12-09-2002 22:01									#1
	Should we fight? A liberal's view. Increase Your PM Length

I fell off the fence yesterday. There's been a lot of debate as to what measures should be taken against Iraq but I was undecided as to what I felt was the right move. The choices, as far as I can see, boil down to the following-

1- Do nothing.
2- Economic war (sanctions)
3- Limited/surgical military action.
4- Invasion.

First a spot of background. My politics would mark me out as being pretty middle-of-the-road by European standards and a lefty by US standards. I also opposed the Gulf War, just as I opposed the Falklands War. Therefore it might come as a bit of a surprise to hear that the option I've chosen is number 4. Full-blown invasion of Iraq.

This isn't an easy decision to make- it would be narcissistic to suggest such a decision is more difficult for me than for others, but then again I am near-pacifist in my views. However I hate dictators with a venom that borders on the psychotic. That left me looking at the options in this way....

1- It's the 1930's appeasers and the Clivedon Set all over again. I found myself asking "What would Orwell have done", and I'm certain he would have drowned this option in scorn. Some people are just far too evil to be tolerated if we're to consider ourselves to be civilised. Stuff that.

2- Tricky. Up until recently this is the option I'd have been proposing noisily. I still think it's the right early respose. But.....in this case it looks like trying to treat a gangrenous leg by attempting to wear away the limb with a nailfile. Besides, the same people who are opposing a war tend to be the same who remind us that the current sanctions are linked to a million deaths in Iraq. I seriously doubt that this is the humane option. Besides, it's had 11 years- it's not going to topple Saddam now.

3- Pointless. You won't topple Saddam by waving your willy at him. This option, more than any other, is laughable. It's a waste of time. It might look good on CNN but it'll achieve the sum total of bugger all. Forget it.

That leaves option 4. Yes, it will cause the deaths of a large number of innocent people, but what other option is there?

I've been looking back at why I opposed the Gulf War, and I think I did it for the wrong reasons. My reasoning, at the time, was as follows-

A- Commercial factors played a strong part in the decision to go to war (ie- oil).

B- There are more evil regimes in the world that we were doing nothing about.

C- Therefore the war was wrong.

Now I'd call that reasoning flawed. Whatever the motives for the war, it could have removed one of the world's evil dictators. True- he wasn't at the top of my "must be toppled" list, but at least it would have been one fewer of the bastards to moan about. Use the opportunity to kick one of the vermin out and then try to persuade people to do something about the others

So why should anyone care? Well it's proof that even a wooly liberal can be won over, and there's nothing more dangerous than a liberal in a righteous irie. Get a liberal fighting mad, and he'll not only be ready to maim you but he'll be 100% convinced that every decent and thoughtful human being will back him to the hilt.

Anyway, that's enough from me. What do you think?

	12-09-2002 22:22									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think that no one has told me why the US has any business interfering with sovereign nations in the Middle East.

	12-09-2002 22:36									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, I consider myself fairly liberal, although maybe not as much as you. Personally, I don't support attacking Iraq for 3 main reasons:

1. There is no evidence Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks in NY (I'm getting sick of saying Sept. 11), therefore, I find US justification for attacking Iraq nonexistant. Which leads nicely into ....

2. An attack is kinda hypocritical, if you ask me. Now, don't misunderstand me - I think Saddam Hussein is a horrible dictator and that the Iraqi people would be better off without him (which point I need to clarify, so see #4), but he's really no different from dozens of other dictators around the globe which the west seems perfectly happy to do nothing about, or even prop up. As for this whole weapons of mass destruction thing, I have a problem with the "he's shown a willingness to use them before" stance. Let's see, he's used them against Iran, a conflict largely supported by west, where he certainly drew no serious flak. He's also used them against the Kurds, but I don't see this as much worse than just going in a slaughtering them with conventional weapons, as has been done to ethic minorties around the globe. Now PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't think that I'm saying killing Kurds is justified, because I ain't. He hasn't used them against anyone where he knows he'll get a serious response, ie. the US or Israel.

3. An attack against Iraq, unless fully sanctioned by the UN (which, as we know, is virtually impossible) is going to raise the ire of the entire Arab world, and the general situation is going to get a whole lot worse than it is now.

4. What is going to follow Saddam? If it truly is a free, democratic government, than this point is moot. However, there are two problems with this. First, the only way that can happen is if the US occupies the country with a sizeable force for a LONG time, and I doubt they have the stomach for that. Second, a truly democratic Iraq could well elect an anti-western government, and it's unlikely the US would allow that. Any other alternative may not prove to be better for the Iraqi people anyway.

