I've been rather tightlipped around here about my war position. Actually, I'm rather tightlipped everywhere about my position, even among my closest acquaintances. I've started to feel a need to declare myself.
Let it be known that I am a pacifist. Specifically, my pacifist beliefs come from my belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His standard of priorities for my fellow man. I think in practice a similar position could be derived on philosophical grounds alone, but my beliefs are colored extraordinarily with religious overtones. I've never considered all the particulars, but in general I do not believe in personally taking lethal action against another human being. I do believe in non-lethal force where necessary for defense, and I cannot say what I might do if subjected to immediate danger to myself or my family.
Oh, and I recognize that my belief does not work. If an entire country converted to my way of thinking, they would be overrun in a minute. Not fighting back against those who want to hurt you often results in your death. It did for my Religious Leader. This is not a practical belief; it's solely ideological. But as everyone here knows, I'm quite the ideological type. :)
I'm familiar with all the arguments from the Jewish and Christian Bibles. None seems to be conclusive. Talk radio hosts around here vilify everyone who stands against war on religious grounds, and that still hasn't dissuaded me, so if someone thinks they'd like to change my mind in that way, they'll probably meet with a resounding silence. Nevertheless, I am quite familiar with the reasons why people hold to the opposing view, and I have respect for their viewpoint.
Most people agree that certain types of war are sometimes justified. I agree, too. I am not a pacifist because I believe war is never justified; I am a pacifist because I believe one must hold to a selfless standard when it comes to the lives of others. World War II is the classic example of a just war; practically everyone would agree on it. Every war since, though, seems to be hotly debated. :)
The issues in this war are quite clouded. I think basically, those who think war is just and necessary here follow this reasoning: Saddam Houssein has demonstrated his desire and capability to create weapons that could seriously threaten the United States with catastrophic loss of life, he has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life, an irrationality that would make a cold-war style balance of power standoff unstable, and the attacks on September 11 demonstated the possible catastrophic loss of life that can occur again if such powers go unchecked. Therefore, such people feel disarming Saddam Houssein (taking away all of his weapons, including physical weapons, the country and army he leads, and likely his very life) is the moral equivalent of taking away the weapons of someone who wants to kill you in an alley. There are side issues that pop up and cloud things, some good and some bad. The liberation of Iraq from a mad dictator and the price of oil are both side issues. While I personally would not participate in the war, while I cannot support it, I cannot say that this reasoning is illogical or immoral.
So here's the whole point of my posting this: most of what I've heard from the anti-war crowd is bunk. There may be some who have intelligent reasons for opposing the war, but by banding together (the enemy of my enemy is my friend?) only the lowest common denominator message is coming through: this war is wrong because America is a bunch of imperialists bent on taking over the world, and because George W. Bush is an idiot. That's just about all I'm hearing from the anti-war crowd, and neither of those assertions have any basis in fact. America's not threatening France, for crying out loud! America's threating people who want to destroy it. George Bush may not be able to say "nuclear" (Yes, that bothers me, too, and I love the man), but he is a very capable and intelligent leader, and he is interested in the safety of his country.
To sum up, all I can tell from the anti-war crowd is that France hates us. And many people from Britain and the rest of Europe, and, in fact, many people from my own country. It may not be what you're trying to say, but all I'm hearing is that you don't like us. If I didn't know better, and if I liked to make outlandish hyperbolic statements, I'd speculate as to whether some didn't think it'd be better if Saddam did succeed in causing catastrophic loss of American life.
There's plenty of intelligent reasons for opposing the war. I'm certain plenty of them are held in the anti-war crowd, too, and probably particularly on this site. But they're not coming through. Any intelligent argument is going to have to start with an intelligent understanding of the other side, though. The people who are pushing for war don't want war for it's own sake, and they are not idiots. They have intelligent reasons for their position that need to be addressed.
If preemptive strikes are wrong, say so clearly. Say this war would be wrong because it is a preemptive strike, and we have never done that before. If some war is just but this one is not, state your standards and how they apply to this situtation. When, specifically, would action against Iraq be appropriate? It becomes clear listening to many people that they want to make people happy by saying military action is appropriate in some circumstances, but they would never agree that those circumstances have arrived.
