veiled4allah: what comes after? veiled4allah: what comes after?The latter part of the show consisted of an interview with Tom Friedman, and the interesting thing there was not Oprah's fawning, but seeing what happens to Friedman's suggestion that war with Iraq will have to be followed by a twenty year occupation when it hits the real world. People who follow news religiously - and for the most part, that's not Oprah's audience - have heard the call to imperialism so many times we've become numb to the idea. But when the camera turned to the audience after Friedman's suggestion, you could see the shock on their faces. Mouths open. Shaking their heads. Friedman looked increasingly ridiculous saying that this twenty-year occupation is what Americans have to be prepared for, while (mostly) women looked at him as if he were out of his mind. One man in the audience, in fact, rose to tell him exactly that.One of the main arguments I've been making against war on Iraq is that the cost to the Iraqi people will be devastating, both those killed directly by our bombs and those killed indirectly through our destruction of the infrastructure. If we just walked away at that point, it would be morally abhorrent. It's good in that sense that the Bush Administration does seem to be planning a long stay in Iraq.
All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)My own entry was in reference to one or more posts elsewhere. If you'd like to add a link to your post there, add the following to the list of URLs that you ping:
(no posts pinged)
Take a quick peek at the post(s) I pinged:
(no posts pinged)
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: antiwar. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: iraqi people, saddam hussein, north korea, war iraq, people iraq, war, Iraq, iraq, people, saddam, Saddam, think, world, iraqi, should, Iraqi, country, our, say, because, believe, see, israel, Israel, know
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with antiwar
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: antiwar
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: antiwar
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: antiwar
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: antiwar
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: antiwar
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: antiwar
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title what comes after? (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) antiwar (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
War is very very very bad and should be avoided if possible but while the pro-defense side is being asked to face up to the costs of going to war, the other side should also face up to the costs of not going to war.
(If it is impossible, one of the supporting pillars of the pro-war argument is gone. Remember that war is not being fought to make Iraq a little better than it is under Saddam. It's supposed to be transformative, and bring democracy and freedom. Whther GWB has fulfilled his promises ought to be measured by that test.)
As I tried to make clear in my post, the consequences to Iraq will be much worse if we go to war and then leave, than if we do nothing. Saddam Hussein is not wreaking anywhere near the kind of mass destruction we are going to. Antiwar people don't count the cost of inaction because they've already calculated that the costs of war are far worse. That's kind of obvious, you know. War is never constructive, it is only destructive.
The only way in which the costs to Iraq would be less than letting Saddam Hussein stay in is if we engage in the "fifty-first state" type of rebuilding or twenty-year occupation that I am talking about in my post.
But there is also the question of the cost to America. Do we have the money, the time, and the will to carry out this massive transformative project? Is the project even feasible in the real world? Will it work out like we hope or end in disaster?
A lot of times we want to help somebody but we don't have the resources to do so. That may well be the case here.
And one other thing seems clear to me. We have not thought through what we are going to be doing. That is an almost certain recipe for failure.
Are you ready to bear the consequences of failure, Lynn? They may be very high indeed, as I outlined in my post.
Jazakallah khairain for ur good work sis.keep it up.
Eid Mubaraka . have a wonderful Eid . May Allah bring peace and happiness to this Ummah.
Th d tht wr "nvr slvs nythng" s th tn f th gnrnt. Wr ds slv thngs, prmnntly! Nt lwys, bt whn t rlly cnts.
Rvltnry Wr, Cvl Wr, WW rslvd sgnfcnt sss. Th wr n fgnstn, whl nt vr, s sgnfcnt stp twrd mvng tht cntry t f th drk gs. Th wr gnst trrrsm wll b wn f th nlghtnd wrld wks p nd dcds tht "w r nt gng t tk t ny mr!"
Th cst f th wr n rq, f "dn nd wn" NW s vry smll frctn f th cst f wtng 2, 3, 5 yrs ntl Hssn r hs sn ctlly dvlp nclr wpn(s) nd mk thm vlbl t thr trrrsts. f h wr bl t dply nclr wpn, th dvsttn tht wld rn dwn n rq s trly nmgnbl bt f h s rplcd nw, rq wll hv n pprtnty t rjn th mdrn wrld, nd prhps, bcm ldng cntry n th mddl st. Wld y rthr s 5,000 dths nw r Bgdd trnd t glss n 5 yrs?
rq, ntrstngly ngh, s n f th fw cntrs whr th cst f rbldng wll b nglgbl whn y fctr n th fnncl cpblty f th cntry tslf. Hssn cn spnd $5 blln yr n wpns nd ryl plcs wth th rstrctd rvn h s crrntly rcvng. Whn rq's rvn s dbld, nd th fnds r spnt n hmntrn prjcts, th cntry wll b fr bttr ff thn t s nw wthn 12 mnth f th strt f th wr.
s sttd n nthr pst, Sddmt (th nm s ccrt, s fr s knw, h s th nly ntnl ldr wth rpst ffclly n th gvrnmnt pyrll... m crtn thrs hv thm bt r lttl mr dscrt) hs bn rpnsbl fr vr 1.2 mlln dths drng hs tm n pwr, snc mst f thm wr Mslm, m srprsd tht th Mslm cmmnty s s pst bt th prspct f lss thn 5% f tht fgr dyng drng hs vrthrw! Th nly rsn cn cm p wth s tht pprntly Mslms fl tht bng klld by nthr Mslm s K bt bng klld by nn Mslm s nt!
Kn
Oh, and one more question. Since you're so eager for war, are you signing up so that you can be there, or will you stay at home while others take the fighting and the dying for you?
dn't rcll mkng ny sttmnt tht "wr wll nt cs mch dmg n rq". Y hv nt vry nq blty t s wht y wnt t s bcs t hlps y vd dlng wth rlty.
f crs thr wll b dmg n rq nd f crs thr wll b nncnt ppl hrt nd klld nd n t s nt nc!
Bt wll rq (nd fgnstn, nd pst WW Grmny nd Jpn, nd Bsn tc.) b bttr ff 1, 2, 5, 10 yrs ftr thr gvrnmnts wr dftd nd rplcd thn thy r nw?
nncnt ppl r dyng n rq vry dy. f Hssn fnd flt wth wmn hr svrd hd wll hng n th drwy f hr hm fr wk r tw...d y thnk tht wll cntn ftr h s rmvd?
s sttd prvsly, th dmg t rq nd ts ctzns frm wr tdy wll b tny frctn f th dvsttn tht wld ccr f Hssn s td n ny wy t th s f chmcl, blgcl r nclr wpns by hmslf r ny grp t whch h mght pss thm.
Th S hs svd mr lvs thrgh ts ntrvntn n crmnl stts thn ny thr cntyr n hstry.
Hv w md mstks? bsltly. Wll w mk mr mstks? bsltly. Wll w kp tryng ntl w gt t rght? crtnly hp s.
Thr s nthng, rpt, nthng, wrs thn sttng bck nd lttng vnts cntrl y rthr thn th rvrs. spclly whn dlng wth hmcdl psychpths sch s Hssn, bn Ldn nd thr sscts nd fllwrs.
D lk wr? N dn't. Nthr d njy srgry t ttch svrd lmb bt ndr th rght crcmstncs bth r bttr prfrmd thn gnrd.
hv bn t wr nd wld rtrn t ths n n scnd. wld rthr g t wr 10 tms s tht my chldrn d nt hv t g sngl tm.
Th ld syng " sttch n tm svs nn" s mst fttngly ppld hr.
ppsmnt s ntrprtd s wknss nd nly lds t mr dth nd dstrctn.
Kn
Would you just do me a favor and read the articles that I linked in my blog post? Let's at least work from the same page.
Oh, and please refresh your memory on this when we talk about the costs of war.
Th N!
Pls!
Ys, pls rvw th hstry f th N. Thy cn't rprt ctl vnts crrctly (rmmbr 50,000 dd nd wndd n Jnn? tht bcm 52 dd..mstly cmbtnts).
Fnd n nstnc whr th N hs tkn th mrl hgh grnd whn th S dd nt frc t t d s? Thn fnd n N prtn tht ws sccss? Thy dd Hll f jb prtctng th Mslms n Bsn...th crgs Blgn trps std by whl wht, 5000 wmn nd chldrn wr msscrd?
Chck th rprts f th N bg-wg slrs nd th rprts f th N wrkrs rpng chldrn, rqrng sx t gv th mpvrshd FR fd frm th N.
Lk t wht cntry hds th N cvl rghts cmmssn...Lby nd s bt t hd th dsrmmnt cmmssn..rq.
Thy hv ll th crdblty fx n th hn hs, xcpt th fx hs mrls.
Thy md th sm prdctns bt fgnstn, th sm strvng ppltn, th sm mssv dths. Ths dts r t stpd t vn lrn frm thr wn mstks.
Pnt m t sm FCTS nd wll b hppy t rvw thm!
Kn
I really don't know what to say to you, Ken. You won't accept anything from the U.N., you won't accept anything from human rights organizations (you said this in an earlier thread). Could you explain who you would accept information from? Anybody?
Until we can find some kind of common ground, there is no point in having a discussion. I'm not giving you fringe groups or conspiracy theories here. I'm giving you reports from mainstream news agencies and respected non-governmental organizations. If your paranoia is so great that you can't accept that as a basis for discussion, I don't see how we can talk at all.
nd y blv th N?
Rd rprts bt thr ctvts tht wr wrttn by ppl nt ssctd wth th N.
Lk t th dcttrshps tht thy gnr, rn, Syr, Zmbwb(sp) nd Rbrt Mgb wh s rlly strvng 5,000,000 f hs wn ppl. Lk t th cndmntn f th S ffrt n fgnstn, gn prgnstctng bt th mpndng dmg f S ttck whl gnrng th dvsttn csd by th Tlbn. sk th ppl n Bsn (xcpt th mrdrng Srbs, f crs) hw mch hlp th N prvdd.
Fnd n mprsnd, mpvrshd ppl tht th N ctlly hlpd (whn t ws nt frcd t by th S).
Th N nd cntrs lk Frnc nd Grmny r mstrs f dng NTHNG n th fc f crss. Thy r hppy t tlk (syng bsltly nthng f cnsqnc) bt th thght f ny ctn lvs thm prlyzd.
hv rd mltpl prspctvs n th N, th S, th Mddl st. hv rd frst hnd ccnts frm vrs vwpnts nd thn hv wtd ntl th ctl fcts hv cm t t s wh prsntd th mst ccrt ntl rprtng.
hv rd 10 dffrnt hstrs f th Mddl st nd hv rd ngh bt th N t mk m wnt t vmt.
Th bttm ln s ll th rdng hs nt hd 10% f th mpct n frmng my pnns tht th ctns (r nctns) f ths vrs grps hs hd. dn't nd smn t dntfy mrdrs thg fr m. hv th blty t d tht n my wn. nd m nt frd f bng lblld "pltclly ncrrct" n my bsrvtns.
Y hv yt t nswr sngl qstn hv psd, thr thn t snd m t th thghts nd rprsnttns f dscrdtd rgnztns nd fld phlsphs.
m cnfsd s t whthr y hv yr wn pnns r rly ntrly n ths y rfrnc.
Kn
I am still waiting to hear the basis for your opinions and what sources you cite for them. You have spent a lot of time attacking the U.N. without telling me what you'll accept instead. Until we can find a common basis of facts that we can work from, we are just yelling at each other and not accomplishing anything.
