Questions for the "Doves"

B

binaryDigit

Registered
OK, most of the threads are focusing so much on the "US bad/good War bad/good" that those who believe the war should not happen really don't have an opportunity to expouse anything deeper. Hopefully this thread will help.

So, my questions are.

1. Many people who are against the war do not believe that Saddam has done enough "wrong" to warrant such an action against him and his people. How would YOU act to "encourage" Saddam to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction (assuming you don't already believe he has).

2. Is there a point that his treatment of his own peoples becomes bad enough to warrant some type of action, and if so, what type (other than war).

3. If conclusive evidence points to his continuing aiding and abetting of terrorists and their activities, what, if anything should be done?

4. If there is no enforceable way (short of war) to compel Saddam to eliminate/stop production of WOMD, should the UN drop it's resolutions to disarm Iraq?

5. If you said Yes to 4, is there a point where any arms buildup by Iraq warrants some type of action (war or otherwise) to keep such actions in check?

6. Bush said that this action can be avoided if Saddam leaves Iraq. Does Saddam now shoulder extra responsibility to avoid bloodshed by giving up power. If/when war does start, does Saddam bear any EXTRA culpability due to his inaction?

Basically the questions are, what would you do. What type of "peaceful" actions do you see as being effective. Or do you believe that _anything_ should be done (i.e. if he isn't invading anyone, just leave him alone).

(Here you go toast and EdX, lay it on us ;) )
 
1. Due to the November resolution, Saddam was beginning to disarm, slowly, ever so slowly and with protestations of Iraqi innocence. But it was working up until yesterday. I think that the process should have been allowed to continue. The US has not been able to prove that Iraq actually possesses WMD. Kennedy was able to find a solution to the Cuban missile crisis that did not end in a war.

2. That is a very tough question and one that the US should not be allowed to answer. We have invaded Serbia but not northern Ireland. We have invaded Somalia but not Rwanda. We have invaded Korea and Vietnam but not Tibet or Indonesia. Either we become the policeman for all the world's downtrodden or we work through the UN but we don't cherrypick based on economics and need I say it, oil.

3. If there is one thing that just pisses me off to no end it is this kind of supposition. Nobody has been able to prove that Al Qaeda has been funded by Sadddam. Once again, most people fail to realize that Iraq is a secular country, one not ruled by religious extremists. Al Qaeda is a religious based terrorist organization. To link the two would be like trying to link the US Green party to Rush Limbaugh. Just because they are all Muslims does not automatically qualify them as bedfellows.

I am not saying that Saddam doesn't fund terrorism, I'm only saying that there no link has been found between him and Al Qaeda.

Where did the majority of the hijackers come from? Saudi Arabia. Where has the money come from? Saudi Arabia. What country did Osama come from? Saudi Arabia. Based on Saudi Arabia's numerous links to terrorism, don't you think that your question should be directed at the Saudis?

4. Your question presupposes that war is a solution.

5. I still can't figure out # 4 but I'll try to answer 5 as though it stands on its own. First of all Saddam can't make all those weapons on his own. He needs things brought in from outside his borders. That means we need to penalize those who have supplied him with the materials for WMD. Next, we need to enforce the oil for food program and the only way to do that would be to limit what is imported and exported from Iraq.

The only way to stop a wound from bleeding is to apply continual pressure. The pressure needs to be maintained for as long as necessary. War is never the answer.
 
Originally posted by Ugg
1. Kennedy was able to find a solution to the Cuban missile crisis that did not end in a war.
Click to expand...

He did so by staring them down. His solution was a "peaceful" one in that Kruschev backed down. Had he not done so (as Saddam is refusing to do), we may not be here now debating this issue. Of course the scope and the scale are completely different (we hope).

3. If there is one thing that just pisses me off to no end it is this kind of supposition.
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't state it very clearly. I said IF the connection were conclusive.

4. Your question presupposes that war is a solution.
Click to expand...

I didn't think so. The question was geared towards asking how the UN could give some teeth to their resolution. You mentioned in your answer to question 1 that he was starting to comply, slowly. But what lead to this action, it was the threat of war. The question is then, what other than the threat of war could be done.

The only way to stop a wound from bleeding is to apply continual pressure. The pressure needs to be maintained for as long as necessary. War is never the answer.
Click to expand...

Unless the wound is bad/large enough, in which case some other measure is called for. One of which involves the suturing of the wound, with is an invasive process that introduces a foreign object and causes small minature wounds to help heal the larger one.
 
