Hopefully, this thread will (primarily) be a one on one debate about Iraq. Krebsie taking the anti-war position and Demsformd the pro-war. Thank you all in advance for letting us attempt this. I respectfully request that someone start a parallel thread for comments if you wish to.
One On One- Iraq!
- Thread starter MGKrebs
- Start date
You said...
I have to agree here with Frank...the anti-war movement is incredibly anti-Bush. Look at the people that oppose this war that fervently supported the Serbian War. The Serbs killed ethnic Albanians, the Iraqis are killing Kurds and other people of that nation unjustly. We need to remove Hussein from power and guess what, just standing back and hoping that that will happen will not lead to his overthrow. Look, the Arabs will not love us if we appease them. Whatever we do, some Islamic fundamentalist comes out against it. They will love us when we win, end of story.
1. So what if it's anti-Bush? This is HIS war.
2. Yugoslavia (Serbia) was a UN deal, just like this one should be.
3. Who is "we"?
4. Many tools are available besides war and sitting back doing nothing. Some are in progress, others are on the table.
I have to agree here with Frank...the anti-war movement is incredibly anti-Bush. Look at the people that oppose this war that fervently supported the Serbian War. The Serbs killed ethnic Albanians, the Iraqis are killing Kurds and other people of that nation unjustly. We need to remove Hussein from power and guess what, just standing back and hoping that that will happen will not lead to his overthrow. Look, the Arabs will not love us if we appease them. Whatever we do, some Islamic fundamentalist comes out against it. They will love us when we win, end of story.
1. So what if it's anti-Bush? This is HIS war.
2. Yugoslavia (Serbia) was a UN deal, just like this one should be.
3. Who is "we"?
4. Many tools are available besides war and sitting back doing nothing. Some are in progress, others are on the table.
So sorry for responding so late. Work was actually quite busy today (I had to sit through several strategy sessions and listen to a bunch of associates talk about a pointless lawsuit.) Anyway, here we go.
I am a cautious supporter of war, just as is the majority of conservatives and has is President Bush. The fact that Iraq has violated multiple UN resolutions and regulations calls for action by that body. What is the good of this body if they do not enforce the rules that they outline? Economic sanctions have been in effect against Iraq and still the Iraqi regime is still in power. Just what other means are you referring to in your question?
I have no problem with the anti-war movement being anti-Bush. That assertion, however, just shows that these protesters are merely being contrarian to the ideas of the majority. People are at "peace" demonstrations holding signs that say "WE WILL KILL FOR PEACE." Why wasn't there a serious effort to protest the Serbian invasion? Congressional Democrats and my most liked candidate, Bill Clinton, stood behind efforts to change the Iraqi regime. Why then are so many of them now opposing war?
The case for me has been made. Colin Powell showed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there are possibly ties to terrorism. Even if there are not terrorist ties, the actions of the repressive regime themselves are terrorist actions against the people of that nation. Children are raped, people are gassed, innocent people are killed. This is something that cannot be condoned and by allowing Hussein to continue his actions do just that. Liberals are all about human rights. Do you recall President Carter's statement that human rights defines America? Saddam Hussein is a person that must be removed from power and merely supported a group of rebels is not going to cut it. Yes, UN backing is the most advantageous course of action but that is just not practicle. In a world that hates America this much, support from other nations will be hard to garner. And if it is not, we still must act for it is not Turkey or France or Germany that Iraq has threatened. Saddam Hussein has openly declared his hostility to the United States and we must ensure that he cannot jeopardize the security of the nation in the future.
On a side note, tomorrow I will have more meetings so please be patient with my responses.
I am a cautious supporter of war, just as is the majority of conservatives and has is President Bush. The fact that Iraq has violated multiple UN resolutions and regulations calls for action by that body. What is the good of this body if they do not enforce the rules that they outline? Economic sanctions have been in effect against Iraq and still the Iraqi regime is still in power. Just what other means are you referring to in your question?
I have no problem with the anti-war movement being anti-Bush. That assertion, however, just shows that these protesters are merely being contrarian to the ideas of the majority. People are at "peace" demonstrations holding signs that say "WE WILL KILL FOR PEACE." Why wasn't there a serious effort to protest the Serbian invasion? Congressional Democrats and my most liked candidate, Bill Clinton, stood behind efforts to change the Iraqi regime. Why then are so many of them now opposing war?