Finally, I remind you that it is purely your own choice to come here and read my blog. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere that you like more. Why frustrate yourself? Why not give up on me and what you perceive as my stupidity? I'm just an ordinary person, not in any position to affect public opinion or government policy. Who really cares what I think or if I'm stupid and blind?
Added: You can also amuse yourself fisking this
Give Ken (and me!) a rebuttal that doesn't end with a link to another source. You say that the costs of war are high. Fine. What are the costs of inaction? In dollars, it's hard to say - containment isn't free in dollar terms, and we all know that it costs Iraqi lives. I'd just love for the anti-war side to acknowledge that inaction isn't free, either economically or morally. You can still conclude that inaction is the best course of action, but I just hate to see the dichotomy presented as: 1: costly and 2: free - it's not that simple.
And please, please: while there's a temptation to tell all those who disagree with your position on Iraq to bugger off to more hawkish pastures, don't. I don't always (often?) agree with Ikram, but his blog is awesome. Ikram is a rock star.
As to the "cost of inaction" argument, Lynn S posted that in her first comment, and Ikram and I responded to it. Would either you or Ken care to address those responses?
Perhaps my last post was harsh. I admit to being baffled by the passion Ken has against the U.N. and its agencies. I could understand it if I had been quoting from fringe groups, but to be attacked like this for quoting the U.N.? Am I the only one who finds that a bit odd? Maybe I am, and I'm totally out of touch with reality. God knows best.
The only thing they have proven capable of to date is providing continued employment for a large group of ignorant bureaucrats who have ignored tyrants, dictators and murders.
As I said, and you ignored, how can you have respect for an organization that has "elected" Libya as the head of the Human Rights Commission? How about Iraq heading the Disarmament Commission?
How many documented cases of genocide has the UN watched (and continues to watch) while doing NOTHING!!!! Not even condemning the perpetrators!
They have spent 50 years pandering to the Palestinians in their "refugee" camps. They have effectively made the Palestinians "wards" of the UN (although in this case there is some complicity on the part of their victims). The UN has done nothing to resolve the middle east problems, only exacerbate them.
What was that question again? Oh, yes, Why don't I believe the UN?
Ken
The U.N. also runs a series of agencies, which have no power to take action on their own, only to report on the way things are. I do not blame these agencies for the failure of the U.N. as a whole to act on their reports, I blame the member nations (including the U.S., you know) for the failure to act.
In any case, we haven't yet moved beyond bashing the U.N. to finding out what alternate sources we should use in its place. Still waiting...
Finally, I linked some other resources in the original blog entry including an article from the Atlantic Monthly, and some British newspapers. Any thoughts on those?
But, I also know that the cost of inaction is going to be high as well. If we don't go to war to put a stop to Saddam Hussein, we are going to have to spend time, energy, effort and money trying to keep him in check for an indefinite amount of time. (Til he dies?)
If you think about it, chances are that no one really wants to go to war, even the "war-mongers" probably have other things they'd rather be spending their time doing. War is harmful to all sides.
But, we're not going to change one another's minds. While I personally feel that arguing about going to war is a moot point, because I wholeheartedly feel that it is going to happen, no 'mights' or 'maybes,' I will say this: Neither side is very good at recognizing the (often times very) vallid points of the other side.
Yes, it is true that if we go to war, it is going to cost an exhorbitant amount of money, time, and energy. But, it's also true that if we don't go to war, we are still going to be spending an exhorbitant amount of money, time and energy trying to keep Saddam Hussein in line.
Both the pro-war and the anti-war arguments have valid points, but they also have their down sides, too. The question that remains is which is the lesser of two evils.
For me, to stand around and do nothing, while horrible things are happening somewhere else is wrong. Just as I wouldn't stand idly by as someone murdered or raped my neighbor, I can not stand idly by while my global "neighbors" are in jeopardy.
And, no one can convince me that Saddam Hussein as a leader of a nation doesn't put others in jeopardy. It seems that one of the biggest arguments of the anti-war side is all the death and destruction isn't worth it. But, isn't the death and destruction already happening? Perhaps it doesn't happen on as grand a scale as it would if we go to war, but it's still happening.
I think you raise some interesting questions. What I wonder is if the difference in the KIND of hardships that the Iraq people will have to deal with make it worth while even if there is more overall hardship in total? I think that having a small number of people tortured, murdered, etc. under a tyrant is worse than having a large number of people suffering hardships under some initial attempt at a democracy. What do you think?
thanks,
Richard
First, I think that the question you raised is one that can only be answered by the Iraqi people themselves. We have no right to decide for them what they should and shouldn't have to suffer or to tell them what kind of suffering is better or worse for them.
Second, while you may be right, I have many additional concerns about the aftermath. I pray all the time that I am wrong and that my fears are unfounded.
I am afraid to say that I do not share your religious beliefs. I used to be an atheist, but these days I tend to just accept the fact that I don't know. My guess is that world peace is impossible and the human cycle of war and inhumane treatment to each other is going to continue forever.
What I am saying is the argument put forth by the UN is a "worse case" scenario, and it seems that the study was made to back the point of not going to war. All studies have biases, depending on who is funding it. It also is not forward thinking ( it did not even seem to consider the unusual military strategy used so far to avoid casualties ie. who would have thought the defense ministry would still be standing = to try and sway the republican guard leadership to turn). The war in Afghanistan is different because the administration did not have to be as "sensistive" to political concerns . The administration is under unprecedented pressure in the US and abroad to keep casualties to a minimuim and to keep the conflict short while attaining its goals (disarmament and regim change). The study appears faulted because it makes assumptions based on previous conflicts, and so far those assumptions not materialized.
I realize some may see this as inflamatory sarcasm . . . I see as divine comedy that reflects the tragedy of a sufferring earth and its people , at the hands of an arrogant , self-righteous , corporate bully . . .
Comments ? Questions ? . . .
Blech! I'm really glad that you pro-war folks at least care about current events, but your presumptions and circular reasoning do not impress me!
Originally posted by marc webster -
This is getting nowhere. You may disagree with Ken and what sources he considers valid, but everyone does the same thing. You consider certain cost estimates, in dollar terms as well as civilian casualties, realistic and sound and discount the (admittedly) optimistic estimates of the 'hawks.' Ken does the opposite. We all judge info by different standards of proof - one for if the info confirms our beliefs and another for discordant or challenging info. That's why it's no good to point to your links (to the Guardian!) as proof of your even-handedness. I'm sure Ken's read it and rejected it.
Give Ken (and me!) a rebuttal that doesn't end with a link to another source. You say that the costs of war are high. Fine. What are the costs of inaction? In dollars, it's hard to say - containment isn't free in dollar terms, and we all know that it costs Iraqi lives. I'd just love for the anti-war side to acknowledge that inaction isn't free, either economically or morally. You can still conclude that inaction is the best course of action, but I just hate to see the dichotomy presented as: 1: costly and 2: free - it's not that simple.
And please, please: while there's a temptation to tell all those who disagree with your position on Iraq to bugger off to more hawkish pastures, don't. I don't always (often?) agree with Ikram, but his blog is awesome. Ikram is a rock star.
I support GWB, the United States, and the coalition troops who are fighting for us in Iraq. I was listening to the news today, and heard about Bush's proposed "supplemental" to the budget for 74.7 Billion, a good part of which will be used to help Iraq in reconstructing. In my humble opinion, I believe the US will stick around and help Iraq rise from this war as a FREE country. I have faith in my President, and in my country that we are doing the correct thing in Iraq. I do agree that War is never good and always a last resort, but I believe that after 12 years of lies, delaying tactics, and villanous acts by Saddam Hussein and his "government" is more than enough. I believe the US has been more than patient with Saddam and his regime. I will try to illustrate my point with a small example: Say that in your History class you have a fellow student that you have always regarded as strange. One day he comes into the class, pulls out a gun, and holds the class along with the teacher hostage. The police is notified and dispatched to the school, when they arrive they surround the building and try to negotiate with the student. He does not want to negotiate, decides instead to shoot a few students in the head and leave them for dead. After the gunshots the police officers have little choice but to use force to enter the classroom and disarm the student, unfortunately several officers are wounded and one eventually dies. The student is then brought forth before a judge and a jury of his peers where he is convicted of murder and sentenced to serve a jail term. Once the jail term has passed, the ex-student is released back into civilization with the conditions that he report to a parole officer every week, does not purchase any fire arms, and that he stay away from any schools, colleges, or universites. During his parole period the ex-student begins to lie to his parole officer, and there are credible reports that he has purchased a gun illegaly and has been seen "scouting" several local college campuses. The parole officer learns of these developments and reports the parole infractions to the appropriate authorities. Due to his violent past a SWAT team is dispatched to his residence to bring the ex-student back into custody for his parole violations, upon arrival they find that this ex-student has a group of "hostages" in his apartement. After hours of negotiations, it becomes apparent that the ex-student will not surrender peacefully and vows to kill all the hostages if his demands are not kept. Now in this ficitious story what whould you have the PD do, continue to negotiate with the ex-student regardless of his past history, or do you force your way into his apartement and try to rescue the hostages before the ex-student re-enacts his past? I believe that in this case as well as in Saddam's case, nothing else can be done but to use force and pray that the casualties are low. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I wanted to communicate my opinion in a clear and thorough fashion. GOD BLESS AMERICA. -k
Subject: Response to hypothetical situation
Say that in your History class you have a fellow student that you have always regarded as strange. One day he comes into the class, pulls out a gun, and holds the class along with the teacher hostage. The police is notified and dispatched to the school, when they arrive they surround the building and try to negotiate with the student. He does not want to negotiate, decides instead to shoot a few students in the head and leave them for dead. After the gunshots the police officers have little choice but to use force to enter the classroom and disarm the student, unfortunately several officers are wounded and one eventually dies. The student is then brought forth before a judge and a jury of his peers where he is convicted of murder and sentenced to serve a jail term. Once the jail term has passed, the ex-student is released back into civilization with the conditions that he report to a parole officer every week, does not purchase any fire arms, and that he stay away from any schools, colleges, or universites. During his parole period the ex-student begins to lie to his parole officer, and there are credible reports that he has purchased a gun illegaly and has been seen "scouting" several local college campuses. The parole officer learns of these developments and reports the parole infractions to the appropriate authorities. Due to his violent past a SWAT team is dispatched to his residence to bring the ex-student back into custody for his parole violations, upon arrival they find that this ex-student has a group of "hostages" in his apartement. After hours of negotiations, it becomes apparent that the ex-student will not surrender peacefully and vows to kill all the hostages if his demands are not kept. Now in this ficitious story what whould you have the PD do, continue to negotiate with the ex-student regardless of his past history, or do you force your way into his apartement and try to rescue the hostages before the ex-student re-enacts his past? I believe that in this case as well as in Saddam's case, nothing else can be done but to use force and pray that the casualties are low. Sorry for the length of my comment, but I wanted to communicate my opinion in a clear and thorough fashionThe official policy of "hostage negotiators" is to keep talking . Like the UN was trying to do.
God bless and help us all.
Politcally, the U.N. is nothing more than the consensus of the nations that are its members. As such, it often reflects the worst consensus instead of the best. I don't have much respect for that part of it either.
