Subject:
|
Re: My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:52:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
281 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> First off, I dislike the name “Iraqi Freedom” because I believe it gives the
> wrong impression of the reason for this war. This war was started not simply
> because there was an oppressed nation. Were we to take the role of world
> liberator, we would never stop fighting, a good portion of the continent of
> Africa could use liberation.
Bush's justifications for this war changed almost weekly, it seemed. Now,
within the terms of diplomacy, this can be understandable to a point as you
may find it advantagous to emphasize different aspects to different people,
but it seems more like he was simply throwing as much against the wall as
possible in the blind hope that some of it would stick. Regardless of
whether you feel the war is justified, I have to say that Bush's diplomacy
was singularly pathetic, disgraceful, and downright incompetent.
>
> In very simplified terms, after we were attacked on 9-11, the United States
> declared war on terrorism, wherever it exists. This started in Afghanistan
> where the Taliban was aiding and abetting top terrorist Osama Bin Laden. We
> did that and successfully drove the vicious Taliban from power, and made a
> fugitive of Bin Laden. I, like most people, would love to have Bin Laden in
> custody, and that may yet happen, but his ability to carry out evil over the
> globe has all but neutralized.
Bin Laden is neutralized...for the moment. If they let up on him and get
distracted (like attacking Iraq) then Osama's scattered forces might be able
to reorganize.
>
> Terrorism, however, does not end with Al-Qaida, or the Taliban, we had to
> look at all sources of danger to the United States and her citizens. Saddam
> Hussein has been a threat to our safety since the 1991 Desert Storm war. He
> never fully complied with the cease fire he signed at the conclusion of that
> war, and he regularly makes payments to the family of Palestinian suicide
> bombers. There is also evidence that several top Al-Qaida operatives put
> previous differences aside and found safe harbor in northern Iraq. Perhaps
> the “enemies of my enemies” philosophy prevails here. Finally, do not forget
> that Hussein tried to assassinate President George H. W. Bush.
Hussein has never been a threat to our safety. Kuwait's, yes. Iran, Saudi
Arabia, or anybody else who borders him and has oil, yes. Had any of them
agitated in the UN for an attack because they felt imperiled, Bush would
have seen some support there. Didn't happen.
Not complying with the *UN ceasefire sanctions* is only a cause for war
within the framework of the UN. Bush kept pushing and pushing for a vote,
and then had to call it off at the last second because he was going to lose
the vote so badly that France would never have had to veto it.
There has been no creditable evidence of Al Qaeda reorganizing in Iraq. As
to the car-torpedo plot to get ex-president Daddy, if Dubya really thinks
that was Saddam, then send a few assassin's Saddam's way. It isn't
sufficient cause for war, and hasn't been offered as such.
>
> Bottom line here is that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair believe
> that Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the safety of our nations
> and our citizens. Simply waiting for another attack on this nation from an
> Iraqi supported terrorist would be suicide. At this point the only reasons I
> have seen to disagree with military actions are as follows.
>
> 1. You are a pacifist who disagrees with military action for any reason,
> even the defense of your country.
Whereas there are people like this, you will find the majority would hold to
disagreeing with military action for any reason *except* defense of the
country. And yet they are out there protesting, so guess what they don't
view this war as?
>
> 2. You believe that Bush, Blair, and their respective administrations are
> disingenuous with their analysis that Iraq and her deadly weapons pose a
> threat to our respective nations.
Since Saddam couldn't get at our oil, no, why would he bother?
>
> If you fall into category 1, then I will always disagree with the belief
> that evil men, and yes Saddam falls into that category, cannot be trusted to
> forgo their aggressive tendencies simply by imposing political pressure, or
> economic sanctions.
Saddam isn't trustworthy, but is that a valid excuse to expend billions of
dollars, thousands of lives (our military and political planners and
currently soiling their underwear in the realization that they are going to
have to go to the high casuality, maximum carnage nightmare of
street-fighting unless they luck into some kind of major break like mass
defections or assassinating Saddam), and trash our international standing?
> However, if you find yourself in camp 2, you have to ask
> yourself could 45 nations with leaders of varying ideologies join the
> conspiracy? Or perhaps you believe that the “strong arm” tactics of the
> United States and Great Britain have put undo pressure on these nations.
> True other nations oppose us, most notably France, who really hasn’t agreed
> with us on much since 1945. Or maybe you believe that you have more reliable
> intelligence that these administrations.
If I remember correctly, Chirac said this would have been the first time
that France would have used it's veto power in a Security Council vote
against a U.S. proposal. Yes, France vainly and pompously prides itself on
it's "independence" from US policy at times (usually a ruse to hide blatant
self-interest and promotion), but I would hardly go so far as to say that we
haven't agreed on much since 1945.
Strong-arm tactics: yes, undoubtedly some came over by strong arm tactics
(you want to keep getting our aid?). Some by gentle persuasion (you want
our aid, or maybe some more?). Money, or some aspect of money, in either
case. Just look at the blatant and open bribery attempts aimed at Turkey.
Regardless of it being 100 nations in the conspiracy or just 2, it doesn't
matter if the reasoning behind it is a bunch of hooeey. Saddam isn't the
new center of Al Qaeda, he isn't a creditable threat to the United States,
and violations of UN sanctions is the business of the UN.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
| I don’t have the chance to respond with the same level of frequency here on OTD as many of the regulars, so this may sound like a hit and run, as I will voice my opinion and probably not respond to rebuttals in a timely fashion. I, however, desired (...) (22 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
