Actually, Iraq has never lived up to the terms of its surrender. That means that this action is plenty lawful, especially in light of over 10 years of non-cooperation. But as you say, long live the totalitarian dictator Sadaam, so that even if he never were to support terrorist groups with WMD (which he would), he can continue to brutalize millions of his people! Wahooo!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who do you want to win the war?
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Actually, Iraq has never lived up to the terms of its surrender. That means that this action is plenty lawful, especially in light of over 10 years of non-cooperation. But as you say, long live the totalitarian dictator Sadaam, so that even if he never were to support terrorist groups with WMD (which he would), he can continue to brutalize millions of his people! Wahooo!
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So, when we joined the second world war in the fight versus Germany, we had no right to do so?
Your argument suggests that we never have the right to go to war unless we are attacked directly.
What was the direct action against America that justified our entry into that war?
A better example is Bosnia, a "conflict" during which many countries opposed our actions (Russia and Greece for example). These countries wanted Europe and the world to continue to do nothing, and of course there was the big bad US saving tens or hundreds of thousands of innocents by sticking its nose where it didn't belong. Of course, the US only did this for those rich oil wells and gold and diamond mines in Yugoslavia, right?
Quote from alfonso:
Optional, perhaps you ought to look into how America came to enter WWII.
She did supported the European allies non-militarily, and wanted to maintain her (largely) neutral position. She even negotiated with Japan over the Pacific question.
Only after being attacked by Japanese forces and having the Axis declare war on her did America become militarily involved.
Ever heard of the "lend-lease program??? We most certainly were involved militarily before Japan attacked us.
Quote from compisnada2002:
They harbor terrorists, we are doing what we said we were going to do after 9-11. Saddam terrorizes his people so he is a terrorist. If it smells like a rat well than it is a rat. We will go get him becouse that is what we said we were going to do.
Stop being jelouse. Name one other country you would rather have take our place.
Comp
Moreover, he supports Hamas, and there is some evidence he has helped al Quada. Add this to his failure to live up to the conditions of his surrender and the money he gives to terrorist families, and his WMD program, and we have ample reason!
Quote from Madison:
anti-war does not imply anti-Americanism. they can coexist, but do not have to. this is obvious, and those that immediately shout 'unpatriotic' are either being argumentative or are trying to sell the policy.
that saddam is evil and heinous is accepted fact, but does not necessarily imply that a preemptive overthrow of his government in opposition to world opinion is the proper course of action. ie, there are multiple possible policies regarding saddam, and disagreeing with one does not imply disagreement with all. that it is the chosen policy does not imply that it is the best policy, unless you assume the administration is infallible.
one may disagree with both President Bush and Saddam, while simultaneously fully supporting both the US Constitution and the US military. to say otherwise is absurd.
contrary to what the more vocal fools on ET say, one may like and support President Bush, yet simultaneously disagree with his political position, or vice versa.
Yes, there are reasonable arguments and people opposed to action in Iraq at this time. And yes, being opposed to this doesn't mean one is anti-American. However, most people who have been most vocal in protesting offer the worst arguments, demonstrate total ignorance and stupidity about history and politics, and many clearly demonstrate that they are in fact spoiled anti-American people who take so much for granted.
Quote from alfonso:
There are many other regimes that 'terrorise' their own people. Is that justification for invading another sovereign nation? Perhaps in your book it is. I wonder how many of you would havet taken kindly to a Soviet invasion of America for her abuse of her own black population during the first half of the 20th century.
I'm sorry, but the "he's an asshole" argument just doesn't cut it with me. (I wonder how keen the administration would be to depose a despot whose major resource was flaxseed oil.)
And it's not so much a case of me being 'jealous' than it is of being disappointed. Disappointed that there is so much that is good and so much that is right about America and the American way, that it is spoilt by foisting these phony wars on her public and the world at large.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/114335_hari27.shtml
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Spreading peace at gunpoint
By JOHANN HARI
Kenneth Joseph is a young American pastor who was so convinced the current war would be waged against the will of the Iraqis that he traveled there to act as a human shield. He was convinced he would be welcomed by the Iraqis as a hero. Yet this week Joseph was explaining his trip had "shocked him back to reality."
