Proof: Inaction deadlier than war

[treborf]

In an effort to come to my own conclusions on whether or not my country is justified in taking action against Iraq, I asked myself one simple question:

Which will likely cost more innocent Iraqi lives: a war to depose Saddam Hussein, or the repurcussions of leaving him in power?

To answer this question, I gathered statistics from a site that peace advocates should embrace: Human Rights Watch (hrw.org). I chose HRW as a source because they document how their statistics are collected, and their methodologies are sound.

First, some statistics about Saddam Hussein's regime since the late '70s:

- 250,000-290,000 disappearances (most believed dead)
- 100,000 Kurds trucked to remote sites and executed during Feb-Sep 1988 alone
- 20,000+ killed in the '80s using banned chemical weapons
- 200,000+ Marsh Arabs displaced, detained or executed since 1991

Now, here are some statistics about the '91 Gulf War:

- Upper limit of between 2,500 and 3,000 killed directly due to attacks
- About 110,000 died indirectly due to damage to infrastructure
- Only 8.5% of bombs used were guided "smart bombs"

It's worth mentioning that since '91, U.N. sanctions against Iraq, while having little effect on Saddam Hussein, have devastated the average Iraqi citizen (estimated 70% of the population lives off food assistance).

We can expect the civilian casualties to be lower this time around for the following reasons:

- 70% of the bombs will be guided "smart bombs" (90% in Baghdad where most of the population is)
- The allies have an incentive to minimize damage to infrastructure since they will be rebuilding
- Independent media will be "tagging along" this time (coverage said to be "unprecedented")
- Allies will participate in post-war humanitarian effort

With all this on the table, it's truly hard to envision how leaving Saddam in power and leaving sanctions in place will result in the loss of fewer innocent lives than deposing Saddam Hussein through force.

Thoughts?

[shanek]

There's more to this than numbers. There's the rule of law, which our President is flagrantly violating. He is also illegally suspending our soverign rights, using his war as an excuse.

Besides, your own source attributes much if not most of the damage to the UN sanctions, and you have also done nothing to show that these atrocities would ebb after the removal of Saddam.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by treborf
First, some statistics about Saddam Hussein's regime since the late '70s:

- 250,000-290,000 disappearances (most believed dead)
- 100,000 Kurds trucked to remote sites and executed during Feb-Sep 1988 alone
- 20,000+ killed in the '80s using banned chemical weapons
- 200,000+ Marsh Arabs displaced, detained or executed since 1991

Now, here are some statistics about the '91 Gulf War:

- Upper limit of between 2,500 and 3,000 killed directly due to attacks
- About 110,000 died indirectly due to damage to infrastructure
- Only 8.5% of bombs used were guided "smart bombs"

It's worth mentioning that since '91, U.N. sanctions against Iraq, while having little effect on Saddam Hussein, have devastated the average Iraqi citizen (estimated 70% of the population lives off food assistance).

We can expect the civilian casualties to be lower this time around for the following reasons:

- 70% of the bombs will be guided "smart bombs" (90% in Baghdad where most of the population is)
- The allies have an incentive to minimize damage to infrastructure since they will be rebuilding
- Independent media will be "tagging along" this time (coverage said to be "unprecedented")
- Allies will participate in post-war humanitarian effort

With all this on the table, it's truly hard to envision how leaving Saddam in power and leaving sanctions in place will result in the loss of fewer innocent lives than deposing Saddam Hussein through force.

Thoughts?

No surprise at all, amigo. None.

Then again, if you ask Wayne Grabert, he'll tell you it's all about the oil.

[Skeptic]

There's more to this than numbers. There's the rule of law,

I thought the protestor's point was to flaunt the law in order to save "innocent iraqi lives" by "any means necessary"?

So now that statistics show clearly attacking will save vastly more lives than not, the rule of law is suddenly so important?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There's more to this than numbers. There's the rule of law,

I thought the protestor's point was to flaunt the law in order to save "innocent iraqi lives" by "any means necessary"?

So now that statistics show clearly attacking will save vastly more lives than not, the rule of law is suddenly so important?

Show me where I have claimed this. If you can't, then don't attribute arguments made by others to me.

Besides, you ignored the second part of my post which exposed some big assumptions that you made.

[treborf]

Originally posted by shanek
There's more to this than numbers. There's the rule of law, which our President is flagrantly violating. He is also illegally suspending our soverign rights, using his war as an excuse.

I agree that it would have been preferable to achieve consensus among our allies in the U.N. The Bush administration could have done a better job with diplomacy. I also agree that the "War on Terror" is being used as an excuse to chip away at personal freedom and privacy, while at the same time hypocritically increasing government secrecy in the name of "national security".

Besides, your own source attributes much if not most of the damage to the UN sanctions, and you have also done nothing to show that these atrocities would ebb after the removal of Saddam.
I agree that the sanctions have been damaging, but I disagree that nothing would change following the removal of Saddam. After he is deposed, the U.N. sanctions would surely be lifted, thereby giving the Iraqi people some much needed relief.

[evildave]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr11/en/
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/stats/stats.htm

In 1998 alone, 1,170,694 killed in traffic accidents annually, world wide. 38,848,625 injured in traffic accidents annually, world wide.

Indeed, EVIL CARS claim a HIGHER toll in poor countries!

Data show that in some countries, 1 of every 10 hospital beds is occupied by a victim of a road traffic crash. Although car ownership is greater in industrialized than developing countries, studies show that in 2000, 90% of all traffic fatalities occurred in low- and middle- income societies. The majority of the victims of these incidents were people who will never be able to afford a car: pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transportation.

[fishbob]

treborf sez:I agree that it would have been preferable to achieve consensus among our allies in the U.N. The Bush administration could have done a better job with diplomacy. I also agree that the "War on Terror" is being used as an excuse to chip away at personal freedom and privacy, while at the same time hypocritically increasing government secrecy in the name of "national security". I am pretty sure that Saddam has to go - heck, he needs killing.
I am annoyed that the Bush Administration has done a poor job of diplomacy. I expected better from Colin Powell.
I am outraged at Dubya and his pals chipping away at our personal freedoms.

[iain]

treborf wrote
With all this on the table, it's truly hard to envision how leaving Saddam in power and leaving sanctions in place will result in the loss of fewer innocent lives than deposing Saddam Hussein through force.I think its very easy.