Hope you don't mind me jumping in to this conversation, but you seem like a reasonable person.I'm glad to hear you say that, especially now that we know that the French sold weapons to the Iraqis in violation of the UN Resolutions which they signed, as did the Chinese and the Russians. (If you need links, I can provide them, but a simple Google search will provide the evidence.)
How can we put our faith in a world "peace" organization that has member countries who lie and deceive? That vote against a war with Iraq while they are selling weapons to Iraq? That claim they want peace when they are facilitating war?
The U.N. also runs a series of agencies, which have no power to take action on their own, only to report on the way things are. I do not blame these agencies for the failure of the U.N. as a whole to act on their reports, I blame the member nations (including the U.S., you know) for the failure to act.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is the US supposed to act *without* UN support as they are doing now? Or are they supposed to wait for the UN to "approve" their actions? You can't blame the US for not intervening and then turn around and criticize them for intervening.In any case, we haven't yet moved beyond bashing the U.N. to finding out what alternate sources we should use in its place. Still waiting...
I think the solution is precisely what the US is doing. Put together a coalition of countries that are tired of the bs and political games and want to take action.Does anyone even realize that millions of people have died in Africa and the UN has done nothing? If the Arab world thinks they have suffered (and they surely have) they need only look to Africa to be "thankful" for their suffering. The UN is a joke and a travesty.
What we need is nations that are willing to stand up and be counted, put their money where their mouth is and provide aid to the needy. And forget the UN. We don't need endless months of negotiations while people are dying. We need action.
If that action means troops, then the battle plan must be decisive and must avoid civilian casualties at all costs. And the criminals that run the regimes should be brought before the international courts, tried and, if convicted, sentenced appropriately.
Finally, I linked some other resources in the original blog entry including an article from the Atlantic Monthly, and some British newspapers. Any thoughts on those?
Those I will have to read later, but if they're like most of the anti-war tripe, they aren't worth wasting my time.So far, all I've seen from the anti-war side is "No War" and no solutions. The world has appeased dictators for too long. It's time for the civilized nations of the world to call the dictators' bluffs. Stop doing business with them, and stop doing business with the duplicitous nations like France that talk of peace while selling arms.
So long as "civilized" nations are willing to sit around and do nothing while innocent people die, we will never solve these problems. So long as they are willing to do business with evil dictators who oppress their people and kill them by the thousands, they have no moral leg to stand on.
Europe and the US should be ashamed of themselves for what they have allowed to occur in Africa and Bosnia and Iraq and many other places where brutal dictators treat human beings like animals to be slaughtered.
But another UN resolution? Don't make me laugh. The UN is a joke. A complete farce. If a person can't see that now, they are deliberately ignoring the truth.
The only way in which the costs to Iraq would be less than letting Saddam Hussein stay in is if we engage in the "fifty-first state" type of rebuilding or twenty-year occupation that I am talking about in my post.
I agree with that sentiment, however one of my biggest concerns and objections to the war is that that type of rebuilding is going to confirm the cries of neo-imperialism and Western interference in Arabic culture. Any government that comes up will be seen as a puppet government of the US and consequently have little or no credibility among the Arabic community or, quite possibly, among the Iraqi people as well. We are claiming to support democracy in Iraq. How long after Saddam is out of office will it be before the Iraqi people are allowed to pick their own leaders ? Would conservative Muslim or radical parties be allowed to exercise US style freedom of speech and fundraising ? What if they have elections while being reconstructed and they democratically choose a leader who, while commited to civil rights,wants to stop the reconstruction and order all US personnel out of the country. How would that be dealt with ?The Post WWII attempts at nation building through military means have practically all been dismal failures. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia. There's no evidence that a reconstruction would succeed this time around.
Any justification for WAR is unacceptable.The utter disregard for world opinion and the UN by USA is another example of America's disregard for rights of other countries.The excuse that "INVASION" of Iraq for liberating its people from Saddam's rule is absurd.America's real interest is in the natural resources of Iraq.If we look at this will a long term perspective in mind, we can clearly see that USA wants to consolidate its position in West Asia.Though USA won't allow for exploration of natural resources in Alaska it is willing to do so in Iraq.I am no sympathiser of Saddam but I also don't endorse USA's selfish ways.USA is trying to change world order by completely sidelining UN.We should remember that the League of Nations failed and World War folllowed.If USA is genuinely interested in welfare of Iraq the UN is the right body whom it should help.But from past experiences we can see that USA can tolerate Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Pakistani dictator Pervez Mushharraf , but it is 'dying' to free people of Iraq.I think that better sense should prevail in the minds of Americans and they should force their Govt. to retreat.And lastly, America should realise that it's action appear to be not against Saddam but against Islam as whole.You cannot afford to Alienate more than 40% of the world,USA should remember this.
Utter disregard of world opinion? Last I checked the US had the backing of over 40 countries... but I guess that's not enough? If you think that all the US wants is Iraq's natural resources, then why did the US not take the opportunity in '91 to take them... they certainly had the opportunity? As far as Israel in Palestine, and Pervez Mushharraf go, neither pose(d) a direct threat to US interest, nor were they required by the UN to comply by disarming and discontinue the use and creation of WOMD. How exactly are the United States actions "appear" to be against Islam? Why is it that many Muslims in the US support what the US is doing in Iraq?The official policy of "hostage negotiators" is to keep talking . Like the UN was trying to do.
In reality if hostage negotiations have failed in the past, the probability that they will suceed are almost non existent. In this scenario a hostage negotiator is basically useless, the longer you delay action, the more likely that a hostage or other innocent civilians will be harmed. Look to WW2, due to inaction and "negotiations" the same French who currently oppose the US became another German casualty. No one should have to sit idly by and wait for another 9/11, or a Pearl Harbor.God bless and help us all.
By limiting Iraq's ability to arm itself, the U.S. and coalition partners would not have to maintain as high a degree of involvement in order to ensure this.
As for the infrastructure, I believe the plan is to have Iraq pay for the rebuilding of the country with oil profits, which would now be used for improvements to the country rather than Saddam's military and palace expenses.
-Tom Steele
Any justification for WAR is unacceptable.The utter disregard for world opinion and the UN by USA is another example of America's disregard for rights of other countries.The excuse that "INVASION" of Iraq for liberating its people from Saddam's rule is absurd.America's real interest is in the natural resources of Iraq.If we look at this will a long term perspective in mind, we can clearly see that USA wants to consolidate its position in West Asia.Though USA won't allow for exploration of natural resources in Alaska it is willing to do so in Iraq.I am no sympathiser of Saddam but I also don't endorse USA's selfish ways.USA is trying to change world order by completely sidelining UN.We should remember that the League of Nations failed and World War folllowed.If USA is genuinely interested in welfare of Iraq the UN is the right body whom it should help.But from past experiences we can see that USA can tolerate Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Pakistani dictator Pervez Mushharraf , but it is 'dying' to free people of Iraq.I think that better sense should prevail in the minds of Americans and they should force their Govt. to retreat.And lastly, America should realise that it's action appear to be not against Saddam but against Islam as whole.You cannot afford to Alienate more than 40% of the world,USA should remember this.
Are we to assume from your statement that you're perfectly happy with the UN?How do you feel about the UN's position toward Africa? Are you happy with that? They have bessentially ignored the suffering and deaths of millions of people in Africa. Is that the sort of organization that you think the world needs in order to bring peace to the world?
Or is it acceptable to you to have an organization that claims to want world peace but ignores areas of the world that apparently don't matter to it?
These are not rhetorical questions. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts.
BTW, the US gets less than 2% of its oil from Iraq and could care less about taking over the Iraqi oil fields. And many of us would love to throw the politicians who won't allow us to drill in Alaska out of office for good. We need to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil for our own security.
"Not war" is only the lesser of the two evils if you believe that reconstruction will prove to be an utter mess. Clearly, leaving Saddam in power for years to come, sanctions in place no doubt, starving his own people to build palaces and weapons, is not good for the Iraqi people or Iraq. How many of his own has Saddam killed? Tens of thousands at least; I don't have the numbers in front of me. How many civilians will die in this war? I don't know... less than that no doubt. Of course, any human death is horrible and to be avoided, but if one is to use this simple moral calculus, then clearly a relatively short war (weeks or months) is preferable to a protracted "siege" of Iraq under Saddam. The critical issue is, what happens after the war? You are pessimistic, while I am cautiously optimistic, and that's what tips the balance.
I agree that if we flub reconstruction, Iraq could easily fall into anarchy or be ruled by someone (somehow) worse than Saddam. It's really impossible to look that far into the future, of course - anything is possible. And that's exactly the problem.
Like you have said, Bush has stated that we are willing and able to do our utmost to ensure that Iraq becomes a stable, prosperous democracy. I believe that this is actually the primary reason why we are invading - to change Iraq in ways that are beneficial to both Iraq, and the United States, with the hope that such changes will be seen by nearby nations, and the prosperity and freedom desired so much that it is emulated. The domino theory rewritten. Several pundits have written on this, with fiery rhetoric on both sides, but in the end we simply don't know if it will work. Bush thinks it will, or at least that the possibility of it working is worth the risk of war.
We can't know how this will all turn out, but I, for one, as an American, am willing to sacrifice and funnel as much money and effort into Iraq as it takes. I believe that Iraqi prosperity and democracy is absolutely essential to the safety of the U.S., especially since after the war is over, we will be judged based on our success in doing exactly that. It won't be easy. It will probably be extremely difficult. It will cost American lives and money. Money is one thing; lives are another. I'm not in the military myself, but several members of my immediate family are. They are willing to risk their lives, however, because they believe, like me, that the goal of Iraqi freedom and democracy is worth the enormous risk that we are taking.
If Bush is right, it's a win-win situation, and it's worth every penny and every bit of risk we take. It'll hopefully ensure a long lasting future peace between Iraq and the U.S., and hopefully the entire region. If Bush is wrong...
At this point, I don't think there's much we can do but sit back and watch events unfold and hope for the best. I hope Bush and the neoconservative types whose ideas he has adopted are right =)
btw - as a political science major in college currently, I can tell you also that there are opposing schools of thought regarding the viability of democracy building, with each having some very strong points. There is a huge pile of literature and advice out there to guide our efforts, however, and for every problem listed in the articles you link, there are several solutions in academia with all sorts of fun statistical calculations and case studies to back them up. I honestly don't think that anyone can make predictions as to what will happen... we're going to just have to wait and see. If it were a sure thing, there wouldn't be any risk... but I'm cautiously confident that we'll figure something out. That's just me though, I guess, and it partly stems from my preconceptions and ideological slant.
As I tried to make clear in my post, the consequences to Iraq will be much worse if we go to war and then leave, than if we do nothing. Saddam Hussein is not wreaking anywhere near the kind of mass destruction we are going to. Antiwar people don't count the cost of inaction because they've already calculated that the costs of war are far worse. That's kind of obvious, you know. War is never constructive, it is only destructive.
Would you say the world would be better off if we hadn't fought Hitler? I doubt that you would. So obviously there are circumstances where war is the best alternative available. The destruction of war is awful, but out of the ashes can come a better life for people.But there is also the question of the cost to America. Do we have the money, the time, and the will to carry out this massive transformative project? Is the project even feasible in the real world? Will it work out like we hope or end in disaster?
First, I'd like to thank you for the links you provided. The articles are thought provoking and I think the concern for the future is real.Although I find that all the scenarios protrayed in the various articles are *possible*, I'd like to think that the end result will not be the worst case scenario.