The Iraqis told him they saw the war as desirable, despite the inevitably high cost of civilian deaths. (Saddam Hussein's thugs are still murdering "dissidents" who question the regime, so they were risking their lives to tell him this.) They said -- in footage he recorded on a hidden camcorder -- "they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster."
Every single anti-war protester should -- on the basis of this evidence and similar material I have offered in previous columns -- reconsider his or her view. This is not "pro-war propaganda": Joseph was as anti-war as the most vehement members of the Stop the War coalition, but he was also an honest man who could not disregard the evidence of his own eyes.
Who are the real imperialists here: those who want to carry out the wishes of the Iraqi people or those who want to ignore them in the name of a non-existent peace? And, yes, it was non-existent. There is no peace if, at any time, people can be captured, tortured, burned or raped. Read the Amnesty International reports. This was the everyday reality of Saddam's Iraq. Only the dishonest can say British and U.S. soldiers are interrupting "peace"; they are interrupting a decades-long war, waged by Saddam against the Iraqi people, to bring it to an end. Do not weep that this happening; be proud.
Of course George W. Bush is unpleasant; of course oil is a factor. They know this, too, but they back the war anyway because it is the only way to get rid of Saddam.
If you honestly oppose the war and think you can defend your stance to the people suffering under Saddam, dial 00964 and then guess an 11-digit number. Ask the civilians there what they want to happen. Go on. Tell them that you oppose the war, and see what they say.
Zainab al-Suwaij, executive director of the American Islamic Congress, a non-profit Iraqi exile group, says: "I was shocked at first (to hear his relatives criticizing Saddam over the telephone). It's very dangerous. All the phones are tapped. But they are so excited." Listen to their excitement, and tell them why they are wrong.
So why, you might ask, are the Iraqi armies still fighting? Why have they not surrendered? Saddam's propaganda channels have been reminding the Iraqis of the 1991 betrayal, when the first President Bush told them that if they rose up against Saddam the United States would support them. They did as he asked, and they were gunned down. The streets of Mosul and Basra are still studded with the bullet holes from that terrible month. Saddam leaves them as a constant reminder of the danger of resisting him and of trusting America. I have seen those holes and noted how Iraqis glance at them with a pale, chastened look. This time, the Americans will not walk away from the Iraqis' suffering but the troops have yet, understandably, to be convinced of this.
Once Iraqis are certain the Americans will not back off and leave them to the mercy of Saddam, they will explain why they wanted this war. This is not idle speculation: It is already happening. In Safwan last weekend, Iraqis called out to U.S. and British troops: "You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious." Another person said: "I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand." One woman stated: "For a long time we've been saying, 'Let them come.' Last night we were afraid, but we said, 'Never mind, as long as they get rid of him, as long as they overthrow him, no problem.' " This was reported in one of the most anti-war newspapers in Britain.
Those who still deny all this evidence will know soon enough what the Iraqi people thought all along. When it emerges -- as I strongly believe, based on my experience of the Iraqi exile community and the International Crisis Group's survey of opinion within Iraq -- that they wanted this war, will the anti-war movement recant? Will they apologize for appropriating the voice of the Iraqi people and using it for their own ends?
Confronted with the evidence of Iraqis' feelings, many of the anti-war critics will, I fear, change the subject. They will say that, whatever the Iraqi people desired, the damage to international law was too great; they fail to acknowledge a key flaw with international law. The foundations for the present system were built in 1945, when the greatest threat to human life and dignity was war between nations. Its structures are designed solely to prevent conflict between states and to secure peace in the international arena -- and in this respect, they have been phenomenally successful.
What international law cannot do is secure peace within nations. The governments of, say, Burma, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe may be judged "peaceful" under international law, while they are butchering and terrorizing their populations. There is no peace for people living under tyranny. International law must be changed to allow democracies to act where there are reasonable grounds (as in Iraq) for believing that the people of a country wish it, and where the regime is systematically breaching human rights on a massive scale.