1. The alternative to war at this time was not just to have santions and leave Saddam in power. An alternative might have been a war at a later date (maybe with international and arab backing, following further weapons inspections). Another might have been to find a more peaceful way to depose Saddam.

2. You ignore the possible effects on the wider region of the war and the anti-American sentiment that it raises (e.g. Saudi Arabia is America's most consistent Arab Ally but only 3% of Saudi's see the US favourably right now).

3. The figures you quote are "since the late '70s" - i.e. over a period of about 25 years. Those people cannot be brought back to life; so your argument on numbers only makes sense if a similar number of people are likely to be killed over the next 25 years if there is no war now. I don't know of any good reason to think that is the case (especially if an alternative was war in 12 months or even 24 months).

Comparing Iraq in the past to Iraq in the future doesn't help us much. We need to try to figure out what will happen in the future under the various different scenarios. History can certainly help, but does not provide a blueprint.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by iain
I think its very easy.

1. The alternative to war at this time was not just to have santions and leave Saddam in power. An alternative might have been a war at a later date (maybe with international and arab backing, following further weapons inspections). Another might have been to find a more peaceful way to depose Saddam.

2. You ignore the possible effects on the wider region of the war and the anti-American sentiment that it raises (e.g. Saudi Arabia is America's most consistent Arab Ally but only 3% of Saudi's see the US favourably right now).

3. The figures you quote are "since the late '70s" - i.e. over a period of about 25 years. Those people cannot be brought back to life; so your argument on numbers only makes sense if a similar number of people are likely to be killed over the next 25 years if there is no war now. I don't know of any good reason to think that is the case (especially if an alternative was war in 12 months or even 24 months).

Comparing Iraq in the past to Iraq in the future doesn't help us much. We need to try to figure out what will happen in the future under the various different scenarios. History can certainly help, but does not provide a blueprint.

1. What later date? in ANOTHER 12 years? Incidently, France says no to war. Period. Peaceful solution?:

"excuse me MR Saddam, but a few of us got to talking and wondered if perhaps you might step down."
"why certainly. After so long in power, it is only right that I move aside for the next generation. Say I have an idea, let's have some free and fair elections. What do you think?"

2. So Saudis still hate the US for cleaning up the last Saddam mess. There is hardly much to lose then from finishing the job and then clearing out of there.

3. So the past is not necessarily a guide to the future. But I don't think Saddam has turned over a new leaf.

[treborf]

Originally posted by iain
I think its very easy.

An alternative might have been a war at a later date (maybe with international and arab backing, following further weapons inspections).

I don't see how this saves more Iraqi lives. It gives Saddam's regime more time to commit atrocities (on-the-spot executions, etc.), yet ends with the same war that's going on now (presumably resulting in a similar number of innocent casualties).
Another might have been to find a more peaceful way to depose Saddam.

Do you honestly see Saddam Hussein leaving without external force? I don't. I'd like to hear a specific, plausible "more peaceful way".

2. You ignore the possible effects on the wider region of the war and the anti-American sentiment that it raises (e.g. Saudi Arabia is America's most consistent Arab Ally but only 3% of Saudi's see the US favourably right now).

I agree that this is a concern; however, my bottom line is simply to ask which course of action will cost more innocent Iraqi lives.

3. The figures you quote are "since the late '70s" - i.e. over a period of about 25 years. Those people cannot be brought back to life; so your argument on numbers only makes sense if a similar number of people are likely to be killed over the next 25 years if there is no war now. I don't know of any good reason to think that is the case (especially if an alternative was war in 12 months or even 24 months).

200,000+ Marsh arabs have been purged, and their homelands destroyed, since 1991. Human Rights Watch says that many of the men and boys were executed. Few would deny that Saddam continues to persecute scores of innocent people.

Comparing Iraq in the past to Iraq in the future doesn't help us much. We need to try to figure out what will happen in the future under the various different scenarios.
That's precisely what I've tried to do. What else to we have but Saddam's track record to ascertain what he will do in the future?

[treborf]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr11/en/
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/stats/stats.htm

In 1998 alone, 1,170,694 killed in traffic accidents annually, world wide. 38,848,625 injured in traffic accidents annually, world wide.

Indeed, EVIL CARS claim a HIGHER toll in poor countries!



Even though I doubt you're being serious, I'm sure there are a few dim-witted readers who might think this is a valid comparison, so let me spell out the difference. When one drives a car, one does so of their own free will, understanding and assuming all the risks therein. Those killed by Saddam's regime have no ability to exercise their will. It is Saddam's will alone (embodied in his policies and institutions) that takes these innocent lives.

This distinction is why I'm only considering "innocent" Iraqi lives in determining whether or not this war is just.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by shanek
There's more to this than numbers. There's the rule of law, which our President is flagrantly violating. He is also illegally suspending our soverign rights, using his war as an excuse.

Besides, your own source attributes much if not most of the damage to the UN sanctions, and you have also done nothing to show that these atrocities would ebb after the removal of Saddam.

Well said!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by shanek
There's the rule of law, which our President is flagrantly violating.

Hell, just shoot lawyers until you get the opinion wanted. It can be discussed, but what makes you think your viewpoint is the correct one?

He is also illegally suspending our soverign rights, using his war as an excuse.



Which sovereign right effecting you or anyone you know personally, has been suspended illegally? BTW, scotus -- not you or I -- will decide that legal question.

Wouldn't you be happier in Iraq shielding an ammo dump?

[c0rbin]

Quoting a quote (for sarcastic humor purposes)...

"After so long in power, it is only right that I move aside for the next generation."

Yeah! Uday could take over. He's a real humanitarian!

[treborf]

Originally posted by c0rbin

Yeah! Uday could take over. He's a real humanitarian!

:D

Cheers,
treborf

[evildave]

Originally posted by treborf


Even though I doubt you're being serious, I'm sure there are a few dim-witted readers who might think this is a valid comparison, so let me spell out the difference. When one drives a car, one does so of their own free will, understanding and assuming all the risks therein. Those killed by Saddam's regime have no ability to exercise their will. It is Saddam's will alone (embodied in his policies and institutions) that takes these innocent lives.

This distinction is why I'm only considering "innocent" Iraqi lives in determining whether or not this war is just.

Oh yes. Children of people who own cars are assuming the risk of their own free will.

Pedestrians (read the links!) in those poor countries are MORE likely to be killed than any occupant of vehicles.

