Attack Iraq?

[Eric R.]

I saw today that German intelligence sources have placed a date of 2005 until Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

So what do people want us to do wait until December 31, 2004 before we do anything? Premeption has been used as a legimate excuse in the modern world, the Six Day War comes to mind real quick, it was not until domistic politics in Isreal got in the way that the original intent of siezing ground for peace was messed up. The Grenadian war pre-emptively destroyed Russian and Cuban plans in the Carb, permenantly. There was serious consideration within NATO of launching Pre-emptive strikes in the event of massive Warsaw Pact invasion preparations. So nothing new here.

Most of the arguments so far against attack are grounded in a legit. pascifist point of view, which I will not argue with. But this is still not a time when Pacifivism rules the day. War is never right, but sometmes it is the only right answer to the question. My nieghbor might have a gun, but I can go get a Restraining order and the next time he so much as looks at me wrong his ass ends up in jail. But eventually I can move, nations can't. To continue the modern criminal analogy, Iraq has been under parole for 12 years, and has constantly violated that parole and has not met with its parole officer (Inspection teams) for four years. What happens when you violate parole? the cops come busting down your door and dragging your ass of to jail thats what. And name me one country that US forces have fought in and we have not done some re-building for a better future. is it Korea?, Germany?, France?, Belgium? Italy? Kuwait? Hell even in South Veitnam we bult schools, roads, bridges airports and even a nice Soviet Naval Base

No the only country we fought in and did not help to rebuild (so far) has been Iraq only becuase we wanted to accomodate world opinion and you see where that got us.

[calguard66]

Where is the city of Cartherage now? The Romans obliterated it just as well as a nuke would have.

I still don't get your point... yes, in war lots of people die. Yes, we now have the capability of obliterating all life on earth.

So what?

If you are too afraid to use force, then anyone can do anything they want... there is no reason for them not to do so. The ten years of sanctions FAILING against Iraq are proof that diplomacy without threat of force is hollow.

We are not adults fighting over toys, we are adults worried that our children will face an Iraq armed with a nuclear arsenal, and few qualms about using it. I am an adult who fears a world where anyone can do anything, because no one has the intestinal fortitude to physically prevent it.

Originally posted by C5


The point here is mass destruction. We now have the mean to wipe an entire country off the map, and probably the planet as well. We have weapons that can kill or disable people in many inventive ways, and with a power our ancestors could not have dreamed (or dreaded ?) of.
OTOH, to my knowledge, diplomacy has not undergone the same evolution - we may have international treaties and similar things, but I don't think we have the diplomatic equivalent of the A-bomb.

My point about being civilised people was this : if a guy fights with his brother over a toy as a child, and then many years later claims to be a grown-up, while still fighting with his brother over toys, but this time with guns, then I'd say he's not a grown-up but still a child, and a very dangerous one as well.

It's not a question of abandoning diplomacy and violence because they're old; on the contrary, I think we should make diplomacy evolve or at least find a way to use our technology more cleverly when resorting to violence.

[calguard66]

The staed goal wasn't to remove Saddam then.

Having said that, I agree... a lot of people died, and he's still there.

That isn't because we used force, it's because we didn't use enough.

As I said before, people are afraid to act decisively. Or, in some cases, at all.

Originally posted by C5


And yet the Gulf War led to a lot of Iraqi people dying (including civilians) while Hussein stayed in place. Collateral damage might be acceptable when the primary target is stricken (I don't agree with that either, but I can understand it), but when it's is missed, it becomes undistinguishable from the slaughter of innocents (especially if the cause of the miss is something as silly as the use of an outdated map).
And that sort of thing breed violence among the survivors who will want to retaliate with bombings and planes, starting an endless cycle of violence and destruction in both sides... until either the strongest side utterly destroys the other, or somebody comes with a better solution (and no, I don't have it - that doesn't prevent me for wanting it).

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by C5
Gandhi proved that you could win without war. And I'm an atheist, but I think there's also something in the Bible about the other cheek and so on.

Even Gandhi admitted that his methods only worked against civilized governments. Someone who uses nerve gas and starvation against his own people isn't going to be impressed with civil disobedience. Likewise in the real world, turning the other cheek only gets you hit again. International politics isn't a meeting of your local chowder & marching society...

