Of War

[Tag]

Hello everyone,

I have been putting together a compendium of sound American viewpoints regarding our action in Iraq.

If anyone has any SOUND logical arguments pertaining to our forign policy I would love to hear them.


Personally I believe that our action in Iraq has two excellent logical conclusions supporting it's outcome.

1: A cease fire defined the conclusion of the Gulf War. A cease fire outlineing Saddam Husseins unconditional disarmerment. The fact that he was allowed to continue his MURDEROUS dictatorship over the people of Iraq for so long... is a testiment to the internal LIBERAL degradation of our nation.

2: Our wake up call (9/11), MUST awaken the "American Rage" with which our nation was born, and must never again loose sight. Any fairly elected President of our nation will have my absolute support when fighting to protect American lives and indeed the world against "evil" (terrorism in its current form is not human, it is unintelligible to the good)

I know that here more than anywhere, there is a grass roots American viewpoint. Please share it with me.


Thank you.


Sam

 

[clange]

1: A cease fire defined the conclusion of the Gulf War. A cease fire outlineing Saddam Husseins unconditional disarmerment. The fact that he was allowed to continue his MURDEROUS dictatorship over the people of Iraq for so long and continued to possess WMD... is a testiment to the internal LIBERAL degradation of our nation.

Slightly edited..

Game
Set
Match

 

[Tag]

 

[hansolo]

"....Saddam Hussein's dismemberment....."

slightly re-edited

 

[Tag]

looks like we're all on the same page

 

[faustulus]

Personally I believe that our action in Iraq has two excellent logical conclusions supporting it's outcome.

I don't know what that means. Could you elabarate.

My thoughts on the war are twofold. One poised by the beginning the other by the conclusion.
One I have been against the war from the beginning as being illogical. It did not follow any sort of rhyme or reason. Since it has started I simply want our boys home safe as soon as possible. The problem with the start of war is it sets a dangerous precident. America has attacked a soverign nation with little or no cause. (I know many people think we had just cause but I don't buy the terrorist/Iraqi link nor do I think it should be U.S. policy to use military force to stage a coup.) Fooling around in the affairs of other countries is dangerous-- look at what happened in Iran. It also increases anti-American sentiment in a region we need all the allies we can get. Many see this as a war against Islam or at least a war against Arabs. The nuiances of attacking a "regime" and attacking a city is lost on citizens of the city where the bombs are falling.
Second a new problem arises when we win. What do we do with the country? I am sure our desire would be to set up a democracy in the region, much like Israel. But what effect will this have on the surrounding nations, all of which are ruled by kings and princes? Do you really think they will welcome this new nation (possibly three new nations) into the fold? The kurds want a nation, but Turkey doesn't want that. The southern ****tes probably want to join Iran, but that would mean Iran would have to give up its only ports. And Iraq is already too secular for many in the region, does anyone really think that a secular republic will make it any more popular? I don't think the U.S. has thought all this through.

 

[Tag]

We need to follow through on our actions. America need not deal with terrorism like the rest of the wold... Protect americans and absolutly support freedom.

everything else be damned!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

faustulus:

I think you are confused on our actual legal/political justification for this war.

It is not about a potential link between al qaeda and Iraq, at least not from a legal and political standpoint.

At the end of Gulf War I, Iraq agreed to disarm, and account for its weapons. Whether or not it has disarmed is doubtful, but surely it has not accounted for the destruction of its weapons. The Security Council passed a resolution on this matter, and indicated that severe consequences would follow if Iraq did not hold its end of the bargain.

The main justification for this war is Iraq's failure to follow UN resolutions. The Security Council renders itself impotent and irrelevant if Iraq's breach goes unpunished.

Thus, this war does not start any dangerous precedent. The grounds for this war were laid out at the conclusion of Gulf War I. Iraq knew this could happend, and chose to play chicken with the US anyway, and is hopefully on the verge of losing.

I agree with you that this war might increase anti-American sentiment in the Mid East, but those people all pretty much hate us anyway... It takes a true commitment to hatred to have carried out the Sept 11 attack.

