My Position Against The Positions For This War.

I believe that our track record of leaving unbenevolent dictators in power as long as they were friendly to America would disqualify us from dictating world opinion on which tyrants get thrown out and which stay in power. Indonesia and Guatemala come to mind as immediate examples. Treating every dictator the same would certainly help our credibility.

Good and Evil are cloudy terms. One mans good is another mans evil. Various religions define these terms differently, and far too often various governments allow religious factions to dictate policy. A true democracy does not take religious beliefs into account because religion is essentially an enemy of civil liberties.

I've got more to say but it will have to wait till my boss goes away for a bit.

 

Compared to the potential hegemony of USSR and Nazi Germany or any other less evil hegemony, US hegemony certainly seems quite good and benevolent. Nevertheless, even assuming that the US is "better than any other nation" at this time, it doesn't mean that US hegemony is welcomed everywhere and at all times because being "better than any other nation" still might not be "good enough".



First of all, US actions as a hegemon has not always been benevolent. There are countless examples. If you were a victim of the US funded and supported anti-communist Contra thugs who raped, murdered and pillaged in Nicaragua, you won't view US hegemony as benevolent. If you are Palestinian, you won't welcome US hegemony which is biased and partial towards Israel, etc. Of course there are many examples where US conduct as hegemon has been malevolent to various parties.



Even in Iraq, I am sure there are many Iraqis who might hate Saddam but also hate the US because a family member was killed by an errant bomb. Maybe the US thinks it is worth the price but to that Iraqi it wasn't and he didn't exactly ask the US for this war either and resent the US making this decision and would prefer not to pay this price.



The fact of the matter is as long as the US is concerned and acts primarily for its own interests (nothing wrong with that) and isn't fair, partial or benevolent (which history shows many examples of), there will always be resentment and resistance to US hegemony. And even if US intentions are good, it doesn't mean that the US possess the wisdom to force others to make good decisions or that others agree with those decisions.



Compared to other potential hegemonies, perhaps, it is "best". That doesn't mean it is impartial-enough and wise-enough to have its hegemony universally praised and respected.

 

Very good post Macbeth. I do think, however, that once one accepts that America knows best, a common belief, most of your arguments are ineffective on the proponents of this war.

As we see with sinohero many of the proponents of this war start with a commonly reinforced American belief that imho has been raised to the point of pathology. We are the best and most moral and most capable country in the world. Since someone has to run the world, therefore it is we who should run the world. We should not be limited by the UN, a defunct debating society of mainly third rate countries , nor should we be swayed by old Europe of France and Germany or other powers like Russia, China, Canada, Mexcio etc. Who cares? We can solicit their ideas, but it doesn't matter much as we have the military and economic might to do what we want by ourselves. As Bush says it his duty to decide alone what is best to protect Americans and their interests.

Since we are the most moral and have the power (which is just since we are righteous) we have the right and even the duty to decide such questions as: 1) who can have wmd's like us. 2) who is a terrorist threat 3) who needs invading if they don't behave 4) we decide the onus of proof on going to war 5) we have the right to insure that no other countries challenge us militarily or economically and we do this not for greed, but for the good of the whole world. 6) the world will be better if we have a Pax Americana. Our decisions on these issues will be wise or at least the best that anyone can do. Reinforcing the moral authority of our right to decide these things are fundamentalist versions of Chrstianity and Judaism.

Coupled with this belief that America is always best and righteous is a tremendous fear level in this country. We have the immediate fear due to 9/11-- or of future terrorism as evidenced by the duct tape caper. This is augmented by other tremendous fear due to other reasons such as gun violence; the fact that you can lose your health insurance in the blink of an eye as a car accident causes you to lose your job and then your insurance; the Enron and stock market collapse can kill your 401(k) and the enemies of social security fearmonger about its viability, so you can wind up broke in your retirement etc. .

The Bush administration has done their best to increase this fear level and to convince people that they can get relief from at least their fear of terrorism if we win this war against the Arabs.