Quit saying America is imperialist, and quit saying Bush is stupid, and quit letting yourself be bunched in with the masses who do. Get your real message out. America may want to force their copyright laws on the world, but they aren't looking for conquest. You know it. Don't dilute your message by screaming such irrational falsehoods at the top of your lungs.
I dunno; I'm not sure why I'm saying this. I may delete this whole entry.
Thank you for stating it.
I think the very thing, that many non-americans don't have is the feel of an apparent danger.
Yesterday, I read in a German Newspaper that a couple of weeks ago, the Director of the CIA, I think his name was Tenet, said in front of Congress (although unwillingly) that Iraq was not dangerous to the US at the moment.
Well, then there might still be plenty of reasons to fight a war, but those don't justify a preemptive strike.
Did this Observer story make it to the American media? Just one more reason why people have a little suspicious feeling when it gets to US policies.
Re:Danger
pudge on 2003-03-05T17:14:07
Whether Iraq is currently a danger to the US is not relevant.
Whether Iraq actually has prohibited weapons right now is not relevant.
The UN Security Council has only authorized the use of force twice in its history. First in Korea, second in the Gulf War, 12 years ago. That war ended with the Security Council saying, "Iraq must be disarmed," "Iraq must disarm itself with our help, according to these procedures," and "if these procedures do not work, we will take additional steps."
We are here 12 years later without Iraq being disarmed. Is it possible Iraq is actually disarmed? I don't think so, but if it is, then it should have done so according to UN procedure, which required documentation, verification by UN officials, destruction of NBC weapons by the UN (not by Iraq), etc. If it is disarmed, then it would allow its scientists to be interviewed on UN terms. It would not be actively hiding things from the UN inspectors. It is acting like an entity with something to hide.
The UN Security Council must, therefore -- and it does, including France and Germany -- assume that Iraq has prohibited weapons, that it is not disarmed.
Whether Iraq is disarmed is not the issue, because without verification, without their cooperation, we cannot know they are disarmed.
Whether Iraq is currently a threat to the US is not the issue, because we are still trying to resolve the cease-fire agreement that Iraq has never, for any period of time, been in compliance with.
Notions of preemptive attack sound nice but they are not the slightest bit accurate; it is not preemption, it is a continuation of a conflict that has never been resolved: the Gulf War. This is all about UN Security Council Resolution 687. Read it.
Re:Danger
jdavidb on 2003-03-05T18:30:07
First person I remember saying that a preemptive strike was out of character for the U.S. was you. But I can't find it in your journal, now. Maybe I dreamed it.
Re:Danger
pudge on 2003-03-05T18:48:54
I don't recall it, though it is possible. But it wasn't until a little while ago -- perhaps late January -- that I realized, through reading primary documents, that this was all related to the cease-fire agreement of 1991.Re:Danger
jdavidb on 2003-03-05T19:54:06
But it wasn't until a little while ago -- perhaps late January -- that I realized
I know the feeling. We're all learning as we go.
;) I'm only just barely getting to the point where I can even verbalize my thoughts. Re:Danger
malte on 2003-03-05T20:12:30
Yeah, that might all be true, but your argument has one serious flaw:
The security council is _no_ court room. Decisions made in the past, might be irrelevant today. Democratic governments change. Public opinion changes. These factors influence the security council. There is no blindfolded justice.
I just feel, that I have a pretty good feel for how people feel in the US (I have lived there for some years) and how people feel in at least some countries in Europe. The difference is fear. And I can fully understand that. The September 11th attacks were a tough hit to the US's national conscience.
When I lived in the states, it first feeled weird that people were actually proud of being patriotic. That's a a pretty bad word over here in Germany. But I learned to understand that. However, I have also seen many exchange students from America in Germany who were really impressed of how chilled people are over here. A 17 year old girl from CA once told me how she was feeling save going out at night, although she hadn't seen police in weeks (Might have been, though, cause she was drunk for all that time).
Well, it migh be just my naive opinion. But at least I'm one the majority side (For sure, if you count all chinese influenced by state media
:) Re:Danger
jdavidb on 2003-03-05T20:21:17
Another word for fear is "knowledge that you're going to get hurt." September 11 gave us fear, and helped us realize that desperate killers can inflict catastrophic casualties if we keep our guard down. It taught us to seal up holes in our security, and taught us that ignoring threats like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Houssein was not as safe as we thought it was.
