andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker
Anyone want to read this and then tell me they're not in favour of war?

Date: 2003-03-20 03:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cangetmad.livejournal.com
I'm not in favour of war. And I kind of resent the implication that only the ignorant wouldn't be.

Nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is a good man - nobody I've ever met, anyway. Torture happens all over the world. War is not the answer to ending torture and oppression.

But, hey, if you think military in invasion is the universal answer, you'd better go and enlist. We're going to need a bigger army.

Date: 2003-03-20 04:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] heron61.livejournal.com
Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He refuses to account for there whereabouts. Except that he doesn't, at least not functional ones. He doesn't have nukes and the chemical and biological weapons that weren't destroyed before (and there is good evidence that most were) are now useless due to age, and he doesn't have facilities for making more. In fact, everything I've read indicate that his anthrax warheads never worked. He might at most have a couple of functional chemical warheads. The man is a dire threat to his own people, and no threat at all to anyone else.

As for your link to his atrocities, he's only one of far too many. I'm against getting rid of Hussein simply because there is almost no end to that sort of world policing. Events in North Korea are considerably worse than in Iraq, death squads still roam a few Latin American nations, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe can certainly give Hussein a run for his money wrt atrocities. I find a world where the major powers invade any nation that they disapprove off to be far worse than one where petty tyrants exist. If there is a precedent for wiping out tyrants, it's only a small step to wiping out governments that the major power dislike. Even if that never happens, I simply don't believe that any nation has the right to invade another nation because it don't like how the other nation is governed. If we really want to get rid of such people, stop foolish embargoes and instead try to help the residents become prosperous enough to resist and heavily fund any reasonably competent and non-horrid rebels.

This war may well kill more people than Hussein is responsible for killing and when combined with the decade-long sanctions and border bombing, it most certainly has killed far more people than he did. I'm all about minimizing death and suffering and invasions have a definite tendency not to do that. Also, do you honestly believe the new puppet tyrant or the Saudi-backed Wahabbi
fanatic who will soon be ruling Iraq (depending upon how successful the US is) will be any better than Hussein? At that point, we have another tyrant + lots of deaths during the war.

Date: 2003-03-20 05:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cangetmad.livejournal.com
If there's a moral case for overthrowing a despot, then get in there and do it

Except that that makes you a despot yourself. Sometimes it's the only thing to do, but it's not strictly moral, and I don't believe it should be done unless there is truly no alternative at all. A moral regime change is about empowering the people of the country to make choices - and, no "empowering" isn't a pointless, wishy-washy word. It can mean "arming", it can mean "supporting with force", it can mean any of a range of things. What I think it doesn't mean is deciding to go in, kill lots of people, and put in either a US dictator, or a US-supported dictator.

Date: 2003-03-20 11:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] heron61.livejournal.com
The case with Hitler invading Chekslovakia is a bit different. I think there is considerably more justification for interfering when a nation invades another than when a nation is having internal problems.

Date: 2003-03-21 02:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mysticlegacy.livejournal.com
so we stop people hurting people by going in and hurting people? Sounds like a lot of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Date: 2003-03-20 05:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] derumi.livejournal.com
>stop foolish embargoes and instead try to help the residents become prosperous enough to resist and heavily fund any reasonably competent and non-horrid rebels.


A la, the Iran-Contra scandal?

Date: 2003-03-20 11:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] heron61.livejournal.com
The problem there (in addition too selling weapons to a extremist theocracy) was that in that case (as in far too many others) the US funded deeply horrid rebels against an exemplary government - pretty much the exact reverse of what I'd advocating.

I can.

Date: 2003-03-20 09:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nosrialleon.livejournal.com
It has been said again
and again
and again
and again:
no one is denying that this guy is bad news. The things printed here are par for his course and have been for the 23 years he's been in power. He's a murderous thug. He is, in short, EXACTLY the kind of guy your government and mine have historically preferred to leave in command of unstable regions throughout the world. The primary difference between him and our 'allies' in the region - the ruliing families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait; murderous thugs, all - is that he is a peasant by birth.

So, a member of Tony Blair's party uses her access to press on the eve of war and says "oh, by the way: here's a bunch of unpleasant stuff I've heard." That's a fairly classic propoganda ploy, and is the political equivalent of a salesman calling to check that you are happy with a major purchase. That stuff was going on 20 years ago; and we (the US) were so blind with rage at Iran that we did not care. We gave him all the weaponry he needed to make Iran miserable, and if he also used it to maintain his power, so be it.

It could (and has) been said that since he is our fault we have an obligation to remove him. But really, the political and national makeup of the whole regoin is our fault; the US and Britain drew up the boundry lines of the Middle East at the end of WWII. The region has been in fairly constant turmoil ever since. Will there ever be a point at which we declare it good enough, or will we be forever meddling in the affairs of Arabs?

My country has exactly one interest in the region. It is black, plentiful, and easily recovered. My President's handlers know exactly which pretty words to say to make people believe that this is about issues of high morality. It is not. It is a business scam.

Date: 2003-03-20 10:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wordofblake.livejournal.com
I'm not in favour of this war, because IMO Bush would need so smarten up to qualify as a power mad monley of evil.

If the real agenda was to remove Saddam Hussein, surely assasins would be more appropriate than war?

Date: 2003-03-20 12:19 pm (UTC)
shannon_a: (Default)
From: [personal profile] shannon_a
A recent study by a Nobel prize winner said that half-a-million people will die if there is war in Iraq, half before and half after due to the infrastructural damage we're going to do.

If tactical nukular weapons are used, as Dubya proposes, this number will climb into the millions.

If you're going after leaders for the murder of innocents, you need to start with Bush and Blair.

Date: 2003-03-20 01:17 pm (UTC)
shannon_a: (Default)
From: [personal profile] shannon_a
http://www.iansa.org/documents/2002/collateral_damage.htm

You're right on the huminitarian aide; at least here in the United States those contracts are being given out to corporations with connections to the White House, starting with the company previously run by our Vice President. That should say something about how much we're really trying to help people, as opposed to lining pockets.

See: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14682

No.

Date: 2003-03-21 05:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnbobshaun.livejournal.com
*Reads article* I'm not in favour of war. No kind of emotive bullshit is going to make me believe that two wrongs make a right.

Re: No.

Date: 2003-03-21 07:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnbobshaun.livejournal.com
I refer the honorable member to my comments regarding "emotional bullshit" but would like to add a further comment referring to "insane troll logic".

Re: No.

Date: 2003-03-21 08:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnbobshaun.livejournal.com
Andy, my friend, I don't have the time or the inclination to get involved in a pissing contest over this. You saying something, me replying and us both getting nowhere seems like a lot of hard work at this time on a Friday afternoon.

Re: No.

Date: 2003-03-21 10:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] johnbobshaun.livejournal.com
Okay, okay, okay. Jeez you're pushy. I'll keep this brief. This is eating into valuable Mario Sunshine time .

I think there is no justification for war at this time. Without a common concensus in the UN... other channels still open for investigation... destabilisation of the middle east yadda yadda yadda, all obvious stuff. And yeah, Saddam has a horrific human rights record but to be frank he can join the fucking queue. The appauling shit I get from Amnesty International breaks my heart. Countries like China, Haiti, Isreal (key US ally in the Middle East. Hmmmmm) Zimbabwe and (lawks) the good old US of A.

I was wondering today whether we still would have gone in *without* the human rights issues. Not sure to be honest. I get the feeling that they would have found another excuse.

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 1617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 17th, 2025 04:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios