See Men Shredded, Then Say You Don't Back War

Hi MM, would have appended an answer with edit, but no workie...

Okay, you might be surprised to hear that I think we can make a good case for military action. I just think the recent version of "diplomacy" has been so uneven and poorly planned that we've really hurt our case internationally. Maybe France would have been a butthead even if we'd played it masterfully -- I dunno.

Bottom line is I will always have a problem with pre-emptive war. It just makes me very nervous, because it has popped up repeatedly in history, and never in very savory circumstances.

So, with heavy heart, I say, NO, the shredder and such *alone* will not be worthy of nearly unilateral war. Because if that's your primary justification, then you really do have a lot more war to be getting to, all over the world.

 

See, I don't necessarily buy this argument. Do you give money to charity? If so, does that obligate you to give money to all charities? Of course not. As a matter of fact, you probably choose a charity that is "close" to you (i.e. you know someone affected or it affects you personally).

We can choose to aid any victims of atrocities that we wish to even if it's for selfish motives (i.e. we don't trust the opressor or he threatens us). It's why we didn't go into Rwanda. While it was awful, it didn't directly affect our national security. Saddam does so that's why we go in. That is the U.S.'s only obligation - to itself (having said that I think we have a pretty good record of helping people "just because" as well).

Now, the U.N. on the other hand should be the ones who go in "just because" wherever there are injustices. But they fail there miserably. There was no U.N. resolution to go into Kosovo or Haiti or Rwanda. The U.N. is really bad at dropping the ball. There <i>are</i> U.N. resolutions calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq but clearly the U.N. isn't interested in enforcing those resolutions (because the French want to keep their generous oil contracts.)

The fact that we will probably also liberate the people of Iraq is a nice side benefit that makes this war more palatable. You have to pick and choose your battes. There is no absolute moral right or wrong.

 

B-bob,
That was pretty tasteless equating humans to paper just to bring up your own political agenda. I appreciate Cheetah's unique input into this thread, but I don't really see much of a grey area. What Saddam has done is sick and wrong. What our soldiers have done is tragic since so much suffering had to occur, but it was necessary and I believe nothing was done that was not acceptable under international standards of warfare. Some of you guys (from both sides) need to cut down on the political smear tactics and focus on the real issues.

 

111chase111,

But that wasn't the point of the article or the title of the thread. Men were shredded in Rwanda and hardly anyone talked about war there. Now, I understand completely what your saying about our national security and interests, but that the title didn't read "See Men Shredded in Countries Where Our National Interests Lie, Then Say You Don't Back War".

 

It was meant to be a parody of raising political agenda, but no amount of winkie faces would have brought my self-mocking point home. Sorry. I'll refrain. For the record, I have no idea what Cheney does with energy documents and if he does schred paper, it's nothing like human life.

 

No argument from me there. I just think you lose a lot of weight with people when you try to argue that since we haven't done it everytime in the past.

 

You said it Rocketman. I am all for sending our troops into places where brutal regimes are in charge. I'm glad my fellow citizens on the Right feel the same way. So, since this Iraq thing will be quick, let's talk about where we should go next.

Saudi Arabia is right there man, why not. I mean, sure we won't be able to control the country and their oil if we turn it over to the people, but at least we'd be doing the right thing.

You guys ever hear of Burma? Instead of not buying products that some of our patriotic companies use sweatshops over there to produce, we should just go in there with BTO blasting on all our vehicle's radios and take care of business.

China, whoa baby. It's gonna be hard, but we can do it. Hey, then we can get Yao Ming to be here during the offseason. The spoils of war, am I right?

I could go on and on, maybe make a joke that some of you are on a "I just saw Tears of the Sun" guilt trip or something, but I'm not in the mood. I have a question, how many of you sincerely give a rat's ass what happens to the people of Iraq? We've all known what's been going on there for years, yet I don't remember seeing any kind of thread or post in here, or any person in Govt, or anybody on talk radio or cabl tv saying that we need to go back to Iraq at any point during the last 12 years before 9/11. I already know how you guys feel, you think Iraq is a threat to us, it's a legit feeling, but I don't share it. Is that so hard to comprehend?

I dont' mean to sound so angry, but I had some bad freedom toast for breakfast and my stomach is doing somersaults.

 

I agree those things are awful and what Saddam has done is awful. They may well justify using forceful intervention to stop them. My only beef is that it's not one of the reasons the U.S. is going to war at this time. They keep talking about Saddam using chems on his own people, and he did. But at the time he did, the U.S. knew it, and did nothing to stop it. In fact we continued our alliance with them.

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and many other U.S. allies are dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in countries that make a mockery of human rights, and democracy has zero chance of flourishing. Our allies the Turks massacered huge numbers of Kurds, but somehow it's only bad when Iraq kills them. And then it's only bad years after the fact when they've done something else that we don't like.

I think it's wrong for governments to be insincere about things so important as the human rights violations mentioned.

 

oooops, looks like the tone in here changed a bit from when I started my previous post and when I actually posted it.

 

Oski, you crack me up! Sorry about that damned Freedom Toast, my man. Stick to some USA farm raised eggs and bacon from now on.

 

France would have been a butthead regardless, because of their oil contracts with Iraq (presumably TotalFina Elf)

 

I agree with this position. I will also point out that the "morality" argument is made much more problematic because the US actually was Saddam's ally in the 80's when he was gassing his own people and sending his country's children to be slaughtered by the tens of thousands in the war with Iran, a war that was promoted by the US. Yes, that was over a decade ago, but from the standpoint of many of us international observers, until the US can show that it responds consistently (not opportunistically), with the "evil"/morality card, it's just not going to be believed as a legitimate justification. Actions speak louder than words.

 

That's like saying the U.S. wouldn't want war with Iraq because of Cheney's former company and the Contracts with Iraq they got while Cheney was the CEO.

The fact is that the volume of those oil contracts can increase exponentially for France and anyone else once Saddam is gone.

 

He gassed the kurds during the mid eighties I believe. There was a thread on here some time ago with an article that mentioned that it occurred during the U.S. Saddam buddy days.

Maybe the U.S. is happy that they are getting rid of a jackass, and many should be happy of that, I just think they are insincere about that being one of the reasons they are using to go on the invasion. I think they are using it only in an effort to drum up support. The crimes Saddam has committed are very serious, and it seems like they are being exploited to push an agenda.