We know some things now that we did not know when those articles were written, so we have the benefit of knowledge that they did not have. We know that the coaltion forces are intent on providing humanitarian aid as soon as possible. This is already happening in the south, in Umm Qasar and other towns. We know that the infrastructure of Iraq is being spared from the devastating damage of war as much as is practicable. These things will help reduce the long term cost of restoring Iraq.
We also know that the Iraqi "loyalists" will kill their own people without batting an eye, that if they didn't exert their control over the populace as well as the military that many would have already surrendered and accepted aid, that they will hide in hospitals, use Iraqi civilians as human shields and pose as surrendering troops in order to ambush coalition forces. In short they have no moral compunction whatsoever.
What we don't (and can't know) is how the Iragi people will react to the "invaders". So long as the possibility of Ba'ath party control and Sadaam's control exists we cannot know how the people of Iraq will really react. They must first be freed before their true feelings can even be known.
Hopefully they will react positively. They have suffered through wars for over 20 years now, unceasing, unrelenting poverty and the vicious rule of a horrible dictator who would kill them at the drop of a hat. Hopefully the prospect of a better life will temper the anger they feel toward the occupation force and allow them to pursue self-governing rule.
Will it cost a lot of money? Of course it will. But the UN costs us a lot of money and does nothing useful for us. A more temperate Iraq could solve a lot of the tensions in the Middle East and prove to the Arab world that Americans have no ambitions other than to see them enjoy they same freedoms that we do.
As far as the question of how long we will be there goes, we're still in Germany 55 years after WWII. Why I'll never know, but I guess Europe doesn't have the spine to do it without us (or they enjoy having us spend the money to do it and they like our soldiers spending their money over there.)
We're still in Korea 50 years after that war. Perhaps some day our troops will be able to come home and we won't be forced to defend half the world's people. Who knows? I'd be tickled pink if we could get all the troops home from far flung locations all over the world.
But I can't help but think that whatever the cost of the restoration of Iraq is, it will be worth it, both for the Iraqis and for America. Hopefully it will increase the stability in the region and encourage a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Hopefully it will also show the Arab world that we not only don't hate them, but we wish them the same freedoms that we have.
Perhaps I'm still too idealistic after all these years, but look at the countries we've fought over the years. They are all allies now. That should tell you something about the greatness of America. After all, we are German, British, French, Italian, Porteguese, Spanish, Swedish, Canadian, Albanian, Serb, Croat, Australian, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, Palestinian, Israel, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Jew, all living in peace together.
Would to God it were the same everywhere in the world.
As I posted on the blog the night the war started I pray that our hopes and dreams of peace and freedom for the people of Iraq will come true and that only good and not evil will come from our actions.
P.S. Oxfam America is accepting donations to begin humanitarian relief. There's a link in the right sidebar on the main blog page. I'll hope you'll all join me in supporting their efforts.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15503
I wish I could share your certainty. Unfortunately, I also believe that past actions are the most accurate predictors of the future (the best we have, not absolute). In that regard, a short quote from Ms. Molly Ivins, 20 Mar, 2003:
"I hate to rain on the administration's parade, but we're not even out of Afghanistan after more than a year, and that's a much smaller job. In fact, we don't seem to have control of much in Afghanistan beyond Kabul.
Poor Hamid Karzai was back in Washington last week, looking for money.
Turns out the White House forgot to ask Congress for any new money for his country -- oops, short attention span.
Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona managed to get $435 million put in Afghanistan, acting on his own initiative. "
This seems to be a pattern.
let's please nip in the bud this newly coined "pro-defense" label for the hawks, or we all may choke on the puke of its hypocrisy).
The pro-war folks love to say that the peace side "has no alternative" or that they must reckon the "cost of inaction". In fact, those in favour of peace, including many at the UN, have proposed
numerous alternatives and many courses of action. One need only read through the articles at a site such as www.znet.org to find many.
History has shown that not only do peace and prosperity lead to the removal of dictators from within more readily than war, despair, and poverty, but also that U.S. intervention around the world has almost never led to the establishment of democracy. On the contrary, it most often leads to the opposite -- the deposing of democratic governments and the installation of dicatatorial regimes favourable to U.S. "interests" (which is exacty how Saddam himself got into power). It's happening right now in Venezuela, in an all too familiar pattern.
Other examples include Chile, Haiti, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Iran, and many, many others. Here is just one relevant link:
"A Century Of U.S. Interventions"
The war fans would have us believe that war is inevitable and necessary at times, just like death and sickness. I don't believe that is so. Advances in communication and destructive technologies, as well as advances in our thinking as a species, are capable of rendering war obsolete. It should be as unthinkable to unleash war upon Iraq as it is
now to attack Pennsylvania or Manitoba. Today we can pick up a phone and talk to someone in Iraq instantly, we can read their blogs, we can
even videoconference with them. Visitors to Iraq talk of the kindness and hospitatlity they received, the beautiful children they met and played with, the regular working men and women they befriended. The same is true of the U.S. No surprise there -- around the world people are basically decent and friendly by nature.
Modern communication technology and global travel makes this basic truth clearer every day. Saddam may be an evil dictator, Bush may be
an evil pretender to the presidency, but their nations' citizens are regular nice people just like you and me, and to kill them by proxy, with our tax dollars, for our benefit (fill that SUV with premium!), is as morally abhorrent as to walk into their home with a machine gun and kill them ourselves.
Recently an organization of U.S. military veterans called "Veterans Call To Conscience" released an open
letter to today's U.S. troops in Iraq. Read it. Even if you disagree with my thesis that war can and should be made obsolete, I hope you will acknowledge that there can exist such a thing
as an "unjust war". The great majority of the world's people believe the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be just that -- an unjust war. And what the veterans say below is true of any unjust war:
"There is no honor in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an unjust war,
an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not "collateral damage," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is not "destroying enemy infrastructure," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone
lines so he could not call an ambulance, it is not "neutralizing command and control facilities," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole lives, it is not victory, it is murder."
necessary at times, just like death and sickness. I don't believe that
is so. Advances in communication and destructive technologies, as well
as advances in our thinking as a species, are capable of rendering war
obsolete. I pray that one day this will be true, but it is simply not yet so. People are still willing to kill others over race, religion, land, money, water and many other things. As long as that persists, in any society that is not toally totalitarian & controlled, war is possible.
You speak of vistits - Saddam restricts them, monitors them, and, if they are official, insures that nothing "untoward" is said, and punishes and murders people if it is.
You speak of communication - see above.
A slogan I have heard is "Let the People of Iraq choose". They have, regularly. In fact, I believe Saddam was elected with 99% of the vote last election. Of course, no one ran against him.
As to the unjust war - I do acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Saddam did it in 1991. But this war?? One in which plans are constructed based on the premise "Minmize civilian casualities, even at the price of endangering our goals"? One in which the attacker does his best not to hurt a child, and the defender has masked men threating people to go and fight or be killed on the spot? One in which the attacker take 5000+ prisoners and endeavors to treat them s well as his own men, save for their imprisonment, and the defender shoots prisoners of no propaganda use?
War can be unjust, but it can also be necessary. It is a sad and terrible thing.
AND TO MEASURE IT WITH NUMBERS, AS IF WE DARE TO WEIGH VALUES IN HUMAN LIVES, IS OUTRAGEOUS. and sad, and diminishes us all.
I apologize if I have offended anyone. I did not intend to. Passion speaks,at times a bit too loudly.
1 URL to support the above:
http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm
As to the unjust war - I do acknowledge that such a thing is possible. Saddam did it in 1991. But this war?? One in which plans are constructed based on the premise "Minmize civilian casualities, even at the price of endangering our goals"? One in which the attacker does his best not to hurt a child, and the defender has masked men threating people to go and fight or be killed on the spot? One in which the attacker take 5000+ prisoners and endeavors to treat them s well as his own men, save for their imprisonment, and the defender shoots prisoners of no propaganda use?
Oh puh-leeze! First off, listing Saddam's evils does nothing to justify this war. Two wrongs don't make a right, and there were many other ways to deal with the situation than invasion.Second, please don't give me the list of fictitious reasons that the Bush and Blair administrations have offered for this war, because it's all lies and propaganda. Do you really think Bush cares one whit for democracy or the people of Iraq, or the people of the U.S. either (except those who are rich enough to buy his influence)? Get real.
This war is a bloody and greedy grab for the oil of Iraq, and beyond that, for strategic dominance and control over the Middle East, and through control of its oil, the rest of the world. That is the bottom line, and the plans to do so have been formed over a long time. 9/11 gave the U.S. the pretext to make their latest assault upon the Middle East, but they would have found or invented another, just as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, which the U.S. gave a nod and wink to, was their pretext for that phase of establishing military control over the region. They were going to have democratic elections in "liberated" Kuwait too -- hasn't happened yet.
The naivety of many on the pro-war side astounds me. Saddam is an evil bastard, no doubt, there's no need to prove that, but the U.S. has been more than happy to do business with, protect, and install any number of equally evil bastards over the years. In fact, the last thing the U.S. really wants in the Middle East these days is anything resembling a true democracy (which would be more than the U.S. citizens themselves have anyway), because a democratically elected government would almost certainly be opposed to the U.S. and its plans for the region, for very good reasons.
Assuming the whole thing doesn't spin out of control into WW III, the most likely outcome is a the installation of a new dictator, "elected" in the manner of other so-called U.S.-protectorate "democracies", who will serve the American's interests first, his own second, and the people of Iraq not at all. Just like Saddam was before the U.S. decided it wanted a new arrangement without him.
It will take a globabl uprising and concerted and sustained effort to root out the true "evil" behind world affairs today -- the neoconservative transnational corporate elite carrying forward the bloody imperialism of the last few centuries, now accelerating to a crisis point. Luckily, the forces of opposition are rapidly reaching critical mass as well, and the Internet is no small part of that transformation. Heady times lie before us, let's not lose sight of who the true enemy is (hint: Saddam and the U.S. are both on the same side in this larger conflict, while we and the people of Iraq are on the other).
- Do you mean these things are not going on or that these are not the reasons for war?If you mean these are not the reasons, I accept the likelyhood of motivations beyond my knowledge, if not my paranoia. But these things are happening, should be stopped, and while 2 wrongs don't make a right - not helping suffering people is wrong and not trying to help just lets that continue! (of course it is also totally subjective and a terrible way to measure the validity of war). However, if you mean these things are not going on...I'm sure you don't, as the things Saddam's regime does to his people are patently terrible, and far worse then anything the US Goverment does, even if (God forbid) PATRIOT 2 were to pass.Second, please don't give me the list of fictitious reasons that the Bush and Blair administrations have offered for this war, because it's all lies and propaganda.
The Middle East has at least 1 true democracy. Israel. Crazy as we are, our votes count, as do those of our cousins. True does not mean perfect or even near-perfect, but it's there.The naivety of many on the pro-war side astounds me. Saddam is an evil bastard, no doubt, there's no need to prove that, but the U.S. has been more than happy to do business with, protect, and install any number of equally evil bastards over the years. In fact, the last thing the U.S. really wants in the Middle East these days is anything resembling a true democracy (which would be more than the U.S. citizens themselves have anyway), because a democratically elected government would almost certainly be opposed to the U.S. and its plans for the region, for very good reasons.
For what reasons would a democracy in the Middle East necessarily oppose the US? While there is certain to be disagreement on all kinds of issues, knowing the disagreements in advance assumes you know the plans. I do not feel that you do, nor the the US is as war-mongering or tyrannical as you seem to express.