 

I'm not sure I see the difference, but either way, I must say I wholeheartedly disagree. All human endeavors at their root come down to choices made by people. I think that in every case, we must do what we feel is right. Undoubtedly it will lead to conflict (not everyone feels the same way about what is right) but to do otherwise is to do something which you feel is wrong. That position I find insupportable. We cannot just put everything up to a vote. Don't you see, democracy is the very essence of the might is right philosophy. The majority has the power and the opinion of the minority is cast aside. I would rather one good man listen to his heart than take a poll.

Is this a perfect solution? No, it is not. There will be bad people doing what they think is right (or at least doing whatever they please, Hitler didn't really believe the Jews were responsible for all of the evils of the world). We can only hope that the good have the most power. If not, then appealing to a majority won't matter anyway.

 

I think you missed the point of Macbeth's thread. It wasn't to call names, it was for an intelligent debate. Your post was not even close to that.

 

Sonny, is that all you can contribute?

 

how about:

1) Saddam has aspirations to be regional hegemon in the oil-rich middle east in direct opposition to the US and her allies, and intends to do so with nukes and wmd which he isn't permitted to have. Yet at this point in time, he can be easily crushed.

2) Saddam ticked off Israel, who happens to be supported by the most powerful political lobbies in Washington.

3) Saddam is a murderous tyrant. How exactly ISN'T this our problem? Human rights violations anywhere in the world deserve our concern. And where they have the good fortune of occuring in conjunction with the above two conditions, they receive our intervention as well.

your position is nice and all, deconstructing and invalidating the administration's confused excuses for war, but if you're truly looking out for America's strategic interests, this war makes a whole lot of sense.

of course, the best thing for America right now is probably a reversal of its support for Israel, then at least the rest of the world will support us a bit more. but then we go back to point #2.

 

I can understand some of the people of Iraq hating us after this is over. They will probably never see how hard this coalition has tried not to kill innocent people. A stray bomb is a nightmare and I am sorry for all who are lost. I just wish they could see the effort put forth to actually prevent innocent death.

I can also understand the Iraqi people being afraid of a US invasion and us stealing their resources. I would hope that Afghanistan is a sign of our goal that we hope to setup a democratic govt and give the power to the people, not to create a colony. I hope that we don't make the same mistake's of the past (like Iran) by installing a govt which was just a puppet of the US. I would also hope that we follow something similar to the reconstruction on Japan. A short but stable military rule and then establishment of a govt representing and protecting the people.

Cool article on Iraq possibly being the next Japan.

 

You clearly just wanted to throw out some attacks on Bush, is that all you can contribute?

 

Yes, but my point was, it took violence to solve the problem too. Is it good or bad? I don't know.

I agree that it doesn't really answer the "invasion" question. But it does, to some degree, answer the non-violence argument. Sometimes it takes violence to stop violence, or other greater evil. Killing is not always wrong.

 

That was because there were no outside power who had the resources and the goodwill to do it. Wouldn't it be better if slavery was dealt with by somebody a hundred years earlier? Wouldn't it be better if the coalition took Saddam down in the first Gulf War? How much evil would it have stopped?

 

You clearly just wanted to throw out some attacks on Bush, is that all you can contribute?

No sonny boy. that isn't just it. If you read it you would see that my main thrust was that if one believes that the US if totally moral and just and wise and has encompasses all human truth you believe that the US has thr right and duty to call all the shots all over the world. I think that this is a pathological form of natural patriotism, it is nationalism gone amuk. As can be seen often in history a leader comes along who plays on this feelings and sometimes a nation's fear or humiliation to fan these feelings and it leads the nation astray.

Thanks for your more substantive contribution re your hopes that Iraq becomes another Japan.