 

[Blackhawk]

IMO, there's no need to link Iraq to 9/11 to justify this war. Saddam's intransigence regarding the conditions of the cease fire in 1991 and his subsequent actions are all that's needed.

 

[Chris Rhines]

A few thoughts...

1.) I'm still unclear on the reason for invading Iraq.
- If the Iraqi gov't is in violation of UN sanctions, shouldn't the UN be footing the bill for the enforcement of same?
- If the Iraqi gov't is concealing WMDs, why is that any buisness of the United States gov't? I see no ethical means of denying other states the right to own weapons that the USG owns in quantity.
- If the Iraqi gov't is brutal and despotic, honestly, who cares? Most governments are brutal and despotic, and many are worse than Iraq. This seems to be a continuation of the Clinton-era foreign policy of "intervene anywhere we can come up with an excuse to."

2.) Historicaly, war tends to increase the power of the central state over its own citizens. It's not hard to come up with present-day examples of this, such as the conslodation of federal law-enforcement power under the Homeland Security Department, the gov't nationalization of the airline industry, increased search-and-seizure powers, et cetera. I suspect that a long-term occupation of Iraq will also have a substantial negitive impact on the economy.

3.) The entire Middle East is a damn mess, and as far as I'm concerned there are no good guys left in it. Considering the number of opposed power blocs in Iraq, I'm concerned that we're going to get tangled in the above-mentioned long term occupation. The place kind of reminds me of the former Yugoslav republics, except with sand.

4.) Something that has really torqued me off lately is the attitude of, "Well, I'm against the war, but now that the invasion has commenced we have to support our troops..." Aargh!! This slavering moral relativism is, IMO, another example of the intelectual bankruptcy of the anti-war Left. I don't support our troops. I don't wish them any particular harm, but I think that what they are doing is wrong, and I think that they should know better.

Anyway, that's me. Probably not the sound arguments you were looking for, but what they hey?

- Chris

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Chris Rhines, while your points may have some theoretical/philosophical validity, in the real world, they just dont work.

Yes, the UN should be enforcing the Security Council resolution, but they are not. The US and its true allies have a choice... either enforce the resolution on their own, or let Saddam threaten our interests, the Middle East, and perhaps the world.

The fact that the Security Council has chosen to sit on its hands and do nothing does not mean that nothing should be done.

Do you really doubt that Saddam would eventually use his weapons of mass destruction?

I agree with you that those who do not support the war, should also not support the troops. Basically, this is a hypocritical, and is done for the sake of political correctness.

If someone is opposed to our presence in Iraq, then they should be equally opposed to those willing to enforce this presence.

 

[Sir Galahad]

So you don't support our troops, huh, Chris?

When I hear about people who don't support our troops, my anger goes through the roof. I've been there. Back in the 1980s, the no-nukers blamed us for the policies of Ronald Reagan. I've had beer bottles thrown at me and spit on when I was in uniform. What thedid I do to those people except defend their taken-for-granted rights??!!! Whether or NOT you agree with the war THOSE TROOPS ARE FIGHTING AND DYING FOR YOU, SIR!!!!!!! Have some gratitude for the SACRIFICE being made for YOU. Those who do not honor their warriors bring shame upon themselves. A nation that does not honor its warriors is a nation of shame. It turns my stomach to think that our troops might get a better welcome from the Iraqis (and already are) than they might from their fellow Americans when they return home. Well, of course. Iraqis CAN'T take their rights for granted because they don't have any. Unlike spoiled Americans. Yeah, don't support our troops, Chris. The shame and dishonor is your own.

 

[Tag]

Every aspect of the Iraqi behavior demands our intervention. I just hope our boys dont start poping the surrendering enemy. Torturing American POWs on camera is not acceptable!

 

[TallPine]

RE supporting our troops after the war has started

Well, once we've committed ourselves to action, the only course is to follow it through completely with as much force and perseverence as necessary.

Otherwise, you end up with another "Vietnam" - a half fought war with needless casualties.