The case for me has been made. Colin Powell showed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there are possibly ties to terrorism. Even if there are not terrorist ties, the actions of the repressive regime themselves are terrorist actions against the people of that nation. Children are raped, people are gassed, innocent people are killed. This is something that cannot be condoned and by allowing Hussein to continue his actions do just that. Liberals are all about human rights. Do you recall President Carter's statement that human rights defines America? Saddam Hussein is a person that must be removed from power and merely supported a group of rebels is not going to cut it. Yes, UN backing is the most advantageous course of action but that is just not practicle. In a world that hates America this much, support from other nations will be hard to garner. And if it is not, we still must act for it is not Turkey or France or Germany that Iraq has threatened. Saddam Hussein has openly declared his hostility to the United States and we must ensure that he cannot jeopardize the security of the nation in the future.
On a side note, tomorrow I will have more meetings so please be patient with my responses.
The fact that Iraq has violated multiple UN resolutions and regulations calls for action by that body. What is the good of this body if they do not enforce the rules that they outline? Economic sanctions have been in effect against Iraq and still the Iraqi regime is still in power. Just what other means are you referring to in your question?
I agree that violation of the regulations calls for action by the UN. The assumption that you are making is that war is the correct response. it is quite likely that the US has pre-empted UN action by it's unilateral response- who knows. In any case, there are many things going on right now that could lead to Iraqi disarmament and saddam leaving; the Russians have offered soldiers to support the inspectors; exile for saddam is being negotiated; France wants to triple the amount of inspectors; weapons are being destroyed even as we speak; and more.
My perception is that every step of the way, the US blocks any attempt to solve this without war. We evidently are not sharing our intelligence with the inspectors, Powell uses 12 year old (pre Gulf War) info to make his case to the Sec. council, at first disarmament was good enough, but now that disarmament is a realistic possibility it's not good enough anymore, only regime change will do. And not just any regime change, it's got to be somebody we like. We can't do that!
Congressional Democrats and my most liked candidate, Bill Clinton, stood behind efforts to change the Iraqi regime. Why then are so many of them now opposing war?
Perhaps you left out one little word- they stood behind LEGAL efforts to change the Iraqi regime. Please note that they stood behind the desire to change the regime, but they did not overthrow that government without international support.
Colin Powell showed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there are possibly ties to terrorism. Even if there are not terrorist ties, the actions of the repressive regime themselves are terrorist actions against the people of that nation. Children are raped, people are gassed, innocent people are killed. This is something that cannot be condoned and by allowing Hussein to continue his actions do just that.
Powell did NOT show any of that. He showed that they had weapons beofre the Gulf War, and there was nothing indicating ties to terrorism. One guy went to a hospital in baghdad? How many terrorists are in the US right now? Does Shrub know the daily schedule of them? It's absurd.
Liberals are all about human rights. Do you recall President Carter's statement that human rights defines America?
So you are saying they are better off dead than oppressed?
Yes, UN backing is the most advantageous course of action but that is just not practicle.
I think it is exceedingly practical. I am grateful that we have put so much pressure on the bastard that we are starting to make some progress.
In a world that hates America this much, support from other nations will be hard to garner. And if it is not, we still must act for it is not Turkey or France or Germany that Iraq has threatened. Saddam Hussein has openly declared his hostility to the United States and we must ensure that he cannot jeopardize the security of the nation in the future.
Overthrowing a government will not do much to garner support for us in the middle east (or anywhere else, for that matter.) Iraq today, Syria tomorrow. Then N. Korea. Then Pakistan. Then Colombia. Then Iran. Then Libya. Then Saudi Arabia. Then Afghanistan again. Then maybe India.
And I wonder why they have so much hatred for us? It would seem that normally Iraq would have much more contact with Russia or Germany. If they hate our lifestyle, our freedom, why don't they hate those countries? They're not that different from us. Because we're the big dog? What does that mean? Iraqi's pick the strongest country to hate?