Some people, such as the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman Shirley Williams, have voiced the perfectly understandable fear that the alternative to international law is "the law of the jungle." Yet people living under a tyranny like Saddam's live under exactly that chaotic "law" -- and international law forbids others to act to end it. To focus solely on the international order at the expense of the level at which people actually live -- the national -- is to write off the most desperate and needy people alive.
It might seem perverse to seek to spread peace at the barrel of a gun; but the peace we enjoy here in Europe exists only because we (along with the Americans) acted with weaponry to banish tyrants. The Iraqi people want and deserve the same. If their wishes -- as reported unambiguously by Kenneth Joseph and many more like him -- are not compatible with international law, then an urgent priority once this war is over must be to reconstruct international law to make it encourage, not hinder, the overthrow of tyranny.
Johann Hari is a columnist for The Independent, a general-circulation newspaper in Great Britain.
Quote from ElCubano:
I agree we may have overstepped our boundary here, I was against the War because of the sending of our young troops period ( it is hard for a mother to watch a son or daughter go of to war ).....but the fact remains that we are at War and we need to show more support to our soldiers ( which are there wether they like it or not ). Besides this isnt about 9-11 and we dont have to prove guilt agasint the Saddam Regime, they have been in violation for many many years. Getting back to your criminal case example, if you are on probation ( because you have been sentenced meaning you are already guilty) and you fuck up on any of the rules of your probation you go back to jail.......peace
good analogy (I've offered this before as well). It is not "unlawful" in international law to complete a war when terms of a surrender are not met, especially when the surrendering state is un-cooperative.
Quote from alfonso:
Well, Cubano, I respectfully disagree with you. As I said in my first post, I would prefer an Iraqi victory.
I think that's the only way America will be forced to reassess its self-styled position as global arbiter of right and wrong. (And given the not insignificant amount of self-interest involved, such a position makes me want to puke!)
And before the hotheads start denouncing me for my callous disregard for the American lives that would be lost in a failed invasion (not that I think there's very much possibility of it failing, mind you), my heart equally bleeds for the thousands of PATRIOTIC (since you all love that word) Iraqis dying as we speak, defending their home land against a foreign invasion.
As for the criminal example, I was referring to Optional's unsubstantiated claim that Iraq had anything to do with 9.11.
Oh, and the rules of the probation were determined by -- see if you can remember this institution -- the United NATIONS; not the United STATES. But I guess there was some rule I forgot to read that says is the UN disagrees with the US, the US position prevails. (By the way, I'm looking, but I still can't find that rule...)
Actually, most of the "patriotic" people who are dying in Iraq are either fighting because they or their families lives are on the line or because they have been complicit in the human rights abuses past and will have to face the people should they live once Iraq loses the war. Some others are brainwashed people from Sadaam's minority ethnicity and near his hometown. If you want to compare "patriatism," among fighters, ours is a lot more genuine!
Quote from alfonso:
In that case I would consider it possible that yes, it may be justifiable.
It isn't really something that there is a great deal of precedent for, in the modern era; attacking another sovereign NATION for something that its citizens are responsible for.
It's a difficult call.
It opens a whole new can of worms in international relations. India attacking Pakistan becomes entirely justifiable, for example.
I suspect, however, that American intends that this 'terrorism is justification' rule is solely for her own use.
This is stupid. There is plenty of precedent for declaring war on a state that SUPPORTS or HARBORS terrorists, and it is not a hard call. It is clearly allowed not only by common reason but international law.
Quote from alfonso:
Not this war, Optional.
There is such a thing as due process, even in international matters. Something America has scant regard for.
But the standards for international mattesr are NOT the same as in a civil criminal case. There are no "technicalities" by which a country can get off in order to preserve everyone's privacy or right to a lawyer or whatever other civil liberties. Moreover, the burden of proof is not quite the same. Plenty of circumstantial evidence counts a lot more when we are dealing with national security. When a regime says it wants to do certain things, and it has the motive, means and opportunity, and there is considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest the regime is a threat, and this regime also has demonstrated threats and refused to live up to previous surrender agreements, then we have enough cause to take action even by int'l law.