Interestingly, I feel almost the exact opposite way about the first Gulf War as you. I have no illusions that oil was anything less than the driving motivation behind western action, but if you think about what happened, it's hard to really be against it. Iraq invaded an independent, fully-recognized country. The UN universally condemned the invasion, put sanctions in place, and authorized the use of force to back them up if Iraq did not withdraw. When the actual shooting started, Iraqi forces were driven out of Kuwait, but Iraq itself was not invaded (not anymore than to fight the Iraqi military, anyway). The end result was a hostile invasion of an independent country was reversed with nearly full world support. I don't think you can really fault that action, despite any economic interest that underlay it.

	12-09-2002 22:41									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I think that no one has told me why the US has any business interfering with sovereign nations in the Middle East.

Self defence?

Like it or not, its still a dog-eat-dog world. If the US believes Saddam to be an increasing threat, then they have every right to strike first.

	12-09-2002 22:42									#5
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I think that no one has told me why the US has any business interfering with sovereign nations in the Middle East.

Well, it definitely has interests in ME oil. Now, whether or not you think that it's justified is another matter, but don't delude yourself that the US and world economies are not heavily dependent on ME oil.

	12-09-2002 22:43									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Well, it definitely has interests in ME oil.

Europe should be the main hawks then.

	12-09-2002 22:47									#7
	Put an end to popups!

I myself am a radical humanist, which puts me in many affairs far to the left, in others to the center.

I have been arguing against Bush's war in Iraq not because i think war is inherently bad, or because I think that if we don't attack every dictator, we should attack any (that kind of thinking i deeply flawed). My problem is that Bush is going to war for the wrong reasons, and selling a ridiculous argument about Saddam and terrorists. Today at the UN he finally made, partly, the right argument against Saddam, which is, that he is in violation of binding Security council resolutions.

NOw, so are other states, but again, to make the UN sec council count, one has to enforce what one can- not decide not to enforce any Sec council resolution cause some states have friend on the council.

The valid reason to go to war in Iraq is to force the government to follow the dictates of the UN security council. Now, this is different from what Bush wants: In the fist scenerio, if one invades and Forces a Saddam regime to say OK, then you have won, got the inspectors in, had the resolutions followed. Bush wants a different aim, in which the government is destroyed and a new one formed- this is NOT part of enforcing resolutions- this is going beyond to meddling into the political affairs of a state that don't apply to external matters, something the UN is not designed to do, and sovereign states are not supposed to do.

Now, I am not particularly interested in state sovereignty: I would not mind the US lossing its soverignty when it comes to a whole host of issues. I also don't care for Saddam Hussein, and would not care to see him go. What this administration has failed utterly in is articualting anything more than the most vague vision for Iraq after, which is the most important thing of all. How will the US help reate a stable, and perhaps democratic regime, help avoid fighting between factions, halp grat legitimacy to the government so it will not be seen as a US imposed one, which will mean an eventual death sentece on the regime. The day after and beyond is the hard part, and Bush has shown no vision for it. until he does, the tanks should stay at home, becuase otherwise we might be worse of than before.

	12-09-2002 22:47									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

BTW, who does top your "must be toppled" list Bugs?

	12-09-2002 22:53									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Cal,

quote: Self defence?

How so?

quote: Like it or not, its still a dog-eat-dog world. If the US believes Saddam to be an increasing threat, then they have every right to strike first.

Look at it the other way. Saddam views the US to be an increasing threat to Iraq, so shouldn't he have the right to strike first against us?
That's what happens when you throw morals out the window.

Kontiki,

quote: Well, it definitely has interests in ME oil. Now, whether or not you think that it's justified is another matter, but don't delude yourself that the US and world economies are not heavily dependent on ME oil.

Of course there's the minor point that the oil is in no way ours.

	12-09-2002 22:53									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

Mugabe tops mine.

	12-09-2002 22:57									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Kontiki, Of course there's the minor point that the oil is in no way ours.

I don't dispute that, which is why I said "whether or not you think that it's justified is another matter". I'm merely pointing out why the US gets involved in the ME.

	12-09-2002 22:59									#12
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd How so?

The US knows Iraq is its enemy, so before Iraq gets too strong, the US takes it out. Fair enough IMO.

quote: Look at it the other way. Saddam views the US to be an increasing threat to Iraq, so shouldn't he have the right to strike first against us?

Sure, and he would if he could.

quote: That's what happens when you throw morals out the window.

You think its 'immoral' to attack Iraq?

	12-09-2002 23:00									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Europe should be the main hawks then.

Why? Just because Europe is heavily dependent on ME oil doesn't mean they should back an attack against Iraq. It's called seeing more than one way to resolve a dispute.

	12-09-2002 23:29									#14
	Put an end to popups!

I have no problems with a war in Iraq, provided our politicians have the diplomatic backbone to do the right thing after Saddam is deposed. Which ain't bloody likely.

	12-09-2002 23:32									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Why? Just because Europe is heavily dependent on ME oil doesn't mean they should back an attack against Iraq. It's called seeing more than one way to resolve a dispute.

Yes, just like the Euros have always done: appeasing the aggressors and blaming their allies.