I agree that violation of the regulations calls for action by the UN. The assumption that you are making is that war is the correct response. it is quite likely that the US has pre-empted UN action by it's unilateral response- who knows. In any case, there are many things going on right now that could lead to Iraqi disarmament and saddam leaving; the Russians have offered soldiers to support the inspectors; exile for saddam is being negotiated; France wants to triple the amount of inspectors; weapons are being destroyed even as we speak; and more.
My perception is that every step of the way, the US blocks any attempt to solve this without war. We evidently are not sharing our intelligence with the inspectors, Powell uses 12 year old (pre Gulf War) info to make his case to the Sec. council, at first disarmament was good enough, but now that disarmament is a realistic possibility it's not good enough anymore, only regime change will do. And not just any regime change, it's got to be somebody we like. We can't do that!
Congressional Democrats and my most liked candidate, Bill Clinton, stood behind efforts to change the Iraqi regime. Why then are so many of them now opposing war?
Perhaps you left out one little word- they stood behind LEGAL efforts to change the Iraqi regime. Please note that they stood behind the desire to change the regime, but they did not overthrow that government without international support.
Colin Powell showed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that there are possibly ties to terrorism. Even if there are not terrorist ties, the actions of the repressive regime themselves are terrorist actions against the people of that nation. Children are raped, people are gassed, innocent people are killed. This is something that cannot be condoned and by allowing Hussein to continue his actions do just that.
Powell did NOT show any of that. He showed that they had weapons beofre the Gulf War, and there was nothing indicating ties to terrorism. One guy went to a hospital in baghdad? How many terrorists are in the US right now? Does Shrub know the daily schedule of them? It's absurd.
Liberals are all about human rights. Do you recall President Carter's statement that human rights defines America?
So you are saying they are better off dead than oppressed?
Yes, UN backing is the most advantageous course of action but that is just not practicle.
I think it is exceedingly practical. I am grateful that we have put so much pressure on the bastard that we are starting to make some progress.
In a world that hates America this much, support from other nations will be hard to garner. And if it is not, we still must act for it is not Turkey or France or Germany that Iraq has threatened. Saddam Hussein has openly declared his hostility to the United States and we must ensure that he cannot jeopardize the security of the nation in the future.
Overthrowing a government will not do much to garner support for us in the middle east (or anywhere else, for that matter.) Iraq today, Syria tomorrow. Then N. Korea. Then Pakistan. Then Colombia. Then Iran. Then Libya. Then Saudi Arabia. Then Afghanistan again. Then maybe India.
And I wonder why they have so much hatred for us? It would seem that normally Iraq would have much more contact with Russia or Germany. If they hate our lifestyle, our freedom, why don't they hate those countries? They're not that different from us. Because we're the big dog? What does that mean? Iraqi's pick the strongest country to hate?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
MMMMPPPPPFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!
MMMMPPPFFFHHHHH!!!!!!
...MMMHHPPPHH!!!!
AND MMMPPPHHHFFFF!!!!
MMMMPPPFFFHHHHH!!!!!!
...MMMHHPPPHH!!!!
AND MMMPPPHHHFFFF!!!!
The Iraqis have been violating the UN resolutions ever since world pressure eased after the Persian Gulf War. Economic sanctions have been against Iraq ever since that time. Hussein is still in power and he will not leave without a war. To declare tha Hussein will move into exile is quite sophmoric and wholly utopian. Why will a man like Saddam Hussein leave power? The only scenario that I can see him agreeing to this is if the UN provides him with so many concessions that he will come back to power the minute that the UN turns their back on the country. Leaders that move into exile are still leaders; often times they once again move back into power...Napoleon proved that during his life.
President Bush is seeking UN support...one Iraq resolution has already been passed and another is on the table. We want UN backing and we should receive it. A madman with nuclear and chemical weapons must not be in power. As to the assertion that Powell used outdated evidence is false...What about intelligence that points out Iraqi efforts to hide weapons such as the army captain that drove around Baghdad in a car with missles in the back?
How can Russia and Germany ever be compared to our form of government or life? Russia has a 40% unemployment rate and while they are now a democracy, their actions are still the actions of a repressive dictatorship. There are still active socialist parties in both Russia and Germany. Germany has the audoboun and what else? The United States is evidently superior to those nations. We are the envy of the world. That is why they hate us.
