what you like, they suddenly develop a concience, I say again, if loss of life means that much to them, why have they not been outside the Iraqi embassies around the world, protesting against the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people for the last 12 years? Why are they not Protesting against Saddam on this issue now?


You're implying that the "anti-war" protesters have one motivation in their stance against the war. There are probably a significant number of them who have been protesting bad conditions around the world through organizations like Amnesty International. However, there are probably also a significant number of them who just don't see a reason to be sending their sons and daughters into harms way and, so, protest to stop what they see as a bad war. Remember, it is the spectre of 9/11 and the actions of the UN/US that are currently determining where the current crisis is that the protesters protest.


The UN took 12 years to come up with what? More resolutions, sanctions, all of which have no effect on The leader of Iraq.


There is now the spectre of 9/11 and an angry US to deal with. That adds more impetus to what could be done in the UN. It also could add more media scrutiny to what the UN does which could add further pressure on the UN to establish and keep resolutions with "bite". But that is all predicated on the US "leading" the UN into doing the right thing and maintaining it's focus over the long haul.


And here is where we have the "cake and eat it" scenario. Could the French bring to bear the kind of force that could apply the kind of pressure that is needed in these cases? Doubtful, ok then the French and the UK? Still doubtful. French, UK and Russia? Possibly but Im not sure the Russians could maintain a large standing army on foreign soil for very long anymore. So what we are saying here is that the pressure needed can really only be provided by some combination of countries and the US. The same US that has asked the rest of the world community to assist it in ridding the world of a regime that it considers a threat, and the world it seems has said no (or rather non).


The key is will the US have the backing of the rest of the world in doing what it's doing. If all was being done under the auspices of the UN, then those on the other side of the issue (like Saddam and bin Laden) would find it harder to direct their energies at just the US.

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by dsm


In the name of "open and honest":

Are (or were) you a member of the military that would fight such a war?

I'm not sure what you're saying or asking.

I am not part of the military, but I would take action if it meant
removing saddam.

Is that what you meant?

Scott

[ScottDYelich]

I ask myself... is it important enough for the "regime" in Iraq to go?
I ask myself what reason might be good enough for me to think
this to be the case?

my eventual conclusion is yes.

I then ask myself, how could this be done?

Considering that Iraq was in a war with Iran that it couldn't win
and we helped it from completely losing it, there was at least no
imbalance then in the ME. Then iraq goes to invade kuwait ...
hmmm, now there's imbalance again! Did supporting iraq
mean that iraq HAD to inade kuwait? no. So, now iraq
has to be dealt with.

there was a coalition, a war. iraq lost. iraq signed an unconditional surrender -- and the first thing it did was give conditions and refuse to abide by the cease fire.

sorry, my position is that the war should have continued right from
that point.


12 years later ... the UN has proved itself to be useless.

who cares if there isn't UN support? iraq supports terrorism.
seems like many ME countries do -- or, at least, they tend
not to aggressively try to stop it -- why? because this is their
method.

in 1998 binladen diclaed jihad etc. good, we should have killed him then.
next?

mr fatwah meet mr cruise missile.

there is a claim that using cruise missiles is cowardly. um, who cares? if someone wants to declare war -- we can't just go after them... until they attack. Sorry, a declaration of war is an attack. meet mr cruise missle.

I'm telling you what I think, not trying to convince you that I am right or
wishing that my ideas were the way it happens to be... I am trying to make people THINK ... that's all.

ok, now that you got me going. gaza / west bank? SOMEONE HAS TO KNOW WHO THE TERRORISTS ARE! They think that when they blow themselves up they AND their family will go to paradise with 72 virgins (oh man, who thought THAT would be paridise). Ok, so when they blow up themselves, send their immediate family (same body count?) to heaven. I think families would be more than willing to put a stop to that **** right away, if this were the case -- if not... the population will get a lot smaller a lot quicker.

I saw this interview where this teenage boy blew up himself somewhere. The father siad he was proud of his boy (bye bye), his mother said johnny was such a good boy and his little brother said something like "WHEN I GROW UP I WANT TO BE JUST LIKE HIM" (bye bye).

anyway, this oughtta set a bunch of people off... :-) I have plenty more to spark debate if this one topic ever dies down. :->

Anyway, not a single... not a SINGLE argument for not continuing the war against iraq has made any sense to me.

try again?

Scott

[dsm]

Originally posted by ScottDYelich

I'm not sure what you're saying or asking.

I am not part of the military, but I would take action if it meant removing saddam.

Is that what you meant?


Kind of. You still haven't said why you are in favor of the war to remove Saddam and, when you say you would "take action", what type of action do you mean and how much?

This forum is for what Randi calls "critical thinking" and, so, I'm just seeing if you're thinking critically about the issues involved.

Editted to add: whoops, see you answered my questions at the same time I was asking them.

[ScottDYelich]

Originally posted by dsm


Kind of. You still haven't said why you are in favor of the war to remove Saddam and, when you say you would "take action", what type of action do you mean and how much?

This forum is for what Randi calls "critical thinking" and, so, I'm just seeing if you're thinking critically about the issues involved.

Editted to add: whoops, see you answered my questions at the same time I was asking them.

I am in favor... because I think more harm is done with saddam remaining in power.

more harm, than good.

for everything that is said or claimed bad about the US or any other
nation, I would just weight that against the bad and/or the potiential
good or bad.

although I hate to think of anything as a religious war... if people with religion can't learn to live with their neighbor, then that is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

I can live with anyone in the world other than anyone who can not live with me and who wants kill me for whatever reason.

With that said, I do not want to kill anyone -- and I can live with anyone.

We are on a small rock, the sooner we realize that we're all here together... the better.

until then, we will have babies who think they are better off by hurting others to get their way. the un was an attempt, i'd guess, to have a
body above the two or so sides in some situation, but what it has turned into seems to be a self serving meta-pesudo-political disgrace.

"inspections are working"

saddam pays people to blow thmselves up to kill random people.

to me, saying inspections are working is like saying that it's ok
to allow saddam to continue to pay to have random people
killed... or, to an end... to say that inspections are working is
basically like supporting terrorism.

I don't want to see anyone die, but it if I had to kill 1 person to save
10, and it was a GUARANTEED thing.. and those 10 had some sort
of worth (ya, get me here), then I'd do it.

the question is, what is the untapped potential of all the people who are
being killed every day for one means ot another?

So, you say... what's my solution to it all? glad you asked.

education.

if saudi arabia won't let their people freely choose and educate
themselves, then the world needs to attack sa. if this is the case with
china, then china needs to be attacked.

the good thing is, these countries are. Yup, the internet is doing just this. Why do you think these countries hate it so much? of course, many ME countries hate america even more because it is claimed that
our (pop) culture is actually a weapon ... and it's against some religion
non sense.


heheh, funny... how people actually WANT the stuff.


See, to me, if religion was correct -- it wouldn't have to be enforced with fear of death! you shouldn't have to force someone to pretend to believe in something that isn't true.

saudi arabia had its experiment with afghanistan.


remember the insanty there -- they destroyed the statues from the other religion because it was an OFFENSE to them?

when you hate everything, you will be miserable.
if you love everything, at least you will have lots of love --
but you should remember that just because you believe in something
(ie: loving your neighbor, etc) ... it doesn't mean your neighbor believes
the same thing.

I don't by the argument that killing is ok, if it's in the name of god.
I also don't believe the argument that because the pope or anyone
else claims to be a messenger of god, that their word is infallable.

Scott