Then there is the fact that in countries like the U.S., where there is practically NO infrastructure for public transit in the majority of it, people still have to get from home to store to work, and none of these are typically positioned within easy walking, bicycling, etc. distance. You may as well make the claim that people who live in "bad" parts of town ought to move instead of complain.

In short, NO. People getting killed by cars have no choice. By the same metrics cited to "go get Iraq", cars should be done away with immediately.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hell, just shoot lawyers until you get the opinion wantedSomeone's been reading his Shakespeare. ;)

[treborf]

Originally posted by evildave

In short, NO. People getting killed by cars have no choice. By the same metrics cited to "go get Iraq", cars should be done away with immediately.
You seem to think my argument goes something like this: "Saddam should be removed because he has caused X number of deaths. Anything that deadly should be done away with." That is not my argument. My argument is: In choosing between forcibly removing Saddam, or leaving him in power, we should choose the option that protects the most innocent Iraqi lives. That's why I presented statistics relating to those two options.

Now if I were choosing between investing tax revenues in a mass transit system or widening a highway, your statistics would be extremely valuable. As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


No surprise at all, amigo. None.

Then again, if you ask Wayne Grabert, he'll tell you it's all about the oil.
Straw man. You have grossly misstated my position and you should only speak for yourself, sucker.

Of course, I've noticed that the only way you simpletons can rebut me is to resort to straw man arguments.

BTW, why is Iraq waiting to use those WMD they were so eager to use against us?

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

BTW, why is Iraq waiting to use those WMD they were so eager to use against us?

They had them in 1991, and didn't use them. The U.S. has made it clear that whoever uses them will be tried for war crimes.

Also, didn't Saddam fire a Scud or two in the last couple of days? He wasn't supposed to have those, either.

[Quixote]

They had them in 1991, and didn't use them. The U.S. has made it clear that whoever uses them will be tried for war crimes.

No, Bush & Co. have made it clear that they will try the Iraqi leadership for unspecified war crimes regardless of their actions once the war started. The exact deal was that any Iraqi leaders that surrendered before the 48 hour deadline would not be tried. All the others would be.


Also, didn't Saddam fire a Scud or two in the last couple of days? He wasn't supposed to have those, either.

The television news I was listening to, CBS, I believe, reported that the Iraqis had definitely fired a Scud. Then they said it might have been a Scud. Then it was "reportedly" a Scud. Then "unconfirmed reports" had indicated a Scud had been fired. Gotta love brodacast journalism.

[evildave]

Originally posted by treborf

You seem to think my argument goes something like this: "Saddam should be removed because he has caused X number of deaths. Anything that deadly should be done away with." That is not my argument. My argument is: In choosing between forcibly removing Saddam, or leaving him in power, we should choose the option that protects the most innocent Iraqi lives. That's why I presented statistics relating to those two options.

Now if I were choosing between investing tax revenues in a mass transit system or widening a highway, your statistics would be extremely valuable. As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

My point is exactly that: As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The same kinds of numbers of people are suffering and dying under many other regimes as bad as, and even worse than Saddam Hussein's.

We IGNORE all of them.

The "suffering" obviously has no special significance to the problem. A portion of that general suffering was caused by the embargo that we enforced, after all.

Even greater numbers are killed by cars in most countries.

Bomb GM.

[evildave]

Originally posted by treborf

You seem to think my argument goes something like this: "Saddam should be removed because he has caused X number of deaths. Anything that deadly should be done away with." That is not my argument. My argument is: In choosing between forcibly removing Saddam, or leaving him in power, we should choose the option that protects the most innocent Iraqi lives. That's why I presented statistics relating to those two options.

Now if I were choosing between investing tax revenues in a mass transit system or widening a highway, your statistics would be extremely valuable. As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

My point is exactly that: As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The same kinds of numbers of people are suffering and dying under many other regimes as bad as, and even worse than Saddam Hussein's.

We IGNORE all of them.

The "suffering" obviously has no special significance to the problem. A portion of that general suffering was caused by the embargo that we enforced, after all.

Even greater numbers are killed by cars in most countries.

Bomb GM.

[evildave]

Originally posted by treborf

You seem to think my argument goes something like this: "Saddam should be removed because he has caused X number of deaths. Anything that deadly should be done away with." That is not my argument. My argument is: In choosing between forcibly removing Saddam, or leaving him in power, we should choose the option that protects the most innocent Iraqi lives. That's why I presented statistics relating to those two options.

Now if I were choosing between investing tax revenues in a mass transit system or widening a highway, your statistics would be extremely valuable. As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

My point is exactly that: As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The same kinds of numbers of people are suffering and dying under many other regimes as bad as, and even worse than Saddam Hussein's.

We IGNORE all of them.

The "suffering" obviously has no special significance to the problem. A portion of that general suffering was caused by the embargo that we enforced, after all.

Even greater numbers are killed by cars in most countries.

Bomb GM.

[evildave]

Originally posted by treborf

You seem to think my argument goes something like this: "Saddam should be removed because he has caused X number of deaths. Anything that deadly should be done away with." That is not my argument. My argument is: In choosing between forcibly removing Saddam, or leaving him in power, we should choose the option that protects the most innocent Iraqi lives. That's why I presented statistics relating to those two options.

Now if I were choosing between investing tax revenues in a mass transit system or widening a highway, your statistics would be extremely valuable. As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

My point is exactly that: As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The same kinds of numbers of people are suffering and dying under many other regimes as bad as, and even worse than Saddam Hussein's.

We POINTEDLY IGNORE all of them. When Saddam was killing his own people and Iranians, he was our "buddy".

The "suffering" obviously has no special significance to the problem. A portion of that general suffering was caused by the embargo that we enforced, after all.

Even greater numbers are killed by cars in most countries.

Bomb GM.

[fidiot]

I think everybody got your point the first time you posted it :D

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Straw man. You have grossly misstated my position and you should only speak for yourself, sucker.

Of course, I've noticed that the only way you simpletons can rebut me is to resort to straw man arguments.

BTW, why is Iraq waiting to use those WMD they were so eager to use against us?

Sorry, Wayne. But I well recall what you had to say in the "Is Oil the Reason for War" thread. (I may not be clear about the title. I've been out for a while.) Randfan pointed out that oil may be ONE reason for war. You maintained, as I recall, that it was the primary reason. I could be wrong, however. It's been a while since I've read the thread.

