|
| quote: | | bro..what saddam did to his own people in the 80's with chemical weapons is more than enough reasons for any anti-terrorism country to act on..your right the list goes on..but one fish at a time..if saddam can act like Bin Laden by hurting thousands of people, arab or not at one time, is enough for ME to wanna duke it out with him..regardless of Bush's standpoint.. |
If killing Saddam were the only path towards world peace, then I can't think of anyone who would oppose the action. Only trouble is, there are millions like him - not all in the same position of power, admittedly, but they all share the same, basic contempt for human life. It's naive to assume that simply because it is only Saddam being head-hunted by the US Government, that he is the most major threat, or at least the only major threat.
If we are going to war with Iraq to stop the terror he's inflicted on his own people, why do we not go to war with other countries who have a shocking human rights record? China, Libya, Zimbabwe, North Korea and in the recent past the Phillipines, Cambodia, Indonesia (with their invasion of East Timor) and Chile? Why does the US turn a blind eye to these attrocities but only launch its "Human Rights" propoganda war against Saddam Hussein?
Or are we scared that he has nukes? Is that the reason we're going in? Then why not invade North Korea, they're part of the axis of evil aren't they? Or what about Pakistan? They have nukes and we know that they've been sympathetic to Muslim terrorists in the past. So why should I be more concerned about the fact that Saddam Hussein might (note the emphasis) be able to produce a nuclear bomb in six months when we know for certain that other hostile nations have them in their posession?
It seems like any reason we can find to invade Iraq, there is another country that we should fear for the same reason. I'll let you speculate on why Bush may be targetting Iraq specifically.
| quote: | | IMO it's not so much of a war on terrorism as mandate for Bush to do what he likes |
"Causes often become the very thing they oppose".
Important point webmeister, and I think we have to ask ourselves where the line between terrorism and "pre-emptive" strikes are drawn. If Saddam Hussein attacked the US tomorrow, which of the two would it be?
You also have to seriously question the motivation behind a "human rights" crusade that is so ready to violate the principles it is intending to protect.
| quote: | | no matter what we may think or say, there are a million other equations and political events happening that we will never hear about. Bush may seem insane to a lot of people for doing "this", but you can't forget the one million and one reasons that we (myself included) will never know. |
Yes, but we could also say that there are a million reasons not to attack Iraq that Bush is aware of, only he refuses to tell us in his eagerness to garner support for his mini-crusade.
We can only speculate based upon what we know, and so far as I'm concerned if Bush isn't giving any genuine justification for this war, then he hasn't got any. I doubt, given his desire for war, that he would withold any reason valid enough to reverse international opinion as it stands at the moment.
| quote: | | ¿Do u think we can just go there and install a democracy or something like that? |
Yes, exactly.
The question of what to do with the Iraqi nation after the US has won it's crusade seems to have been one constantly ignored or overlooked by the US government. The man who they had lined up (until recently anyway) has been facing an international court in Copenhagen on serious "war-crime" charges I believe (serious charges anyway - he's hardly a nice man). Even after that, given that support for Hussein is still strong in most parts of Iraq (though obviously not in the Curdish areas) you have to wonder how much longer this US instigated regime is going to last, or how successful it's going to be. The Iraqi people, by and large - given their antipathy towards the US - would probably be as keen on having a US led government in their country, as the US people would be on having an Iraqi led government in theirs. It's horrendously naive to assume that ousting Saddam Hussein is likely to reduce future occurances of terrorism, stabalise the Middle-Eastern region or make Iraq into a democratic nation full of happy, Iraqi voters, sympathetic towards the American cause.
In fact, given the fact that most Middle-Eastern countries have spoken out against this war, it wouldn't be unreasonable to presume that such a strike would escalate anti-US sentiment in this region (and indeed across much of the rest of the world). I hardly agree that the Iraqi people will allow themselves to be dictated to by US whim either. If the US installs a puppet regime of its own choosing, then, once again, I'll make the comparison of asking the US civilians here how they'd enjoy having their government selected for them by the Iraqi government? And if the US decide to install a "true" democracy (where the Iraqi people vote for their leader) who's to say that the next guy won't be just as bad as Hussein? Or the guy after him? Especially since they would be elected into an environment that will be, in all likelihood, more antipathetic towards the US then the Iraqi society that exists now?