I certainly do not. I hope one day to see many democratic countries in the region that would do as their people will, grow, flourish and have peace.
What about Kosovo? What about Nazi Germany? In these cases, inaction was far more costly in human life than early action would have been.
The United States has figured out how to effectively wage war while minimizing civilian death (although Saddam's Fedayeen are countering that with their perfidious use of civilian dress and human shields). Any civilian death, any death, is tragic, but if one honestly looks at the numbers, it becomes clear that the Saddam's death toll is almost unmatchable. I am no fan of Bush, but after listening to the stories of countless Iraqi exiles, I have concluded that this war is the right thing to do--that it will ultimately save many more lives than it takes. That is why I believe the antiwar side needs to assess the cost of inaction. Of course, inaction doesn't directly kill any one, but if it allows killing by others, the end result is the same--dead people are just as dead. What proposals did the peace protesters have for helping the people suffering under Saddam? I heard a lot of them say, "Oh, we hate Saddam, too," but none of them had any realistic alternative plan for dealing with him. They kept saying it was up to the Iraqis to get rid of him. This reminded me of Marie Antoinette's statement when told the people were starving: "Let them eat cake!"
As for a long term commitment in Iraq by the U.S., it sounds good on paper, but we already have a big PR problem in the region. Don't you think we should try to get the UN involved ASAP and let them be the administrators of the peace? If the U.S. tries to stay and run Iraq, I think we will run into even more problems due to resentment of our hegemony. In fact, although I'm with Bush on the war issue, I am very much afraid his administration may botch the peace.
By the way, I have never visited your site before--it's neat.
Let's say that the U.S. does leave and a small, ineffective U.N. presence is established. A radical movement under a Bin Laden type becomes popular and decides to take revenge on the U.S. in any way it can. At the current time, Iraq poses no proven danger to anyone outside its borders. That would not be true of the radical regime. Would you still believe that Iraq is better off than we found it?
What about the situation in North Korea? Now that's truly Stalinesque. Kim Jong-Il's brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. Do you advocate war on North Korea too? What about Syria? China? The dozens of other states suffering under brutal dictators? How do you propose that we pay for this endless series of wars of liberation not to mention to reconstruction afterwards.
I'm sorry, Martha. I respect you views but I simply do not find them realistic.
What about the situation in North Korea? Now that's truly Stalinesque. Kim Jong-Il's brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. Do you advocate war on North Korea too? What about Syria? China? The dozens of other states suffering under brutal dictators? How do you propose that we pay for this endless series of wars of liberation not to mention to reconstruction afterwards.
Al-Munaqabah, I have a question:If you are correct, how should we, as well meaning people, confront evil when we see it?
Seriously. (and if you can give me a short answer that works for all problems, other then calling on the Divine & Infinite for deliverance and assitance, let me know!
I don't claim to have all the answers, far from it, however I feel that there are many solutions we might try. Direct diplomacy, working with the neighboring countries (whether they serve as intermediaries or put regional pressure on a dictatorship), building up international organizations and alliances, and the like. On a more personal level, we can support the work of non-governmental organizations to bring aid to people or to bring information, or simply to help them escape. If I took more time to think about this, I could no doubt come up with a longer list; this is just my immediate response.
Maybe it's a failure of my thought process or my imagination but I really don't understand why war should be a first choice not a last resort.
Do you really believe after what's happened in the last months that the U.N. will receive the financial and political support it would need to do the job right? I just don't see that.
Actually, I'm not terribly optimistic about it. I am very afraid that we may be opening a Pandora's box, and I am afraid that Bush, et. al., may not have the diplomatic prowess or the will to involve the UN appropriately....but, one thing to remember is that we do vote for our leaders every four years. I think most people in the U.S. want the UN to be strong. We recognize that the whole world resents and fears our country, and that is not a good thing. If the Bush administration can't figure out how to walk softly, I believe it will be voted out in 2004.At the current time, Iraq poses no proven danger to anyone outside its borders. That would not be true of the radical regime. Would you still believe that Iraq is better off than we found it?
Saddam has proven himself willing to invade other countries, to torture, and to kill thousands without compunction. The man is a psychopathic megalomaniac. If he were to remain in power, all he would need is the opportunity and the resources, and I have no doubt he would be happy to kill as many people as suited his schemes. Frankly, it's hard to imagine anyone who would be worse.What about the situation in North Korea? Now that's truly Stalinesque. Kim Jong-Il's brutality makes Saddam Hussein look like an amateur. Do you advocate war on North Korea too? What about Syria? China? The dozens of other states suffering under brutal dictators? How do you propose that we pay for this endless series of wars of liberation not to mention to reconstruction afterwards.
Obviously, we will need to deal with North Korea differently. There's no question of liberating the North Koreans, because we can't without risking nuclear war--an unacceptable risk to that region and to us. In Iraq, because Saddam does not have nukes, we have a much lesser risk. Also, after so many years under Kim il-Sung and Kim Jong-il, North Koreans, sadly, are even more repressed than the Iraqis. I have heard stories that many North Korean defectors have a very difficult time adjusting to life in South Korea--they can't handle the freedom and don't have the skills or self-motivation to make good after so many years of being told what to do. As for Syria, China, and the rest, we have to try, when we can, to use diplomacy and economic pressure and economoic incentives to bring about change. I believe we tried to do this with Iraq, but it just didn't work. Partly because we didn't have the rest of the world complying with the sanctions, but mostly because Saddam would have none of it. I don't want our country to be constantly going to war. I do believe there are usually other solutions. I have a slight hope that we will be able to turn around Iraq once we get rid of Saddam and the Baathists, and that this may serve as an effective deterrent to other dictatorial regimes.
We have heard all the reasons eg., Weapons of Mass Desruction (WHERE ARE THEY?), regime change, libeate the Iraqi people (when has the US ever been concerned about LIBERATING people?), contol of the oil reserves etc etc.
In the meantime many innocent Iraqi people are being slaughtered through misadventure or from the result of carpet bombing.
I despise Saddam and his team of murderers. But bombing the shit out of innocents is surely not the answer.
The USA is hated by the Arab world. Why? Think about this.
The solution is clear...
Bomb the population with butter, supplies, food and kindness.
Distribute some of that obscene wealth to assist the people of the region to regain their self respect and to begin to trust the Western world again. (This will be hard following the betrayal by the US in the last Gulf war).
Mr multi-billionaire Microsoft where are you?
By bombing civilians, regardless of their so-called "smart bombs" which are in theory supposed to pick out only military targets, the attack on the Iraqi people is only creating many more thousands of Bin Ladens in the long run.
If a foreign force attacked Australia just because they didn't like the policies of John Howard, our Prime Minister, I too would fight to protect my country and my family, just as the Iraqi people are doing at present, even though I do not agree with Howard's stance in this war.
I consider the Iraqi people very brave, albeit misguided in following the orders of Saddam. After all, he is their leader and has exerted a huge influence on the population by means of propoganda and coercion. They may not like him, but that is all they have!
In short, the USA must change from invading aggressor to a nation capable of offering HELP and assistance to countries who are under the control of dictators.
Waging war is not the answer!
Let us return to diplomacy!
Second, you say that the reason we can't make war on North Korea is that it is far too heavily armed and poses a real threat to us. So are you saying that we are only able to attack Iraq because it doesn't pose a threat? Why attack at all then?
Let's say that our policy is to liberate all people under oppressive regimes, except if the regimes are too dangerous for us to attack. We've attacked Iraq; clearly doesn't pose a danger to us. So let's leave off the "Saddam Hussein is a dangerous megalomaniac" rhetoric. If he was that dangerous, your own reasoning would mean that we couldn't attack him. Stick with the "liberating the people of Iraq" rhetoric.
But if our reason for having this war is that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous megalomaniac, then you need to provide some proof that war is necessary to stop him from attacking either his neighbors or us. You've admitted that he poses no danger to us. So we come back to my first question. He hasn't attacked his neighbors in 12 years. Why is war necessary to stop him when our previous containment policy was doing the job OK?
BTW, are you sure that our policy is really that wise? It doesn't take too high an IQ to see that if you're an oppressive dictator, the best way to keep the U.S. off your back is to get nukes. Doesn't that kind of encourage all sorts of oppressive dictators to get nukes? How exactly is this making the world a safer place?
My personal opinion is that the war on Iraq has less to do with liberation than it does with economics and the power used to achieve it. I aslo find the GWB administration lacking in credability by their hurried approach and dangerous rhetoric. Although the UN has had past failures and is not perfect as the leading "super power" I think it is in the USA's interest as well as the rest of the worlds that we help build international law to provide the basis for stability in the future, not tear it down. And may I point out to those that are so eager to condemn the UN for it's record and the nations who disagree with Bush's policies, just as you are skeptical of the UN perhaps the rest of the world looks on to our past history with equal skepticism. The fact being we have a history of putting our economic interests above human rights and the environment while preaching democracy for all out of the side of our mouth.
Cases in point - 1954 USA and CIA help overthrow the ELECTED Guatemala gov't who had expropriated their fruit plantations from the USA company United Fruit. (None of the profits of United Fruit were redistributed or reinvested into Guatemala.) The elected gov't was replaced by a CIA-backed military dictatorship that deployed death squads to impose rule and built the worst human rights record in the western hemipshere. 1964 the left-leaning democratically elected gov't of Brazil was overthrown by the military with the help of the USA which opened the doors to USA corporations. These same conflicts of democracy and human rights occured in Chile, South Africa, the Phillipines. More pertinent to our subject in1953 the CIA backed the fall of the popular gov't of Iran to restore the Shah to power along with a 40% stake in the Iranian oil fields for the USA. The Shah was no angel but we backed him just as we did Saddam because it was believed to be in our own interests. Lets face it the USA and Europe provided Saddam with his chemicals and military arsenal mostly to contain the Islamic fundamentalists that we feared would spill out of Iran. A revolution that was triggered by our meddling in the region in our own interests. Just as the proliferation of arms sales in our own economic interest has caused grief and destruction abroad while we live comfortable and without fear. That last line may echo Bin Laden but there is a degree of truth to it. We need to realize how our actions effect the rest of the globe to understand the rage now directed at this country. I still believe we are a great nation that has achieved great things for all but we must not let apathy and ignorance lead us down a blundering path of destruction and self-destruction. The Bush administration is destroying civil rights at home while at the same time imposing it's narrow non-mandated views upon the rest of the world, this scares me far more than Saddam Hussein. Before Iquit may I just add that I find Bush's inclusion of religion in his war on "evil" nearly as out of context as Bin Laden's hijacking of the Koran.
