One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by charlie.collins on Fri, 10/04/2002 - 08:06

Tagged:

Politics

I have voiced my opinion on the Iraq situation multiple times here. Basically I think the US should NOT act unilaterally and that it would be very damaging and dangerous to do so. I do think Iraq is a valid issue, but I see no reason why inspectors could not be allowed back in to do their jobs and then if they are hindered in any way the UN could act to authorize force. It is not the place of the United States to make this decision. That begs the question why then is the US on this warpath? Not only why, but why right now? Why wasnt the Bush administration in this immediate must destroy Saddam right now kick in June 2001 or July 2001 or August 2001 or before that, or after, why right now? I dont think anyone knows definitively why but we can speculate as one responder stated in a letter to a prominent US news magazine: "all the Bush sabre rattling seems to be 5% September 11th and 95% November 5th". Not only that but the budgetary and economic considerations involved? Speculation yes, a stretch maybe, but there is no legitimate "national security" reason to attack Iraq. Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq may treat its minorities in a deplorable manner (even killing them, discriminating against them, etc). Iraq may make well known is position that it "hates" other countries and may invoke the name of God when declaring its opposition. Iraq may have a history of aggression. All of those factors make Iraq a concern for the world, but take a close look, the United States meets ALL of those criteria as well. Iraq has not attacked the United States. Iraq has not in any PROVEN way supported any terrorism or any terrorist organization that has attacked the United States (despite the rhetoric and exhausting investigations, there is zero solid proof of a definitive Iraq terrorism connection.) Iraq cannot deliver any weapons to US soil in a traditional military manner. Iraq is a threat to the nations directly in that area of the world, maybe, but not to the US, and those nations OPPOSE MILITARY ACTION. (Yes there are other than military delivery methods, but that then moves into the realm of terrorism, that is certainly a REAL THREAT, but again, no terrorist connection with Iraq has ever been proven and therefore that is another argument.) The FACT that there are existing UN resolutions against Iraq for its prior aggression against another sovereign nation is the only valid argument for action against Iraq. Iraq has clearly violated many of the existing resolutions. The existing resolutions are UN resolutions. Therefore this issue clearly falls into UN jurisdiction. Its not the right nor the duty of the United States to do anything except work within the United Nations to shape world policies as it sees fit. If the United States is so dead set against Iraq then working within the UN is the only reasonable course of action. The US acting alone and AGAINST THE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW is a very very bad and dangerous policy. As to foreign policy, the United States under the Bush administration has already decided to disregard international treaties it signed and ratified with other nations (ABM Treaty anyone?), has decided to disregard other UN authorities that all other UN nations have ratified (The ICC anyone?) and is now deciding that it will unilaterally attack another sovereign nation without the support of the UN and against international opinion? What does that make the United States? Nothing but a rogue and lawless nation. If the US decides to take unilateral action, as it certainly looks like it will, why should any other nation on Earth ever think that the US will abide by any international law going forward? For the potential risk that Saddam Hussein poses, is it a better policy to "contain" him as has been done for 10 years or should his nation be attacked? Is it worth destroying decades of international cooperation and law to go after this potential risk? Is there a better way to approach this problem than immediate unilateral military action? Seems we arent really asking these questions or if we do we "dont have time", for some unknown reason, to address them. The current position of the United States government is deplorable. It will potentially destroy foreign relations that have been forged from years of careful and thoughtful cooperation between nations and it is being done in the disingenuous vein of "security". Check the story links and call or write the President, call or write your Senators, call or wrtite your Representative and voice your opinion (even if you dont happen to agree with me, this is an important issue and the constituents should be heard). Contact the President

Add new comment

Comments

Re: One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Fri, 10/04/2002 - 08:51.

