main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

U.S.A. to Invade Iraq

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Anakin2001, Jul 6, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jansons_Funny_Twin

    Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Because that was 20 years ago. Things change, people change, ideas change.

    It's a different world.

     
  2. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Didn't you just say we were wrong then? Why should we keep doing the same thing, which we know is wrong. At the very least, we correct our mistakes and treat him like we should have 20 years ago, because he has not changed at all.
     
  3. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY

    DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 9, 2002
    "We have no one to blame but ourselves."

    Yes, a mistake was made. Should we not correct it, or shall it stand? Unfortunately, when dealing in reality, we cannot merely erase or undo our mistakes. Yet, that does not mean we should not try to deal with them.
     
  4. Na Wibo

    Na Wibo Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Apr 28, 2000
    Here's my take on this argument, which I see as the "evil monster rule".

    The pro-war folks are saying "Saddam is an evil monster, therefore the US must invade to take him out." This appears to be a specific case of some rule, that the US can and must invade countries to remove evil monster dictators.

    To this, the critics respond:

    * Yes, Saddam Hussein is an evil monster. He apparently has no problem with causing massive human suffering.
    * Why has this rule not been followed in so many other cases?
    * Saddam Hussein has been an evil monster for around 20 years. Why now?
    * Ariel Sharon, by any sane measurement, is also an evil monster. Why is there no planned US attack on Israel? (Many other examples could be used.)
    * The US has funded and supported evil monsters, including Saddam Hussein. Why do this if we supposedly must turn around and invade to destroy these evil monsters?
    * Why does this rule apply, to the exclusion of any attempt at a diplomatic, multinational, or legal solution?
    * There are other reasons, including domestic US economic and political issues, which appear to be factors in the planning of this invasion. These reasons appear to sufficiently account for the current drive to war, without resorting to the evil monster rule. This rule is being used to promote a foregone decision to invade, and was itself not used when coming to that decision.

    Based on all these issues, the rule of invading to destroy evil monsters appears to be full of holes. It cannot justify an invasion which, even if this rule should hold, would be illegal and very costly. We, the critics, deny the validity of this rule and the specific use of it to attempt to justify this invasion.

    The pro-war rebuttal to this must address all of these issues, if this rule is still to be used to justify war. I don't think it's adequate to propose this justification, then admit it to be hypocritical. The response "We never followed this rule before, but that was a mistake" doesn't address the above problems with the rule.
     
  5. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    * Yes, Saddam Hussein is an evil monster. He apparently has no problem with causing massive human suffering.

    Yep.

    * Why has this rule not been followed in so many other cases?

    Because we were more concerned about Democracy vs. Communism. I think this is a poor excuse and should be corrected now.

    * Saddam Hussein has been an evil monster for around 20 years. Why now?

    Actually we should have beend doing this any time in the past 10 years since the Gulf war. however, I will guess that 9-11 made us realize that dangerous people are dangerous and that we can't wait for them to strike first.

    * Ariel Sharon, by any sane measurement, is also an evil monster. Why is there no planned US attack on Israel? (Many other examples could be used.)

    I think mainly because the Palestinian terrorists are worse. Plus the fact that Israel is a democracy and can knock out Sharon any time they want. As a side note, I think the Israelis should vote him out of power and the UN bring up a war crimes case.

    * The US has funded and supported evil monsters, including Saddam Hussein. Why do this if we supposedly must turn around and invade to destroy these evil monsters?

    We shouldn't fund and support evil monsters. If I was in charge I would drop support from such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (in Pakistan's case, I'd have to check out Musharref in greater detail first).

    * Why does this rule apply, to the exclusion of any attempt at a diplomatic, multinational, or legal solution?

    We have the UN resolutions from the Gulf war, we have been going to the UN for the past 10 years, inspectors, no fly zones, etc. They have not worked.

    * There are other reasons, including domestic US economic and political issues, which appear to be factors in the planning of this invasion. These reasons appear to sufficiently account for the current drive to war, without resorting to the evil monster rule. This rule is being used to promote a foregone decision to invade, and was itself not used when coming to that decision.

    So you are saying the majority of elected officials in the U.S. are so corrupt that they will risk thousands of American soldiers, millions of Iraqi civilians and troops, and world peace, just so they can have power in the U.S. That is a little far fetched.


     
  6. J_K_DART

    J_K_DART Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 31, 2001
    (Bobs in)

    Just to state my own personal opinions on the war on Iraq;

    1) War
    I dislike conflict on an international scale, BUT accept some circumstances necessitate it

    2) Sadam Hussein
    Yeah, I acknowledge we should have done this decades ago, BUT the fact we didn't do it then, in no way means we shouldn't do it now. I honestly do believe Hussein's regime to be evil.