The only thing that has changed about Saddam in the last 12 years is his ability to wage war. Not his thirst to do so. And to say that Saddam hasn’t invaded his neighbors is far from the truth. Saddam boasts about paying off and helping to train so called martyrs. If that is not an invasion of Israel nothing is. It’s funny how people refuse to look at the events of 9-11 from a realistic vantage point. Martyrdom has gone from something that only happens in Israel, to America’s only real vulnerability. And those that support it are enemy number one. If ulterior motives are as everyone refers, then where these motives not there in the first gulf war. I mean what’s different about now? I mean if someone was to go up to Saddam (pre-war) and say, “Yo Saddam how much will you give me familia, if I was to drive a plane into one of the twin towers?” Do you not think he would say “much ducks”? Do you not think the US leaders realize this and are threatened by it? Who cares if you can’t tie one Muslim fundamentalist to another? The fact that they all hate America coupled with the fact that they all witnessed America’s vulnerability is enough of reason for America to go on the offensive. The hatred for America didn’t just begin and end with Osama. It’s a cherished ideal of a growing movement, a movement that Saddam openly supports. And being a head of state he the two vilest forms of terrorism rolled up into one. He has the fever of religious fanaticism and the endless resources of a rich state. For America to be safe he has to go. And if you really want to wet your whistle, it doesn’t end with him. 9-11 was nothing more than the very first battle of world war 3. Afghanistan was the second, and Iraq is the third. And any country that openly supports these types of ideals will most likely be number 4. And it shouldn’t come as any surprise because Bush hinted to it when he said that war on terrorism will be fought on many different fronts in ways that many people will not understand. Wake up people, America didn’t just get punched in the nose, like any heavy weight champion should do, they came up swinging.
This is why America doesn’t give two flips about what the UN thinks. And why should they? The UN is like communism, yea it a great ideal, but when you take into consideration the driving force for all humanity (greed) its damn near impossible. I mean is it not funny how the countries that adamantly oppose the US invading Iraq, all stand to capitalize on Iraqi oil contracts. People say this war is illegal, (Hah) but in a court of law, any judge who took a case with a defendant relationship such as this would be disbarred, never to pass judgment again. And I have never heard someone explain to me, how other countries financial opportunities should outweigh America’s desire to defend itself. Oh yea that right, I almost forgot Saddam would never hurt anyone, I mean kill anyone, I mean kill anyone again, I mean Saddam would never do anything to kill anyone but the Zionist enemy. Yea that’s right. Oh wait, are we also the Zionist? Damn now I’m confused again. Oh well…
Also, you seem to think that all the commentors are in agreement or hold the same position. Did you miss all the pro-war comments that have been posted here?
You do seem a bit confused. Perhaps you should take a bit more time to read everything that's been posted here.
P.S. You seem to have missed the point of my original blog entry as well.
Well yea did you read my post? It isn’t a single country that the US is retaliating against it is an ideal. And are saying that you don’t believe Saddam is one of the major supporters of that ideal? Are you seriously saying to prove that? Saddam is continuously talking about destroying the Zionist. How many times has the US been lumped together with Israel with the very same terminology? Saddam boasts about how much money he gives to martyrs families. What would you do if I were to put it out there that any one who killed members of your family would get paid. Well in America you would get thrown in jail for attempted murder. They don’t wait for the murderous act to be committed. They react to stop such deeds. As is the case here. For a long time we didn’t feel threaten by such tings, but post 9-11 is a different world. And I never said Iraq was in the same bed with al-queda. I said they have the same ideals. And the ideal that without hard prove you are paralyzed in your defense is not an ideal that I want guarding my children. If you must know many terrorist attacks are only known when a group claims responsibility for them. If they don’t claim responsibility how would you know. Maybe intelligence. Isnt that what the US has been saying all along. They believe Al-Queda is in the same bed as Iraq and they are acting on it.
I believe your original post said that this could be bad for the Iraqis if the US didn’t keep pouring money into the post war build up. My response to this was short because it isn’t a valid point at all. Anyone who needs oil will want to help rebuild Iraq, and that pretty much means the entire world.
The debate about whether the war in Iraq is justified is important, but now that war is here, perhaps you clever folks will turn your attention to the "what comes after" question which is so important to me. If any war can be "just" I think this one could only be considered "just" if the surviving people of Iraq are in better circumstances after the fighting stops than they were before it started. How can we make this happen? To use a crude and perhaps inappropriate metaphor, will Iraq look more like post-war Japan or post-Tito Yugoslavia?
Consider Afghanistan: surely the ouster of the Taliban has improved the lives of Afghans, but they are far from secure and well-fed and their stories have now left the front page. Iraq is a much wealthier country with many educated people, so I have high hopes for their future along with grave concerns. What comes next?
It sounds to me like some US corporations are in line for lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq. I don't understand, if this is so profitable (aside from the oil) then why haven't they been doing the same in Afghanistan?
I would think these rebuilding contracts that Bush and Cheney's friends have already in the works may be a major motive for the war. That, with the oil. And what about the military industrial complex? I've read that since the cold war, free trade and nafta helped the economy and especially these corporations. I've read that the US needs to make and sell weapons for the sake of the economy. 'Great' motivations for war. What do people think?
Not that the concerns of civil unrest aren’t valid. But with the current state of the Iraqi psyche, civil unrest is imminent. Don’t forget this is a civilization that has been deprived of all natural courses of direction. Does someone actually think that the UN is some magic pill that will just make decades of deprivation go away? And anarchy in Iraq, an extremely resource rich country. Are you serious? That area is so valuable that countries are already lining up to help get that country in order so that they can get that oil pumping. Anarchy doesn’t exist is resource rich countries. So go read some more Arab rhetoric. And how long did Russia know democracy? What do you have some better idea for a government for that area? Maybe you should take a look around the world and tell me which form a government is working the best.
The events of this past week are more profound than most of us can believe. Iraq has not seen a democracy in many, many years- which is extremely sad considering how this area is the cradle of all civilization- a connection for every human on this earth. It's silly to say that just Arabs should fix the problems of Arab countries, how many times have they fought for one another when human rights and decency was being so fully extinguished by men like Saddam? Everyone is so worried about the "questionable" govenrmental future of Iraq... Heellloo... Japan? Germany? I would say those were just a tad more difficult to mend and reconstruct- and here we are 60 years later, they being strong and successful contries. It's so easy for us to live in America and say what is best for other contries when we have had everything handed to us. Anyone here ever had a dismemberd daughter dropped off on your doorstep because she talked to CNN? (look up the letter from CNN to the public about their knowledge of all the atrocities of the Saddam Regieme-NOT reported to the world for selfish reasons- which in my opinion did not help the public make an accurate judgment on the problems of this country- easily allowing us to turn an eye to them) I was reading another blog and someone brought up a good point. That America is the only place that Jews, Muslims and Christians live in peace. If that isn't a validation that we have the best blueprint for peace in the world so far, I don't know what is. People complain that we do nothing to help the world with all of our power and money, and then turn around and complain when we do help. I don't understand. I'm confused at how I am an "arrogant" American to try to help those with less than I instead of a loving and giving human being. I wish the world would get past the name on the package and just take the goods and make a better life. I don't see other people handing out democracy paid for with the lives of soliders-
If all you come here to do is bash people with a different opinion from you and misrepresent what they think, I'd appreciate it if you'd find another place to post.
Just wanted to let you know I agree with you on the fact that I think, that not going to war would be the lesser evil. If one wants to change the world, one should change peoples minds, not bomb them.
Regards,
Norwegian.
Len, I think you have the same view as many opressors do. They themselves think of they are great people, with the right to use arms to reinforce their ideas. Now take a look at what has happened in Baghdad. They talk about a 20 year plan, to rebuild the city. 20 years! ... Ok, what if you took the same 20 years, and helped the iraqi people thru sanctions and tried to educate them about what is going on with their country, and also educate them about the other cultures. Don't you think the people themselves would change their mind, and fight their oppressors themselves?
If you look at nature, change always comes slow.
Best Regards,
Norwegian.
Saddam Hussein has tried to silence ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq as well. During the Anfal Campaign of 1987-88, Saddam Hussein's regime killed and tortured the Kurdish population. It eliminated many Kurdish villages and forced surviving Kurds into zones where he could control them. His regime has suppressed the Shi'a religious community through killings and arrests and bans their Friday prayers and books in certain regions. He has also targeted the citizens of other nations in his region, killing and torturing Kuwaiti and Iranian citizens, among others.
The Iraqi people are not allowed to vote to remove the government. Freedom of expression, association, and movement do not exist in Iraq. The media is tightly controlled — Saddam Hussein's son owns the daily Iraqi newspaper. Iraqi citizens cannot assemble except in support of the government. Iraqi citizens cannot freely leave Iraq. So how in the world are you going to educate people in Iraq again?
And your statement about letting them rise up against their own government was again proof that you really have no idea about what is going on in Iraq. Any time any group of people even so much as demonstrated against the government then their throats were slit faster than you can say peace. A massive uprising in Iraq would have easily ended with half of the Iraqi population dead. That my friend is you answer, let the millions die instead of anyone helping out? That is you watching your neighbor’s kid being beaten to death while you watch and say it isn’t my business. Well in this country you would be tried in a court of law for such inaction.
Also, what do you think of the situation in Afghanistan? A year and a half after its "liberation", the people there are nearly as oppressed as they were under the Taliban. Most of the country is under the control of brutal warlords and struggling to meet basic needs like health care and education. The Bush Administration is providing little money or efforts to improve the situation. Rather, it seems like we knocked the Taliban out of power then turned our attention to the next target and left Afghanistan pretty much to fend for itself.
Is the same thing going to happen in Iraq? Already, there is widespread looting and anarchy. Factions are carrying out suicide attacks and assassinations. Anti-American protests are growing. And this is while our troops are still in Iraq. What happens if we decide to make war on Syria next? Will we pull out of Iraq in order to do it and leave it, too, to fend for itself?
If you read and understood my original blog entry, you know that this was my clear and stated concern with the war on Iraq: what are we going to do after the fighting is over to actually bring peace and freedom to the Iraqi people? I set out in the blog entry what I believe will be necessary to do this. My fear is that the U.S. will fall short of what is necessary - and that if we fall short, the consequences may be terrible.
If you didn't get that out of my blog entry, you need to go back and read it again.
There are two parts to liberation, breaking the old regime, and building a new one. We're real good at breaking old regimes. We're not so good at building new ones. I don't want us to leave a bunch of broken countries in our wake because those are the conditions that will breed anger and hatred against the U.S. and lead to more terrorism. How do you think the Taliban came to power in the first place? The U.S. pulled out after the Soviets withdrew and left Afghanistan to fend for itself. A decade of civil war and anarchy later, the conditions were ripe for the Taliban. We're doing the same thing to Afghanistan all over again. I pray to God we're not doing the same thing to Iraq.
Your point on Afghanistan is well taken, but there is one major difference with Iraq. Afghanistan is a resource poor country, and the cost to rebuild it comes directly out of the US’s pockets. How many countries were lining up to make sure they had some vital role in helping Afghanistan out. Now compare that figure to how many countries are demanding that they have a vital role in rebuilding Iraq. What company was contracted to head the rebuilding of the Afghanistan infrastructure? The fact of the matter is that Iraq has a company who is already contracted to head the rebuilding and not only that a company whose policy it is to not bring labor with them to do the job. A company who has already stated that they will use Iraqis to be the primary labor force. The French and Russians are demanding lead roles in helping rebuild. All of this is by no coincidence. The fact is that France is feeling pressure to boast their economy with the onset of EU. They see Iraqi oil as being a golden opportunity to help build their country’s economy up so they can take a lead role in the EU. Russia since the fall of communism is a country that is trying to create an economy that has some international worth. According to leading international economist Russia’s entire economic development depends on their production of oil. Currently Russia is the number two oil exporter in the World. So why do they need Iraqi oil? Well if the price of oil drops below 15$ a barrel Russia’s will not be able to compete with the rest of the world for oil sales and its entire economic future will desolate. Saudi Arabia is not the rich country it used to be and it also realizes that if Iraqi oil falls outside of the control of OPEC than its ability to control oil prices and subsequently demand will lessened to a great degree. The point I’m trying make is that Iraq’s future is so vital to the rest of the world that worrying about whether or not they will receive the aid of others is pointless. If for no other reason the world simply cannot afford it. And the fact is that it will probably not be the US because the US has less to gain out of it than anybody else. Yes the US is the number one oil importer in the world but the world’s oil supply currently in excess capacity. Under the oil for food program Saddam was allowed to sell his oil to whomever he chose, but for some strange reason to sell it to the US. Even when the war was imminent he was selling to the US. Why, because if you sell a product you need the number one demander to be your customer. The rest of the oil exporting countries also desperately need the US. When Saddam did stop selling oil to the US, he was certain that the price of oil would sky rocket, but in fact it didn’t change at all. The US just diverted what it was receiving from Iraq to Venezuela. If the US stays in Iraq the rest of the world (especially the Arabs) will cry that the US was just after Iraq’s oil. It is a no win situation for the US. They are dammed if the stay and the only other possibility is for the US to hand over Iraq to the UN. That is what will likely happen.