 

It does take violence to stop violence sometimes. Sometimes. There is a reason that war and violence should be the last resort. Killing is always wrong, unless facing imminent danger, that is in the sense of true self defense. One becomes evil when one believes in violence and war as a convinient way to solve problems. Wars can only be right when forced. I don't see either imminent danger nor the forcefulness that calls for action in the current situation. Hitler should be removed from power because he openly expressed desire to invade and kill. It's a plan. Saddam didn't. Being a bad guy doesn't mean he'd do stupid and insane things in the future like using WMDs against America. Also, the mindset of "eliminating whoever that presents a threat to us" is evil and dangerous in my eyes, as the logical extension of such belief is the root for mass genocide that can be used at any time to invade any country, as the best way to eliminate threats, if such belief prevails, is to eliminate anyone who differs from you. I don't believe one is justified to kill based on just potential of threat.

With that said, I caution others before using violence to solve problems. The Taoists say, people rush to take actions, without knowing actions themselves bring more harm. In this case, how does anyone can actually measure the costs and gains with or without a war? Who knows what would happen without this war? Who knows what costs would this war incur? How can anyone say for sure that the lives this war saves, are more than the lives saved without this war? How many lives would be affected by the possible usage of MWDs by the Irais and BDUs used by the Americans? Would there be an earthquake, as a result of intense shock waves produced by the bombings on the weaken crust of Iraq due to overdrilling, as some experts are suggesting? Saddam can drop dead next year or live 30 years more, what this war does is realizing the actual losses of human lives otherwise are just probability. This war is a time machine that brings the worse side of future into reality, completely eradicating the possibility of the better side from happening.

With the torture chambers and secret police of Saddam, it at most affects a minority of the Iraqi's population. With this full scale war going on, it's a hell for all Iraqis.

It's a hell for those American soldiers who don't want to fight as well, it's not like they themselves have a choice. You get enlisted, join the army to make a living, beliving in protecting your country from harms(which goes back to preemptive self defense), then suddenly you are forced to fight for the benefit of Iraqi people. Shouldn't the government tell those young Americans that they need to die for liberating Iraqis at recruiting? If Bush and followers want to liberate Iraq because they love Iraqis, why not them doing the actual fighting? What justify them to throw lives away at a non-existent clause in the military contract?

Maybe the Iraqis would fight and die against Saddam in the future, a maybe that is, and even that happens, it's their choice just like it was Amercans choice. Right now, does the Iraqis have a choice? No. War as a means spells trouble itself, not to mention the possible ill intent behind it. War in every aspect is anti-human itself. Lives are cheaper than grass in wars. War is hell. To use hell to get rid of another hell(to the perception of outsiders) is oxymoron.

 

What about in defense of your child? Your friend? Your neighbor? A stranger? Many strangers? The entire oppressed people of a nation? How close do you have to be to someone to justify fighting for their life?

 

Macbeth, I tip my hat to you again my brother. Very very well done.

LOL! And we’re sorry for burning down your White House, btw, but the new one does look nice. (Apologies to Colin Mochrie.)


I might dare to add another point this too. From a purely strategic standpoint, this war should not be taking place now because the conditions for success don’t exist now, IMO. This war is not about removing Saddam. It should be about facilitating lasting positive change in the region. Replacing Saddam, or allowing him to be replaced, with someone just as bad, or a civil war, or regional instability, or increased terrorism, or some combination of the afore mentioned, would only amount to exchanging one problem for another, one that may well be worse. Again, removing Saddam will be the easy part. I can’t for the life of me imagine how the war strategists think that an occupier who was hated in the region to begin with, who has isolated themselves and antagonised the region even more, who will invite attacks on themselves and general instability in the whole of the surrounding region just by their very presence there, will be able to “liberate” the Iraq is beyond me. If you’re doing a project for a client that doesn’t like you, hates you in fact, and is suspicious of your motives, how likely is the project to be a success? The answer is highly unlikely. They won’t buy in, and they’ll find ways to make the project fail. Now throw in a bunch of peripheral stakeholders who will be actively trying to sabotage the project and attack you in the process. How’s it lookin’ now?

