A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing

[jaguar]

So let me get this straight chris..
You approve a war on Iraq because Iraq has "torture chambers, mass graves and weapons of mass destruction" and has shown a tendency to to be agressive, right? And this means the US has a 'moral' obligation?
(and a legal one? A legal one???? really? according to what law? the law of what we can bully the UN into passing this week?)

And that Iraq was in the wrong because without provocation it invaded a soverign state (Kuwait), and thus the US was morally right in becoming involved militarily.

I'm confused, does the US 'moral' obligation extend to all the bloody dictatorships it set up or only Iraq? Does it include ones that pop on their own or only US seeded ones? Was Iraq picked out of a hat or by rolling a dice? Is the justifier a lack of 'freedom' or posession of WMDs? If WMDs does such a 'moral' obligation extend to quasi allies such as Pakistan or only those who it is politically safe to villify in the present political environment? Is the US the only 'policeman' with the right to invade and colonise soverign states or are here others who have somehow gained such privliges as well?

I hope you can clear this up for me.

[wolf]

Since the sun set on the British Empire, it does seem to be up to us now, doesn't it?

[ChrisD]

Originally posted by jaguar
So let me get this straight chris..
You approve a war on Iraq because Iraq has "torture chambers, mass graves and weapons of mass destruction" and has shown a tendency to to be agressive, right?

Amongst other reasons, sure. Human rights violations are despicable (and don't misunderstand me to turn a blind eye when the US is responsible for the same violations).

And this means the US has a 'moral' obligation?
(and a legal one? A legal one???? really? according to what law? the law of what we can bully the UN into passing this week?)

The rhetoric aside, yes, UN international "law". I do believe that we have a moral obligation to help the citizens of Iraq out (as well as other countries, but we won't get into that here), but I also believe that going through the UN is as "lawful" as you can get. Law's authority comes from recognition of said law, and the UN is widely recognized (simply by the participation of many world countries) as a lawful organization, although by no means the supreme world law. What law, you ask? The law of resolution 1441.

And that Iraq was in the wrong because without provocation it invaded a soverign state (Kuwait), and thus the US was morally right in becoming involved militarily.

Er, yes? While I see that you are trying to go for "two wrongs don't make a right" by using "right" with a note of sarcasm, your analogy fails in that it was not only the US who helped, but the US with UN forces. The UN (and the world at large) generally approved of the remedy to the crisis in Kuwait.

I'm confused, does the US 'moral' obligation extend to all the bloody dictatorships it set up or only Iraq? Does it include ones that pop on their own or only US seeded ones?

Be more specific?

Was Iraq picked out of a hat or by rolling a dice?

Scathing sarcasm (again) aside, no. There were a multitude of reasons, some stronger than others for different people.

A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change

Some will argue (for or against) other points more strongly than others. Others will try to inflate one argument as the sole reason for us going to war, when I'd like to believe that it is the sum total of the aforementioned reasons for deciding to go to war with Iraq, also given that post 9/11, the climate of the United States tolerance of such sum totals has decreased.

Is the justifier a lack of 'freedom' or posession of WMDs?

"Yes."

If WMDs does such a 'moral' obligation extend to quasi allies such as Pakistan or only those who it is politically safe to villify in the present political environment?

An excellent point. Many will say that even the USA is in possession of such WMD. Or "what about North Korea? - Surely nuclear weapons are more dangerous than some mustard gas?" To which I respond that yes, perhaps there are other countries who are in possession of those WMD. However, one key factor here is very, very important to recognize: that behind the wheel is the man who has tested the viability of his weapon systems on his own people. A minority population, to be clear, but Iraqis nonetheless. Most WMD that people have in the world stem from such (silly) ideas of mutual assured destruction. You got the nukes? We got more, nyah nyah. However, it is quite clear that a cursory analysis of Saddams character reveals he would hesitate less than a Planck time in pushing the button or giving the order. He simply needs a reason or a time he believes he can get away with it.

Is the US the only 'policeman' with the right to invade and colonise soverign states or are here others who have somehow gained such privliges as well?

Well, we aren't "colonizing" Iraq, nor are we technically "invading" although a military presence there will be a requisite for the regime change. But yes, currently I would say that we are the only country in the world in the unique position of playing 'policeman'. It is unfortunate that others are not willing to assist an oppressed country in times of need, but so be it. Like I said before, with great power comes great responsibility.

I hope you can clear this up for me.

Any questions? :p

[Radar]

But at other times, I think Spiderman said it best: With great power comes great responsibility

The United States government will never be responsible for defending any country other than our own. The size of our military and the weapons they wield don't change that fact.

In my opinion, these are the people who will be the most quiet when the US is vindicated post-war when the media can uncover the mass graves, torture chambers, hidden prisons, and most importantly: the ever so cliched weapons of mass destruction.

Finding weapons of mass destruction and even mass graves with MILLIONS of people in them would still not vindicate and attack against Iraq. NOTHING short of a direct attack against America (which Iraq has had no part of directly or indirectly) would be cause to send our military to fight in Iraq.

Yes, other people, who perhaps have no say in the matter, would.

Every country has a responsibility to defend themselves. America is not the judge or police of the world. The only country the American military can legally defend is our own.