Saddam Hussein has nuclear and chemical warheads. Our nation cannot just stand back and let him build his arsenal to an even greater extent. Imagine if the United States understood in the 1910s that the Soviet Union under a Communist Regime would become the major enemy of the United States later in the century. Would we have stood back and let them establish their government merely so they could attack ours and threaten our people? Iraq could be the next Soviet Union and until Hussein is gone from power and until the weapons are destroyed, we should not allow them to continue their build-up.
President Bush is seeking UN support...one Iraq resolution has already been passed and another is on the table. We want UN backing and we should receive it. A madman with nuclear and chemical weapons must not be in power. As to the assertion that Powell used outdated evidence is false...What about intelligence that points out Iraqi efforts to hide weapons such as the army captain that drove around Baghdad in a car with missles in the back?
How can Russia and Germany ever be compared to our form of government or life? Russia has a 40% unemployment rate and while they are now a democracy, their actions are still the actions of a repressive dictatorship. There are still active socialist parties in both Russia and Germany. Germany has the audoboun and what else? The United States is evidently superior to those nations. We are the envy of the world. That is why they hate us.
Saddam Hussein has nuclear and chemical warheads. Our nation cannot just stand back and let him build his arsenal to an even greater extent. Imagine if the United States understood in the 1910s that the Soviet Union under a Communist Regime would become the major enemy of the United States later in the century. Would we have stood back and let them establish their government merely so they could attack ours and threaten our people? Iraq could be the next Soviet Union and until Hussein is gone from power and until the weapons are destroyed, we should not allow them to continue their build-up.
So how does this work? We are willing to defy the will of the UN in order to...preserve our perception of the will of the UN? Hmmm.
Israel constantly ignores UN resolutions, but Sharon is not a madman? Not unless you are Palestinian or maybe a Muslim.
And the details: Iran already has soldiers in N. Iraq. The Kurds there don’t want us occupying. The Turks want a piece of the real estate so they can kill the Kurds. Our guys are constantly getting shot at in Afghanistan. Afgh. is once again the largest heroin source in the world. Syria is chomping at the bit for the war to begin so they can hassle Israel from Lebanon. Is this all part of the plan?
As to the assertion that Powell used outdated evidence is false...What about intelligence that points out Iraqi efforts to hide weapons such as the army captain that drove around Baghdad in a car with missles in the back?
I am not familiar with the story you are referring to, but the fact remains that Powell used a bunch of bogus info to make his case.
There are still active socialist parties in both Russia and Germany.
Is this supposed to be a negative? So will we be attacking countries with active socialism next?
The United States is evidently superior to those nations. We are the envy of the world. That is why they hate us.
Saudi is rich. Switzerland is rich. The UAE is rich. They aren’t hated. Your characterization of us as “superior” is why they hate us. We may have the system that’s best for us, and it is superior in many ways (for me), but to think that therefore all countries should adopt our system is arrogance run amok. I believe it is exactly that arrogance that causes them to hate us. We think we can impose our values on them. We would be pretty pissed if France tried to impose their values on us.
Saddam Hussein has nuclear and chemical warheads.
Our nation cannot just stand back and let him build his arsenal to an even greater extent.
So you agree with American imperialism? Anybody that MIGHT SOMEDAY challenge us is subject to out domination now? War is the answer that will cure all ills.
I am still considering your references to the Soviet Union and NATO.
Israel constantly ignores UN resolutions, but Sharon is not a madman? Not unless you are Palestinian or maybe a Muslim.
And the details: Iran already has soldiers in N. Iraq. The Kurds there don’t want us occupying. The Turks want a piece of the real estate so they can kill the Kurds. Our guys are constantly getting shot at in Afghanistan. Afgh. is once again the largest heroin source in the world. Syria is chomping at the bit for the war to begin so they can hassle Israel from Lebanon. Is this all part of the plan?
As to the assertion that Powell used outdated evidence is false...What about intelligence that points out Iraqi efforts to hide weapons such as the army captain that drove around Baghdad in a car with missles in the back?
I am not familiar with the story you are referring to, but the fact remains that Powell used a bunch of bogus info to make his case.
There are still active socialist parties in both Russia and Germany.
