The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

Guynemer · February 13, 2003, 20:38

Hope this doesn't get closed.

I've been having an internal debate with myself for months now.

On the one hand, Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad, bad guy, an autocratic dictator, and we would all be better off if he were not in power.

On the other hand, in Iraq, women can drive cars, go to college, walk alone without a head scarf, have jobs, etc. In Saudi Arabia, "our great ally," women are chased back into a burning building if their faces become uncovered during their escape. So don't tell me that this war is about human rights.

On the one hand, I don't doubt that Saddam Hussein has working on developing chem and bio weapons, and at least has fantasies about working on nukes.

On the other hand, there is no proof of any of this. And even if it were true, it's not like he has the capability to strike the US with these weapons. North Korea, on the other hand... So don't tell me that this war is about weapons.

On the one hand, chances are awful good that there are Al Queda elements living in Iraq, plotting against the Western world.

On the other hand, OBL hates Saddam, called him an infidel--he appealed to the people of Iraq, not the Iraqi government. And there is certainly more Al Queda activity going on in the territory of our dear, dear friends Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So don't tell me that this war is about terrorism.

On the one hand, I acknowledge that victory is assured and likely easy to accomplish.

On the other hand, the madman of Baghdad will almost certainly use tactics that will guarantee significant loss of civilian life, no matter what the eventual military loss. Moreover, victory will only remain as such as long as a friendly government remains in place in Iraq, requiring a continued military presence for years--possibly decades--thereby inciting continued terrorist threats against us. So don't tell me that this war is about expediency.

I am willing to support war against Iraq, as long as someone can tell me just what the hell the war is supposed to be about.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:39

Revenge.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:40

Oh, and to make an example of Iraq to the Arab world.

Guynemer · February 13, 2003, 20:43

That just isn't a good enough reason for me, but it feels like that's the right answer.

Cynical as I am, I really want to think better of the government...

Ben Kenobi · February 13, 2003, 20:47

Quote:

So don't tell me that this war is about human rights.

Well, the Saudis don't burn Kurds.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:48

They leave that job to the Turks.

Hueij · February 13, 2003, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

Well, the Saudis don't burn Kurds.

Maybe because there are no Kurds in Saudi-Arabia?

BTW, great post Guynemer

Adam Smith · February 13, 2003, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
That just isn't a good enough reason for me, but it feels like that's the right answer.

Cynical as I am, I really want to think better of the government...

Ditto.

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 21:06

@ Hueij

DanS · February 13, 2003, 21:13

A good post. Here's a couple of things that I've thought about...

On the other hand, in Iraq, women can drive cars, go to college, walk alone without a head scarf, have jobs, etc. In Saudi Arabia, "our great ally," women are chased back into a burning building if their faces become uncovered during their escape. So don't tell me that this war is about human rights.

There are a lot of links between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The Shiite muslims that are the majority in Iraq are a minority in Saudi Arabia near the border. Empowering these Iraqis with their democratic right of the majority would likely help push Saudi Arabia toward a more modern political system. The Saudis are set to introduce at least some democratic reforms in the next six years and Iraq could be looked at as an extra guarantee.

And even if it were true, it's not like he has the capability to strike the US with these weapons.

I think the American government's power to protect us in this is totally overrated. Just think of how much drugs are smuggled into the country. And we couldn't even stop one of 20 highjackers.

North Korea, on the other hand...

We aren't forgetting NK...

On the other hand, OBL hates Saddam, called him an infidel--he appealed to the people of Iraq, not the Iraqi government

That is true. I think the national security folks are concerned with the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" convergence. We use it all the time, so we know how it works. That's why Powell trumpeted the latest OBL tape. Sure, it doesn't show a direct link, but we are blood enemies of both OBL and Hussein. They can be very, almost casually, useful to each other in extremely pernicious ways.

thereby inciting continued terrorist threats against us

This is a very valid concern. However, I would argue that the risk of letting Iraq go off on its own is more than grabbing it by the ear. Iraq has one of the largest, if not the largest, percentage of people in the 0-15 age range: 41% of the population. The alternatives, such as continued sanctions, would likely create a whole lot of disillusioned, unemployed, young muslim men who don't like the US.

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 21:17

I agree with DanS. Nipping this in the bud seems better than letting it linger. I'm still not convinced though.

Sava · February 13, 2003, 21:28

I'm not convinced either. Good post Guy

. As I said in the other thread, I'd probably support a war more if Bush didn't have a hard on for it. Who knows what kind of alterior motives that jag-bag has. If the war could be carried out with minimal civilian losses and without Saddam launching somthing at Israel and sparking an Arab world war, then fine, I say, go in, get the fugger. But I don't trust Bush. I feel that he's using the Iraq thing as a political tool to distract the American people. While everybody is arguing about Iraq, nobody seems to notice the tax cuts to the rich, the sh1tty economy, the theft of constitutional rights, or the other internal problems this country has.

Sure, nipping Saddam in the bud seems like a good idea, but at a 100 billion dollar price tag? And what about the civilian lives? It just doesn't seem worth it to me. Either way, we need to improve domestic security like DanS said. While Bush is spending 40 billion in 2004 for this, he's spending 100 billion in tax cuts for the rich in 2004. Please, tell me I'm wrong about Bush. Because the evidence is out there. He's not acting in the peoples' best interest.... only his corporate friends' interest.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 21:30

I think there are various motivations for the Bush administration to go to war :

- war on terror. I don't believe Iraq has or will have any significant role in islamistic terrorism. However, Saudi Arabia has. Since the west is partly dependent from Saudian oil, it is impossible to start pressuring / bullying / destroying Saudia before another reliable source of oil has been found. Iraq might just be the country we need to replace Saudian oil while we'll fight the wahabs.