And don’t be so quick to define the Afghanistan situation as a failure, progress is being made despite security issues. I realize that it isn’t as fast as everyone hopes, but is there really some magic pill for lost country’s maturity. And being a Muslim woman yourself I’m surprised that you haven’t taken to heart the one area of marked improvement in the region, and that is of course the human treatment of women. And if you don’t think the Afghanistan is on the list of countries receiving financial aid from the US, you are very wrong.
And how do you think extremely poor uneducated people are going to act in the wake of being freed from a ruthless dictator. You think they are going to round a camp fire and sing peace songs. They have been taught to not trust, to not love, and to not feel. Yet one thing you said didn’t even seem to make an impression on you. Iraqi people are protesting!! Two months that would be unheard of but for once the Iraqi people will be aloud to speak their minds, they will be aloud to shape there future. I ask you this, would you rather be a slave with security or would rather be free with a chance to shape your future?
Regarding the situation for women in Afghanistan, I was actually thinking of reports like this when I wrote that:
In many parts of Afghanistan, such as the under-developed western province of Herat, women face violence and remain victims of insecurity, limiting their access to public life and threatening their lives and dignity.
Worse, restrictions to the full enjoyment of fundamental freedom and human rights continue to be applied to women by local leaders in the country. In the Herat province, police have reportedly forced women to wear the burqa(cloak covering face and body).
According to the head of a women's NGO that was forced to function underground during the Taliban regime, attacks on female rights and free movement continue unchecked in Afghanistan.
Some "liberation".
In an earlier comment, you suggested that their commonality is that they both hate America and Israel. If those are the only two criteria you judge by, there's a whole lot of countries, and not just Muslim ones, that meet the criteria. Do you propose war on those countries as well? I'm also curious about why you consider Israel so central to American interests. Are you saying that because the people who attacked on 9/11 hate Israel, we should confront all other people who hate Israel? Or what? Why is Israel special? We don't go to war with countries because they hate our other allies. And there are other things that al-Qa'ida hate. Are we going to seek out countries that share their hate of those things as well, and attack them?
Oh, and I didn't answer your question before because I was still trying to understand what your position is. I must admit that I am still somewhat confused, as I've outlined above. To answer you: Of course I would rather be free. One of the points I'm trying to make is that the people of Afghanistan are not much more free than they were under the Taliban. They've just exchanged one kind of oppression for another. I'm worried that the same thing will happen in Iraq. That's what I've been saying all along. I'm really tired of people suggesting that I don't support freedom because I don't support this war. I don't support this war because I don't think it actually will lead to freedom like is claimed.
I don't know if you've taken the time to read any further in my blog than this particular entry. If you haven't, maybe you should. It would help you get a better idea of my worldview.
White supremacist groups in the U.S. cheered 9/11 (source). Does that make them "linked to al-Qa'ida?
One other thing. No, I don't think that rebuilding a country happens overnight. However, I think that the U.S. is more or less leaving Afghanistan to fend for itself as it did before. I find that to be shameful. Eventually, Afghanistan may pull itself together and become a peaceful, free country. Or it may end up under a new version of the Taliban. If we're so committed to seeing it become a peaceful, free country we need to be doing a lot more to make it happen.
And if the very same white supremacist groups openly supported, funded, trained and recruited suicide bombers, not to mention offered to take bin laden into the country where they would hide him from US authorities, what do you think would happen to them? I will just leave that at that because it was kind of silly. But the fact remains that you are looking at the two groups differences and saying how can they be alike. Which is a very strange way to find similarities is it not? Most people would find the similarities and differences to judge why two things are alike but you choose to look only at the differences to determine how they are alike. That is like saying that one of us is not a human being because we view the war differently.
And one last thing the US has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Afghanistan since the war officially ended, I agree that this could easily be more, but whose fault is it that supported member of their community was responsible for the worst foreign attack on US soil ever. Remember that was a retaliatory attack supported by the international community. The US bears no official responsibility to rebuild Afghanistan, Afghanistan does however have a responsibility of it’s own. And to think you see what the US is not doing in Afghanistan as shameful I find also strange. I mean one nation secretly attacks another and after the nation that was attacked in the first place responds, he is now responsible for building up the nation that attack it or else he has shame brought down upon him. So I guess any third world country that wants to be rebuilt should just attack the US.
And please don’t take anything I say as ridicule or defamation, I honestly respect your opinions. And although it might sound as if I am trying to force my opinions upon you, that is not my goal. I realize that you cannot change the way a person chooses to think thru an online discussion. I actually view this discussion as an educational experience.
I am still confused by your discussion of Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida. I am not the one looking for similiarities; you are. You argued that they are linked. I said that they are not. Obviously, you want to point out similarities and I want to point out differences. That seems pretty straightforward.
Saddam Hussein may well have posed an independent threat to the United States, although I am not at all convinced of that, given that he hardly put up a fight even when invaded and does not seem to have any WMDs that anybody has found. But that is a separate question from whether Saddam Hussein is part of the threat that al-Qa'ida poses, which is what you are arguing.
A nation can have more than one enemy. The enemies may even have some similarities in their aims, in their targets, or in their tactics. You seem to be saying that because these similarities exist there must be some kind of collusion or link. But that is faulty logic.
I can point out a variety of groups that have similarities (which is what I was attempting to do with the white supremacist example). The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, a Hindu group, have been using suicide bombings as a tactic for a decade or more. Does that make them linked too? What about the kamikazes of Japan in WWII? Are they linked?
The U.S. has a certain limited set of characteristics and actions that its enemies can focus on; all its enemies will tend to be similar in focusing on those characteristics or actions. Enemies from the same region are even more likely to be similar since they'll focus on the actions of the U.S. in that region. But that doesn't mean that they are linked.
You would do better to just say that the U.S. is going to attack all threats, real and perceived, than to try and claim that all the threats are linked. You seem to think that I am claiming there is no similarity at all. That is not correct. I am claiming that there is no link. That is a very different question.
I'm a little curious to how Ken can accuse me of standing by watching people be killed, when he himself is a supporter of war. His analogy, that I would stand by watching a father abuse his son to death, is a perversion of what I said. Let us take his analogy and look at it.
If I knew someone was being abused by their father, or anyone else, I would try to talk to the person, and try to get them to realize that there is a world away from that abuse. To the abused person, this would seem unreal, so it would take a lot of good willed conversation, and probably a lot of patience, to convince this person of taking the steps of seeking out this other world. A person in an abusive situation is not often aware of how bad the abuse is, just they feel bad or even feel it's their own fault. It's a very sensitive matter, and I can't really try to cover it all in one post here. What Ken suggests though, if I take his analogy and logic, and applies it in reverse - is that I, on the occasion of seeing a person abused by his father, should kill his father, and bomb his house. Now, if I did this, I think most persons I know, would think of me as a madman.
But this is exactly what Ken is telling me I should do. I disagree with his view. What state would that leave the abused person in?
Wouldn't he just see me as another abuser?
Also, most people who abuse others, are people who have been abused themselves. It's a vicious circle, that needs to be broken, and for it to be broken, the person itself must want out of it. And he would have to strive and work with himself amazingly hard to do so.
You don't have to be a genious to understand that, going from a lifetime of abuse, not knowing anything else, to someone who knows a world without abuse, is an extremely hard task. Yet this is what they have to do.
Abused persons who have not confronted themselves with their abuse, also often seeks out partners that are abusive, unconsciously. It's very typical, because they have not made the neccesary change within themselves, to allow them to concieve a world where there is no abuse. So they seek out what they know, and continue suffering.
..
Now, I hope you understand what I mean with educating. That people need to become aware of their abuse, and start to think about what they need to do, in order to make it through to a world where they are not abused.
We can apply this reasoning also to Iraq, as Ken applied his analogy.
I sincerely wish for Iraq, and it's people freedom. At the same time, I would say I want freedom for the whole world, which many places is still struggling with oppression. Even in my country there is oppression - maybe not so physical, but psychological oppression of people, usually of people who do not accept the changing conjectures of other people. It's described in The Noble Qur'an, and applies to all cultures and ages.
Now to have world peace.. That's quite a concept. For me it'd be worldwide recognition of Islam/Iman, and practising it Wisely.
For those who think this would conflict with their current beliefs, I would like them to show and explain the part of Qur'an that conflicts with their current belief of how it could be done. I would like to also stress that Islam supports various levels of practising the faith, but encourages the highest level. "There is no compulsion in religion"
I'd also like to add that I support war, but only when it is absolutely neccesary, and I would not support an excessive show of force. I would not support an act of war that would cause more damage than good, and would never support a war, where the conflict could be solved without a war. I do not agree with the invasion that US did. But also now I think it's pointless to discuss, since it is done, and nearly over. Maybe what would be a better discussion is, what would now be needed in Iraq, for the people to have the peace, which the US claims the war was about?
The Qur'an talks about people that are hardened in their ways.
Maybe this is the biggest problem Iraq faces now, people hardened in their ways, not allowing the change needed for true peace.
..
I think the US really needs to address the need for lawenforcement in Iraq right now. In addition to all other aspects of the crisis Iraq is going through.
-Norwegian.
Your argument over Saddam and Al-Queda is one of interpretation. I have made the point that I don’t believe that they are acting together. Yet you keep trying to tell me why they are not acting together. I never said they were one in the same. You argue the point that I have said they are acting together, and that argument might be worth pursuing if I had said that in the first place, but I didn’t. I said that they US has declared war on every single group that is presently active in performing suicide attacks on the US and/or Israel. And the link I am referring to is the not a physical link but the link that all of the mentioned parties are presently active in performing suicide attacks against the US and/or Israel. The US realizes that groups that attack Israel view Israel and the US as one in the same. The US has been watching the suicide attacks on their TV sets for years. Now that it seems possible that this could begin to occur inside the US, the US is not going to sit and wait to see what happens next. The US realizes that if they remove Al-Queda then they have only scratched the surface. These organizations have being declaring death to the US for years. Now that the US has been made vulnerable they are taking these previous statements very seriously. And the organizations that have made them should thank Bin Laden personally for awakening the sleeping giant. It is the duty of the United States Government and the United States Armed Forces to ensure that this does not happen again, and that is the course you see in action. The US is not about to wait for every single group to have a successful attack on the US before they respond. The US is saying if you have threatened us before and you are grouping us in with Israel and you are currently engaged in suicide missions then you are on the list.