    3) Human Rights
    His regime is committed abhorrent breaches of human rights, and I honestly believe if we don't get involved and help end it, we can be held equally accountable for what happens

    4) Possible Future
    Forgive me, but after all the hype and blather, imo if we *don't* attack Iraq Hussein would see that as weakness; and the results could be very catastrophic indeed for the Middle East

    (bobs out)
     
  7. annikinstarkiller

    annikinstarkiller Jedi Grand Master star 1

    Registered:
    Jul 16, 1999
    (bobs in a bit too late to stte what the previous two have said first)








    (bobs out)
     
  8. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Well said, Jediflyer.

    Let's say, for argument's sake, you willfully insulted someone and hurt his feelings very badly, and you refused to apologize for an entire year. You saw each other in the hallways and dining hall of your school or workplace, but you refused to apologize.

    Was it wrong to insult him? YES.

    Was it wrong to let a year go by and not apologize? YES.

    Would it be hypocritical to apologize now? YES.

    But you should STILL apologize.

    What if there were other people you insulted and to whom you never apologized? Should that keep you from apologizing to this one person, here and now? NO.

    What if nothing has changed? Should that keep you from apologizing? NO.


    The same logic applies here. The anti-war arguments are as follows:

    We would be hypocrits for supporting Hussein then and attacking him in the coming months, thus we should do nothing now.

    We haven't done anything about Hussein in over a decade, thus we should do nothing now.

    Nothing has changed in eleven years (though, given 9/11, that's debatable), thus we should do nothing now.

    There are other regimes that we could or should change, thus we should do nothing now.


    The argument makes no sense at all.
     
  9. Na Wibo

    Na Wibo Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Apr 28, 2000
    The argument makes no sense at all

    This could be because the argument you present bears no relation to the anti-war argument. "Do not illegally invade" does not mean "do nothing". There are other options - for example, to stop sabotaging the UN inspections process, try imposing some sanctions that actually hurt Saddam instead of the people living in Iraq.

    To use the apology analogy, I would have to ask, what is so special about this case that this person, who continually insults people and never apologizes, has suddenly seen the light? It screams to me "ulterior motive". Especially, say, if this person they are apologizing to owes them money.
     
  10. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Na Wibo, could you please name some sanctions that would hurt Saddam without hurting the Iraqi people either directly or indirectly when he passes along the effects to his people?
     
  11. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    An ulterior motive there may be for liberating Iraq from Hussein's despotic rule (trying to prevent further terrorism comes immediately to mind), but that STILL doesn't make the act wrong.

    And the other options are worse than doing nothing because they give a false sense that we're doing something useful.

    We could "stop sabotaging the UN inspections process"? It still wouldn't matter, because Iraq ITSELF would sabotage the process, regardless. They have lied, forged documents, created mobile weapons plants, bugged inspectors' hotel rooms, and made several HUGE "palaces" off-limits.

    Inspections did not work then, they will not work now, unless Hussein cooperates fully under the serious and immediate threat of a military response.

    We could "try imposing some sanctions that actually hurt Saddam instead of the people living in Iraq" HOW DO WE DO THAT? The sanctions CURRENTLY imposed are designed to do just that. They don't help the Iraqi people, because Hussein is using what money the country gets to develop WMDs instead of feeding his own people. And they don't even hurt Saddam, as he is illegally selling oil to France and Russia.

    Sanctions have not worked, either, and they too will not work without serious military power to back it up.
     
  12. Na Wibo

    Na Wibo Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Apr 28, 2000
    I'm sure there are a lot of ideas out there of how best to reconfigure sanctions. One first step is to engage the actual people of Iraq to ensure that sanctions do not actually make things worse for them (as the existing sanctions do). The sanctions could allow protected delivery of humanitarian supplies directly to those who need it. The sanctions also need to be tied to some goal, as the existing sanctions were at one point tied to disarmament (before the US decided they weren't anymore).

    Sanctions aren't the only option either. Current UN resolutions call for disarming the whole region (not just Iraq). There is a lot more that could be done to create a demilitarized Middle East, especially in Israel/Palestine, where the US has great influence.

    I don't really understand the argument that inspections failed. The estimate is that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons were destroyed before the US decided to end the inspections. And now, after four years of keeping them out, Iraq has agreed to let inspectors back in, with "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed `sensitive sites' in the past". The question of surprise inspections of presidential palaces is still an open question.

    The most basic option for seeing Saddam lose power is to enable the Iraqi people to do it themselves. US policy seems to be to use Iraqi opposition groups as pawns, abandoning them at will, rather than following their lead and helping them take back the country themselves.

    It's definitely not a simple matter, not something someone is going to solve in an afternoon. The point is that there are many potentially useful options which have not been tried, and much harm that has been done already. The threat just is not there to justify throwing up our collective hands and saying we have no choice but to go in with guns blazing.
     