As to the WMDs, I've no idea at this point. Maybe Hussein's commanders got the message that we would hold people accountable for their use. Or, as is being suggested elsewhere, they're on ships out as sea. (Extremely disconcerting. This means they're mobile, and they could go damn near anywhere, more than likely to the highest bidder.) It may even be possible (I did not say "probable") that they never existed in the first place. My own conviction is that Bush had better find the damn things fast; first, to prevent their use and/or movement, and second, to provide the justification for the current action.

Another possibility is that with command and control in an uproar, he may not be able to communicate with those who hold the weapons, and there may be no way to use them at the present time. Beyond that, I can only speculate. (Sort of like I'm doing now...) :D

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Randfan pointed out that oil may be ONE reason for war. You maintained, as I recall, that it was the primary reason. I could be wrong, however. It's been a while since I've read the thread.
You are wrong and you shouldn't put words in someone else's mouth without being sure of what you're saying. I maintained that oil was one reason, that it was our strategic interest in the region, but that the bigger picture had to do with global hegemony. I also pointed out that it was a proxy war for Israel.

Here is an essay (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2869) by internationally acclaimed historian Chalmers Johnson (professor emeritus, University of California, San Diego) that explores the history of the US-Iraq conflict and examines the various "real reasons" offered for the war before putting forth its own explanation. The essay is adapted from a chapter of a book-in-progress. It originally appeared on www.tomdispatch.com , a weblog of the Nation Institute, in January 2003, but has been reprinted on this link and at least one other Web page. I recommend you read it.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
As to the WMDs, I've no idea at this point. Maybe Hussein's commanders got the message that we would hold people accountable for their use. Or, as is being suggested elsewhere, they're on ships out as sea.
That has got to be the stupidest suggestion I've heard yet about them. You don't buy that, do you? What knucklehead dreamed up that one? Besides the logistical poblems of getting them on ships and past the US/UK armada unnoticed, what good would they do Hussein if they were on ships or any place other than someplace ready to be used? Did it ever occur to you that, along with everything else about this war, that Bush is ********ting (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories/national/1047695639.shtml) about the WMD also? I thought it was possible that Hussein still had a stash of those weapons, but now it seems more probable that he doesn't.

Not only did the inspectors in the 90's destroy almost all the WMD that Hussein possessed then, they also destroyed his means for making more. He would have had to start from scratch. Apparently, with a greatly diminished military ability and constant bombing by US/UK jets patrolling the NFZ, he decided it wasn't worth the effort. What WMD wasn't destroyed by December 1998 has gone past its shelf life as Scott Ritter claims.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
It may even be possible (I did not say "probable") that they never existed in the first place. My own conviction is that Bush had better find the damn things fast; first, to prevent their use and/or movement, and second, to provide the justification for the current action.

Another possibility is that with command and control in an uproar, he may not be able to communicate with those who hold the weapons, and there may be no way to use them at the present time. Beyond that, I can only speculate. (Sort of like I'm doing now...) :D
I'm glad that you're considering the possibilities.

[Roadtoad]

You are wrong and you shouldn't put words in someone else's mouth without being sure of what you're saying. I maintained that oil was one reason, that it was our strategic interest in the region, but that the bigger picture had to do with global hegemony. I also pointed out that it was a proxy war for Israel.

I said I could be wrong, Wayne. I think I've always maintained that I could be mistaken. I wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth, I was attempting to summarize what I thought was part of your position. I apologize for the error.

That has got to be the stupidest suggestion I've heard yet about them. You don't buy that, do you? What knucklehead dreamed up that one? Besides the logistical poblems of getting them on ships and past the US/UK armada unnoticed, what good would they do Hussein if they were on ships or any place other than someplace ready to be used? Did it ever occur to you that, along with everything else about this war, that Bush is ********ting about the WMD also? I thought it was possible that Hussein still had a stash of those weapons, but now it seems more probable that he doesn't.

I don't know if I buy it or not. They clearly aren't unnoticed. We know where they are. It's also entirely possible that Hussein wasn't producing them for his own use, but was producing them to be sold to someone else. Let's wait and see what comes next.

Is it possible that Bush is BSing us about WMDs? Of course it is. The whole thing could be a line of crap. It wouldn't be the first time an American President has pulled a fast one on the us. That seems to be most presidents' favorite pastime. My suspicion, though, given the stakes involved, is that he's got some hard evidence of their existence and their location. Frankly, if he can't provide that evidence, he's hung by the gonads in 2004. He'd be unelectable, as would any Republican for years to come. Further, if they're out there anywhere, the likelihood is that ultimately some of that material could wind up in the hands of Al Quaeda.

Would I rather see us stay out of the That has got to be the stupidest suggestion I've heard yet about them. You don't buy that, do you? What knucklehead dreamed up that one? Besides the logistical poblems of getting them on ships and past the US/UK armada unnoticed, what good would they do Hussein if they were on ships or any place other than someplace ready to be used? Did it ever occur to you that, along with everything else about this war, that Bush is ********ting about the WMD also? I thought it was possible that Hussein still had a stash of those weapons, but now it seems more probable that he doesn't.

Would I rather see us out of the Middle East? Yes. I don't think we're doing anyone any good. We're not much use to the Kurds, and we're really not much of a friend to Israel, when you think about it. (You can fill in the blanks on the rest of it...)

Not only did the inspectors in the 90's destroy almost all the WMD that Hussein possessed then, they also destroyed his means for making more. He would have had to start from scratch. Apparently, with a greatly diminished military ability and constant bombing by US/UK jets patrolling the NFZ, he decided it wasn't worth the effort. What WMD wasn't destroyed by December 1998 has gone past its shelf life as Scott Ritter claims.

Which still doesn't explain the Al Samud missles which the recent round of inspections turned up. That was apparently worth the effort. He's got some means of production, it seems, and considering that whacko cult in Japan was able to cook up Sarin (?) nerve gas with minimal fuss, I'd say it wouldn't have taken long for Hussein to gather the means of production, and to keep it relatively well hidden. (Considering how much Crank can be produced from even a small meth lab in Stockton or Rio Linda, near where I live, I can see Hussein producing a hell of a lot with a lab that leaves a relatively small footprint.)