And Norwegian, like I said before your argument would be great if the world could take a trip to shrink’s office but it very unrealistic. Taking that approach would of most certainly would of killed millions and quite honestly could take centuries to implement. Please read my previous post addressed to you and tell me how you would first remove Saddam’s death grip on the Iraqi society in order to let someone come in a lay down some psycho counseling to its citizens. Which of course Saddam and then Saddam’s sons and then Saddam’s grandsons (and so on) would have viewed as a direct threat to their government and their riches. And you act like people with evil tendencies are just waiting for someone to come in and pat them on the butt and say “don’t worry everything is going to be alright”. It is almost like you refuse to believe that there is evil in this world. And the point I was trying to make is that if you didn’t step in the kid would be dead, and if the kid had already lost half of his family from his fathers abuse, (of which their heads are on display out in front of their house on a stick) I doubt very seriously the kid would see you as an abuser but rather a hero. Maybe my problem was simplifying what is going on over in Iraq, because that fits in nicely with your argument, but in Iraq you aren’t getting Saddam in with a shrink and you aren’t taking his citizens there either?
I can kind of see your point about Afghanistan, but the fact is we did attack their country, we did remove their government and we then committed ourselves to helping them rebuild their country. And we're not doing a very good job of it. I probably wouldn't agree with it if we had just attacked and then walked away, for the reason that I said before: the common people had nothing to do with the Taliban but they're the ones that are paying. However, what I really find is shameful is our lack of commitment to seeing through the project of rebuilding that we started. As I said to start this off, I am continually baffled by how I express something based on humanitarian concern for people and you seem to draw the most outlandish conclusions from it. That's why I suggested before that you read the rest of my blog. My personal philosophy may seem stupid or unrealistic to you, but I do try to be consistent to it and it is not any of the things you keep suggesting about me. If you read the rest of my blog you might have a better idea about it.
As for Iraq and al-Qa'ida, it sounds like the two of us are talking past each other or something. I feel like every time I try to explain something, you respond by saying something different. I really don't have any idea what exactly you think or what you are trying to say. Again, maybe this is a failure on my own part and I am not able to understand properly. I don't know.
I've noticed that Israel seems to be central to your thinking. You said in your most recent comment that America's government and America's armed forces are to defend America's own national interests. That makes sense; all countries do that. However, America's interests and Israel's interests are not the same. You present some strong arguments that Iraq has been a threat to Israel. Iraq has directly supported suicide bombers who attack Israel. Iraq has previously made some moves to attack Israel. Iraq's alleged WMDs could pose a threat to Israel. So why not let Israel take care of Iraq? I'm sure it is more than capable of it. Why should America get involved when Iraq poses no threat to America?
I'm trying again to get at what I see as an error in your thinking. Yes, Iraq and al-Qa'ida are similar in that both of them target Israel. But they are different in that al-Qa'ida targets America and there is no evidence that Iraq has done so. As far as Israel is concerned, Iraq and al-Qa'ida may be two aspects of the same threat. But America is not Israel. Iraq and al-Qa'ida are not the same in terms of the threat they pose to America.
It makes more sense for America to leave Iraq alone and go after al-Qa'ida. Also, by invading and occupying Iraq, America may well be strengthening al-Qa'ida, by creating a greater pool of anti-American recruits for al-Qa'ida. To put it another way, the Iraqi people may not have wanted to target America before but if America doesn't handle Iraq right, they Iraqi people may want to target America in the future.
This is another argument that I have been making all along. War in Iraq does not do anything to defeat al-Qa'ida and therefore improve our national security. Instead it seems likely to strengthen al-Qa'ida and endanger our national security. What the hell kind of foreign policy is that?
I have been trying hard to make myself clear on the Iraqi Al-Queda issue, maybe this will help. Do you think that Israel views all of these different groups as completely different types of threats? Or do you think they view them all as one in the same? I believe Israel views them all as different armies of the same threat. Well these groups have all threatened Israel along with the US. And while you say that the US and Israel are different countries, all of the groups were speaking off, lump them both together as the Zionist enemy. To them the US and Israel are one in the same. And the only difference was, was that they were all actively attacking Israel, and the only difference now, is that after being attacked itself the US views all of these threats as does Israel. The US refuses to become the next Israel.
Yea the US could of easily increased Al-Queda memberships (which I have explained is not the only US enemy engaged in this war). And although it might not of directly hurt Al-Queda (or at least not the branch that was located in northern Iraq) they now realize that if they attack America again another one of the Muslim dictatorships that allows Muslim extremist terrorist groups to reside within it boundaries will fall and the amount of US troops on Arab soil will increase. Whenever they try to gain any objective thru the means of terrorism it will completely backfire. Their actions will lead to the destruction of everything they are trying to protect. That is what war is all about. You go to war to try and protect your interest and when failure to protect your interest is inevitable or impending you surrender or die. While you say the war with Iraq might of strengthened Al-Queda, the one thing it did for sure, is that in the eyes of all Muslim extremist it strengthened the US. The US has a policy to never give into terrorist; they will not allow them to dictate US policy. And yes another terrorist attack is inevitable, as it was before the war with Iraq. However, the US cannot stop supporting Israel because terrorist say so. The US cannot remove their troops from Arab lands because terrorist say so. The US cannot lift sanctions of off a maniacal regime because terrorist say so. What type of precedence would that set for all future terrorist requests? Not only is the US the world’s most powerful nation they plan on staying that way. And war sucks and the US does not want war but to be on top you cannot let anybody dictate your policy thru a violent means. And while a war with Russia or even China might intimidate the US a war with all of the worlds Muslim extremist does not scare it. When bush declared war on terrorist that is precisely what he meant.
And although the argument could be made that the US should not support Israel as it currently does, you have to respect the fact that US cannot deter from its current policy of supporting Israel because of terrorist.
Could you explain how and in what way Iraq posed a threat to the U.S.? Could you give me some examples of hostile or violent actions that Iraq took against America or Americans before we invaded their country? Could you explain how Iraq endangered our national security? Until you can do that, I simply do not find it convincing that America should make war on Iraq to defend itself. Iraq financed suicide bombers against Israel yet there is no evidence that Iraq has financed any terrorist attacks against the U.S. There is no evidence that Iraq has ties to al-Qa'ida or any other group which has committed terrorist attacks against the U.S. How do you explain this? People can talk all they want; it's their actions that we should judge them by. Iraq's words may paint the U.S. as identical to Israel, but Iraq's actions clearly distinguish between the two.
I'm sorry, but your argument simply does not carry any weight without evidence.
I don’t understand how you can say that Iraq posed no threat to the US. I mean just for starters the gulf war ended in 1991 yet it is undisputed that Iraqi-sponsored assassins tried to kill George Bush senior on a visit to the Gulf in 1993. The same year, Abdul Rahman Yasin mixed and made the truck bomb which wrought destruction and killed six in the first New York World Trade Center attack - then coolly boarded a plane for Baghdad, where he still resides (well maybe recently he has found a quick exit to Syria). There is strong evidence that Ramzi Yousef, leader of both the 1993 New York bombing and a failed attempt two years later to down 12 American airliners over the Pacific, was an Iraqi intelligence officer. Also during the first Gulf Wars cease fire agreement Iraq promised to abandoned its support for international terror, which it obviously did not do. For Hamas has had a Baghdad office for many years. Saddam has praised Hamas for its efforts in suicide attacks and vice versa. Hamas publicly claims the US is the root of all of all the Palestinian problems. Hamas has publicly called for the death and destruction of America and has threatened suicide attacks numerous times. Hamas publicly praised the attacks of 911. During President Bush’s response to 911 he specifically called out the Hamas organization and vowed that the US would fight them, he also stated that he would wage war against any country that harbored terrorist. Iraq harbors Hamas, Bush made it clear then but people still seem to not want to believe that the US is waging war as Bush directed. Whether you think it just or not the US has the right to protect itself and if it views these specific types of terrorist groups (who actively threaten the US) and the countries that harbor them as a threat they have every right to wage war against them.
Moving on, Hamas for all their rhetoric has never tried to carry out any attacks on the U.S. The era when Palestinian groups carried out "international" terrorism rather than terrorism in Israel has been over for quite a number of years and none of the current groups were involved in those earlier attacks. I will say it again: let Israel deal with it.
The Bush administration had ample opportunity leading up to this war to show that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to it. It failed. It could not provide any smoking gun evidence that Iraq is behind al-Qa'ida or any other group that has attacked the U.S. or its interests. It could not provide any credible evidence that Iraq has any WMDs with which to threaten the U.S. militarily. Apparently, that's when the rhetoric switched over to say that the war was about liberating the Iraqi people.
If I suspect that my neighbor is planning to kill me, I don't make a pre-emptive strike to kill him. I'd be on trial for murder before I knew what happened. I would have to have evidence that holds up in a court of law that the neighbor presented a clear and imminent danger to me and that my action was self-defense. If I was able to do that, the jury would acquit and everybody would agree that my action was justified after all.
So where's the evidence? I don't mean inneundo like "he got on a plane to Baghdad". What did he do in Baghdad? Whom did he meet? Did he get asylum in Iraq? Was he offered money? If all he did was disappear into a large Arab city where he would blend in, that's not exactly a stunning indictment against the Iraqi regime.
Present me evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
Dear Veiled, your blog is quite interesting, proving that although Islam has turned all loony nowadays, there are some sensible muslims out there, albeit they seem to comprise only a minor part of muslim population.
As for the Iraq issue, I think we have acted right attacking Iraq, which is (hopefully) only a first step in destabilizing the Islam world, which seems too persistent in its anti-American(I mean, anti-Western of course) free-fall nowadays, with crazy mullahs, the so-called 'religious intellectuals' and wretched 'pro-western' dictators selling people their own lunatic flavor of Islam and guess what...people buy it, and even like it.
In my opinion, those countries _and_ their populations are so messed up that American interference _absolutely_ won't make things worse than they are.
What interests me if our govn't will realize that it absolutely needs _first_ the rule of law in Iraq, under the American sponsorship, _then_ an active social and political debate by Iraqis themselves, and only after that would Iraqis be able to vote in elections.
Pure democracy is one of the most revolting things the humanity has come up with. I can imagine America's Founding Fathers would agree with me. What the not-so-well-to-do world needs to accept is the rule of law(and it's certainly not Shariat that I mean under law), then to accept the value of personal freedom, which would lay out the basis for a thriving _liberal_ democracy.
PS Gone posting to an Iranian blog...those Iranians in their democratic idealism make me remember once again my own idealism in Prague of '89. I wonder how such freedom-loving souls like their(and I guess mine too
) were able develop without freedom anywhere around. All in all, "freedom is beautiful"(c) W.
There's something else you need to understand. I'm training to be a paralegal and hope to eventually become a lawyer, God willing. I feel very strongly about the rule of law and about principles like "innocent until proven guilty". If someone has had ample opportunity for a decade to take action against me yet has failed to do so however much they talk about me, then I am not going to attack them on the basis of what I think they "might" do. That's the rule of force not the rule of law. You seem to be suggesting that people who commit terrorist acts are in a special category and we don't have to follow the same rules with them. I do not subscribe to that view. It's a matter of principle. Until I have reasonable cause to believe that I or someone else is in danger, I do not consider that I have moral justification to take violent action against another person.