Total Members Voted: 10
I think we have a problem when we advocate for the use of peaceful alternatives as opposed to war when the other countries we are dealing with have leader who aren't operating on the same system. Leaders like Saddam are not going to be brought to heel through democratic negotiation. They operate with force, they will only be stopped by force. Maybe we should wander over to Darfur and gently ask the Janjaweed to stop raping and pillaging. The UN tried to be diplomatic in Rwanda after all, and the result was just lovely.If we belive in our way of life, if we believe in democracy and lawful order and human rights, then I don't think we have to wait until some holy grail of "last resort" (whatever or whenever that is) to take affirmative action. I believe that we can be justified in choosing to go to war. There is no bright line test for "necessary" after all.
I would not take any position that argues what happened in WWII is anyway relevant to what is going on in Iraq. So I will let this one be.
However, you have taken the position that War is just because the sanctions have killed a vast majority of civillians. My position is that killing large numbers of civillians is wrong. If you want to discuss the pro's and cons of sanctions, then we can do so, but that is an entirely seperate topic from whether or not the Iraq War is just or not.
We entered into this war under the beliefs, given to us by our current administration, that Iraq possessed WMD and were going to use them against us. Now that such information has been shown to have been a lie, the new mantra coming out of the administration now is "the world is a safer place... etc, etc."
Again, the issue sold to the US, and the world, was that Iraq possessed WMD's, that they were going to use them against the US, that Iraq was training terrorists, and that Saddam would be selling his WMD to Osama and other terrorist organizations. Condi was stating how if nothing was done, there was gong to be a mushroom clound over NY!?! Again, all of this has been shown to have been a lie. What's left you ask? Osama, mastermind of 9/11 and terrorism against the US in the past, is still free.
It's not judging. It's calling a spade a spade. Up until now, Iraq has been a failure. I can only argue what we know now.
We can debate all you want over whether or not establishing a US presence in Iraq is a good thing, or if having Saddam behind bars is a good thing. Those are irrelevant facts. What is at issue is whether or not our involvment was just...if waging war was necessary...if our administration was forthright in it's motivations...if whether or not this war was waged under legal pretense. The evidence weighs heavily on the side of "no."
There have been many recent instances where the US has acted swiftly in order to address ruthless behavior. But such recent acts have been done honestly and with the support of most major leaders and organizations throughout the world.
Hmmm. Interesting. Actually, the point you are missing is that I am keeping my arguments withing the framework at hand, while you are trying to justify your arguments by bringing in irrelevant historical circumstances for support. Again, trying to use the circumstances of WWII to somehow shed light on our actions with Iraq is, well, not relevant.
It's pretty much a seperate topic. Sanctions had nothing to do with our decision to go to war, although Rumsfeld did try and justify going to war by claiming the US could not afford to spend 30 billion dollars over the next 10-15 years in order to support the sanctions. How many billions of dollars have we spent on Iraq so far? How many more is to come? And it's a very weak argument to say that a war is justified because, in your view, placing sanctions are worse. Th pro's and con's of sanctions is a seperate argument in regards to the justification of war.
Your facts are wrong. Before the war, it was made clear that Iraq possessed WMD and if the US did not act, Saddam would use them against us. It was also stated that Saddam was on the verge of developing nukes as well, which would also be used against us, and that we did not have time to wait for Saddam to obtain nuclear proliferation, not WMD as you claim. Not only have these facts been found to have been false, but also documented as to have been known false prior to our gov't stating them. And if you have read the DSM's, then you would know that the British were going off the assumption of WMD because there lacked any strong evidence of them.
While the strong claim was made that Iraq was harboring and training terrorists in order to justify an action for war, it has been shown that this was not the case. Documents printed in the NY Times back in 2004 showed that prior to 9/11, not only did Saddam tell his military leaders to not join forces with incoming Arab terrorist, but also that Osama bin Laden rejected entreaties to work with Saddam.
The answer to your question is how can you sell something you do not have? Again, no WMD means no selling to other countries, plain and simple. Trying to assume what may/may not happen in the future is, once again, irrelevant to the argument that the claim was made Iraq possessed WMD when, in actuality, US officials knew they didn't have them. You cannot base an argument on assumptions.
You would really have to understand the entire situation. Osama bin Laden aside, Iraq is a country which would benefit from some sort of democracy. Iraq is predominantly Shiite, however, Saddam Hussein and his government are Sunni (as is Osama bin Laden and the majority of Muslim terrorists). Without democracy, Iraq would have continued as a non-represented population--much the same as if one US political party was heading a nation populated by the other.The US invasion of Iraq was not impulsive, since there have been Iraqi refugees in the US during the past many years, whose main message was the hope that Saddam Hussein and his regime would end, and they could return home to their families. And although many Iraqi citizens rejoice at the capture of Hussein, and the rebuilding of the Iraqi government, the insurgency has many causes. One is that Iraq (predominantly Shiite) wants to gain control of its country, while the Sunnis want to regain control--neither of which the Iraqis think could happen while the US remains at Iraq. Another problem is that the Iraqi society has not progressed at the rate as many other nations. The presence of the US at Iraq is beneficial, as it is at Afghanistan, in that the citizenry now has better access to better education, which is the one thing which will have the most impact at changing the attitudes of the people.Hopefully, the war at the Middle East will eventually lead to a more civilized society, where wars aren't necessary.
Quote from: Wild Jack Maverick on June 15, 2005, 09:38:24 AMThere are many countries that would benefit from some sort of democracy. Are you advocating that we invade each of them? How do we prioritize? By the necessity of the situation, or by the possibility of profit for those involved?There have been Cuban refugees advocating the US invade Cuba. Ditto Haiti, and probably many other countries. Again, which one are you choosing next?Iraq had definite serious totalitarian-level problems, I don't mean to downplay those issues. But it was primarily a secular Muslim nation, with a generally well-education population and relative freedoms for women. Now it's becoming like other Muslim nations where women can't travel without a male relative and 'proper' clothing, or their lives may be in jeopardy. Are you certain the steps taken are moving towards democracy?So far the war in the middle east seems to be providing a great training ground for future terrorists. I'm not sure that this necessarily creates a path to peace.US helped to create both Saddam and Osama. What will our current investments revisit upon our society in 10-20 years?