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.
I also think that it's been approached the wrong way and that it's impossible to differentiate the motives of the countries involved from any altruistic intent that may exist (both on the part of France and the US).
For instance, I was definitely in favour of intervention in former Yugoslavia and I think that Rwanda could have done with a lot of intervention in very short order.
On the other hand I think that the US has a long history of interfering purely for its own gain.
Dammit, despite not being a fan of his, I'm going to have to say that Tony Blair's speach pretty much laid it out perfectly:
Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He refuses to account for there whereabouts. When there are threats of force, he responds; without them he kicked inspectors out for 4 years. The UN's resolutions are pointless unless they are followed through and France refuses to allow the UN to make any intimation that it will be followed through.
I hate the idea of war, but in this case I think I hate the idea of not-war more.
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.
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
Which isn't what the weapons inspectors were saying when they reported all the unaccounted for VX and other agents. If it's old and useless why doesn't he come out and say "it's there, it's no use, we buried it in this hole in the ground."
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
I think that funding rebels is actually worse than intervening yourself. If there's a moral case for overthrowing a despot, then get in there and do it, don't just prolong things by helping out people that don't have much of a chance of actually succeeding.
I'm certainly in favour of working with countries to make them better places to live, increasing education, etc. The EU approach of allowing countries to join once they have their human rights legislation in place is definitely a great model. But I don't think it works in all cases. I think there is sometimes a case for war. I wish that people had intervened faster when Hitler invaded Chekslovakia, faster when Yugoslavia went to Hell and when the Rwandan atrocities started. The "It is a far away place of which we know nothing and anyway, maybe they like being ruled over by a mad dictator" approach isn't one that works for me.
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.
I stopped believing the word moral had any kind of absolute meaning a loooong time ago.
And seeing as all of the Iraqi comments I've heard from outside of Iraq seem to be in favour of us invading, that seems empowering.
Of course I'm in agreement that US-imposed dictators are a bad thing. But the Japanese model (help rebuild the economy and then hand power back to an educated, self-reliant populace) seems like a good one.
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.
And it's wrong to break up a fight by hurting people too.
If I see a rapist attacking someone it'd be wrong for me to punch him, because all violence is wrong.
Morals are relative - there's no absolutes involved here.
Thankfully, so far, the vast majority of the Iraqis are putting up no resistance or are actively surrendering. I'd really rather keep the bloodshed to a minimum. If this keeps up, it'll hopefully all be over as quickly as the first Gulf War was and the rebuilding can get started.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Cite please. Nobel prize winner in what? Iraq has no infrastructure to speak of right now, it's a ruin. I'm hoping for a quick conflict followed by emergency humanitarian aid. I know the government has that planned because my father has been informed he's going to be part of that (he's a paediatrician).
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.
I actually think it's a very good thing that the contracts are being sorted out now. It doesn't surprise me that the contracts are going to contacts of the central government cabal, as I don't like Bush in the slightest, but at least they are preparing for the post-war rebuild.
The article was interesting also - but didn't have a lot of hard data in it. Also, comparing the the effects of the first gulf war (where they broke the infrastructure) to the second (where there is no infrastructure to break and they plan to go in and build one with haste) is not likely to be accurate.
So you think, for instance, that it would have been reasonable to leave the jews in concentration camps, because liberating them would require violence?
You believe that pulling a rapist from a woman would be wrong, because it would mean hurting him?
You think that the police shouldn't use violence to prevent people from murdering one another?
It's not emotional bullshit. You stated very clearly that "Two wrongs do not make a right." was your binding moral principle. I then gave you three examples of situations where a wrong would very clearly have to be committed in order to combat another wrong and asked you if you agreed that your moral code was such that you agreed with inaction in those situations.
Saddam Hussein, as laid out in the article I linked to and vast numbers of others, carries out/causes to be carried out rapes, murders, torture, etc. I believe that the right thing to do is to prevent it and that the wrong of the invasion is less than the wrong of leaving him to carry them out. I believe this is a direct parallell of the examples I gave.
Labelling this as "insane troll logic" is not an answer, it's a way of avoiding giving an answer.
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.
I don't want to get nowhere, nor is this a pissing contest. I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say. I was (and still am) trying to communicate, to find out what you believe and why you believe it. I'm not firmly convinced of anything and if you have a good reason for what you believe in I'll quite likely be convinced by it.
