Adios Iraq

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

"This information is raw and hard to confirm."

Yeah, that eliminates all my doubts.


And I never said there was never any connection with Iraq about Ricin. Powell explicitly stated that the RICIN itself was manufactured in Iraq. It wasn't. That, my friends is a lie. It was on CNN, which today was specifically forbidden for us to look at at work due to bandwidth (don't ask). So I'm sorry I can't look up the link. That one of the perpetrators once lived in Iraq hardly condemns the regime either. We've had our own little bombers, poisoners, and terrorists from the US. Does that mean Reagan, the two Bushes, and Clinton are all terrorists?

[Entsuropi]

your not addressing the matter of the training camps or the blood money that saddam is so fond of.

And BTW, just why are you so opposed to attacking iraq? it will take all of 3 weeks, we get rid of a horrific regieme that is hitler with worse tanks and a bigger 'tash, and we can start the ball rolling on instituting democracy in the middle east. Plus it allows us to start ignoring the UN. are you aware that the next head/host of the UN Disarming commitee is Iraq? The current holder is Iran. Think about that for a second. The current head of the human rights commitee is Libya, for Christ's sake. the sooner we jetison it, the better we are. even better than all that, we get to annoy the hell out of the French. It's just a pity we arn't allowed to invade france anymore.

[Fellfrosch]

I think he's opposed to invading Iraq for the same reason that all of us should be: war is bad. Killing people is bad. We don't want it to happen. There are times when it is necessary, but Saint is not convinced that this is one of those times. I'm not fully convinced either, though I support it a little more than he does.

I'm getting really sick of arguments (most of them made by bloodthirsty rednecks and forwarded to my email account) that anyone who opposes this war is an anti-government loser who loves Saddam--that line of thinking is the most short-sighted one in the whole discussion. Just because you oppose war doesn't mean that you support terrorists. The only warrior I will ever trust is the one who hates his job, because I know that he'll only do what he has to and nothing more.

That said, just because you oppose war doesn't mean that you should let yourself get walked on. Whether or not Saddam is an immediate threat, he is a scary person and I will rest easier once he's not in charge of a country with dangerous weapons. I doubt that it will change the terrorist situation very much, and I'm not even sure that it will change the Middle East or even Iraq very much, but I guess we'll see. Let's just hope that the army (I know some of the soldiers rather well, actually) is as prepared as we think, and that this invasion is as swift and painless as possible.

[Spriggan]

i respect SE and his views as long as he dosen't start calling our troops baby killers and all that crap.  I agree with fell that that's a realy childish way to resond to someone that thinks that way.  I'm glad none of us are useing that argument and that.

We've had our own little bombers, poisoners, and terrorists from the US. Does that mean Reagan, the two Bushes, and Clinton are all terrorists?

none of our presidents have activly suportted, given money or protected those people so no they're not.  and if they did they would be accintable for doing such.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

i respect SE and his views as long as he dosen't start calling our troops baby killers and all that crap.  I agree with fell that that's a realy childish way to resond to someone that thinks that way.  I'm glad none of us are useing that argument and that.

I concur. I'm not against the members of the military. I think the anti-war "movement" has matured past that (although I'm sure with exceptions). I have a lot of good friends in the military, in most branches. However, I don't agree with the goal they've been sent to do. I admire people who can follow orders and do their duty, esp. ones that they may not agree with (like the guy from my gaming group who just got sent out).

none of our presidents have activly suportted, given money or protected those people so no they're not.  and if they did they would be accintable for doing such.

You missed my point. My point is that just because some one is from a country, such as the Iraqi in the Ricin plot, does not indicate that the leader of that country is guilty.

[House of Mustard]

Back finally... And there's now SO much to repond to.

And I never said there was never any connection with Iraq about Ricin. Powell explicitly stated that the RICIN itself was manufactured in Iraq. It wasn't. That, my friends is a lie.

Someone's been listening to a bit too much Barbra Streisand.  Foxnews said on Jan. 8th that the ricin was linked to terrorist camps in northern iraq.  UsaToday reported the same thing on Jan. 16th, and the Monterey Institute for International Studies said the same thing on Jan. 23.  So what, my friend, is a lie.

Also, where are these sources you keep referring to?

The big question is this:  What evidence would you believe?
Powell presented satellite photos, recordings, statistics, etc... which all seemed very convincing to the unbiased observer.  Do you believe he made them up?  Or do you want him to say: "It was Akmed Al-Farabi that made this recording for us.  His address is 123 Baghdad St.  Please go and shoot him now for treason."

