crashfrog writes:
I'm not really out to justify our war on Iraq. In all honesty I think it was needless - but ultimately, will be better for the region than doing nothing at all.
While you may not be out to justify the Iraq war, all of your posts pretty well make it clear you feel it was justified, list justifications, and with one ending in the statement "that's justification enough for me."
The war was better for the region? How? How do you know what this war will eventually mean for the region 10-20 years down the line? Especially as hawks within this administration are now pushing for conflict with Iran (after almost coming to blows with Syria). Sounds to me like we are just beginning to fill Saddam's shoes quite nicely.
crashfrog writes:
What I find puzzling is the suggestion of some kind of inconsistency in supporting a war on a nation that, while rogue, is not much of a threat; and trying to seek diplomatic ends to a sticky situation with a nuclear power. There's no reason to compare Iraq and North Korea.
I did not say there was an inconsistency. There is a great consistency and I have already mentioned it... cowardice.
Look at your statement closely. What you are saying is crush the weak, and yield to the strong. That is cowardice plain and simple.
At least it is labelled cowardice when others practice that philosophy, such as Saddam Hussein?
You are correct in saying there is a difference between Iraq and NKorea. One was a threat, and one was not. We decided to blow through innocent people and set up an occupation in the one that was not.
I am for reserving force for when it is necessary against a real threat, or if it is to topple a regime then it is as a supporting role with rebel forces where actions after the war are known and planned for.
crashfrog writes:
Huh, bring it. To be blunt, we've got the big stick here.
Thanks for proving my point. Crush the weak, yield to the strong. Never mind the consequences. Arrogance and cowardice.
crashfrog writes:
And the thing is, I think that dumps certain responsibilities on us - we are the world's policeman simply because we're alone in being in a position to do so.
We are not alone in the world to act as a counter to terrorist groups, or to "rogue nations."
What we are alone in is holding the most weapons and so capable of major unilateral engagements.
This comes with a responsibility of restraint in action which we would like to see other nations practice (ie setting a good example), and working to build a cohesive and unified world body (ie not acting as a bully to divide for our own purposes).
I find it almost obscene to say we are the cop of the world, when we just ignored the world body and shattered international law. Exactly what laws did we uphold besides vigilantism and no honor among thieves?
crashfrog writes:
Yeah, they were doing a great job in Iraq. Do you think that kind of action - a largely unarmed populace against a well-armed military - is even possible anymore? What were the people of Iraq going to rise up with? Rocks? They sure didn't have much else.
So because no one was rebelling it was our duty to rebel for them, and through them? Why isn't one nation's soveriegnty important anymore?
Read our own declaration of independence. The founding fathers clearly state that governments should not be lightly tossed aside and that most will willingly accept the abuses of their state, until they reach a point they can no longer take it. That appears to be the state Iraqis were in. They were not happy, but they had not had enough. That was their call, not ours. Otherwise it is one dictator bombing them into submission "for their well being" or another.
By the way, I believe you are way off on the armed civilian thing. Please correct me if I am wrong,but from what I read everyone in Iraq was pretty well armed. That was one of the things Rummy said was to our advantage (when the population would join our glorious revolution), and turned out to hurt us when they did not.
That's why you had scenes of regular citizens shooting at troops.
In fact, a week or so ago the US began seizing arms from citizens and stated that a general arms ban would be put in place for "general safety" (ie safety for our occupation).
It's easy to try and make it out like all of our enemies disarm the populace to avoid revolution. Unfortunately in Afghanistan and Iraq, such claims are false propaganda.
So to answer your question, they had bullets.
I apologize for the on and on comment. I didn't mean many posts, I meant the exaggerated claims of what a danger to us and his people that Saddam posed.
My point regarding Saddam in specific is that we had an opportunity not to put him into power, and we did. Then we had an opportunity to remove him and we did not. At this time we did not have a legitimate reason, or credible plan for removing him safely, and so should not have used force.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
crashfrog writes:
What do you think was accomplished in Iraq that didn't happen because of the threat of force?
This question is rather odd. You are asking what didn't happen because of the threat of force? Nothing, because we did use force.
Or maybe I should say everything, because nothing we have now was accomplished with the threat of force, only the USE of force... unless you count the ongoing threat of force against regular Iraqis.
Threat of force is valid under some circumstances and given 9-11 and the nature of Saddam's regime, it was definitely warranted. But threat of force to support diplomatic action, and blunt use of force in rejection of all diplomatic possibilities are totally different.
Diplomatic efforts under the THREAT of force were seeing results, and could have been pushed for more. I did not mind that at all.
Unfortunately it turned out that diplomacy was simply covering a military build up for a war that was going to happen anyway.
You still avoid the accumulating evidence that this was all about oil, and nothing to do with ridding wmds or the prosperity of the Iraqi people. Except maybe as an afterthought.
crashfrog writes:
Diplomacy hasn't failed yet. The threat of force won't work in North Korea because they have the nuclear option.
Tell me exactly when diplomacy failed in Iraq.
Also (in the case of NKorea)tell me when the US has ever been scared to use threat of force against nuclear powers to press its diplomatic agenda?
Most countries are realistic enough to avoid unnecessary offensive wars when the cost would be too high. That is the basis of the cold war (where there were several threats of force against nuclear powers).
Korea'd take out the west coast? Exactly how long would remain before we took out their entire country?
This isn't even a case of M-A-D. It would be total devastation for them.
That said, I agree diplomacy first, and if they start threatening military action then diplomacy backed by threat of force, and if it appears they are moving to act on those threats then use of force.
Pre-emptive strikes only make sense when one is facing a nuclear power. That's what made our war against Iraq so preposterous.
crashfrog writes:
There's probably no way to know. Saddam didn't keep tally, and neither did we.
That's rich... YOU just claimed it was justification enough for you that we would kill less than him and now you say there's no way of telling either.
So what is your justification now, we just didn't like the guy?
crashfrog writes:
I'd like to hear the solution you had for Iraq, as well as any other violent crazy dictator in any other country.
What solution was necessary for Iraq? If it was crushing his ability to make war on others and creating WMDs the evidence is in, what we had going was working. We even had room to tighten our clamps on wmd aspirations, "terrorist connections", and humanitarian aid concerns.
Our rush to war accomplished nothing real, and if anything has definitively increased the probability that a dirty bomb can be made using Iraqi radioactive material and find its way into terrorist hands.
We did remove Hussein from power. I don't cry about that, and in a way it is appropriate for him to lose power the way he came in. Unfortunately, it was not appropriate for us to use Saddam's own method of coming to power, to topple him. We did not have a right to cut through Iraqis to "take him down."
In a way I have already given my "solution" to dictators. The world, or even the US, exerts diplomatic pressure to create change within that nation. This means trade and aid.
If the dictator does not comply, then sanctions imposed. If aid is to be given to his people it is direct and tangible and kept track of.
If rebel forces within a country have a real plan of action, with demonstrable intent for a peaceful and inclusive future for all its citizens, then military aid to those forces is credible. Otherwise it is safer FOR THAT NATION ITSELF to wait for legitimate and legal reasons to move against the dictator.
If the dictator threatens force against other nations, then diplomacy backed with force (carrot and the ultimate stick) enters the equation.
If the dictator makes credible motions to use force, or is involved in a real attack on another country, then military force should be used quickly and decisively to remove him (... or her).
These thought are nothing new. Essentially they are the background functioning rules of international law post ww2.
A competent leader, one that understands diplomacy beyond that of a third grade bully, can work within these rules to find creative solutions. They may not be fast, but they have a chance at a more peaceful and lasting solution than the law of the jungle.
It's kind of ironic that Bush foists WW2 successes as proof that the US has invaded countries and made them better, totally ignoring the fact that we waited (too long even in my opinion) before going to war with Germany and Japan. And all the examples of us invading countries after that have been failures.
Made more ironic that he said as much (as what I just said) on his campaign trail, criticizing our unilateral military actions and attempts at nation-building.
Tell me what this war has accomplished in real terms, other than just removing Saddam Hussein. Where are the guarantees of greater safety for us and prosperity for the Iraqi people?
Tell me how violating international law has set a precedent that is good for the world?
Tell me how needlessly isolating and badmouthing long term allies based on short term disagreements has helped build a more unified world? How has this helped trade between our nations and others?
The Iraq War was just one failure among a host of spectacular diplomatic failures unparalleled in recent history.
If you think the simple fact of Saddam's removal was worth it, I'd love to know how. Oh yeah, that unquantifiable "evil" thing. To my mind there is more evil and negativity now than there was before our rush to war. The fact that there is even a concept of a "new/old europe" at this point speaks to the divisive and unproductive nature of this war and the leadership that gave it to us.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 05-31-2003]
™ Version 4.2