Is this supposed to be a negative? So will we be attacking countries with active socialism next?
The United States is evidently superior to those nations. We are the envy of the world. That is why they hate us.
Saudi is rich. Switzerland is rich. The UAE is rich. They aren’t hated. Your characterization of us as “superior” is why they hate us. We may have the system that’s best for us, and it is superior in many ways (for me), but to think that therefore all countries should adopt our system is arrogance run amok. I believe it is exactly that arrogance that causes them to hate us. We think we can impose our values on them. We would be pretty pissed if France tried to impose their values on us.
Saddam Hussein has nuclear and chemical warheads.
Our nation cannot just stand back and let him build his arsenal to an even greater extent.
So you agree with American imperialism? Anybody that MIGHT SOMEDAY challenge us is subject to out domination now? War is the answer that will cure all ills.
I am still considering your references to the Soviet Union and NATO.
I have a much different angle that I would like to pursue here and it is one that had the largest effect on me. The inhumanity of Saddam Hussein's regime is reason enough to boot him from power especially when his nation is such a small speck on the map. The gassing of the Kurds, rapping children, tourture, and mass murder all characterize the Iraqi Regime. Can the United States, which has aided in Serbia, in Somalia, and other nations for the purpose of human rights, stand by and allow such actions to continue? No we cannot. It is time for this nation to advocate human rights for all world citizens.
Also, from a legal standpoint...UN Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Resolution 687 obligates Iraq as to making a declaration as to the amounts and types of weapons, the accounting for those weapons and the restriction on missiles beyond the specified range. Resolution 688 states that once Iraq comes into compliance with all previous the resolutions concerning their weapons, it will result in a formal cease-fire. From these resolutions, it is safe to say that the Gulf War never actually ended because Hussein has continually refused to destroy his weapons. He never complied with the consequences of his invasion and thus, he is still vulnerable to legal attacks from other member nations.
Also, from a legal standpoint...UN Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Resolution 687 obligates Iraq as to making a declaration as to the amounts and types of weapons, the accounting for those weapons and the restriction on missiles beyond the specified range. Resolution 688 states that once Iraq comes into compliance with all previous the resolutions concerning their weapons, it will result in a formal cease-fire. From these resolutions, it is safe to say that the Gulf War never actually ended because Hussein has continually refused to destroy his weapons. He never complied with the consequences of his invasion and thus, he is still vulnerable to legal attacks from other member nations.
When one country attacks another, it is clear that they get to defend themselves and probably retaliate in some way. Human rights issues are not so clear cut. As horrible as saddam is, there is no defined level of human rights violations that automatically trigger intervention by anybody who chooses to (including the USA). Therefore, we depend on the world community, whether it is the UN or some other body to determine if intervention is the best course of action. In Iraq for example, I would think that if the Arab League got together and decided it was time to "fix" Iraq, they could do so without much resistance from the rest of the world. You could say that it is their jurisdiction. Just like countries that are members of NATO may be subject to NATO action if the members mostly agree.
If the US wants to advocate human rights, dropping 600 bombs a day doesn't seem like a very rational way to do it. I know many here think that anything short of full out attack is about equal to "doing nothing", but I happen to disagree.
I've been through this legal aspect before. 678 authorized member states to liberate Kuwait. I know that 1441 and other resolutions refer to this (and other) resolutions, and it can be interpreted that the authorization to enforce the resolutions continues. But I think it is clear that this is not the current (today) will of the UN- i.e. for the USA to take it upon themselves to decide the proper response and carry it out. There is obviously disagreement, even among those who wrote the darn thing, as to what the intent was. I think it is up to the UN to decide their own legal meanings. If the US wants to advocate a particular meaning, then we should work hard to convince the rest of the UN of our position. But we may not win the decision.
So let's take a look at 678:
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) {which was a demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait} and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, { notice the phrase "co-operating with... Kuwait", does that apply today? You could technically say that we are still cooperating with Kuwait, but we are very far down the road from liberating them} unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. { According to Article 12 of the U.N. charter: While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. In other words, the Security Council maintains jurisdiction, as opposed to the full UN. Some also believe that this is intended to preclude unilateral action by any member, but that is the crux of the current disagreement in the S.C}}
If the US wants to advocate human rights, dropping 600 bombs a day doesn't seem like a very rational way to do it. I know many here think that anything short of full out attack is about equal to "doing nothing", but I happen to disagree.