  13. westford

    westford Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    Couldn't Hussein be charged with crimes against humanity or war crimes, kinda like with Milosevic?
     
  14. ImperialFC

    ImperialFC Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Couldn't Hussein be charged with crimes against humanity or war crimes, kinda like with Milosevic?

    Ha'aretz is reporting that this is under consideration, but only after a regime change:

    Article


    EDIT: Sigh. I can't get the link to work right. :(
     
  15. Red_Oktobur

    Red_Oktobur Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2001
    I'll again respond to you with the same question, have you considered what *will* happen when you invade Iraq? You honestly believe that the people there are going to be all happy and say "thank you for saving us from big evil Saddam mr. Bush, now we're going to start our own little democracy and live happily ever after!"?


    And again, I will kindly ask you to answer my question before I answer yours. I'm asking you the question of what will happen if you're wrong.






    ...and a Jango
     
  16. Coolguy4522

    Coolguy4522 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2000
    I'm sure there are a lot of ideas out there of how best to reconfigure sanctions. One first step is to engage the actual people of Iraq to ensure that sanctions do not actually make things worse for them (as the existing sanctions do).

    I am wondering how you would "engage the actual people of Iraq" considering that Saddam has complete totalitarian control over them. It isn't the existing sanctions that are making things worse for them, it is SADDAM! He is the one that is stealing all the money from the "oil for food" program to build up his military, not the US.

    Sanctions aren't the only option either. Current UN resolutions call for disarming the whole region (not just Iraq). There is a lot more that could be done to create a demilitarized Middle East, especially in Israel/Palestine, where the US has great influence.


    Oh yes, getting rid of all the other weapons in the region while leaving Saddam to have the only ones is a GREAT idea.


    I don't really understand the argument that inspections failed. The estimate is that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons were destroyed before the US decided to end the inspections. And now, after four years of keeping them out, Iraq has agreed to let inspectors back in, with "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites, including what was termed `sensitive sites' in the past". The question of surprise inspections of presidential palaces is still an open question.


    Wrong on all counts. The truth is that even Scott "the idiot" Ritter said that they had the ability to rebuild everything that was destroyed in 6 months. That 5% of the weapons is just an estimate, and sense the inspectors never got full access, they really have no idea what the heck was left behind. It is hard for me to understand why anyone is believing Saddam anymore. If you had bothered to read the fine print of what the Iraqis said, you would know that they said that we could only have full access to military sites, not hospitals and such where they are likely hidden. And by your own admission they are not going to let them have such access to the "Presidential sites" which are where the weapons are. This isn't just Saddams bedroom we are talking about, this is 7 sites, one of which contains THOUSANDS of buildings and is the size of Washington D.C.


    The most basic option for seeing Saddam lose power is to enable the Iraqi people to do it themselves. US policy seems to be to use Iraqi opposition groups as pawns, abandoning them at will, rather than following their lead and helping them take back the country themselves.


    Well you obviously don't realize that we have let TWO Iraqi groups that wanted him removed from power die. It has been a major mistake on our part, but the Iraqi people are in no position to remove him from power anymore. The only way his is going to lose power is by the US going in.


    It's definitely not a simple matter, not something someone is going to solve in an afternoon. The point is that there are many potentially useful options which have not been tried, and much harm that has been done already. The threat just is not there to justify throwing up our collective hands and saying we have no choice but to go in with guns blazing.


    What "potentially useful options" are there? I would really like to hear them. As for something somebody can't solve in an afternoon, I would say that an afternoon is a little bit shorter than the ELEVEN YEARS we have had to think this over. I think the threat IS there, and we have waited long enough, far too long, IMO. It is not us that has no choice, we have given Saddam the choice. I don't understand why we need to give him a 50th chance for peace, but we are doing so. He can either give in to a tough UN resolution that demands he get rid of his WMDs with the threat of military force attached, or he can suffer the consequenses of that threat turned real due to his manical lust of WoMD and his willingness to use them.
     
  17. ferelwookie

    ferelwookie Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Have to drag this one up, just for those who haven't read it.

    This isn't a war about oil...it's a war for freedom

    Yeah, $ure.
     
  18. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Ah, the "war for oil" cliche. Jonah Goldberg has an excellent pair of articles debunking many of these anti-war cliches, and it will serve to post his reply here.

    (I've mentioned the articles before, but I'm now addressing a different cliche. :))

    As Peter Beinart of The New Republic notes in his latest ? and excellent ? column (registration required), war is not the best means to get at Iraq's oil. If all we wanted was a bigger slice of the Iraqi petro-pie, all we'd have to do, literally, is say so. Dick Cheney could negotiate that with Saddam over Turkish coffee and a few tortured lackeys tomorrow. Saddam has made it known that he'd be perfectly willing to sell a lot more oil to the United States, and that he'd certainly write up some fresh contracts if the U.S. would drop its sanctions and forget about this "regime change" nonsense.