Any misgivings I might have had are irrelevant now.


Also ... anyone remember that it took two wars to get Germany to finally behave themselves ...?

 

[Chris Rhines]

I'll respond to Sir Galahad first, and everyone else in just a bit.

When I hear about people who don't support our troops, my anger goes through the roof.

Best I can say is, "Tough." If I offend you (and I had no doubt that my post would offend some,) feel free to add my name to your ignore list. You won't be missing much.

Whether or NOT you agree with the war THOSE TROOPS ARE FIGHTING AND DYING FOR YOU, SIR!!!!!!!

No, sir, they are not. I did not ask for anyone to invade Iraq in my name, nor would I if I thought invasion was justifiable.

I've heard time and time again, "..the troops are fighting for your freedom!" It doesn't wash, and it never has. Invading Iraq won't increase my freedom; in fact it will probably limit my freedom to a large degree, and I don't appreciate that.

The shame and dishonor is your own.

If your idea of pride and honor requires me to abandon my principles when the politicians say so, then you can keep it.

- Chris

 

[Blackhawk]

Chris Rhines wrote:

1.) I'm still unclear on the reason for invading Iraq.
- If the Iraqi gov't is in violation of UN sanctions, shouldn't the UN be footing the bill for the enforcement of same?

Yes, it should. The UN should also take the necessary measures to enforce its resolutions.

The UN has shown itself incapable (unwilling, whatever...) to enforce its resolutions.

Under those conditions, what do you think should happen vis-a-vis those resolutions?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Okay, that's out of the way. Now for everyone else:

L_G -

Yes, the UN should be enforcing the Security Council resolution, but they are not.

True enough, but the lack of UN enforcement does not give the USG carte blanche to intervene in a foreign state. Particularly, to intervene with my tax dollars. I doubt that the UN will offer to foot the bill for the war once it is complete.

The fact that the Security Council has chosen to sit on its hands and do nothing does not mean that nothing should be done.

Nor does it mean that the United States has a right to do anything, in the absence of a direct threat to US persons or assets.

Do you really doubt that Saddam would eventually use his weapons of mass destruction?

On US interests? I've seen nothing so far to suggest that he would, and the fact that he hasn't done so thus far in the invasion seems to support that assessment. Saddam may be a nasty totalitarian dictator, but he's neither unhinged nor stupid.

I agree with you that those who do not support the war, should also not support the troops. Basically, this is a hypocritical, and is done for the sake of political correctness.

My sentiments exactly.

TallPine -

Well, once we've committed ourselves to action, the only course is to follow it through completely with as much force and perseverence as necessary.

You make an interesting point with this, one deserving of some thought. Now that the war has commenced, I'd like to see it end as quickly as possible. And again, I don't wish to see any harm come to US soldiers. But that said, by saying that I support the troops I say that I agree with what they are doing. I don't. And so I wash my hands of this war. Whatever the USG does in Iraq, it does not do in my name.

Otherwise, you end up with another "Vietnam" - a half fought war with needless casualties.

I'm concerned that we might end up in such a tarbaby anyhow. I hope not. We'll see.

Any misgivings I might have had are irrelevant now.

I would submit that any misgivings that you, or I, had were irrelevant long before now. We knew this war was going to happen; the only question was when.

Blackhawk -

I have no stake in whether UN resolutions are enforced against a foreign state, and frankly, I doubt that the USG has much of one either. Besides, this is the UN we're talking about. If I were the High Prince of the Outlaw State of Rhinesland, I would gleefully ignore any UN resolution that might affect me.

Short version: As far as I'm concerned, the UNSC resolutions can molder.

- Chris

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Something that has really torqued me off lately is the attitude of, "Well, I'm against the war, but now that the invasion has commenced we have to support our troops..."

Well, I said I'd shut up about this for a while, and frankly, I've had much better things to do lately than to argue with a bunch of whackos, but I want to make one thing clear. My silence does not in any way mean I support the war. I support the troops in that I would not ask them to be involved in a criminal enterprise in my name. I also would not wish that they live with the delusion that what they're doing has anything for my "freedom."