You know as well as I do that I'm not standing behuind Bush shouting "kill the for'n people!", but on the other hand I'm not a pacifist either, which is what you seemed to be espousing. If I'm failing to understand what you mean I really would like to you to explain to me so I can understand where you're coming from.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-03-20 11:17 am
no subject
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.
no subject
I think that in this situation it may well be.
I also think that it's been approached the wrong way and that it's impossible to differentiate the motives of the countries involved from any altruistic intent that may exist (both on the part of France and the US).
For instance, I was definitely in favour of intervention in former Yugoslavia and I think that Rwanda could have done with a lot of intervention in very short order.
On the other hand I think that the US has a long history of interfering purely for its own gain.
Dammit, despite not being a fan of his, I'm going to have to say that Tony Blair's speach pretty much laid it out perfectly:
Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He refuses to account for there whereabouts. When there are threats of force, he responds; without them he kicked inspectors out for 4 years. The UN's resolutions are pointless unless they are followed through and France refuses to allow the UN to make any intimation that it will be followed through.
I hate the idea of war, but in this case I think I hate the idea of not-war more.
no subject
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.
no subject
Which isn't what the weapons inspectors were saying when they reported all the unaccounted for VX and other agents. If it's old and useless why doesn't he come out and say "it's there, it's no use, we buried it in this hole in the ground."
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
I think that funding rebels is actually worse than intervening yourself. If there's a moral case for overthrowing a despot, then get in there and do it, don't just prolong things by helping out people that don't have much of a chance of actually succeeding.
I'm certainly in favour of working with countries to make them better places to live, increasing education, etc. The EU approach of allowing countries to join once they have their human rights legislation in place is definitely a great model. But I don't think it works in all cases. I think there is sometimes a case for war. I wish that people had intervened faster when Hitler invaded Chekslovakia, faster when Yugoslavia went to Hell and when the Rwandan atrocities started. The "It is a far away place of which we know nothing and anyway, maybe they like being ruled over by a mad dictator" approach isn't one that works for me.
no subject
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.
no subject
I stopped believing the word moral had any kind of absolute meaning a loooong time ago.
And seeing as all of the Iraqi comments I've heard from outside of Iraq seem to be in favour of us invading, that seems empowering.
Of course I'm in agreement that US-imposed dictators are a bad thing. But the Japanese model (help rebuild the economy and then hand power back to an educated, self-reliant populace) seems like a good one.
no subject
no subject
I'm going to admit to not caring at all about nations. If people are hurting people then I think they should be stopped.
no subject
no subject
If I see a rapist attacking someone it'd be wrong for me to punch him, because all violence is wrong.
Morals are relative - there's no absolutes involved here.
Thankfully, so far, the vast majority of the Iraqis are putting up no resistance or are actively surrendering. I'd really rather keep the bloodshed to a minimum. If this keeps up, it'll hopefully all be over as quickly as the first Gulf War was and the rebuilding can get started.
no subject
A la, the Iran-Contra scandal?
no subject
I can.
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.
no subject
If the real agenda was to remove Saddam Hussein, surely assasins would be more appropriate than war?
no subject
The problem there being that outside of fiction, assassins aren't a terribly reliable form of killing people.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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 subject
The article was interesting also - but didn't have a lot of hard data in it. Also, comparing the the effects of the first gulf war (where they broke the infrastructure) to the second (where there is no infrastructure to break and they plan to go in and build one with haste) is not likely to be accurate.
No.
Re: No.
You believe that pulling a rapist from a woman would be wrong, because it would mean hurting him?
You think that the police shouldn't use violence to prevent people from murdering one another?
Really?
Re: No.
Re: No.
Saddam Hussein, as laid out in the article I linked to and vast numbers of others, carries out/causes to be carried out rapes, murders, torture, etc. I believe that the right thing to do is to prevent it and that the wrong of the invasion is less than the wrong of leaving him to carry them out. I believe this is a direct parallell of the examples I gave.
Labelling this as "insane troll logic" is not an answer, it's a way of avoiding giving an answer.
Re: No.
Re: No.
You know as well as I do that I'm not standing behuind Bush shouting "kill the for'n people!", but on the other hand I'm not a pacifist either, which is what you seemed to be espousing. If I'm failing to understand what you mean I really would like to you to explain to me so I can understand where you're coming from.
Re: No.
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.