The problem is that the government is asking us to take their word for it.  They're not asking us to take their word for it that they have evidence (they've given us the evidence) -- they simply ask us to believe it.  There are some people that will believe it blindly.  There are some people that will weigh the theories and make an informed decision pro or con.  Then there are some that will see what the government says and declare that it is a lie, despite concrete evidence to the contrary.  

I'm against war generally, but blind opposition can be just as bad as blind support.

Well, enough of that.

Perhaps the most compelling bit of evidence is what Saddam hasn't talked about.  Powell asked about the 100 to 500 tons of chemical munitions and four tons of concentrated VX (those numbers come from the UN, by the way) and Saddam hasn't said a word.  Wouldn't you suppose that if someone was threating to blow you up that you would gladly say "WAIT!!  We destroyed that stuff a long time ago!  We did it in March last year, out at Army Base B!"

If he doesn't have the stuff anymore, why doesn't he say what happened to it?  Instead he just says "liar liar pants on fire" and hides in his palace.  We know (and the UN knows - they SAW the stuff), but he insists it never existed.  Why, pray tell, does he say that?

Here are a few juicy tidbits (not evidence for war, but just fun facts about our favorite dictatorial doofus) from a paper I wrote last year:

Saddam employs professional rapists (What do you put on a resume for that job?)

One escaped prisoner described a torture room.  It had leaky pipes on the cieling that dripped, occasionally, nitric acid.  The prisoners would go insane, running around the room trying to avoid the acid that fell randomly.

There are even accounts that during the Iran-Iraq War political prisoners would have their blood pumped out to provide transfusions for soldiers.  They would give all they had until they died, and then a new prisoner would take their place.

What a guy!  Lets all assume he's rational and that continued diplomacy will work with him.

[stacer]

 Granted I would like to know more but I trust our goverment.  

Personally, I don't exactly trust Bush right now, not completely. And I voted for the guy. It's just sometimes, when he talks, I wonder. I just feel deep-down uneasy about this whole situation. But then sometimes I trust him a little more. I don't know. It's all very confusing. I agree with SE--I haven't seen enough evidence right now for me to feel like there's any immediate threat to the US from Saddam Hussein. We lasted how many decades in the Cold War without any battles being fought (other than behind-the-scenes spies, which I have no idea about numbers)?

I know that he does horrible things in his own country, and for that, yes, he should be removed from power. This alone should be enough. But then there's the question: do we (the US alone) have the right? I struggle with the implication--we have the right to judge all other countries and be the police force of the world. This is something we've been doing for quite a while, but I still can't be completely comfortable with it.

Back to the Cold War: I realize we did come close to blows several times, but it never came to open war. Is it just that different times call for different measures? Or do we just have a lack of commitment in our leadership to do everything possible to avoid war? Or has everything been done and I just, as a layperson, don't understand it?

Everyone in the news and in the press conferences are so confident that it'll only take a couple weeks, no problem. But what if it doesn't? What if, in the 12 years since Saddam should have been taken care of (and I *do* think if it should have been done at any time, the appropriate time would have been during the Gulf War), what if since then Saddam has gotten himself a better army? What if on his home turf he's harder to defeat than in another country?

And I find it disturbing how going to war makes stocks shoot up by almost 300 points. Are we that bloodthirsty as a people, that we can be that excited about a war starting? And here, of course, is another area where I have to admit ignorance, that of economics. But it does disturb me. I hear that if war lasts longer then stocks normally go down, but none of it makes sense to me, really.

Mainly I have personal objections to war right now. I freely admit that I am no expert when it comes to international relations. I'm sure that there are things they can't tell us because it would compromise vital operations. And those are probably exactly the things that would connect the dots for me. I just feel like in this particular situation, unless some clear link is made to the Sept. 11 attacks, or unless we see imminent danger to the US or its allies, I will have misgivings over this.

I have pondered this for a long time and even though I agree that Saddam Hussein is bad and evil etc., what I want to know is why we aren't attacking other countries and regimes that are just as bad, for all the same reasons that we've talked about Saddam Hussein--for example Saudi Arabia for harboring terrorists (we KNOW that they harbored Al Qaeda camps and operatives) and  China for civil rights violations and North Korea for weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc. etc.

Slightly related: I found this quote the other day, in a discussion of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI full access to anyone's library and bookstore lending/purchasing information without the burden of a warrant. Yeah, I may not be in danger of being investigated by the FBI anytime soon, but that smacks of Bill of Rights violations all over the place to me. I think that if the FBI suspects someone of something, due process should be followed (with yet another disclaimer that I'm no law student--but I still agree with the quote).