I'm not going to argue it anymore, because no one has anything new to add to the debate.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Chris, your "principles", quite frankly sir, are as morally bankrupt as you are. You had an idea you'd offend some? Well, then, TOUGH if you don't like the response. Yes, you didn't ask those troops to go fight for you. And, honestly, you're not worth the life of a soldier, either.

 

[Blackhawk]

Short version: As far as I'm concerned, the UNSC resolutions can molder.

Fair enough.

Now there seems to be a majority of other Americans who support the USG's position that the situation's one of grave enough concern that the U.S. should engage in hostile military actions to intervene.

You apparently don't agree.

But isn't their opinion manifested through the USG "fair enough" too?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Now there seems to be a majority of other Americans who support the USG's position that the situation's one of grave enough concern that the U.S. should engage in hostile military actions to intervene...You apparently don't agree...But isn't their opinion manifested through the USG "fair enough" too?

"Fair enough" in the sense that they have the right to their opinion, sure. "Fair enough" in the sense that it is the right thing to do, not a chance.

I'm not a majoritarian. Majority opinion holds no particular weight with me.

- Chris

 

[Blackhawk]

"Fair enough" in the sense that it is the right thing to do, not a chance.

I'm not a majoritarian. Majority opinion holds no particular weight with me.

And you're apparently setting yourself up as the determiner of what "the right thing to do" is.

So, what WAS/IS the "right" thing to do regarding Iraq at two points in time: Before 3/19 and now?

 

[Chris Rhines]

And you're apparently setting yourself up as the determiner of what "the right thing to do" is.

Sure. Anytime anyone expresses an opinion they are setting themselves up as the determiner of 'the right thing to do.'

So, what WAS/IS the "right" thing to do regarding Iraq at two points in time: Before 3/19 and now?

Before 3/19 (actually, make that "before war w/Iraq was ineviteble.") - Make sure, via diplomatic channels, that the Iraqi gov't understands that an attack on US assets will be met with a very serious response. Lift the US trade sanctions against Iraq, and let US producers flood Iraq with cheap, quality consumer goods (captialism has won more hearts and minds than the Special Forces ever did... ) Beyond that, ignore the place. There are more serious issues for the USG to concern themselves with, such as checking the spread of Federal law enforcement power, reducing government intervention in the free market, and overturning unconstitutional gun laws.

I could come up with more, but that's off the top of my head.

Now - Good question. First priority would be to get the troops home as quickly as possible.

Much easier to come up with a plan before the invasion...

- Chris

 

[F=ma]

OK, I'll bite on the parsing game...

Chris: True enough, but the lack of UN enforcement does not give the USG carte blanche to intervene in a foreign state.

The USG stepped up where others failed. Many find that responsible, I guess some do not.

Chris: Particularly, to intervene with my tax dollars.

The USG does lotsa things with tax dollars offensive to lotsa tax payers. It's a republic; those in office decide where it goes; you have no more right to determine where it goes than I do.

Chris: Nor does it mean that the United States has a right to do anything, in the absence of a direct threat to US persons or assets.

WMD/terrorist aide/abetting aside, Iraq has been a significant destabilizing force in the Middle East for many years. And anything disruptive to the natural resources we depend on as the life blood of our industrial base (yes, the evil O.), can be identified as a threat to our interests/way of life.

Chris: On US interests? I've seen nothing so far to suggest that he would, and the fact that he hasn't done so thus far in the invasion seems to support that assessment.

See above, WRT Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the fact that he tried to off a former US President.

Chris: Saddam may be a nasty totalitarian dictator, but he's neither unhinged nor stupid.

Wow. I guess there's not much point in going any further.
:banghead:

 

[Blackhawk]

Chris, you might learn something interesting by studying the 1930s with reference to the diplomatic efforts of Britain toward Germany.

F=ma wrote:

Wow. I guess there's not much point in going any further. :banghead:

You're absolutely right.