The best thing for the US to do at this point is wrap up the war quickly, GTF out, and let a broad based coalition, including strong regional representation (perhaps the UN), manage the transition. But if Rumsfled and co. understood this they would have used a coalition in the first place. I think they haven’t because they have their own agenda and want to call all the shots. The result will be, imo, that the US will be seen as an occupier, a conqueror, not a liberator, and we will see guerrilla warfare and terrorism in the region, and perhaps beyond, for a long time to come.


Here’s a bit of bonus speculation from an Egyptian friend of mine. He thinks there may be a plan afoot to install King Abdullah of Jordan as the next head of Iraq. He is a decedent of the old Royal Family in Iraq, and it is said he would welcome being handed the reigns of a much larger and much much wealthier country. In return he would allow Palestinians to live in Jordan. I’m not sure what would happen to Jordanians but I suppose some may be offered Iraqi citizenship, something that would be seen as desirable given a stabilized Iraq. Not sure if this could all work, but it’s interesting speculation anyway.

 

Wow! I think we need a name for these great and superior liberators of the world, don't you? How about calling them Amaryans?

 

It all depends on how you interpret things.

In my interpretation, the war meets the requirements set forth by the Just War Theory.

Which by the way isn't simply a Catholic principle. Mo Tzu was the earliest just war theorist.

 

I can't say whether I'm for or against this war -- I simply can't make heads or tails of the information presented [making this thread probably the most educational thing I've stumbled across this semester )]...however, I do have a couple of general thoughts:

1) I can't imagine the deprivation or horror the Iraqi people suffer on a daily basis at the hands of Saddam so I won't. I don't think anyone can argue what he's doing in Iraq is wrong, immoral, evil, etc. I'm a big proponent of the Spidey Rule: w/great power comes great responsibility. Thus, I clearly understand the want to go over and kick some Saddam butt and the relative ease with which Bush has been able to talk the American people into going over and doing it.

2) I don't buy this as being a Liberation operation whatever, not for a second, for reasons already stated by Grizzled. We have a vested interest in having the sole say in the reconstruction of Iraq and have clung to it, despite obvious detriment to a efficient, impartial rebuilding. This war will come back to haunt us, with some much larger and more destructive than an aeroplane.

3) Deposing Saddam will not end terrorism; in fact, I beleive it will intensify as our swift reconstruction plans fall apart, and the Iraqi people grow disgruntled. I can see fundamentalist actually gaining momentum off this. It pisses me off that the war is being sold like this, as a cureall. It wil cure nothing. It is poisoning our relationship with the world.

4) I think Bush is taking an unfair amount of critism in this whole mess. I do think this was shortsighted, poorly planned, poorly sold operation but I do think at least part of him saw this a just and moral solution to the fear and anxiety of his people. We Americans take for granted this rich life that bullying and bombing and f_cking (Pardon my Francais) post-colonial nations has provided us. We're stuck in the web we spun when we decided to impose our will (by force) on other people, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, in South America, etc.

Anyways, these are simply my takes. I don't have near the education or eloquence of some of you, but I think we all are sharing in the same fears and guilts over this affair. I just wish for an expedient end.

 

My hats off to you for your effort. I haven't had time to digest it all but I've got a couple of disagreements:

<b>Shouldn't Saddam be convicted with an absence of "reasonable doubt?"</b> Can you get him to show up for trial? Is there any doubt about the atrocities he's committed to his own people and he tried to commmit on the Kuwaitis? If an individual were charged with a misdemeanor and spent more than a decade murdering citizens and obstructing justice, what would you do?

<b>9-11 Justifications</b>: Did the state of Oklahome or the US Government train McVeigh to commit terrorist acts? Didn't we just find a huge terrorist training camp south of Baghad? Is anything of any scale done in Iraq without Saddam's blessing?

<b>Saddam as Murdering Tyrant</b>: Are we being jingoistic or just acting braver than the rest of the world. The other issue is that, in the Feds estimation, we were directly attacked by extensions of Saddam and, no, you can't see all the evidence. It's classified.


I admire the way you have the balls to tell us what kinds of criticisms are valid and which are not!