Yes, I agree with you that a big difference between the U.S. attitude and the Europe attitude is fear -- but I don't see anything wrong with that. Our perspective is not invalid.
Re:Danger
malte on 2003-03-05T20:42:46
I agree. It's perfectly valid. Just please, whatever you do, do it with international consensus. The US might somehow be able to argue that it is not breaking international law by referring to some 12 year old UN resolution, but that won't get you any more friends in the world. It will simply create even more little Osamas, just waiting to blow themselves up on my next flight to the US (Now I'm afraid; one the other hand, I'm going snowboarding for two weeks on friday. I probably die while taking a 60 feet cliff, so go ahead do whatever as long as you don't throw bombs on austria or italy).
Re:Danger
jdavidb on 2003-03-05T20:58:56
We want international consensus, but in the end, the United States cannot be expected to refuse to take reasonable action to protect itself even without that consensus. Assume for the moment that the United States has enemies in Europe and the U.N. (Which it does not.) You would be granting those enemies the moral right to tell the U.S. not to defend itself. We don't have to wait until everyone discusses the invasion in committee, so to speak.
And I say all this as a pacifist, you realize. I'm opposed to the war, too. I'm simply saying those planning on war, those insisting that the U.S. take these steps even if UN approval doesn't come, are neither imperialist nor irrational.
It will simply create even more little Osamas
I disagree with that reasoning, finding it at least as likely that it will dissuade more Osamas.
Re:Danger
darobin on 2003-03-13T11:31:29
No, fear is not an option. Fear is defeat. Fear is what happens when terror strikes and terror wins. Saddam is no threat to the US, someone is using America's fear as a reason to get his oil, end of story.
Re:Danger
pudge on 2003-03-05T20:55:42
Decisions made in the past, might be irrelevant today.
THe UN Security Council has, more than a dozen times in a dozen years, reaffirmed Resolution 687 (most recently last Novemberm in Resolution 1441, approved unanimously). Yes, times change, but nothing has changed about the mandate that Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed. Referring to it as a "12-year old resolution," implying that the UN Security Council may not still support it, is simply wrong.
There is simply no basis for saying the UN Security Council does not support the disarmament of Iraq, that it does not view Iraq as a threat to the peace and security of the region that must be dealt with. There is basis for saying it does not support war, yes, but not that it does not support the disarmament of Iraq.
Unfortunately many of the arguments against the war fail to clinch it either.
When its a close call like this you have to be able to trust the politicians and intelligence with the information that they cannot or will not make available to you... but the politicians and intelligence have only managed to undermine any trust we may have had - dossiers compiled of propoganda copied out of student essays and janes defence journal, the US bugging/threatening/blackmailing/bribing security council members, shadows of hypocracy in the US and UK selling arms to Saddam and then complaining about it, muddled arguments that mean that most of the arguments for going to war against iraq apply equally well to a long list of countries that are either allies or too important to the arms, oil or tobacco industries, the shadow of a corrupt US administration in the pockets of oil and defence lobbies, a huge list of reasons to be cynical about any reasons the hawks give us.
Those who don't want war, don't want it now and don't want it for the reasons claimed - you can't claim you are going to war about WMD when there are none, and you can't go to war to topple saddam when that isn't the goal defined by the UN.
It could have been a clear cut justification for war if the same standards were applied to ensure countries like Burma, Isreal and China were forced to comply with the will of the UN, but double standards, lies and corruption mean that most of europe don't believe the justification for war is proven.
Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
jdavidb on 2003-03-03T18:23:11
most of the arguments for going to war against iraq apply equally well to a long list of countries
Yes, but as I mentioned, I ignore many of the arguments for war (and some against war) as side issues. Conveniently, I suppose, many of the arguments I ignore would be the ones that would apply to other countries. Not a democracy? Human rights violations? Subjugating its neighbors? All of those, to me, are side issues. The U.S. leaders' job is to protect the U.S., which, IMHO, can be the only reason for making war against Iraq. Most of those other countries just aren't threatening us. (Note: I fully realize that what I just said probably argues against the first Gulf War.)