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

P.S. Who do I ask about accessing my profile? I can't get into it and change my sig, city, etc.

[Entsuropi]

I have pondered this for a long time and even though I agree that Saddam Hussein is bad and evil etc., what I want to know is why we aren't attacking other countries and regimes that are just as bad, for all the same reasons that we've talked about Saddam Hussein--for example Saudi Arabia for harboring terrorists (we KNOW that they harbored Al Qaeda camps and operatives) and  China for civil rights violations and North Korea for weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc. etc.  

One at a time, one at a time. We will not go for China though. They have nuclear missiles. Baaaaaad idea to attack them.

But then there's the question: do we (the US alone) have the right?

Interesting fact: when Britain outlawed Slavery, we decided that we outlawed it across the globe. And so we carried out "gunboat diplomancy". I think we can all agree that the UK was in the right. And yet under current laws that would be illegal. Thats a bit iffy, ain't it?

Besides, how come everyone has forgotten that the UK, Australia and Spain actively support war, and that another 15 odd eastern European countries have added their voices in support?

And I find it disturbing how going to war makes stocks shoot up by almost 300 points.

I am no expert on stock markets, but i think this may be due to surety. People know that war is starting. The stock market fell due to uncertainty. City traders dislike nothing more than uncertainty.

[House of Mustard]

We lasted how many decades in the Cold War without any battles being fought (other than behind-the-scenes spies, which I have no idea about numbers)?

Entirely different ball of wax.  I would refer you to a long argumentative thread from about a month ago (sorry - I can't remember what it's called, but you can look it up).  Peace (relative peace) was maintained in the Cold War for two reasons: 1) Bipolarity of the international system and 2) USA and USSR both had nuclear weapons.

Bipolarity means that everyone in the whole world (or at least everyone that matters) is affiliated with one side or the other, basically reducing the world into two countries.  Both powers know that if war starts then it's going to be World War III, and no one is willing to do that.  And why are they not willing to do that?  Nuclear weapons.

(There's fifty years of political theory condensed into a paragraph - it's a little more complicated, but that's the gist of it.)

Anyway, the point is that Iraq does not fit the Cold War mold.  We are not lacking the "commitment to avoid war."  It's just a different method entirely.  The reason that people turn to terrorism is because they are unable to change the course of world events with the standard methods (they are diplomatically and militarily weak).  Iraq cannot fit the profile of a superpower, yet still wants superpower status.  It is this problem that leads countries to become 'Rogue nations'.

As far as whether or not his army is better, I don't know other than to say that it is generally the same size it was in 91.  And in regards to whether they are tougher on their home turf - in 91 they WERE on their home turf.  We didn't go to Baghdad, but we tromped all over Iraq.

what I want to know is why we aren't attacking other countries and regimes that are just as bad, for all the same reasons that we've talked about Saddam Hussein--for example Saudi Arabia for harboring terrorists (we KNOW that they harbored Al Qaeda camps and operatives) and  China for civil rights violations and North Korea for weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc. etc.  

There a lot of reasons.  Saudi Arabia contains terrorists, but the current regime (the King, his son, etc...) do not.  As a matter of fact, Al Qaeda can't stand that regime and they are one of the terrorists main targets.

China is a big stinking nuclear power.  True, they have human rights violations, but stepping in over there would be a long drawn out war that we may not win (they have more than five times our piddly population).

North Korea certainly needs to be dealt with, but it's a sticky situation because we know they have nukes.  In Iraq, we just know they're trying to get them.

But here's the main thing:  just because we're not going after them right now doesn't mean we won't ever.  The US used to have a "Two War" policy, meaning that we would always be ready for two different major engagements.  Then Jimmy Carter came along and reduced it to a one war policy.  Over the next decade it was built back up to about a war and a half, which is where we were at the beginning of Bush Jr.'s presidency.  He's trying to get back to two, but isn't there yet.  So the reason we aren't going after these other potential targets is because we simply don't have the resources right now.  (Although we are being very watchful - as soon as we get bogged down in a shooting war in Iraq, North Korea might use the opportunity to cause trouble.  There's even been talk that China might head back over to Taiwan once we're busy with other things)

Anyway, there you go.  Just so you know, I was against this war for a long time - A few months ago I had a couple really good arguments with Spriggan about it.  But I think that there has been ample evidence given to support it and I've changed my mind.