>One final rant on Iraq I won't be holding my breath. :) >Iraq may treat its minorities in a deplorable manner (even killing them, discriminating against them, etc). ...snip..., but take a close look, the United States meets ALL of those criteria as well. Um, OK, I know that in the history of the US, there has been some pretty serious transgressions against minorities, but comparing the modern-day U.S. (guvment and/or citizens) to the atrocities (seems to be word of the year) is ridiculous. The air may be a little thin up there on your soap box, you might wanna step down and catch your breath. [paraphrase] There's no solid proof that Iraq is a bunch of baddies trying to kill all us good citizens of the world [/paraphrase] The only thing that I gotta say about this is that there is no proof that you know of. Who's to say what the people making decisions know? Ya know sometimes there are reasons for keeping secrets. I am completely aware that this is a fairly weak statement, not likely to penetrate the armor of self-rightousness, but when you keep throwing around words like "FACT", "ZERO SOLID PROOF", etc. you skip the ending of the sentence. Which is " that I know of." [paraphrase] U.N. crap [/paraphrase] I gotta say that I just don't think the U.N. is capable of anything. It's a good idea. So was the League of Nations. The problem is that the U.N. is populated by politicians. So is Washington. Think about it, the guys in Washington have at least cultural background in common. The politicians in the U.N. don't even have that. It is every man for himself/political affiliation/country/country's allies/geographical region/world. In that order. I just don't see how it does/can/will ever work. [paraphrase]Rogue Nation[/paraphrase] While I appreciate most of this little course in definitions, I think that it a little narrow. Every Country is a rogue nation unless it benefits them to not be. US, UK, Australia, Russia, Iraq, etc. Every country does what it needs to do. To see who defined what it needs to do, just look at the little order of a person's loyalty above. Somewhere in there, you'll find the reason and 'humanity' is last on that list. Hiya pot? This is kettle. No the US is not perfect, not anywhere near it, but to single it out, seems a little extreme. [paraphrase] Don't go against the U.N., don't screw up "decades of international cooperation " to go after Iraq, etc. [/paraphrase] Now, after all that, you probably expect me to stand up and sing "God Bless America" and cheer on dubya's campaign. Not gonna happen. Turns out I don't think that we should attack Iraq, either. I do think that we should have killed him a decade ago, and I do think that we should probably go ahead and kill him now. Where do I get off declaring that another human being should die? Well, I have seen enough "proof" that this man means me/my family/my friends/my country/his country/the world no good, and would in fact love for it to all come tumbling down leaving him standing surveying his handiwork. However, the reason that I don't wanna go attacking Iraq has nothing to do with "world relations", "rogue nations", "international cooperation" or anything else. It's because I don't want our guys in the military to get hung out to dry. It's happened time and time again since WWII (extent of my 'knowledge', not saying it didn't happen before.) Some goddamned politician wants to get elected, wants to get his home town's weapon factory some more jobs, got a chip on his shoulder cause he's gotta small dick, whatever. Next thing you know, our guys are fighting a 'limited conflict' with no real support (either from the U.S. populace nor its guvment.) That is what pisses me off about Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. Call me self-centered, naive, whatever. You say you hate the U.S.? Fine. Hate it all you want. Go fuckin' take care of your own problems, go feed your own people, go fight your own wars, go slaughter your own people. The U.S. (and it's citizens) have a horrible reputation all over the globe. But if any sort of help, (be it political, financial, military,) is needed, we're supposed to just forget about all that @!#$ being hurled at us and fork over whatever is needed. That's just horseshit. The U.N. has what little hint power that it does because the U.S. chooses to participate. I don't pretend to have the answer as to how to "fix" this, but just pointing at the U.N. saying it'll take care of it is retarded. Anyway, befire I ramble even further down the path to incoherity, I will stop and summarize. DUBYA, DON'T ATTACK IRAQ. It will not help you get re-elected (I am not sure anything will do that now, you've screwed up pretty bad.) I don't say this because I don't want to piss off the International Community, I say this because there is no reason to get our people killed, starting some half-assed conflict that you are not going to have the balls to finish. I say this because the U.S. guvment and citizens don't have the will to see any sort of conflict through to the end. I am going to paraphrase somebody a lot smarter and more eloquent than me. They said that the second hardest decision in a guvment's 'life' should be the decision to declare war. The first hardest should be when to declare the war over. The U.S. guvment and citizens have shown that we don't have that understanding, so I am going to go with don't start the damned thing at all.

Re: One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Fri, 10/04/2002 - 11:53.

the air is fine here, it appears that maybe you are choking on a bit of apple pie and its you who are having trouble with breathing and getting light headed. 1. comparing modern day US to Iraq. well i did not say modern day, in the last few decades i think the us has done VERY WELL with minorities, but lets not forget the little slavery and civil war thing, just to mention a single atrocity. 2. proof of the badness of iraq. its not just "that I know of" its that ANYONE WHO WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE knows of. that happens to include people like Scott Ritter, former marine and former weapons inspector IN IRAQ, etc. there is simply no evidence that has been presented to anyone so it might as well not exist. i understand the secrets game, and the need to keep them, etc. but what YOU FAIL to understand is that the congresspeople who vote on these issues dont have proof either. i dont accept the president or cabinet at their word when it comes to going to war and none of us should. also, you can divulge evidence without giving away the secrets. no one has stated "We have evidence but we cant tell you its a secret", rather they state, "um, because i said so!" 3. The UN - the un may NOT be capable of doing anything, valid point. that have certainly shown some ineptitude in the past. that in my opinion obligates us to HELP AND TRY TO MAKE IT BETTER rather than turn our backs. 4. the pot and the kettle. beautiful, thats exactly my point. its the US that is singling out iraq and its the US that coined the "rogue nation" phrase. we arent any better and dont deserve to be passing judgement on others in affairs that dont directly affect us (the proof thing again, sorry, such a stickler). 5. un cooperation and screw up foreign policy. to me this is the worst part of this deal. i am not against saddam dying either. i think he should be killed, but at the same time i dont think we have the right to attack the country and start killing civilians and i dont think we will be better off if we do. i think we could have handled this much better, we could have worked with other nations to oust him or assasinate him, but proclaiming by god we are gonna get him without even consulting others is stupid. we are now having to backtrack and do some UN and foreign policy work and we should have done that to BEGIN WITH And could have avoided the foreign policy ill will debacle and achieved the same goal. AS to your own ranting at the end. I would say that my reasoning is not that far off. I did not mention the hanging the service people out to dry, or not finishing up, but those are valid points. If you recall "nation building" used to be something W hated and scoffed at in his campaign. Now he is all the sudden on board? I think the US should not go to war because we dont have a valid cause to attack another country. I agree that we should handle conflicts we do get into better and take care of our servicepeople, but part of that is deciding what to get into in the first place. When we do go in we need to finish the job. We need to help the UN, we are indeed a big part of the UN, but that means we need to work to make it better, not call using it "retarded" and walk away from it.