Some of us have to keep our heads clear, Wayne. Some of us need to be open to possibilities. For some of us, the stakes are a little higher. Forgive me if I don't choose to fit your chosen mold for me of a flag waving superpatriot. Personally, I think patriotism is a fine thing, until it begins to interfere with common sense. (Not that common sense is all that common...) I still want to see more evidence. Bush and his people have been playing this too damn close to the vest, and it's pissing me off.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Which still doesn't explain the Al Samud missles which the recent round of inspections turned up.
The Al Samud missles didn't "turn up" with the inspections; they were declared by Iraq. Iraq argued that they were not illegal because they were short-range. The UN inspectors claimed after conducting tests that they exceeded the 150 kilometer limit. Iraq countered that was because the missiles tested didn't have a payload. (And they meant a conventional payload.) The inspectors insisted they be destroyed. Iraq complied. What's to explain other than Bush's irrational insistence that Iraq's destruction of its weapons was "deception"?

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Forgive me if I don't choose to fit your chosen mold for me of a flag waving superpatriot.
:confused: Where do you get the idea that I've chosen a mold for you? Sorry, but I don't spend my time thinking about you. I reacted to your misstatement of my position. Now you're presuming about me again.

[Roadtoad]

Where do you get the idea that I've chosen a mold for you? Sorry, but I don't spend my time thinking about you. I reacted to your misstatement of my position. Now you're presuming about me again.

No one has said you spend any time thinking about me, Wayne. I would assume you have a life of your own, and have plenty to think about with that as it is. Most of us around here do. If anything, I would think putting someone into a mold would make it even easier to dismiss someone. Since that's not the case, I apologize again. I've got a bit on my plate right now, and I'm running through the fog on this a bit.

As to the Al Samud, correct me if I'm wrong here, but woulldn't those have worked with the banned warheads that turned up earlier? That weren't declared?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
As to the Al Samud, correct me if I'm wrong here, but woulldn't those have worked with the banned warheads that turned up earlier? That weren't declared?
I don't know if they would have. Do the research and let me know. However, what threat would they be to the US if their range was 100 miles and the closest place in the US to Iraq (Maine) is 5,500 miles?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I don't know if they would have. Do the research and let me know. However, what threat would they be to the US if their range was 100 miles and the closest place in the US to Iraq (Maine) is 5,500 miles?

I'm not so much worried about Maine. I'm more worried about the Kurds, whom we've yet to really offer any serious protection to, in spite of our claims to the contrary.

[treborf]

Originally posted by evildave


My point is exactly that: As it stands, your stats, however interesting, are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The same kinds of numbers of people are suffering and dying under many other regimes as bad as, and even worse than Saddam Hussein's.

We POINTEDLY IGNORE all of them. When Saddam was killing his own people and Iranians, he was our "buddy".

The "suffering" obviously has no special significance to the problem. A portion of that general suffering was caused by the embargo that we enforced, after all.

Even greater numbers are killed by cars in most countries.

Bomb GM.
I just got finished typing a response to a similar point on this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=390923#post390923). I agree that there are other atrocities occuring in other parts of the world. And I'm not so naive to think that the Bush administration is motivated much by the human rights issue. That's your point, isn't it? I agree. And, yes, my statistics are irrelevant to that point (although still relevant to my point).

I'm appalled by the degree to which the U.S. and the world ignores the plight of people suffering around the world. I'm disgusted by the U.S.'s "marriages of convenience" that turn a blind eye to atrocities and corruption. I just happen to be glad that Saddam's particular atrocities will shortly come to an end. That's my motivation for supporting the war.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by treborf

I'm appalled by the degree to which the U.S. and the world ignores the plight of people suffering around the world. I'm disgusted by the U.S.'s "marriages of convenience" that turn a blind eye to atrocities and corruption. I just happen to be glad that Saddam's particular atrocities will shortly come to an end. That's my motivation for supporting the war.
I wonder if I can nudge your considerations to a broader and deeper level. I don't have the time or the desire to argue points I've argued more than once on this board already, so perhaps Evildave can discuss with you the concept of "the right to self-determination" that says that people of whatever country should determine their form of government, not an outside force. Lest you think that people who don't live in a democracy don't have such a choice, then you should consider how democracies came into being. Was it an act of God, or did the United States fight the British empire? You should also keep in mind that governments and despots are overthrown around the world on a regular basis. (Remember the crumbling of the USSR and the Eastern bloc? Remember the Islamic Revolution in Iran? The overthrows of Marcos in the Phillapines or Somoza in Nicaragua, to name just a few well known recent examples?)

A policy based on the right of self-determination says that the US (or whoever) can establish friendly relations with any legitimate government no matter what its form (communist, democracy, monarchy, military dictatorship). Legitimacy is the recognition and acceptance of the government's authority by its people. The United States began its history with such thinking, but it hasn't followed such a policy for over 100 years. Instead it has followed an arrogant policy of interventionism. (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/14032003174825.asp) (Here is a convenient listing (http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm) of acts of intervention over the last 113 years.) The policy would also say that the US should break its support for governments that have lost their legitimacy, something the US has been loathe to do when the despot was "friendly" to us. (We were slow to recognize that the Shah of Iran, Somoza and Marcos had lost legitimacy long after their people were in open, widespread revolt. In Iran this was somewhat understandable since we knew the Iranian people would hate us for overthrowing their democracy in 1953 and installing the Shah back in power.)

So think it over. Yeah, Saddam is a bad man, but do you want to sign up for a policy of military imperialism?

I'll add that it is permissible in extreme situations for there to be international intervention to prevent acts of genocide, for example.

[treborf]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

A policy based on the right of self-determination says that the US (or whoever) can establish friendly relations with any legitimate government no matter what its form (communist, democracy, monarchy, military dictatorship). Legitimacy is the recognition and acceptance of the government's authority by its people. The United States began its history with such thinking, but it hasn't followed such a policy for over 100 years. Instead it has followed an arrogant policy of interventionism. (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/03/14032003174825.asp) (Here is a convenient listing (http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm) of acts of intervention over the last 113 years.) The policy would also say that the US should break its support for governments that have lost their legitimacy, something the US has been loathe to do when the despot was "friendly" to us. (We were slow to recognize that the Shah of Iran, Somoza and Marcos had lost legitimacy long after their people were in open, widespread revolt. In Iran this was somewhat understandable since we knew the Iranian people would hate us for overthrowing their democracy in 1953 and installing the Shah back in power.)

So think it over. Yeah, Saddam is a bad man, but do you want to sign up for a policy of military imperialism?