    Going to war just to boost Iraq's oil production from three or so million barrels a day to 6 or so million barrels a day involves massive risks, both political and financial. A war on Iraq could ruin Iraq's oil fields. It could foment instability in the region or a civil war inside Iraq. It could easily cost the Republicans the White House if it went badly. In short, if this were all about oil, any good businessman would simply say, "Let's just lift the sanctions." And, as Beinart notes, if all Bush wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion?

    In fact, if Bush and Cheney are doing the bidding of the oil industry, someone needs to explain why the American Petroleum Institute lobbied for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks. Also, you might ask why oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the prospects for peace improve...

    ...If Bush were doing this for oil or for money or for "revenge" against the man who tried to kill his dad, he wouldn't be able to say so in a single meeting. He couldn't say such a thing to his inner circle, let alone his senior staff or the hundreds of people below them who make the policy. Word would get out. Opponents would leak it. Ambitious men would blow the whistle and become heroes. Decent men would blow the whistle too.

    In other words, Bush would have to keep all of his motives secret from the people he'd have to convince to go along. Now, since most of these anti-Bush, antiwar types also think the commander-in-chief is an idiot, it's hard to imagine how they think he'd be smart enough to pull off a con like that.
    (link)
     
  19. ferelwookie

    ferelwookie Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 4, 2001
    How is that a "cliche'"? Do you seriously expect people NOT to believe that the U.S. and corporations therein don't have a LARGE financial stake in Iraq???
     
  20. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    It's a cliche because it appears to have no basis in fact: if we wanted Iraqi oil we would lift sanctions rather than go to war. Or, upon going to war, we wouldn't promise France and Russia what's owed them.

    It's a cliche because, while it fits the stereotype of the American government in the backpocket of corporate interests, it doesn't fit the evidence of this situation.
     
  21. ferelwookie

    ferelwookie Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 4, 2001
    So, us installing a puppet regime to sell us oil at a cheaper price WOULDN'T be "better" than just lifting sanctions? ?[face_plain] Did you even bother to read any of that article?

    Maybe it's cyncial to believe that my government cares more about the interests of the corporations that FUNDS the elections of these politicians than my or your interests...but I think it's more realistic to believe that than to believe that we "want to bring FREEDOM to the people of Iraq."
     
  22. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Let's seriously look at this idea of sanctions, right?

    Firstly, America has used sanctions far longer than the UN if one were to combine the years - of course, having a 42 year US santion on trade with Cuba doesn't help ;) - and they are a problem.

    1) They don't hurt the intended targets, they hurt the innocents. The leaders aren't going to experience any drops in their comfort levels.

    2) You cannot rescind the sanctions because of the political fallout.

    I'm completely with Na Wibo on this. The US has to go through the UN - because the US can MAKE the UN work.

    Knightwriter - no one listened to the idea of a new thread did they? ?[face_plain]

    E_S
     
  23. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Ferelwookie:

    Did you read the article I partially quoted?

    Maybe it's cyncial to believe that my government cares more about the interests of the corporations that FUNDS the elections of these politicians than my or your interests...but I think it's more realistic to believe that than to believe that we "want to bring FREEDOM to the people of Iraq."

    I grant that the freedom of the Iraqi's is probably insufficient to rally the nation to war... but what about America's own security?

    We WERE attacked by terrorists, ya know... and Saddam is simultaneously building weapons of mass murder and harboring terrorists. If he were to give one of these terrorists one of the WMMs...

    So it's not "Iraqi freedom OR oil interests." American security factors in, too, and I for one doubt that Bush is so cynical to put oil interests above the security of the American people.

    Otherwise, he would have lifted the sanctions when the oil companies begged him to.
     
  24. Emilie

    Emilie Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Apr 5, 2002
    We have a cartoonist here is France, who made a picture of Mr Hussein holding papers and talking to one of the US inspectors :
    Sadam : I have here documents prooving that the United States are building Mass Destruction Weapons.
    The inspector (not very sure of himself) : Uh...No way...
     
  25. Red_Oktobur

    Red_Oktobur Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Okaaaaay, and what is that supposed to tell us? France cartoonists are full of it? [face_plain]



    I was just listening to a debate last night, and couldn't help but figuring...


    What exactly is the point of the inspections? I know I've said we should go and inspect before, but it dawned on me. What's the point? We send them in, and find WMD's, or we send them in, and he hides them. We already know he's got them. Why even bother inspecting it if we already know he's got them and the means to deliver?





    ...and a Jango
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.