I've been through this legal aspect before. 678 authorized member states to liberate Kuwait. I know that 1441 and other resolutions refer to this (and other) resolutions, and it can be interpreted that the authorization to enforce the resolutions continues. But I think it is clear that this is not the current (today) will of the UN- i.e. for the USA to take it upon themselves to decide the proper response and carry it out. There is obviously disagreement, even among those who wrote the darn thing, as to what the intent was. I think it is up to the UN to decide their own legal meanings. If the US wants to advocate a particular meaning, then we should work hard to convince the rest of the UN of our position. But we may not win the decision.
So let's take a look at 678:
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) {which was a demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait} and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, { notice the phrase "co-operating with... Kuwait", does that apply today? You could technically say that we are still cooperating with Kuwait, but we are very far down the road from liberating them} unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. { According to Article 12 of the U.N. charter: While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. In other words, the Security Council maintains jurisdiction, as opposed to the full UN. Some also believe that this is intended to preclude unilateral action by any member, but that is the crux of the current disagreement in the S.C}}
Well I think that we have talked this issue to death here in this thread and I would like to make a closing argument here.
President Bush, a man that I did not vote for, one that I do not intend to vote for, and one that I disapprove of, is correct on this issue that Hussein has chemical weapons that could danger the position of the American people. He is a ruthless dictator that must be overthrown with the help of the American military. I don't think that next week could be the best time to do this and I think that President Bush needs to do a better job of garnering support but still this war in principle is correct if Hussein continues to act as he does right now in defiance of the UN. In order for that body to continue on with its viability, it must enforce its own rules. This war is the most advantageous course of action to carry out all of these priorities if Hussein continues to be uncooperative and unwilling to disarm.
Thank you, Krebs, this was an interesting debate and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
President Bush, a man that I did not vote for, one that I do not intend to vote for, and one that I disapprove of, is correct on this issue that Hussein has chemical weapons that could danger the position of the American people. He is a ruthless dictator that must be overthrown with the help of the American military. I don't think that next week could be the best time to do this and I think that President Bush needs to do a better job of garnering support but still this war in principle is correct if Hussein continues to act as he does right now in defiance of the UN. In order for that body to continue on with its viability, it must enforce its own rules. This war is the most advantageous course of action to carry out all of these priorities if Hussein continues to be uncooperative and unwilling to disarm.
Thank you, Krebs, this was an interesting debate and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
For my closing statement;
I would like to say thanx dems for a mature debate. This is a difficult issue, and believe me, I am not supporting saddam hussein. I am sincerely hopeful that our troops will be safe, and that the Iraqi civilians will not suffer unduly because of the coming conflict. I hope that saddam is brought to account one way or the other for the scourge he has inflicted upon humanity and for putting us in this horrible position.
I see four salient points here:
1. Does saddam need to be punished?
2. Who gets to say yes, and what the punishment is?
3. Have all realistic options besides war been exhaused?
4. Do the benefits, at this time, justify the costs?
On the first point: No doubt. He is brutal, he is ruthless, he is dangerous. Especially in the near future when he could conceivably have endless wealth at his disposal with the oil reserves in Iraq.
Secondly, as I have said before, there is no definitive level of "badness" that we can depend on to guide us in our response. Therefore we rely on whatever community is appropriate to decide on the correct reaction. In Yugoslavia it was NATO. In the Gulf War it was the UN, although we may have been justified in unilateral action there if we had a treaty with Kuwait that allowed for common defense.
The Arab League might be an appropriate organization to define the response here, and the UN has certainly chosen to intervene at some level. But it is inconceivable to me that the threat to the US could be so imminent and so significant that we prepare for war, and yet virtually no other major world leaders see the same threat. I believe that the UN was formed, at the US's instigation, to prevent exactly this kind of behavior.
On the third point: I think Bush is probably sincere in his perception that this action needs to be taken now, but that does not mean he is right. Because of the failure of other leaders to see the threat, the cost to the US will be much greater than it would be otherwise. Our guys will be in harms way, we will have to pay the costs, and there will be political costs from many quarters for years to come.
