As an un-objective writer (I admit it - it's hard to be objective when inundated with the US media/POV everyday), I'm fully behind our President in whatever course our country (and its allies) takes with Iraq. It's easy for me to say that, since it will have relatively little impact on me, personally (though I may pay more for gas and my stocks may take a hit). I've said it before: I believe our leaders are operating on a greater knowledge of world affairs than I, and their decisions are just and right.
It would be great to have an unified stance on Iraq from the rest of the world, but that will never happen (try to get a room full of your friends to agree on political/religious matters).
The conservative talk shows here are quick to point out that France & Germany aren't falling into line because of power/money issues, but can you blame them for looking out for themselves? The US is currently doing that, too.
I do, however, find disturbing the report I heard (again, on a conservative talk show) that France shared UN Inspection plans with Iraq Intelligence in order to ensure their investment in Iraq-based businesses and contracts would continue to be solvent. One country should not undermine a world-unified initiative, especially one to disarm a dangerous regime.
So peace is great. Anti-war demonstrations are great, too - they show that people should be allowed the right to self-expression and that they provoke our leaders to fully consider the ramifications of their decisions.
But evil should not go unchecked.
Jason
I'd like to believe so as well. Those in power should have a greater perspective through through better information. Why can't they pass along this insight, though? Logical arguments stand by themselves. If there's a logical argument for the invasion of Iraq, then why isn't THAT the message being pushed by the White House?I believe our leaders are operating on a greater knowledge of world affairs than I, and their decisions are just and right.
If, during one of their daily press conferences, they said, "American people, here is evidence that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions and International Law."-- such as Colon Powell attempted at the UN last week-- "It is our duty as members of the United Nations to enter Iraq and put them back in compliance." then I'd be satistified.
Now, I realize that international law is very much in its infancy, and that there's much it doesn't cover yet, but wouldn't it be better to develop it through intellectual debate than disregard it totally?
Yeah, but should we be ready to go to war over a political/religious matter?It would be great to have an unified stance on Iraq from the rest of the world, but that will never happen (try to get a room full of your friends to agree on political/religious matters).
Okay, that was a bit more long winded than I meant to be. Thanks for providing the forum!
-nyquist
Re: Peace is not always the answer
Purdy on 2003-02-10T21:56:17
Why can't they pass along this insight, though?
I've heard it said that it's because most of our intel comes from sources that upon divulgence of the intel would compromise the source. Kind of self-deflecting, but I agree that it would be much more satisfactory to have the "smoking gun" and photos of it. I just don't see a photo op with Saddam striking a pose next to some dirty nukes or something like that.
...should we be ready to go to war over a political/religious matter?
History has shown that (all?) wars start on political/religious matters. The Civil War, WW1/2, Korean, Vietnam were political by nature. Crusades were religious. I, too, hope that humanity would rise above the solution (last resort) of war as an ends to a conflict.
We have leaders who are so focused on their goals, no matter the costs, that peace is overlooked.
Iraq has shown that it will not comply with UN resolutions unless forced or threatened. Things have escalated so highly, that the only threat left is war.
I am scared of the reprocussions of a war (though that link is merely a game/scenario - but thought-provoking, nonetheless).
If (or when) we go to war with Iraq, the US will prevail, but the "war" will not be over. It's like solving a conflict between two fighting brothers by taking away their weapons. You have stopped the conflict, but you haven't solved anything. The same bitterness lies beneath, fuming and waiting until they can get their hands on weapons again.
This conflict will not be solved by peace, at least initially.
How will history regard our century? We're just getting warmed up.
JasonRe: Peace is not always the answer
nyquist on 2003-02-11T21:23:23
Yeah, I've heard that too. Accepting that that might be the case, I'd think that we could share it with leaders in France and Germany, though. If there were convincing evidence, I'd expect them to be... well... convinced.I've heard it said that it's because most of our intel comes from sources that upon divulgence of the intel would compromise the source. Kind of self-deflecting, but I agree that it would be much more satisfactory to have the "smoking gun" and photos of it.Of course, it might be that there isn't convincing, smoking gun-style evidence, but just a lot of circumstantial evidence. Even then though, if there's enough of it to convince Washington, there should be enough to convince other allies.
Man, it's hard to argue a case either way when you're just going on the reactions of others and not the actual information.
:/ Yeah, I guess there really isn't much of a distinction between "forced disarmament" and "war". The latter is just a means to achieve the former. I'd feel a lot better about it if it were a UN mandate, though. Still feels like we're violating that ethereal "international law."Iraq has shown that it will not comply with UN resolutions unless forced or threatened. Things have escalated so highly, that the only threat left is war.Yeah, I'm glad it's getting as much coverage as it is. No one's been providing any "what-if" scenarios. I think most people think that we're just going to go in, clean up the place, and leave.I am scared of the reprocussions [idleworm.com] of a war (though that link is merely a game/scenario - but thought-provoking, nonetheless).-nyquist
After giving a feather-slap to Microsoft's wrist for criminal misuse of monopoly power, and extending the Mouse's copyright beyond my likely lifetime; I find it difficult to believe that any policy puts just and right on the priority list - it is what is best for General's Bullmoose and Bullwinkle? that is clearly of the highest concern.
Re:but to what purposes is the knowledge applied?
Purdy on 2003-02-10T22:12:11
Welcome to the US/American way: capitalism & democracy - where the dollar is king and we the people have the power to change things, if we have money to throw at the people we put in power (see all the loops in there?).
You bring up two domestic issues that most of us agree were mishandled, and there are likely more. You could also add historical international issues (Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs Invasion, etc). "Just and right" are subjective to those that hand down the decisions that affect the issues, but probably more so to those that observe and judge those decisions. It sure is easy to be the backseat driver when the weight of the world isn't on your shoulders and you don't have all of the information available (or your information is biased by the provider of the information you do have).
I can't say anything to reassure you, except you have the power to affect policies by your willingness to gather groups of voters and communicate with your representatives.
Jason
Any weapons that Iraq has were sold to them by the US, and the UK, or given freely - remember Donald Rusmfield was still giving Iraq weapons just before the last gulf war.
The reason we are going to war is to protect our interests in kuwait (not democratic) and isreal (a racist military state in contravention of UN resolutions).
If this was really about the UN being taken seriously then China would be taken to task about its occupation of Tibet and Isreal would be held to account for its breaches of UN resolutions and war crimes.
If this was really about terrorism then Saudi Arabia would be the target.