I'll add that it is permissible in extreme situations for there to be international intervention to prevent acts of genocide, for example.
Wayne, thanks for sharing these further ideas. Your arguments in favor of "self-determination" are particularly strong. I would love to hear your thoughts about the internal uprising that occured in Iraq following the Gulf War in '91. As I'm sure you're aware, Saddam crushed it. The Iraqi opposition forces felt betrayed that the U.S. did not lend military support. Would it have been alright to intervene then?

That first link you sent was very interesting; however, you lost me with the second link. Do you really feel that all the interventions listed constitute "U.S. Imperialism"? Just to give you an example, one of the more "out there" items listed is the use of jets and naval forces in the United States in response to the September 11 attacks. How is that imperialism?

To me, Saddam's atrocities (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm) qualify as extreme. And some situations, such as the plight of some 200,000 Marsh Arabs, have occured during the U.N. sanctions and inspections. Shouldn't the U.N. have intervened? Wouldn't you agree that there have been recent cases that meet your "extreme situation" requirement in which the U.N. failed to act? What if the U.S. had acted alone to prevent the genocides in Rwanda? Would that have been wrong?

I think the difficulty here is that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq coincides with the "New American Century" policy that you rightfully detest. It is very hard for me to feel comfortable supporting anything that might be confused as support for that policy. The best I can do is clearly state where my own support starts (with solving the humanitarian issue) and ends (with my rejection of the "New American Century" policy).

[evildave]

Basically, that's the "status quo".

If a government is busy killing its own people, that's none of our business... but to have "good relations" with tyrants and dictators who do this is abominable.

There is no reason to have "good relations" with most countries in the Middle East, for instance. There is no reason to even have ambassadors there. If they want to call us, the telephone's right there on the wall.

There really is no U.S. interest there. It even gives governments compelling reasons NOT TO reform. If we don't care whether you're a tyrant or not, why should you? If Uncle Sam won't come to YOUR rescue if your regime has no respect for human rights, and watches idly as neighboring states who DO have human rights march in, MAYBE your nation will see to it they have a good government. At least the invaders would.

Cheap petroleum, yes. But if we let certain other nations' fuel carriers take the risk of losing their shipping, there never have to be any American losses at all.

All we get by having "good relations" with tyrants is MORE tyrants. We legitimize them. Absolutely when we send foreign aid to tyrants, we prop them up. Look at all we do for Saudi Arabia. And when we do this, we become villains in the eyes of all.

They're even right to see it that way.

Who gave to IRAK the biological and chemical weapons??? Remember the war Irak-Iran

Was Saddam a good partner of USA?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by evildave
Basically, that's the "status quo".

If a government is busy killing its own people, that's none of our business... but to have "good relations" with tyrants and dictators who do this is abominable.

You have overlooked the nuance of my argument. It is a policy of supporting the people by recognizing that legitimacy derives from the people. The ultimate power comes from the people who have the power to overthrow tyrants, should they choose to do so. We become villians when we intervene on behalf of unpopular, illegitimate regimes to thwart the wishes of the people. (See, for example, Iran in 1953, Chile in 1973 or Venezuela in 2001. In each case we overthrew or attempted to overthrow democratically elected leaders. In the first two cases, the leaders were assassinated and replaced by ruthless tyrants.)

My argument is that just because a regime isn't to our liking or isn't a democracy does not make it illegitimate. Further, it is not our place to be the world's police force or to do the work of liberation for others.

Treborf asked a question about Iraq that I will first address in a larger context. It is acceptable, even desireable, to intervene with assistance to a popular revolt to overthrow an illegitimate regime. France assisted us during the Revolutionary War; we can do the same for others. However, it is not our place to initiate regime change. As for Iraq in 1991, the spontaeneous revolts in sections of Iraq were not robust enough to delegitimize the regime, and I agree with the first Bush administration's decision not to impose such a thing for a variety of reasons. (It would have been a quagmire, the revolts were limited to regions of the country, we had to consider the opinions of other Arab countries, etc.)

Further, having "friendly relations" with other countries does not mean going out of our way to support and prop up tyranny. It means recognizing a regime's legitimacy when valid and not intervening in the internal affairs of such regimes. In my opinion, before the takeover of Kuwait by Iraq, the Bush administration was guilty of going out of its way to support Hussein.

Recognizing the right to self-determination recognizes the people of a country as our allies, not the government or any tyrant. It is a policy of saying, "as long as a regime has legitimacy we will accept it, but we will not support an illegitimate regime in defiance of its people." (We have been guilty of the latter in many cases.)

Complaints and dissatisfaction do not qualify as a loss of legitimacy. If that were the case, our government could have been considered illegitimate many times in our history. A loss of legitimacy occurs when most of the people reject the authority of a regime and take the initiative to demand regime change. It is a judgment call, but one that should be made honestly.

Think it over for a while.

EDITED TO ADD: If we keep our hands off Iran (and I doubt we will), there will likely be another revolution in Iran within the next 20 years, but this time to restore democracy. However, the people who want democracy in Iran do NOT want the assistance of the United States. Why? Because they don't trust the United States. (That's understandable, especially given our history in their country.) They may want democracy, but they are still anti-American. It wouldn't be that way if the US and Britain hadn't intervened in that country's internal affairs in the past.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
A loss of legitimacy occurs when most of the people reject the authority of a regime and take the initiative to demand regime change. It is a judgment call, but one that should be made honestly.

From a practical standpoint, it's certainly better to assist a revolution already in the making, rather than initiate a revolution in a foreign state. Natives will always question the motives of an outsider, as they should. It's difficult to prove humanitarian intentions, until after a revolution ends. Thus, an outsider risks being seen as an enemy by the very people he'd like to help.

I think I'd pose a caveat to your general rule above: the voice of the people is legitimate, where the people are literate and have the benefit of a free press.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by DrBenway


From a practical standpoint, it's certainly better to assist a revolution already in the making, rather than initiate a revolution in a foreign state. Natives will always question the motives of an outsider, as they should. It's difficult to prove humanitarian intentions, until after a revolution ends. Thus, an outsider risks being seen as an enemy by the very people he'd like to help.

I think I'd pose a caveat to your general rule above: the voice of the people is legitimate, where the people are literate and have the benefit of a free press.