BinaryDigit, first of all, thank you very much for this thread. I couldn't launch it myself, some people would have interpreted it wrong :rolleyes:.

1. I think Saddam Hussein is still holding some of his WMD. I also think he should be disarmed. But:

- I don't think disarmament is such an emergency that a war can be justified. I don't think war would disarm Iraq properly anyway.

- I am convinced we [as Western countries]_know better way to inflect policies (such as Iraq's defense policies) than by armed aggression. For example, we know how to use economical aggression. South Africa or ex-USSR are places where we successfully disarmed populations and/or states without sending Patriot missiles.

Hence, I believe we can disarm without using the bombs we would like Iraq to ive up with.

2. Saddam is brutal with his people. But many other countries are ! The Freedom House website may help you realizing that peoples' conditions are far worse in North Korea, in Turkmenistan, and in many other places than in Iraq.

Moreover, nation-states are responsible for what they do. And what they do is none of our business. This principle is called 'non-ingerence': we should not meddle in other politics. This policy started with Wilson's 14 Points: "peoples are free to dispose of themselves."

It is now knowing some limits: the UN are developing a new conception: 'duty of ingerence'. In some cases (Chechnya, Ex-Yougoslavia, Kosovo), we should act. But there is a condition to duty of ingerence: the will to act must be multilateral. It must be agreed, within the UN, that something must be done. This decision cannot be taken by one sole country (US), or even by two (UK) or three (...). It must be voted, democratically chosen by this world orgnism called UN which is supposed to make the world a right place by 'protecting the weak' and 'aplying democracy to international relations' (ref. to UN chart).

The USA are not acting within those terms. Hence, their action is totally illigetimate.

3. There is no "conclusive evidence point(ing) to [Saddam's] continuing aiding and abetting of terrorists and their activities. Iraq is not a terrorist state. I have explained this more than once.

4. The UN should never drop its resolution 1441. The UN is able to make Iraq cooperate. The UN already succeeded in making Stalin or Mao cooperate. Saddam will too. It is only a question of time, and I mean 'years' by 'time'.

5. I am not a pacifist. I understand war and support it... in very VERY little occasions. In some countries (many of them being located in Africa and Central Asia), war is the only way to move things. Why ? Because some countries are still stuck in such a primitive form of political regime that war is still a means for them.

This is not our case. Democratic societies should not make war. Democracies don't make war to each other, because they consider it as an obsolete means to reach such or such objective. War is primitive, and thus still useable in some primitive forms of states (hey, watch it, the state is primitive, not the people ! :rolleyes:). I can elaborate more on this complex point if asked.

6. As Saddam Hussein's interest are not his people but America's discredit and attack by terrorist groups, he will stay in his country to provoke Bush, to ensure the US lose all legitimity and credit on the international scene, and to be sure some terrorists will react to the fact he's bombing brave Muslim people... I know, this sounds cruel, it is. Saddam is not mad, he's cruel. That's different. Hence, he'll stay, as he declared.

For my own, I support defensive forms of aggression. It is legitimate to my eyes to send bombs on Al Qaeda centers. It is legitimate to bomb Japan after Pearl Harbour.
But wait for Pearl Harbour to happen is another challenge Bush did not win. He's attacking first. 9/11 is not revendicated by the Iraq state. There is no reason for attacking Iraq, although this could change some day.

This is what I would do. Exerce maximum economic pressure on Iraqi partners to persuade them to cut military aid to Iraq, so that Iraq cannot build nor renew its WMD. And finally, Iraq will be disarmed. Now, who are those Iraqi partners ? Hm... Let's think about it... ;)
 
1) i find this one of the great ironies of the whole affair - that Bush was elected primarily because he did not support gun control as Gore did. As far as Bush is concerned we could all be toting handguns and be armed to kill our neighbor everytime we leave the house. but let some little country all the way around the world attempt to arm itself so as not to be an easy target for it's neighbors, and that's wrong. How many other countries in the world have weapons of mass destruction and we've never attempted to invade them for simply owning them? there is a big difference between having something and using it. and if you say otherwise here, then you need to vote for tighter gun controls in our own country. but the people who are most supportive of Bush in all this are the same ones who would never give up their own weapons. outside of that, i say inspect the h311 out of him. let the UN decisions stand.