	12-09-2002 23:39									#16
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless Yes, just like the Euros have always done: appeasing the aggressors and blaming their allies.

I'm sorry, I must have missed when Iraq attacked or threatened to attack someone post-Gulf War.

	12-09-2002 23:42									#17
	Remove this text

I was going to spill out what I felt but changed my mind.


I am comming to the realization that it doesant really matter what I say and think.

kinda like voices lost in the wind.

	12-09-2002 23:44									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I'm sorry, I must have missed when Iraq attacked or threatened to attack someone post-Gulf War.

So you were not talking about the last Gulf War?

	12-09-2002 23:55									#19
	Get a bigger avatar today!

In the past few days, my opinion of war with Iraq has shifted to ALMOST that of Ron. I still feel that the US and Britain should not go it alone, and should have the support of the UN, and I would also say that if UN inspectors can be allowed back in, that is the best option.

	13-09-2002 00:01									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless So you were not talking about the last Gulf War?

Not in that particular instance. I was responding to DD when he said that Europe should be the main hawks. I assumed he was referring to attacking Iraq now.

	13-09-2002 00:02									#21
	Re: Should we fight? A liberal's view. Increase Your PM Length

I('m dead tired so sorry if I didn't read all of it.

But that

quote: Originally posted by Ron Jeremy However I hate dictators with a venom that borders on the psychotic.

is a very good attitude

	13-09-2002 00:06									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How many more Iraqis need to die for your enjoyment?

	13-09-2002 00:09									#23
	Got spare money?

i guess i'm the exact opposite of laz, i was for for the falklands (well i would have been if it wasn't 2 years before my birth..) and the gulf war. in the first case british territory was invaded, the people there were british and wanted to remain so, what objection people could of had to protecting what was ours is beyond me, but there you go. the second case was the international community protecting a weaker nation from the aggression of a stronger one.

option #1 is not like the 1930s, saddam tried to take his czechoslovakia and was given a bloody nose for his trouble by us.

for me it comes down to: is iraq a threat to britain (or america)?

and well, it looks like it isn't. to say that iraq sponsors terrorism is arguable at best, there hasn't been any real evidence to link iraq with 9-11, how many of the hijackers came from iraq (0) and how many from saudi arabia (15).

the second thing seems to be weapons of mass destruction. again, seems to be arguable at best, the much hyped report that was going prove that the iraqis had been naughty was really a damp squib, there was no 'smoking gun' and most of the stuff in there was already known.

there is no real evidence that saddam is a threat to the us or britain and until there is i wouldn't support invading iraq.

	13-09-2002 00:13									#24
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara How many more Iraqis need to die for your enjoyment?

Come on Che, that's a horrible statement. I highly doubt that any of us enjoy the deaths of innocent civilians, and your suggestion of it is offensive.

	13-09-2002 00:18									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yep, EF. Especially Laz, who happens to hate killing of innocent civilians in any manner.

	13-09-2002 00:20									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yep, EF. Especially Laz, who happens to hate killing of innocent civilians in any manner.

Ok, any SANE poster, of which Ron certainly is one of which he is certainly one...

	13-09-2002 00:25									#27
	Remove this text

I'd like to see more of the evidence that Hussein is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction or harboring / collaborating with al-Qeada.

	13-09-2002 00:28									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Absolutely opposed to it

Our leaders talk talk talk about freedom and equality and liberal democratic governments, but when it's time to practice what we preach we throw it out the window because it doesn't apply.

If we want nations to do the right thing we should quit preaching and start leading by example. The only thing this war will accomplish is a heightened hatred for the United States in a part of the world that we desparately need to view us more favorably. If we would just step back and let the middle east figure things out for themselves, they'd eventually concentrate on their internal problems rather than their disgust with US-Britain treatment of the region...not only our undying support of Israel, but how we treat them as our 'oil *****'.

To compare Modern Iraq to 1930s Germany is laughable at best. He's too smart to do something large scale with what little he has, and more importantly, it is not our place to decide who may have what. Sure, you get nations like Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran...but where do we draw the line? Could we consider Egypt a rogue state, or Turkey? Pakistan, India? What about France?

There is absolutely no reason to invade Iraq, and there was no reason to support Kuwait in the Gulf War either, but at very least we were able to point to a smoking gun.

I would lose any scrap of national pride I have for my country if the United States were to strike first with popular support.

	13-09-2002 00:33									#29
	Suffering from ads?

quote: there was no reason to support Kuwait in the Gulf War either, but at very least we were able to point to a smoking gun.

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. No reason to support Kuwait? I guess Iraq's waging of an agressive war against another state in blatant violation of international law doesn't qualify as a reason to you...

	13-09-2002 00:36									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by orange What about France?

See my other post

quote: I would lose any scrap of national pride I have for my country if the United States were to strike first with popular support.

What about with UN support?