If you listen to the pundits, one terrorist attack has kept our economy from being as healthy as it should be for well over a year now. What will the worldwide political fallout of a unilateral (essentially) war mean to our economy? There are already tarriff issues cropping up with our closest allies, and what are the Arabs to think if we go in without support of any Arab leaders? You may not care today, but I think it will likely breed widespread and long term animosity towards us that will lead to further terorist attacks. Therefore we will have achieved nothing, and probably lost a bit in the end.
Other leaders seem to feel that alternatives to war still exist that will contain, stabilize, and pacify Iraq. Those here who have said that the UN has not done enough in the past 12 years are right. But that doesn't mean they can't do the correct thing now. Regardless of what any past resolutions say or don't say, the question now is; can the goal be achieved without war, which everybody seems to agree is the worst of all options.
If the goal is Iraqi disarmament, why can't they be disarmed without bombing the country? Bombing does not achieve disarmament. We will STILL have to find the weapons and destroy them.
OK. So getting saddam out of there makes that disarmament easier, so we have to get rid of saddam first. Is that what the war is about? Killing one man? Or is the thinking that anybody else who might take over is equally as dangerous and depraved? We are getting into very slippery territory here, where we install a government that we like.
I believe that we can contain Iraq just like we have contained Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and even the Soviet Union. What is it that has changed that makes this unrealistic to some people?
If terrorism is the answer to that question, I suggest that bombing Iraq, removing saddam, and destroying all the weapons we can find, will not stop, or even reduce, the terrorist threat to the US. In fact, if we continue on the course we are on, terrorism will increase.
It is just not possible to eliminate all of the possible sources of terrorist weapons or terrorists themselves. All we can do is minimize the risk. What we are going to do will increase the risk. Fighting terrorism is a completely different battle than bombing cities or eliminating the government of a country. If we lack support for fighting terrorism in this arena, then there are plenty of other arenas to deal with until we can get that support. In the meantime, we should be protecting our borders. After all, if terrorist can't get their support from saddam, they will get it somewhere else.
So, why can't the UN impose stronger sanctions to keep saddam from gaining wealth? Why can't we send in more inspectors with military support to find whatever weapons might exist? Don't even call them inspectors, call them enforcers if you like. Can we not find saddam and arrest him for crimes? Not many would oppose this action.
Finally, if we had a consensus that war was the only remaining option, there would be much less animosity directed at the action, and also, the costs would be shared by many, not just a few. And the costs may include humanitarian relief for years to come. With a consensus, we would not have to devote so many resources to this one engagement, and could protect ourselves more effectively from other threats. With a consensus, there would be a clearer definition of unacceptable behavior for other potential troublemakers to consider.
Without a consensus, we bear the costs, we bear the animosity, and we bear the destiny of furthering the cause of chaos in the world.
By forcefully insisting on agreement with our view and our view only, the US has forced other nations, including allies, to take sides. Despite the huge repercussions of opposing the US, many have chosen to anyway. The US has effectively prevented any serious alternatives from being implemented. Some see any alternative as "one more chance" for saddam, but those who pursue alternatives see a way to achieve the goals without the destruction of 5000 to 10,000 more innocent civilian lives.
We can't bring back those we have lost. But we can make the world safer without thousands more families having to suffer the unbearable pain that was inflicted upon us.
I would like to say thanx dems for a mature debate. This is a difficult issue, and believe me, I am not supporting saddam hussein. I am sincerely hopeful that our troops will be safe, and that the Iraqi civilians will not suffer unduly because of the coming conflict. I hope that saddam is brought to account one way or the other for the scourge he has inflicted upon humanity and for putting us in this horrible position.
I see four salient points here:
1. Does saddam need to be punished?
2. Who gets to say yes, and what the punishment is?
3. Have all realistic options besides war been exhaused?
4. Do the benefits, at this time, justify the costs?
On the first point: No doubt. He is brutal, he is ruthless, he is dangerous. Especially in the near future when he could conceivably have endless wealth at his disposal with the oil reserves in Iraq.