Re: One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Fri, 10/04/2002 - 14:09.

1. True, you didn't indicate the modern-day U.S., but we are talking about modern-day Iraq, so it seemed a logical conclusion. Yep, we've had some stupid @!#$ happen. I'd be willing to say not as stupid as some countries, more stupid than others. Point is, at least we are doing something about it and are getting better. Lots better. 2. I, too, understand what yer saying. What I am saying is that you don't think that they have proof. Saying that you know something but you can't tell isn't always possible. I am not saying that I believe this to be the case. Contrary to what you think, (at least what I think you think) I am not choking on any sort of pie, in fact I will go ahead and say that I do not believe that they have hard, solid, blah, blah proof about anything. What I am saying is that, although I don't believe, I wouldn't even dream of telling people that IT IS A FACT. Because it is not. It's something that I believe/think based on what (admittedly) little information that I posess. And as to the Scott dude, hasn't he changed his story a couple of times already? (I'll have to try and look that up and confirm.) 3. UN crap again. I am not saying "Let's turn our backs. (even though, to be honest, sometimes that is what I feel. These are usually short periods of time when I read some bullshit that somebody says about Americans. Hell, americans don't know americans, how can somebody from some other damned country know Americans.) more later, as it seems that I broke the UN up into multiple bullet points... 4. Pot/Kettle. Tried to make it clear, don't wanna go attacking Iraq. Don't wanna call'em names, either. What I was trying to get across, is yes, the U.S. (guvment) acts like a rogue nation (maybe you'll concur?) sometimes. Not even most times. Not going to blab about this anymore cause, as I said, I understand what ya'll mean by this. I just don't think that it is as big a deal as you do. 5. I think that we're trying to agree on this one for the most part. To me its kinda bluish-green, to you kinda greenish-blue. Yep, Sr. shoulda finished the job. 5a. Tell me this though. How does it make it better to go into Iraq and "start killing civilians" (cause that's exactly how we'd engage in combat. First we'd kill the civvies, then we'd go back and kill the dudes holding the guns....) if everybody (read UK, USSR, China and France, (clearly not everybody)) says that it is OK? Isn't it still wrong? I realize that I am taking huge liberty with your words, but basically, your whole argument says that if it is a gang-banger, then it is OK. But if it's one person doing it, it's wrong. I realize that this one is easy to tear apart; I know the flaws of the argument, but if you wanna do it, go ahead. This one can be argued until all participants pass out from heat strokes in Antarctica (looks funny in print, is this spelled right?) 6. Finally, believe it or not, I am not really arguing with you. I agree on the course of action, but I just don't agree with your reasoning. That's OK. If two people go into a burning house. One to save the person because they're blind, and one to save the person because they're wheelchair-bound. Is anybody wrong? Nah, just go get'em. I believe that the U.N. is a flawed principal more than anything. I'd support 100% some serious research into how to effectively govern people of all race, creed, color, background, nationality, height, weight, and sex. I damned sure don't know how to do it, but just pointing at the U.N. and saying they should do it isn't the answer, either. Sometimes you gotta tear down and rebuild. What we got sucks, instead of patching it with duct-tape, we need a rewrite. Anyway toodles for now and I look forward to your witty reparte.

Re: One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Fri, 10/04/2002 - 16:59.

witty reparte! what are you some kind of french commie bastard dissident! we can argue more later, tired of typing right now.

Re: One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by jeepmutt (not verified) on Mon, 10/07/2002 - 13:13.

dubya's gonna talk to us about this [url=http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.iraq/index.html" >CNN[/url]

Re: One final rant on Iraq

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Wed, 10/09/2002 - 07:40.

i watched the speech. same old same old to me. one thign i am particularly struck by is that our government is now actually saying "any of you people near saddam can save all this trouble and murder him". what the @!#$ is that? while that may be the ultimate objective, there are laws, international laws, against murder and that is certianly not the american way, even in a war murder is a crime. where is saddams due process? i know people are going to be outraged at me for this one, but come on, thats the point, even the most deplorable @!#$ gets to defend himself in a court, that is the tenet of america, innocent until proven guilty and all that other pretense. for our leaders to advocate and even encourage a murder, openly, is reprehensible to me. and for a little added irony, these are the same guys that are against abortion, pro life, against "violent" vide games, and other stupif @!#$, what kind of message do Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Bush think that sends? i might have to post this one as a story, it just irks me that they have the balls to do that.