My dread here is that Jedi Knight might jump in and ruin the debate...:D

You make some interesting points, Wayne, (several of which I agree with, shock of shocks), in particular your reference to Chile in '74. Kind of funny, because if you look at it, just because someone was calling themselves "Communist" didn't mean they were aligned either with Beijing or Moscow. (If I recall correctly, the Italian Communists have been flipping everyone the bird who called themselves Marxist, claiming THEY were the only true Marxists. Go fig. They could easily be Baptists...)

The current discussion of U.S. foreign policy reminds me of a sign I once saw in a garage. I would wish Powell, Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, would take note:

"This shop performs three types of jobs: Good, Fast, and Cheap. You may have any two.

"A Good Fast job will not be Cheap. A Good Cheap job will not be Fast. A Fast Cheap job will not be Good."

(Edited to add: Careful, Doc. You could run the risk of being labeled an elitist...)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I think I'd pose a caveat to your general rule above: the voice of the people is legitimate, where the people are literate and have the benefit of a free press.
In Iran in 1979 the people did not have a free press. Do you think the Shah's regime is still legitimate? (The Shah is dead, but his son claimed soon after the he (the son) was the rightful leader of Iran. He failed to pursuade even Henry Kissinger of that.)

A caveat I forgot to add is that we don't have to recognize the legitimacy of a regime that makes war against us. Iraq has not made war against us. Also, winning a war against a regime that attacked us does not necessarily require us to replace the regime after we win the war. For example, we didn't feel the need to replace the British monarchy after the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. Again, it would be a judgment call about what is possible to achieve and what would be in our best interest.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm more interested in the will of the people, not what they say to reporters. Sorry if I confused you on that point.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


My dread here is that Jedi Knight might jump in and ruin the debate...:D

You make some interesting points, Wayne, (several of which I agree with, shock of shocks),
Thank you.

Jedi Knight makes me laugh. :)

[treborf]

Originally posted by evildave
Basically, that's the "status quo".

If a government is busy killing its own people, that's none of our business... but to have "good relations" with tyrants and dictators who do this is abominable.

Regarding your second point about having "good relations" with tyrants, you're preaching to the choir, my friend. If that's the "status quo" you're talking about, I reject it. But regarding your first point, I agree with Wayne that in certain extreme situations, such as genocide, the international community should step in.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
In Iran in 1979 the people did not have a free press. Do you think the Shah's regime is still legitimate?

For a decision to have ethical significance, it must be an informed decision.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Thank you.

Jedi Knight makes me laugh. :)

Then you are a better man than I. Jedi Knight makes me sick.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrBenway


For a decision to have ethical significance, it must be an informed decision.
I'm proposing an ethic of self-determination. People know their lives. They know what they want. Are you saying it is our place to tell them that they can't have what they want because they haven't been reading the right newspapers? :confused:

If we had followed my theory, we'd have stayed out of Vietnam. We may not have agreed with the wisdom of uniting behind Ho, but we would have allowed them to make their own mistakes and we'd be with them when they decided to choose another way. And over two million Vietnamese would not have died because we had the arrogance to decide what was best for them. (In case you didn't know, most of the South Vietnamese hated us and regarded us as the enemy, not as their liberators.)

EDITED TO ADD: Using your quote above, the support for the US war against Iraq is unethical. I agree that it happens to apply in that case.

[evildave]

Well, it's not that I don't believe in an international intervention... but America shaking some of its allies and saying "c'mon!" is hardly an "international" consensus.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

....but do you want to sign up for a policy of military imperialism?


Definitely, as long as the Japan model is applied. Recall the religious aspect of that conflict that had to be "softened" to better meet the needs of civilized 20th (& now 21st) century life.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, it's not that I don't believe in an international intervention... but America shaking some of its allies and saying "c'mon!" is hardly an "international" consensus.
I agree. The current consensus in no way compares with that of 1991. In order to make the UN "relevant," we did an end run around it.

Someone called it the "coalition of the billing" since many of those who signed on did so only with their hands out. Take countries in Eastern Europe, for example (the so called "New Europe"). Polls there showed even less popular support than in "Old Europe," but the leaders are desparate for foreign aid.

[Wayne Grabert]

In case anyone thinks my ideas about how foreign policy should be conducted are something new or radical, consider this short essay (http://www.thisnation.com/library/jqadams1821.html) by John Quincy Adams. She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own._

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy._

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all._

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own._

Consider these words of advice (http://azimuth.harcourtcollege.com/history/ayers/chapter7/7.3.washingtonsfarewell.html) from George Washington. Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.

(snip)

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.


From Thomas Jefferson: (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1400.htm) "We wish to cultivate peace and friendship with all nations, believing that course most conducive to the welfare of our own. It is natural that these friendships should bear some proportion to the common interests of the parties." --Thomas Jefferson to Rufus King, 1802. ME 10:329

"It is our duty and our interest to cultivate with all nations... a spirit of justice and friendly accommodation." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Annual Message, 1802. ME 3:341

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1793. ME 9:56

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
In case anyone thinks my ideas about how foreign policy should be conducted are something new or radical, consider this ... blah, blah ....


Er, Wayne; the world has changed some since your cited refs made statements that made sense when the US was weeks & oceans away from people with hostile intent.

Dream on though. I'm sure US isolationism -- live & let-live -- was a reasonable stance 200 odd years ago.

[Jim Lennox]

I'm sure US isolationism -- live & let-live -- was a reasonable stance 200 odd years ago.

Now it's the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org) things are gonna change...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


Now it's the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org) things are gonna change...

Yeah, doncha love how old bleeding heart pc'libs who become neo-cons get rabid in their nationalism/jingoism. ;)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by hammegk


Er, Wayne; the world has changed some since your cited refs made statements that made sense when the US was weeks & oceans away from people with hostile intent.

Dream on though. I'm sure US isolationism -- live & let-live -- was a reasonable stance 200 odd years ago.
The world has changed, but some principals remain just as valid. Would you suggest we shred the Constitution as well since "the world has changed"? (John Ashcroft wants to.)

What you call isolationism is really the antithesis of interventionism. Interventionism is the misguided, unwise approach that leads to blowback (http://www.zmag.org/sommerscalam.htm) like the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis that took place in Iran in 1979.