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by Joe Dizzy:

Under this reasoning you want to "stop the criminal" before he "commits a crime", thus before he actually becomes a "criminal".

Yes you can. Your example is flawed. On the international scene there is no way to enforce anything without the threat or use of force. In your example, I will be arrested by the police. On the international scene, I can get away with it if I am powerful like the U.S..
C5 put it nicely. Any choice we make will be bad, it is necessity which will dictate what we do. Diplomacy has evolved though, international treaties and political unions are more widely respected.

Posted by Joe Dizzy:

Ignoring morality completely in a war though, is equally short-sighted.

How so? We fight to win, not lose, everything in between is enriched tapestry. We can paint history the way we want to once we win. History is to the victors. Have you ever heard of a loser writing history?



Let's see what we know.

Saddam Hussein is a viscious, evil and depraved dictator. He started the Gulf war, invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Fired Scuds into Israel to crack the alliance. Before that he gased thousands of Kurds in the North using chemical weapons. He's fought several wars with Iran and used chemical/biological weapons on them. He funds foreign terrorist cells and officially supports the killing of innocent U.S. civilians. He killed his own family members when they tried to defect. Native and foreign intel says that he will be nuclear capable within a few years and will most likely use it. He refuses to bow to international demands for inspectors and flaunted the no fly zone repeatedly. These are facts, not fiction, nor are they assumptions. We know these things because we've made these observations.
Considering his current stance and his past history, he is not only a danger to the U.S., but to her allies and friends. Not doing anything seems irrational in my opinion.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
On the international scene, I can get away with it if I am powerful like the U.S.

(snip)

We can paint history the way we want to once we win. History is to the victors. Have you ever heard of a loser writing history?

This does remind me of the ongoing discussion between Sloan and Bashir on DS9.
Especially this comment by Sloan comes to mind:

"Please, Doctor. Spare me the 'We-must-do-what-is-right'-Speech and I will spare you the 'Ends-justify-the-means'-Speech."

(or something to that effect.)

Maybe such attitudes are not compatible at all.
Or maybe the Machiavellian p.o.v. is far more accepted or even admired, than I like. I find it rather frightening and unsettling, when the lack of morals is considered an asset.

I do remember another small, bearded man whose lack of morals managed to get him into a position of great power where he was free to show just how dangerous said lack of morals can be.

Diplomacy has evolved though, international treaties and political unions are more widely respected.

So there is hope, then.

It is obvious to me that we are well on our way to a global community. Technologically and economically speaking we are almost there. It should be one of our highest priorities to reach this kind of sophistication on a sociological/cultural level.

But starting wars is more than just a small hinderance in this regard. It throws us back a great deal. (see also my comment on violence and the solving of "shit" )
Am I saying none of us should ever start a fight again? No. Actually I'd love to say it, but I know it's not feasible.

I'm just saying an open conflict influences more than just the lives it ends and the political maneuvers it entails. Among a lot of other things it strengthens the "Them-and-us" mentality.
Something which has no place in a global community.

Or to put in an amusing bon-mot I stumbled across on the Internet:
"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Not doing anything seems irrational in my opinion.

Not acting would indeed be irrational. This I haven't doubted. Something must be done.

What I have doubted is the right for people on this board to call for mass murder. It is one of my strongest and unshakable convictions that nobody has the right to call for another man's death. Ever.

You have stated why you consider it fairly obvious that a attack on Iraq is necessary.
I can accept that. I might not agree with you for whatever reasons, but I have little interest in discussing or dissecting your arguments on this matter. You have made your point in calm and rational manner. This is after all a serious topic.
Anyone who wishes to question your "chain" of arguments can do so.

[Capt.Hunter]

I agree something must be done. Either we put in sanctions with real teeth, or we remove Hussein (if that is necessary - I have yet to see the evidence our government has been promising us). What I argue for is that it be done as cleanly as possible. The US (and other Western nations) have a lamentable history of going in and making sure their interests are safe, without tidying up afterwards. Lack of respect for the people who live where the war happens lead to situations like Afghanistan after the end of the Cold War. Unless the US (or the coalition if one is formed) is willing to put in the years of work necessary to make sure that Iraq truly becomes a stable nation again once Hussein is gone and the dust has settled, then we have no business going in in the first place.