Secondly, as I have said before, there is no definitive level of "badness" that we can depend on to guide us in our response. Therefore we rely on whatever community is appropriate to decide on the correct reaction. In Yugoslavia it was NATO. In the Gulf War it was the UN, although we may have been justified in unilateral action there if we had a treaty with Kuwait that allowed for common defense.
The Arab League might be an appropriate organization to define the response here, and the UN has certainly chosen to intervene at some level. But it is inconceivable to me that the threat to the US could be so imminent and so significant that we prepare for war, and yet virtually no other major world leaders see the same threat. I believe that the UN was formed, at the US's instigation, to prevent exactly this kind of behavior.
On the third point: I think Bush is probably sincere in his perception that this action needs to be taken now, but that does not mean he is right. Because of the failure of other leaders to see the threat, the cost to the US will be much greater than it would be otherwise. Our guys will be in harms way, we will have to pay the costs, and there will be political costs from many quarters for years to come.
If you listen to the pundits, one terrorist attack has kept our economy from being as healthy as it should be for well over a year now. What will the worldwide political fallout of a unilateral (essentially) war mean to our economy? There are already tarriff issues cropping up with our closest allies, and what are the Arabs to think if we go in without support of any Arab leaders? You may not care today, but I think it will likely breed widespread and long term animosity towards us that will lead to further terorist attacks. Therefore we will have achieved nothing, and probably lost a bit in the end.
Other leaders seem to feel that alternatives to war still exist that will contain, stabilize, and pacify Iraq. Those here who have said that the UN has not done enough in the past 12 years are right. But that doesn't mean they can't do the correct thing now. Regardless of what any past resolutions say or don't say, the question now is; can the goal be achieved without war, which everybody seems to agree is the worst of all options.
If the goal is Iraqi disarmament, why can't they be disarmed without bombing the country? Bombing does not achieve disarmament. We will STILL have to find the weapons and destroy them.
OK. So getting saddam out of there makes that disarmament easier, so we have to get rid of saddam first. Is that what the war is about? Killing one man? Or is the thinking that anybody else who might take over is equally as dangerous and depraved? We are getting into very slippery territory here, where we install a government that we like.
I believe that we can contain Iraq just like we have contained Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and even the Soviet Union. What is it that has changed that makes this unrealistic to some people?
If terrorism is the answer to that question, I suggest that bombing Iraq, removing saddam, and destroying all the weapons we can find, will not stop, or even reduce, the terrorist threat to the US. In fact, if we continue on the course we are on, terrorism will increase.
It is just not possible to eliminate all of the possible sources of terrorist weapons or terrorists themselves. All we can do is minimize the risk. What we are going to do will increase the risk. Fighting terrorism is a completely different battle than bombing cities or eliminating the government of a country. If we lack support for fighting terrorism in this arena, then there are plenty of other arenas to deal with until we can get that support. In the meantime, we should be protecting our borders. After all, if terrorist can't get their support from saddam, they will get it somewhere else.
So, why can't the UN impose stronger sanctions to keep saddam from gaining wealth? Why can't we send in more inspectors with military support to find whatever weapons might exist? Don't even call them inspectors, call them enforcers if you like. Can we not find saddam and arrest him for crimes? Not many would oppose this action.
Finally, if we had a consensus that war was the only remaining option, there would be much less animosity directed at the action, and also, the costs would be shared by many, not just a few. And the costs may include humanitarian relief for years to come. With a consensus, we would not have to devote so many resources to this one engagement, and could protect ourselves more effectively from other threats. With a consensus, there would be a clearer definition of unacceptable behavior for other potential troublemakers to consider.
Without a consensus, we bear the costs, we bear the animosity, and we bear the destiny of furthering the cause of chaos in the world.
By forcefully insisting on agreement with our view and our view only, the US has forced other nations, including allies, to take sides. Despite the huge repercussions of opposing the US, many have chosen to anyway. The US has effectively prevented any serious alternatives from being implemented. Some see any alternative as "one more chance" for saddam, but those who pursue alternatives see a way to achieve the goals without the destruction of 5000 to 10,000 more innocent civilian lives.
We can't bring back those we have lost. But we can make the world safer without thousands more families having to suffer the unbearable pain that was inflicted upon us.
Last edited: