The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

[tandeetaylor]

Good job. You display remarkable evasiveness. Maybe we should stop appeasing you! War! War against Vel!

[Velociryx]

Okay, I'll try again (with a bit less evasiveness this time.... )

War should never be the first course of action. In the case of Saddam, we tried other methods ranging from economic sanctions to UN resoltions for disarmament.

They failed.

At this point, we are rather running out of options.

Since the other methods haven't worked, it's time to try something....shall we say...."harsher."

And yes, I think that general methodology should be employed elsewhere, with other little tin pot dictators.

Try a peaceful means first, and if they rub our noses in it, then we strike.

Hard.

-=Vel=-

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Guynemer
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.

He is having people killed from day to day if they do not kiss his A22 the correct way.

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.

I agree. The lady Air Force Lt. Col. who protested was passed over for full Col. a few weeks ago.

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.

He does have the weapons. Watch the news tomorrow when the UN head inspector tells the SC about his report.

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.

Only Bush know.

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.

Again only Bush know and he is not saying his true intention.

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.

Again only Bush knows. Wish I did.

[Guynemer]

I appreciate the compliments. And Vel, I think that is a better reason than most to support the war, except the UN (obviously) isn't the one prosecuting the war. It seems that instead of only tin-pot dictators thumbing their noses at the UN, the United States will now be doing the same.

The UN is a glorious idea that can, and should, work. But it won't have a chance if we start undermining it as well.

[Sava]

DD never wants to admit he's wrong, or that the Bush he worships is bad...

[Velociryx]

Quite true, Guy....I would say though, that it is not the fault of the UN that they are not the ones prosecuting this war.

Given the current structure OF the UN in its present form, they really ARE little more than a paper tiger, and must rely on their prominent members to act for them.

In this case, while I disagree with Bush's stance that action must be taken immediately, it is clear that we cannot delay for long (on the one hand, our forces are nearing critical mass....if we do not follow through, then WE lose diplomatic clout, and on the other, UN resolution 1441 calls for "dire consequences" if the terms of the resolution are not met. Given that every other option has been tried (sanctions, no fly zones, inspections), there aren't any other dire consequences remaining....thus, even if the UN lacks the will to enforce its own resolution, I think Bush is right in his willingness to enforce it for that group....his methodology, however, leaves MUCH to be desired, there is no doubt).

And, I wholeheartedly agree that the first, best thing that the USA could do to improve its diplomatic standing around the world is to make itself subject to UN resolutions, even when....*especially when* the rulings are not in favor of the US. We must lead by example in that regard, and demonstrate that we are willing to abide by the same rules that we expect everyone else to.

To do less, sorely undermines our position.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

I personally think there are three reasons:

1) We need an exit strategy. We have been at war with this SOB for 12 years. This has got to end. Containment with continued US deployments of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and continued overflights and continued sanctions is continued war. The longer we stay in the ME, the more "unwelcome" our presence becomes. This lack of decisiveness and growing local unpopularity is exactly what doomed us to defeat in Vietnam.

2) The exit strategy must result in Saddam's disarmament. We simply cannot declare victory and go home.

3) We are really concerned about Saddam's connections to al Qaeda. 9/11 showed us how vunerable we are. It would be a nightmare if OBL got ahold of an Islamic nuke.

[DuncanK]

The're saying they will be there for 2 years. That could mean anything, but we will surely be there for a while.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Should we start wars with every country that is in violation of UN resolutions?

If the UN doesnt want to be just a joke, then yes, absolutely. It shouldnt make resolutions backed by force, if it is not willing to back them with force..

[Kramerman]

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)

I dont think this is true, as the US has gone long periods of time with out foreign enemies....and if it is true, well, dont we already have an enemy to galvanize our population? I mean the one that killed almost 3,000 of our people...

[Sava]

There isn't one year since WW2 where the US hasn't had a foreign enemy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kramerman


If the UN doesnt want to be just a joke, then yes, absolutely. It shouldnt make resolutions backed by force, if it is not willing to back them with force..

So you think the UN should start a war against Israel?

[Velociryx]

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll put my two cents in.

I think that ALL nations should abide by UN mandates and resolutions.

If they do not, then they should be made to.

The USA and Israel should not be above this, and in the case of the USA, we should be big enough to accept it when rulings do not go our way. IMO, it is disgraceful that we pick up our toys and go home when the UN makes a ruling we don't "like."

-=Vel=-

[orange]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I dont think this is true, as the US has gone long periods of time with out foreign enemies....and if it is true, well, dont we already have an enemy to galvanize our population? I mean the one that killed almost 3,000 of our people...

Name one post WW2.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sava
There isn't one year since WW2 where the US hasn't had a foreign enemy.

true enough.

but still, we already have an enemy to galvanize our pop. i dont find this as a valid reason for why Bush wants war with iraq.

So you think the UN should start a war against Israel?

If they have broken a UN resolution, that is explicitly backed by force, and if the UN wants to maintain credability, than yes. If the UN doesnt want to attack someone, it shouldnt threaten to do so, and then back off. It should only threaten force when it is willing to fallow thru.

[KrazyHorse]

Did it threaten the use of force against Iraq in 1441?

[DuncanK]

Didn't it?

[KrazyHorse]

Only if you were one of those that wanted it to.

[Velociryx]

1441 called for "dire consequences" in the event of non-compliance.

Since sanctions and no-fly zones are already in place in Iraq, there aren't many other "dire consequences" remaining besides force.

What else could it mean?

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
1441 called for "dire consequences" in the event of non-compliance.

Since sanctions and no-fly zones are already in place in Iraq, there aren't many other "dire consequences" remaining besides force.

What else could it mean?

-=Vel=-

a) "Serious", not "dire"
b) You and I both know that no resolution threatening force would have made it through the SC
c) There are a hell of a lot of levels between the current situation and all-out war, and you know it

[Velociryx]

Given the sanctions and no-fly zones already in place, the only way to impose *any* additional consequences on Saddam is to put troops in Iraq.

At that point, our choices are to do it piecemeal (start off with a low-level occupation), or to do it en mass.

IF we do it piecemeal, Saddam *will* strike. Loss of life will be relatively high.

IF we do it en mass, we can take him by storm and end his silly games.

Given the two alternatives, which would you choose?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

I thought for a second that frogger might be right, and my government might be lying to me again, but I don't see any other serious consequences besides war. It seems to me that it means what ever consequences are neccessary.

[KrazyHorse]

If the UN SC is going to authorise force, don't you think it would be best if they say that they've authorised force rather explicitly?

[Velociryx]

Would it be best? Absolutely.

But that isn't what we've got.

If you can outline some other "serious consequences" that don't involve putting troops on Iraqi soil, I'd dearly love to hear them.

And *if* we are to put troops on Iraqi soil, then the only responsible way to do it is in full force, hit him hard, and get it over with.

To take yet another half measure would draw the conflict out, give Saddam time to set fire to the oil fields, and endanger the civillian population.

In this instance, a half measure is the worst possible play.

All the other "consequence" cards are already on the table.

So...either the UN is a joke, and ought to get out of the business of writing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing, or we end it.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Look, what's happening is rather simple.

The US wanted authorisation to go to war

They weren't going to get that. So what they got as a compromise was "serious consequences". What that means was not stated. They're now trying to bootstrap it up to authorisation for war.

If you want serious consequences, Vel:

They could have meant tightening sanctions
They could have meant increasing no-fly zones
They could have meant more money to rebel groups

or any of a half-dozen other things.

If the UN SC would not pass a resolution authorising force (as it seems rather more than likely it would not, given its makeup) then any attempt to interpret its resolutions as authorising force is a deliberate misconstrual of intent.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
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=-

Vel, Israel has been defying UN resolutions for far longer than Iraq, yet not only the US hasn't condemned the country for doing so, the US hasn't even cut off aid.

Clearly, defying the UN is not a reason.

[GePap]

10 days of intesne air bombing would be a serious consequence, which is all resolution 1441 calls for. That the 'serious consequence" would be regime change was desided by the Bushies long ago.

If the admin. has a coherent exit planb, a coherent vision for Iraq that would trully lead to a better ME without creating significant short term and long term forms of blowback, then I would abstain instead of voicing endless arghuments against. But the admin. has no coherent exit plan. As we speak, they envision a minimum of 2 years full occupation and US military rule, and think most likely it will be more. They have showed little if any ideas about the possible political upheavels, hell, the office delegated with serious planning as of the aftermath was created 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks ago I think most people here knew the war is inevitable, and yet that is when these people get to planning the long aftermath. And I fail to see how this will help the anti-Al Qaeda (because that is what the war on terror is) campaign. I have never taken seriously, because I see the arguments as laughably moronic, that Saddam would, under any ciscumstance except the one we will give him soon enough, give WMD to anyone not under 100% his direct control.

As for the humanitarian notions: I have grown not cynical, but hard-hearted to these. There are many forms of suffering and suffering in many places. Given the limited resources due to man current selfishness, I think our resources need to be carefully used, and the people of Iraq, while they suffer, are nowhere near the list of those that suffer most. If the point is just to spread freedom, we have better work to do elsewhere.

Oh, and a little gem form the NYTimes:

Still, while there is a high degree of awareness, substantial conflict and confusion exist among the public about Iraq and the antiterror campaign, so much so that 42 percent of those polled said they believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Neither the Bush administration nor any other authority has alleged such involvement.

Maybe this is one of the reasons support for the Iraq war in the US remains high....

[DuncanK]

The UN shouldn't make threats and not follow through. Further threats will not be taken seriously.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Would it be best? Absolutely.

But that isn't what we've got.

If you can outline some other "serious consequences" that don't involve putting troops on Iraqi soil, I'd dearly love to hear them.

And *if* we are to put troops on Iraqi soil, then the only responsible way to do it is in full force, hit him hard, and get it over with.

To take yet another half measure would draw the conflict out, give Saddam time to set fire to the oil fields, and endanger the civillian population.

In this instance, a half measure is the worst possible play.

All the other "consequence" cards are already on the table.

So...either the UN is a joke, and ought to get out of the business of writing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing, or we end it.

-=Vel=-

What you've done is decided that the US is judge and jury as to what "serious consequences" are.

If you mean that Saddam is a bad character and your nation has decided what's best, then fine:go for it. Nobody will stop you.

But don't for a second pretend that you're upholding the will of the security council. Because I find it hard to believe that it would have unanimously passed such a resolution. And therefore any attempt to abuse the interpretation of it is a subversion of the UNSC's will.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
1) We need an exit strategy. We have been at war with this SOB for 12 years.

The UN resolution called for only the liberation of Kuwait. That was done. Where is the war?

Originally posted by Ned
2) The exit strategy must result in Saddam's disarmament.

On what grounds?

Originally posted by Ned
3) We are really concerned about Saddam's connections to al Qaeda. 9/11 showed us how vunerable we are. It would be a nightmare if OBL got ahold of an Islamic nuke.

If this is true, you should be in Pakistan, not Iraq.