- Ensuring US dominance in the Arab world. There is currently no country in the whole Arab world than can pretend to have an extreme iinfluence on its fellows, even less to unite it wholly. The US fills the gap. The West, and the US in particular, need for this situation to last. That's why Iraq got spanked when it was way becoming a real regional power (just after Iran-Iraq war), and that's why it's getting spanked now : if Iraq manages to get nukes, it will have huge bargaining power, far more than any country in the area.

- By the same token, getting a hold on oil. The future Iraqi puppet regime will be a useful tool for Washington to pressure its failing allies like France or Germany. Also, you can expect American majors to take most of the Iraqi pie.

- domestic politics. The war in Iraq was used during last congress campaigns as a selling argument for the GOP. It has the double advantage to please conservatists, and to deter everybody from the failing economy, losses of civil rights etc. Bush's credibility lies in the balance, and thus, he cannot hold back, except if the US public opinion suddenly becomes strongly anti-war (which will not happen)

- By the same token, it is my strong belief the US permanently needs an enemy or a rival to have a collective identity, and not to be flooded by its many internal divisions. Saddam is an easy, ready-to-use villain Americans can unite against. (This point is explicitely subjective)

- Economy. To struggle against the incoming depression, the US government has raised military funding incredibly. A purely keynesian approach : the gov. eats its reserve or does deficit spending -> (weapon) businesses have money to continue their work -> growth remains solid and people keep their job. Q1 2002, the growth was 5.2 % in the US IIRC, which is extremely high.

- Strategy. It is useful to test these brand new weapons in an "exercise" (Iraq does not threaten the USAF nor the navy, and the threat towards ground troops is extremely low). Granted, such an exercise could be waged pretty much anywhere else than Iraq, but Iraq just happens to be the target these days.

- Human rights. Saddam is an *******, a truly terrible despot, and a regime change would be great for Iraqis. It is probably the least important motivation, but I assume some important people favor the war just for this. It is also a wonderful pretext to have the public opinion on the war's side.

orange · February 13, 2003, 21:38

great post Guy

It shows how it is a tough decision, but ultimately there isn't enough reason to go

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to post this on CGN for some people to read. I'll credit your name with it.

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

- By the same token, it is my strong belief the US permanently needs an enemy or a rival to have a collective identity, and not to be flooded by its many internal divisions. Saddam is an easy, ready-to-use villain Americans can unite against. (This point is explicitely subjective)

Sadly, it helps. Especially when you want to pass unconstitutional laws

tandeetaylor · February 13, 2003, 21:59

Yeah, good post Guy.

And wow, Spiffor, I hope you're not trying to justify those reasons for war (I can't tell), because they are really really horrid reasons to take actions that will result in the deaths of thousands of innocents.

DinoDoc · February 13, 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think there are various reasons for the Bush administration to go to war :

Please tell me that you wrote that as a joke.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 22:04

His reasons were much too complicated.

See my initial 2 posts on the matter.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 22:07

I'm sorry, I used the French meaning of "reasons". I am against the war, and I wanted to describe what pushed the Bush administration to go to war IMHO. These are very cynical motivations except for the last one, and the blood of thousands will be spilled over them.
You now understand why I am agaisnt the war. I'll edit the above post to change "reasons" into "motivations"

DinoDoc · February 13, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
His reasons were much too complicated.

The only thing missing was a desire for Iraqi oil.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 22:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
His reasons were much too complicated.

And yours are much too simplistic

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 22:09

From his or mine?

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
And yours are much too simplistic

Simple, but accurate.

DinoDoc · February 13, 2003, 22:12

Quote:

From his or mine?

His.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 22:12

So I take it you agree with mine?

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 22:15

DD : I didn't write this as a joke. If you find my points are laughable, please explain me why, point per point.

orange · February 13, 2003, 22:15

no, he had that too.

Re: Iraqi Oil

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 22:20

I gotta chime in and agree....fantastic opening post!

My primary reason for supporting the war is rather simple, compared to some of the other stuff posted here, and it is as follows:

I believe that the UN can be more than it currently is, but only if we do something tangible to make it more than a hand-wringing paper tiger.

Every time the UN writes a resolution, only to have it ignored by some tin pot little man living in a patch of sand, starving his people while he traipses around to his various palaces, that weakens the UN. That demonstrates to the world (and to all the other little tin pot dictators, of which there is no shortage) that they too, can freely ignore the will of the UN.

That's not a good thing.

That's not a good precedent to set.

And, that must be dealt with.

Decisively.

My other reason for supporting the war was that we did a great disservice to the Iraqi people when we *created* Saddam Hussein. The people didn't ask for him....oh no, he served our purposes, so we put him in power.

We made our own little Middle Eastern Frankenstein, and that mistake has been festering for too many years. The people he rules over have been suffering for too many years.

It's time to unmake him.

-=Vel=-

tandeetaylor · February 13, 2003, 22:26

Should we start wars with every country that is in violation of UN resolutions?

Velociryx · February 13, 2003, 22:40

Nope.

But in this case, it's not just one violation. It is a clearly defined pattern of defiance, beginning right after Gulf War One. UN resolutions were written to enforce the destruction of Saddam's arsenal. That resolution was ignored.

Later, the UN Inspectors were kicked out.

Before that, Saddam played a little game of "Gas The Kurds"

Given his track record, given that we put this wholesome individual in power, and given that his actions could spur others like him to act much the same way, an example must be made.

A very stern, strong example, I think.

-=Vel=-