[Fellfrosch]

Regarding gunboat diplomacy (practiced heavily by both the British and the Americans), I'm not sure I agree that we are ever "in the right." Sure, slavery is wrong, but so is forcing your beliefs onto other people. This is probably the trickiest issue in global politics, and we're only going to encounter it more and more. If I suspect that my next-door neighbor beats his wife, do I have a moral responsibility to stop him? Yes. Do I have the right to invade his house and stop him physically? No. The difference is that my neighbor and I both live within a legal system that holds him accountable for his actions and provides a means for me to indirectly affect the situation by sending for the police. Earth as a whole has no such governing body, and no acceptable legal means of interfering with countries that don't want to be interfered with. Some nations have come together and agreed to certain rules (for example, any country that's signed the Geneva Convention can be held accountable to it), but the others are largely off-limits.

If a dictator kills his own people, we can't do anything about it. Saddam has been killing his own people ever since he came into power, but we didn't raise a finger until he started killing somebody else's people (Kuwaitis, mainly). The Khmer Rouge has killed more people in Cambodia than Saddam could ever hope to kill, but we've never done anything about it because they keep to themselves.

Our invasion of Iraq will set a dangerous precedent because we're breaking this rule: we're dealing with situation before it happens (though it could be argued that Saddam's terrorist funding, if it exists, counts as 'affecting other people'). If we wait for Saddam to do anything, the argument says, then it will be too late; it's time to take him out now before he gets any more dangerous. What we are essentially saying is that we want to fill the gap in global government and become both judge and police--if you do something we think is bad, we're coming to get you on no authority other than our own. We've hired ourselves to babysit a world full of people who don't want us to bother them.

Once you've declared yourself the moral enforcer of the world, where do you draw the line? Do we invade countries that don't have child labor laws? Do we force muslim cultures to stop requiring women to wear veils, on threat of military invasion? What about countries that don't offer an acceptable minimum wage or provide safe workplace conditions? What about countries with legal and prison systems much harsher than our own--do we invade and force them to change?

And what about other countries who decide they want to be the police too? Let's say Gooberonia (to remove any political baggage from the discussion) follows our lead and starts enforcing its own ideas. Their neighbors are kind of scary, and start developing some big weapons, so Gooberonia storms in and shuts everything down, ousting the old government and establishing their own. What do we do--congratulate them for being so concerned, or invade them to stomp out their dangerous imperialist tendencies? Would we view the situation differently if Goobernia were socialist or monarchist rather than democratic? They have, arguably, the same moral right to invade that we do, but what are the odds we'll let them use it?

As a fan of science fiction, I'm a firm beleiver in world governments. Shows like Star Trek and Robotech show us how nice the world can be when everyone works together and follows the rules, and I support that kind of idea in the real world. Unfortunately, the real world includes people who don't want to play by anyone else's rules. Can we, in good conscience, rewrite the world in our image?

[Entsuropi]

complete tangent : does anyone here actually believe a "world government" is a realistic possibility? I have seen nothing that suggests it would be either possible or desirable. The current attempt, the UN, is poo. Apart from anything else, how in the name of god would you get countries to join up to a world government? would you storm into, say, japan and demand that they join up? If they do not, then it is hardly a world government. And then consider the problem that nobody can agree on anything. America and the UK are about as close in terms of outlook as countries get.

[Fellfrosch]

I wouldn't call this a tangent, since that's more or less the thrust of my above post. I honestly don't think a world government is possible unless it is totalitarian, in which case I'd rather not. My concern is that current U.S. action, taken to a ridiculous extreme, forms the foundation of a totalitarian world government.

[Spriggan]

Just watching the news and according to colin Powell we have 30 countries publicly supporting us and 15 "quietly" supporting us.  don't a full list atm (again this is what he said on TV).  that dosen't seam like going it alone to me.

edit: here it is http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81420,00.html

[Fellfrosch]

Does it really matter how many people are supporting us? If fifty countries decided that we were wrong, and led a military invasion of America, I don't think you'd agree with that. It all comes down to this: does any country or group of countries have the right to decide how another country runs itself? On those grounds, I think it makes perfect sense for the UN to run a human rights investigation on the US, because that's exactly what we would do if any other country pulled the stunt we're pulling today.

[Spriggan]

Yes we have the Moral right to change a leadership that threatins it's own people or the rest of the world.  Under what you've been saying we should have never done anything about Hiltler.  This BS that your spewing Fell is the same crap france was saying 50 years ago about Hitler.