These things need to be taken into account, especially given the US's rather poor record of replacing governments (should I mentioned the shambles that is the Afghani government or General Pinochet perhaps?).
| quote: | | I see everyone saying "the UN should just say "get rid of all your weapons or we attack".... well DUH don't you think the US tried to get the UN to say that? unfortunately, like i said, due to politics, Hussein has some big-wigs in his back pocket so a UN-supported mission will never happen... he did that on purpose and he has been working on that since desert storm... |
Erm, Hussein did offer unfettered access to weapons inspectors, but Bush said it wasn't enough, and they'd be going to war anyway. Sure Hussein rescinded the offer fairly quickly, but wouldn't you under the same circumstances? The US, firstly, have shown they are uninterested in a diplomatic resolution, and are making a mockery out of the UN as a result. I may hasten to add that it was the US who ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in the first place.
So far as I see it, the diplomatic options have not exhausted, and until they are then there is absolutely no justification for a war that will result in the death of thousands of civilians (both Iraqi and the soldiers from all around the world who will be forced to fight over there). Iraq has shown that it is interested in persuing diplomatic options (i.e. the return of weapons inspectors to Iraqi soil) and the UN has made it quite clear that, at the moment, it is an option that must fully explored before the prospect of an invasion is even raised. It is the US, though, who propogate their pro-war refusing - it seems - to explore any remaining diplomatic options.
If the Weapons Inspection plan falls absolutely and totally through, then there may be some justification for miltary action, but until then I'm not sure why we should even consider the latter course of action.
| quote: | | saddam has been violating the UN resolutions that ended desert storm ten years ago this ENTIRE time!! we should have attacked at least 8 years ago.. there is no lee-way with nuclear weapons & chem warfare.. |
Actually, the statistics show that the weapons inspections were incredibly successful up until they were ended by the US:
According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect “the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons.” In addition to this, “the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program” and “817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for”.
Seems to me, it doesn't matter how long Saddam Hussein had been violating UN resolutions (when of course, George Bush has violated several - that I know of - since he came into power) because UNSCOM were destroying the weapons at least as quickly as Hussein could create them. I'd go so far as to suggest, that if the American government believes they have a problem with the amount of weapons Hussein has, it is merely because they ended the weapons inspections in the first place.
| quote: | | in my eyes if i were you i'd be madder than ever and FOR the war campaign. |
War is war. Whether it's an American civilian, an Australian civilian or an Iraqi civilian killed in an act of war, the tragedy remains the same. If hearing about the murder of my citizens is justification enough to actively will the deaths of citizens from another country, then I fear for the future of humanity.
I was angry at those who perpetrated the attacks (whoever they may be) but I'm rational enough to distinguish those attacks from the proposed war on Iraq. They're seperate issues, and I don't think that anger is justification enough to wage war on country that has done little to compromise my own livelihood. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm more scared of and angry at George Bush than I am Saddam Hussein. Read into that what you will.
| quote: | | What i don't understand is this: the world KNOWS saddam has all these weapons of mass destruction... yet nobody seems to care, except for the US. |
But don't get me wrong. I am concerned that a man as clearly unstable as Saddam Hussein is in posession of WOMD, which is why I am adament that everything that can be done to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq must be done. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein should be allowed to walk around unfettered with a nuclear bomb in his back pocket, I'm simply saying that before we even consider the prospect of war, more humane options must be considered and entirely exhausted.
| quote: | | I have one question...are you American? If so you should no longer be allowed to be. If so, I hesitate to call you my "fellow" American. |
So the act of not being blindly patriotic makes you less of an American?
No country is perfect, and only through criticism can a country evolve. Any country that believes its own perfection - or at least chooses to ignore its imperfections - cannot improve, and will make the same mistakes time and time again. Any country that discounts objective criticsm or elects to dismiss it as "jealousy" or "unpatriotic" can never improve itself, nor the planet of which it is inextricably a part of.
I hope you catch my drift.
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