(Incidentally I heard someone saying on radio the other day that all the anti-war folks have been saying all along was places like North Korea are more important and more dangerous right now. Baloney. Nobody said anything about North Korea until the whole nuclear thing came up a few weeks ago. It was a danger before that, and they weren't mentioning it.)
Will of the UN, to me, is another side issue. To be blatantly honest, we're just using the UN to try to achieve our own peace and safety. That's not publicly verbalized because many would disrepect Bush for it, but I do not. He has to use every tool available, and that's what the UN's for anyway. And, of course, hopefully in this case the safety of the U.S. will include increased safety for the rest of the world and the other UN member countries as well. In other words, while I'm sure Bush hopes the UN will do its job, stand up to insist Iraq disarm, and continue to be an effective body for world peace, I think he's made it abundantly clear that we're not going to subjugate American opinion on what needs to be done for our own safety to the complex and unpredictable will of the UN. (Yikes; why does that read badly like a takeoff of the Senate scene from Phantom Menace?)
Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
jmm on 2003-03-03T23:23:11
Perhaps you can ignore the "side issues", but there are many people who do not share your belief that Iraq poses an immediate and substantive threat against the U.S.That leaves the "side issues" as equally important (in their minds). When the U.S. is choosing to go to war against Iraq, and not choosing to go to war against many other countries with equally dispicable records, the next step is to look at why that choice was made. Which is where the argument comes that this is all about oil.
Will of the UN is not, in my view, a side issue but the most important issue. If the U.S. cannot convince a significant majority of the world's countries that war is the right action (that was convince, not bully them into going along with it), then the war will be a disaster. It will significantly damage the U.N., possibly destroy it. It will ensure that a large majority of the world sees the U.S. as a dangerous and uncontrollable force. This will not just be the Muslim people. There will be many generations of Bin Laadin's all trying to solve this problem.
Whether the war on Iraq is truly justified by facts that Bush is unable to communicate to the rest of the world, or is only happening because Bush is deluded, won't matter. Enough people will believe the latter. And, if Bush is unable to rally support in the U.N., especially with the pressure he is bringing upon the security coucil members, they are probably right.
Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
TeeJay on 2003-03-03T23:28:54
I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.
You can't really call 'protecting the interests of an important military customer and diamond trade hub' self defense.
Of course you can't expect Bush or Blair to admit this.
I really want to see Iraq liberated, but NOT at ANY price. Currently that price seems to be turning a blind eye to turkeys oppression of Kurds, between 200 and 500 THOUSAND civilian casulties, massive costs of reconstruction and repair, peace-keeping (like Kosovo and Afghanistan, the US will leave Europe and Japan to clear up the mess while it decides to spend that money on tax cuts leading up to the election instead of fulfilling promises).
There is a long list of countries I would like to see liberated from oppression : Palestine, Tibet, Burma, Huge chunks of Africa, Cuba, North Korea, there is a very long list of regimes every bit as unpleasent as Iraq but none of them are within rocket range of oil or israel so this crusade will end as soon as Bush has bagged his man.
Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
jdavidb on 2003-03-04T03:27:55
I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.
I disagree, and many thinking, reasoning people disagree. You can't dismiss us all as idiots; some of us even know how to pronounce "nuclear."
Maybe they are not a direct threat, but they have tried to develop weapons to inflict catastrophic harm, have indicated a lack of regard for human life, and evidence a particular hatred of the United States. Finally, September 11 showed forever that people like that will get themselves into a position to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians and will then do it. The idea that Iraq poses a direct threat is not foolish and was not made up. It's a reasonable conclusion given the evidence, although reasonable people may disagree. To state that one or the other position on this issue is "obvious" is dismissive of the reasoning of the many intelligent people on the other side.
Maybe you mean Iraq is not an immediate threat to the United States. Perhaps, although again some people might disagree or counter with the idea that the risk of waiting is too great. If so, clarify. If Iraq's not an immediate threat, then waiting on weapons inspections might be a reasonable course of action. But, that's something reasonable people could disagree with, too.
I think its fairly obvious that iraq is not a direct threat to europe or the united states.
Finally, just as a "sanity check" to make sure we're on the same page: if Iraq were a direct threat, and if it were obvious, you are saying it would then be okay to attack, right? You'd be first to stand up and declare the time for war had come? If not, then I guess it doesn't matter if Iraq is a direct threat or not.
Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
TeeJay on 2003-03-04T09:12:54
There is no proof or reasoning that Iraq is an immediate or direct threat to the US or Europe.There is only circumstantial evidence that Iraq is a danger to its own neighbours.
Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones. That makes it fairly clear that it is not a direct threat or immediate threat to the rest of the world.
There are no links between Iraq and terrorist groups, just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make it true.
Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
jdavidb on 2003-03-04T14:17:05
No proof, but lots of reason to speculate.
Iraq has no way of attacking any country beyond 200 miles from the area bounded by No Fly Zones.
Neither did al-Qaeda. Iraq may not have missles, but they may very well have dirty bombs, smallpox, or worse, with an unforeseen plan to get them into the U.S.
just because Rumsfield or Powell repeat something over and over doesn't make it true
I agree, but the anti-war side is taking the same tack on many points.
Enjoying the discussion. As you can see, I'm rather convoluted on these issues.
:) All I'm trying to say is that Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al. are reasonable, even if I can't personally support the war. Re:lots of reasons for and against but..
pudge on 2003-03-05T17:23:31
It may be a threat to Israel but that is not the concern of either UN directives or the rest of the world.
That is wholly inaccurate. UN Security Council Resolution 687 says that the goal of the disarmament of Iraq is "of restoring international peace and security in the area," which inherently includes Israel (as Iraq attacked Israel during that conflict).
More importantly, the US is a sworn ally of Israel, and must protect Israel when it is threatened. Yes, we should send our soldiers to die to protect Israel, if necessary. That is what being an ally means. Saying that Iraq is a threat to Israel means that the US has an obligation to protect Israel from Iraq, even if no one else wants the US to do so.
Look at most of the quotes about Iraq as a threat by the Bush administration: almost all of them, if not all of them, will say Iraq is a threat to our allies, not merely to us. It is not merely about the threat to the US. It never has been.
this war is wrong because America is a bunch of imperialists bent on taking over the world
If you think that's wrong, you may want to pay a little more attention to discourses held by people in the Bush administration. It's not about us calling them imperialists, it's what they call themselves! Just googling for "neo imperialism bush" should give you dozens of links. It's an assertion that has basis in fact, simply because your leaders admit to it, and in fact are proud of it.
America's not threatening France, for crying out loud!
You're threatening the peace of a world we share.
America's threating people who want to destroy it.
Saddam is smart enough to never attack the US. There is no proof of him helping terrorists, whlie there is from a bunch of other countries that also have horrible regimes. War against Iraq makes no sense whatsoever, unless you consider other things such as distraction from internal problems and the such.
To sum up, all I can tell from the anti-war crowd is that France hates us.
If we hated you we'd be encouraging you to go to war.
Re:Check your facts
jdavidb on 2009-03-03T13:59:56
You were right. I was wrong.
Re:Check your facts
darobin on 2009-03-03T14:28:58
Whoa man, talk about a surprise! I'd totally forgotten about these discussions, so when the email notification came for this I really wondered what it was for.
At the end of the day, it didn't matter much who was right and who was wrong did it? How's about we have a few drinks to honest opinionated folks and the hope that it'll all get better?
Re:Check your facts
Aristotle on 2009-03-03T17:57:40
it didn’t matter much who was right and who was wrong did it?
It never, ever does.
Re:Check your facts
jdavidb on 2009-03-05T23:15:44
Well, you're right, in one sense it didn't matter. None of us were in a position to do anything.
But we did both feel at the time that discussing the issue was a worthy endeavor, and you (presumably) felt that bringing me over to your way of thinking was a worthy endeavor, so I thought you'd like to know that at last I do.
And in another sense, it does matter. I do believe that expressing opinions like this does at times have the potential to control who the sword is pointed at. I don't believe we can ever know if we're in such a situation or not. But it does mean that our ideas have consequences, especially when expressed. And this was truly an issue of life or death, was it not?
Anyway, I'm wiser later than I would have liked, but there are still many years ahead of me to change people's minds.
Incidentally, the "Uncle Eric books" by Richard Maybury were instrumental in changing my way of thinking, should it ever be relevant to you to offer someone a book suggestion.