2) I often think we get caught up in confusing our own values with those of other cultures. I sincerely doubt that anyone who is hated by the majority of his own people could stay in power for so long. There will always be dissenters. The US has a history of joining fights on the side of the minority when it serves our best economic interests. i also doubt that you would find our own history of treatment of those we disagree with to be exceptionally humanitarian when dealing with them somewhere other than on our own soil. Our CIA is not exactly a humans rights organization. Of course i deploy the violation of human rights where ever they may exist, but i tend to believe that peaceful revolt is a better solution. It worked for Ghandi, it can work other places as well.


3) as i have said before - show me the evidence. don't hint about it. don't make vague references to muslim alliances. prove it. if saddam is connected to 9/11 and continuing terrorists attacks around the world, show me how. i think the world would stand united against him then. i still wouldn't want war, but at least i could understand it.

4. see point #1

5. at the point they become the agressors and use them in a first strike. our ability to bomb him into oblivion is not going away.


6) i keep wondering where saddam is suppossed to go. is he just suppossed to get on a plane to switzerland or france and this will all be over?
i think you need to examine the reasonableness of this demand. let's go back to my gun control example. suppose i decide that i don't feel safe with someone living next door to me who has a large gun collection. i'm also not real fond of the fact they send their kids to military school and treat their wife like a doormat. so i threaten them to either give up all their guns or leave their home or else i will poison them and their family. would i be right? justified? if that neighbor was you, which of my choices would you find reasonable?

Basically the questions are, what would you do. What type of "peaceful" actions do you see as being effective. Or do you believe that _anything_ should be done (i.e. if he isn't invading anyone, just leave him alone).
Click to expand...

there is no more powerful weapon than money. i would suggest we impose economic sanctions against iraq. let's stop supporting his actions with our money. let's stop buying iraq's oil. let's put an end to supplying him with food and medical supplies. i would glady pay more at the pump to take this approach.

but Bush can't consider this because it would hurt our economy as well in the short run. better to go kill off some of our young men than keep granny from being able to afford to go to her bingo nite.
 
Am I a troll?

Woohhooo! We are going to war.

I pray Sadam doesn't have WMD to use on our troops... or if he does, he doesn't use them. But, getting rid of Sadam is a step in the right direction...

Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet..

The thing is folks... what is to come... is already known and will happen on it's time schedule... although we are free to make our own decisions, God already knows the decisions we will make.
 
1. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a villain, but he is no more than a figurehead for the US to attack. There are countries with worse human rights abuses, that pose a far greater threat to peace. For instance, Saudi Arabia ... 13 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks were Saudis.
So one has to ask why the US is going after Saddam. I seriously doubt that the US cares one iota about the welfare of the Iraqi people.

I'm sure this is a war about oil.

Before the US war machine started rolling into action, the UN were actually discussing lifting the sanctions against Iraq, provided Iraq agreed to weapons inspections.

Iraq seemed to be willing to work with this idea, and they began negotiation to sell their oil to the Russians, French and Germans. They refused to even let US oil companies bid.
Most of the white house senior staff recieved huge campaign contributions from oil companies. Cheney and Rumsfeld both served as CEO's for oil companies.

If the US could control Iraqi oil, it would reduce the cost of buying oil from the middle east by as much as half.

2. That is a decision for the UN to make. But as I've said, I don't think the US government gives a toss about the welfare of the Iraqi people.

3. Saddam has been aiding and abbetting Palestinian terrorists in their strikes against Israel. However, he has had no dealings with Al Qaeda, and in fact Osama Bin Laden considers him an enemy because he runs a secular government.
Like I said, he's a villain. And he needs to answer to the UN. And, as I said, I don't think the US is motivated out of any concern for the Iraqi people, but for Iraqi oil.

4. That's what UNMOVIC and the trade sanctions are for. It is, as you say, an enforcable way to stop the production of WOMD. The US stance has prevented the disarmament of Iraq, and disrupted the inspection process.
Have you stopped to consider that the US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has been the only nation to use nuclear bombs against civilian population, routinely uses radioactive depleted uranium shells, has the largest conventional weapons ever produced, and employs them to "psychological effect", routinely interferes with government and union processes aroud the world, produces most of the world's weapons and sells them to warring nations, and has the ability to launch a missile strike on any place on earth instantly.
Iraq, on the other hand, has been ordered to destroy its stocks of Al Sammud missiles which carry a conventional warhead only 170km, 20km more than what the UN has allowed them to possess.
Needless to say, I fear the US more than I fear Iraq.

6. The US knows Saddam and his sons will not leave voluntarily. This is just another tactic to try and justify a war.


The bottom line, though, is that this is a war that has been pushed by people who stand to profit from it. The questions you have posed assume that the war is a solution to a problem, and the problem is Saddam Hussein. I don't believe this is the case.
 
i keep wondering where saddam is suppossed to go. is he just suppossed to get on a plane to switzerland or france and this will all be over?