Oh, and yes, the winners write history. For a while. The British painted things a certain way when we had the Empire. The truth has long since come out, however. It always does.

By the way, the quote from Ghandi might be correct, but I certainly wouldn't describe the British Empire at the time as "civilized" when it came to dealing with subject nations...

[mactavish]

I think Saddam just needs to be put in the "time-out" chair for fifteen minutes so that he can think about how his actions have had a negative effect on other people.

No, no... better than that... let's call him for a White House visit and let GWB try to logically and rationally explain how the actions of the Iraqi leadership are detrimental to both itself, the region, and indeed the rest of the world.

And when we're done we can all sing "Kumbaya."

Or not.

Note that this is not satirical; its <i>verbal irony</i>. I was an English teacher... I <b>know</b> the difference.

Talking has haad no impact on the Iraqi leader for 10 years. Now that the US president is suggesting that Iraq will be attacked/invaded, its amazing how quickly they've ponied up, saying, "Send whoever you want. We're ready to show you everything."

I may not agree that naked aggression and threats are the best solution in many cases, but I do believe that, against Iraq and under the present circumstances, that such activities are warranted.

I am certainly no friend of the Iraqi government, but neither would I like to see their nation devastated by warfare. This is obviously of some concern to the Iraqis, or they wouldn't have stepped up and offered to allow inspections.

On the other hand, perhaps they are just stalling for time so that they can complete their "doomsday machine." Given their past actions, I believe this to be a likely situation.

I offer my condolensces in advance for all those that will die when their is an attack against Iraq, but I believe that, at this point, it is both inevitable and necessary.

mactavish out.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy

What I have doubted is the right for people on this board to call for mass murder. It is one of my strongest and unshakable convictions that nobody has the right to call for another man's death. Ever.

"Mass Murder??"

Please point out where anyone has suggested mass murder.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter


By the way, the quote from Ghandi might be correct, but I certainly wouldn't describe the British Empire at the time as "civilized" when it came to dealing with subject nations...

Oh I don't know about that, compared to some of the contemporaries of the era i.e. the Belgians in the Congo for example, it was quite civilized. Even though the British Empire may have had social and racial stratification out the wazoo, let us not forget that even Ghendi was taught and learned law in British schools and was able to live in South Africa largely due to being a citizens of the Empire.+

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Posted by Joe Dizzy:

Or maybe the Machiavellian p.o.v. is far more accepted or even admired, than I like. I find it rather frightening and unsettling, when the lack of morals is considered an asset.

Like I've said before morality has no place in war. Though we should endeavour to do the right thing whenever possible, we can't let that threaten our national interests. Fact is all wars are unlimited in the use of force.

Posted by Joe Dizzy:

I'm just saying an open conflict influences more than just the lives it ends and the political maneuvers it entails. Among a lot of other things it strengthens the "Them-and-us" mentality. Something which has no place in a global community.

The "them and us" mentality is common throughout our history and has simplified strategic considerations when it was necessary. Iraq is different from the U.S. in everything except that they are humans like us. Unfortunately they are on the opposite side and their leadership threatens our interests.

Posted by Joe Dizzy:

You have stated why you consider it fairly obvious that a attack on Iraq is necessary. I can accept that. I might not agree with you for whatever reasons, but I have little interest in discussing or dissecting your arguments on this matter. You have made your point in calm and rational manner. This is after all a serious topic.
Anyone who wishes to question your "chain" of arguments can do so.

Thank you.

Posted by Joe Dizzy:

What I have doubted is the right for people on this board to call for mass murder.

When did anyone do this?

[Kaiddin]

Just on the news:

Iraq has fired on Coalition planes 70 times so far this year. I am so glad that we are not at war with him.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir
BTW, Joe, they'll never understand European sarcasm.

Does the fact that it was sarcasm make it less offensive? If so how?

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Again this wasn't directed towards Americans in general. I was rather commenting on a certain attitude I've seen in posts by various members on this board regarding the middle-east conflict(s).

Well as long as you were only trying to insult some of the people on this board, I guess that makes it alright.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
You are right C5, but turning the other cheek in this case will get you a broken jaw.

And how many cheeks do you have to turn?