The founders were not isolationists in the sense that they sought to shut off the country from the rest of the world. They were all in favor of the pursuit of trade and normal relations. They were against intervention in the internal affairs of others and "foreign entanglements." Washington, in the speech I linked, allowed for defense alliances as temporary measures while threatened. NATO during the Cold War would pass this test. However, now that the Cold War is over, do we need to continue giving Europe the free ride? We can still maintain good relations with those European countries, but why keep bases there?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, doncha love how old bleeding heart pc'libs who become neo-cons get rabid in their nationalism/jingoism. ;)
My impression of the neo-cons is that they are former communists who switched sides but kept their "one world" dreams of global hegemony in tact. Now that they are running the White House, the commies have won.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The world has changed, but some principals remain just as valid. Would you suggest we shred the Constitution as well since "the world has changed"? (John Ashcroft wants to.)
Well, thank god for scotus, hmm?

What you call isolationism is really the antithesis of interventionism. Interventionism is the misguided, unwise approach that leads to blowback (http://www.zmag.org/sommerscalam.htm) like the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis that took place in Iran in 1979.
Yeah, jobs started & left largely undone point out the lack of leadership we've mostly had.

The founders were not isolationists in the sense that they sought to shut off the country from the rest of the world. They were all in favor of the pursuit of trade and normal relations. They were against intervention in the internal affairs of others and "foreign entanglements."
Yup, so true in the larger context of manifest destiny & whitemans' burden.


Washington, in the speech I linked, allowed for defense alliances as temporary measures while threatened. NATO during the Cold War would pass this test. However, now that the Cold War is over, do we need to continue giving Europe the free ride? We can still maintain good relations with those European countries, but why keep bases there?
NATO has become as big a joke as the UN has always been. Do you have a point you wanted to make?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Are you saying it is our place to tell them that they can't have what they want because they haven't been reading the right newspapers?
The uninformed aren't decision makers; they're pawns. At best, they have the illusion of choice.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

My impression of the neo-cons is that they are former communists who switched sides but kept their "one world" dreams of global hegemony in tact. Now that they are running the White House, the commies have won.

And I'd say, not if you can spell "Capitalism". :D

We agree on the "one world" anyway. :)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by hammegk

Do you have a point you wanted to make?
I have something I want to add regarding "changing times." The philosophy of foreign policy I've espoused was developed by me during my college days in the late 1970's. I'm not saying that I was the first to come up with these ideas, but they are a product of my own thinking. It was only later that I discovered that the Founding Fathers had similar ideas. In the years since I formed my foreign policy philosophy, new events and additional knowledge of history have only increased my confidence in it.

The point is, I see these ideas as being as timely and valid today as they were 200 years ago.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrBenway

The uninformed aren't decision makers; they're pawns. At best, they have the illusion of choice.
That is true. However, being informed on the relevant issues does not necessarily require a "free" press, though a free press expedites the spread of information--both truth and lies. The press does not invent the truth. It is only there to report it. (When it chooses to do so.) The truth exists with or without a free press and people are still able to experience their lives and to share information. Sometimes they revolt. Whether you agree with their perception of the truth or not, they are still able to exert their choices when they want to.

Are you claiming to be the infallible arbitor of truth?

As we have seen recently in the United States, the First Amendment does not guarantee that the majority of people will be well informed and won't be pawns. All you have to do is scare them. They'll complain that politicians are dishonest, but yet they're willing to uncritically believe what their politicians tell them. However, sometimes they wise up and get really pissed off.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
As we have seen recently in the United States, the First Amendment does not guarantee that the majority of people will be well informed and won't be pawns. All you have to do is scare them. They'll complain that politicians are dishonest, but yet they're willing to uncritically believe what their politicians tell them. However, sometimes they wise up and get really pissed off.

And, unfortunately, Wayne, they sometimes refuse to get smart, and they dig themselves into the hole even deeper. (As we see with Gray Davis...)

The First Amdendment only works when the people utilize it for the intended purpose: to allow the unimpeded flow of information and opinion regarding the activities of our government, to permit the free exercise of one's religious/moral/ethical beliefs, and to permit the peaceful assembly of the citizenry. It's a tool. A good tool, but merely a tool, nonetheless. Misuse it, and it will not work as well as it could.

No, I'm not saying we should ban porn. Nor am I saying that this should be used to block books/movies/websites/etc. we don't like. But I am saying that we've come a long way from what I believe the framers of the Constitution had in mind. And that's causing huge problems here on the home front, and provoking questions which never should have needed to be asked.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

No, I'm not saying we should ban porn.
Whew!

What I like best about Gray Davis is that he's funny lookin'.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by treborf

.

200,000+ Marsh arabs have been purged, and their homelands destroyed, since 1991. Human Rights Watch says that many of the men and boys were executed. Few would deny that Saddam continues to persecute scores of innocent people.



These were Saddams real and or percieved enemies that rose up when they believed Bush 1 gave them a carte blanche. They rose up but were left in a lurch when Bush 1 administration re-evaluated its support of a coup.

The survivors of Saddams purges remember the atrocities, they remember that the US did not full fill its promises to support the uprising.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Whew!

What I like best about Gray Davis is that he's funny lookin'.

I'd like him better without a job.

[Roadtoad]

And as reported on various news sources, more warheads are being found which may in fact be capable of carrying biological/chemical weapons.

With embedded journalists riding along with the troops, I'm finding myself more than a little nervous. First of all, given the reporting I'm hearing, they're either swinging all out to show their still "independent," (slamming Bush, and taking what comes across as an elitist view), or they've decided they're "one of the boys."

Some of the information I'm hearing I could not have released back when I was working for the American Forces Network, Europe, covering the annual REFORGER exercises. In fact, some of what they're releasing, it seems to me, including armament info, troop movements, tactics, and even the names of personnel, I'd have been court martialed for. That's a little unnerving.

Perhaps some of what really disturbs me is that people who couldn't be trusted with the truth BEFORE the war, who have slanted and biased coverage, who ignored some stories, rejected others, who regularly got even the most basic information wrong, (especially Dave Maresh, who years ago, predicted the M-1 Abrams tank would wind up a steel coffin for its crews, and was proven dead wrong by Gulf War I, and Peter Arnett, who became Hussein's sock puppet, then tried to hide and cover his tracks over that miserable report CNN did about the U.S. using bio/chem weapons in Vietnam) are being presented to us as THE people we're to turn to for important news during this war.

Oh, please!:rolleyes:

This is the real danger with media bias, and I don't care if it's liberal OR conservative: when you need basic, factual information on an issue, you cannot trust the source, and as a result, you cannot trust the information given.

Comments?