[not to be taken too serious]you'll laugh but that's actually what a politician from my home province in Switzerland suggested - as a joke, of course... that was about 2 months ago. He suggested that our province (Valais) should offer him a place in a small mountain village (notably a place where they had quite desastrous land slidings in recent years). My younger brother (a founding member of the local young socialists) was interviewed by the Swiss French TV station on a peace rally soon after that and he said that Saddam would probably feel at home in our region since we have some industries he's familiar with (a large chemical industry plant is the largest employer in the region) :D [/not to be taken too serious]
 
i would guess he would also be close to a lot of his money. i assure you, my question was only half joking as well. but i'm not seeing him deal with the winters very well though. :p
 
The Swiss winter is mild compared to the Canadian winter as I had to realize in the last two and a half months I have spent in Toronto...and Toronto is not even representative for the real Canadian winter :)
 
Dunno about the political intricacies, but it's clear that the road to peace was not as effective as hoped.

After all, "disarming while protesting innocence" is akin to using a Windows PC but claiming that your boss made you do it... the fact is either you did or you didn't and it's time to face the music.

Reports now say that "Saddam has given his field-level commanders the power to use chemical weapons, without instruction from the leadership"... kinda makes you wonder what the Doves will say about the weapons once they get leveled at our own... "gee, well he was forced to use them..."???
 
Let's face it, this is Saddam's last stand. He has shown in the past by invading Iran and Kuwait that he doesn't really care what his neighbors think about him. We also know that he along with the Turks are doing everything they can to commit genocide against the Kurds.

If Saddam survives he'll be locked away for a long long time. I think he's going to go out in a blaze of glory, he doesn't care about his own people. He wants to see Israel flattened, and I'm sure that he's going to make sure that as many Americans are killed as possible. If the peace process were allowed to continue would the same result have happened? Maybe, maybe not, but he probably would have destroyed a few more weapons, which could only mean that there would have been fewer to level at our own. How many thousands or millions are going to die because GW didn't show any restraint or patience?
 
It's just as well we have this forum to straighten things out ... after all, we know for a fact that George Dubbaya drops by here every couple of days to see what the Mac community has to say about his decisions. ;-)
 
GW probably stops by every other day to figure out his permissions. his mac is probably the only thing in the world he needs permission for. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, I'm sure he hasn't allowed a lil' ole computer to force him to say please. I could probably forgive him a lot if I could see him on here asking what to do when his colonel panics :) We can always hope I guess!
 
Guess France is changing their tune... hypothetically speaking, that is.

When asked why the situation would change matters, Levitte said that "no army is allowed by treaties to use chemical and biological weapons. This is absolutely forbidden and if Saddam Hussein were to use these weapons then he would a create a completely new situation for the whole world."

Honestly, if Saddam knew his game was up, I don't think he would have gone quietly, peace process or not...

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Posted: 10:24 AM EST (1524 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.chemical/index.html

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Posted: 1:50 PM EST (1850 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.france.chemicals/index.html
 
The USA and France stay allies, whatever happens and whatever the efforts of anti-French people to make it sound impossible.

The US planes will be able to fly over French territory, for example. We [as French people] cannot refuse this right to the USA.

Note, however, that this decision has been taken very long ago by French authorities. Nothing new.
 
Also, it seems to me that the French aren't saying anything like: "We will never again work together with the US, if..." However, the US put it this way: "You're either with or against us."

Quite stubborn, the latter.
 
Originally posted by fryke
Also, it seems to me that the French aren't saying anything like: "We will never again work together with the US, if..." However, the US put it this way: "You're either with or against us.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't see any Americans destroying a French owned franchise like the French did to the McDonalds last year.

It just seems like this anti-pro war discussion is starting to become nasty (especially on this site) on the personal level. Just because our governments are acting like children doesn't mean we have to act way.
 
McDonalds around the world have always been the prime targets when people get mad at the US. I wonder if there are any statistics showing how many non us McDonalds have suffered damage due to anti-us sentiment.

Americans tend to vote with their pocketbooks and there have been any number of people in the US stating that they will no longer buy french cheese, german leather, etc. All these actions are childish.

The fact that McDonalds has had their first loss ever last year and closed a number of foreign franchises is of significance. After the war will the anti-americans vote with their pocketbook? If so, our economy will really take a hit and when it comes right down to it, it is all about money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top