Do you honestly feel as if Iraq marching upon Kuwait, regardless of the "almost" reasons I addressed in a previous post, was a legitimate action? That we were somehow in the wrong to assist Kuwait from the occupation by the Iraqi military? That, by consequence, we were wrong to enforce the terms of that treaty by which the Gulf War was ended?

Absolutely without a doubt, America was EXTREMELY wrong to take action against Iraq even when they were occupying Kuwait. As I have said and the constitution says, the American military is for defending American soil and ships. Not to defend Kuwait, not to overthrow foreign regimes, not to assassinate leaders to replace them with leaders we prefer, not for humanitarian aid, not to train foreign militaries, not to protect "American interests", not to dictate what weapons foreign countries have, and not to do anything other than DEFEND American soil and ships from attack. That means the only legal justification for the use of the American military is to fight off attacks from foreign nations and pirates when they occur; not perceived threats, not possible threats, not future attacks, etc. only actual attacks during and after they take place. "Pre-Emptive" strikes NEVER fall under the category of DEFENSE and the American military is defined in the constitution as solely for defense.

America had no place in Iraq in 1991 and we still don't. And the agreements Iraq signed after our unjust and illegal actions against them were under duress and can hardly be binding. If I put a gun to your head and make you sign the title to your house over to me, my ownership will never hold up in court.

Primarily because Iraq/Hussein has shown a somewhat fearful tendency to abuse self-restraint in the use of the aforementioned arsenal, we have the "legal" and "moral" obligation to lighten his load.

We have no such moral or legal obligation or even authority to dictate what weapons other nations have. Nor do we have the lawful right to enforce our wishes on them no matter how uncomfortable we feel with them.

In response to the second question, as I stated in the post above, those actions were based on the treaty of the Gulf War, in response to Iraq's aggression and attempt to take by force the independent and sovereign nation of Kuwait. Do you believe that such action was unwarranted, or that we should have "let those stinky Arabs deal with it themselves?"

I've never said anything about "stinky Arabs", but I do believe that the American government gets its very limited powers from our own constitution; not from the U.N., and not because the president or congress think it's the right thing to do. The constitution clearly made our involvement in Iraq in 1991 illegal. Kuwait has a responsibility to defend themselves and most likely could have gotten Saudi Arabia to take care of them. In the middle-east they have a saying that goes "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against our neighbor, etc". It's far better for the middle-eastern nations to handle their own problems than to use unwarranted and illegal United States military intervention to handle the situation.

I believe in liberty for all humans, and personally sometimes we're better equipped to deal with it than others. If your neighbor were abusing (trying to kill?) his child, wouldn't you call the police or attempt to help as well? It might not be "your business", but some things require the aid of those who can.

I also believe in Liberty for all people and America is supposed to be a shining beacon of liberty for other nations to follow like a lighthouse. But America isn't supposed to use force to make it happen. And your analogy of calling the police is poor to say the least. America IS NOT THE POLICE of the world. In America if my neighbor was killing his wife or children, I'd call American police. But American police (or military) have no authority over Iraq or their people. I hate Saddam. He's a disgusting murderer and deserves to die a horrible death. But no matter what he does short of a direct attack against America we have no business getting involved. He could boil a million babies in oil on television and skin their mother's alive and we still wouldn't be justified in sending our military.

However, that being said, as Colin Powell and Bush have stated many times (and the UN has not disputed), vast quantities of chemical weapons (mustard gas), biological weapons (anthrax) and deployment mechanisms (scud missiles, drones, etc) were present and accounted for several years ago. That kind of merchandise does not simply "get lost".

Perhaps they destroyed them. But even if they didn't, Iraq can have these weapons. They are a sovereign nation that doesn't require the permission of the U.N. or America to have any weapons they want even if those weapons are nukes.

Saddam is not dumb - perhaps disillusioned, but not dumb. He's made a life work of hiding these items, and he has had plenty of time to prepare for inspections.

I'll agree that Saddam is not dumb. He's a horrible person, but not dumb. And as a person who is not dumb, he would NEVER use weapons such as these against America because he knows if he did directly attack us, we'd turn Iraq into a sheet of glass.

Furthermore, it has to be made poignantly clear that these inspections are a farce from an ineffectual organization in an environment that cannot yield true inspections.

Perhaps. But it must also be made crystal clear that Iraq is under no legal obligation to surrender any weapons or allow any inspectors to check for them. Just as America would tell the U.N. to kiss off, Iraq could (and in my opinion should) have done it. But they have been cooperating.

Can you honestly tell me that you believe in your heart that the inspections are proving that those weapons must not exist because the inspections aren't showing anything? If anything, logic dictates that the inspections coming up empty handed proves clear violation of the original resolution, as it mentioned that proof of weapons disposal/destruction must be given, while it has not.

This is all speculation. The inspectors have helicopters and can fly to any location on a moment's notice and have areas to meet that are not bugged or monitored. They can freely move without anyone stopping their progress.

My question to you is, "How can you use the fact that inspectors didn't find weapons as evidence that he's hiding them?" It would be like me asking you for a million dollars and then accusing you of hiding it when you couldn't give it to me.

[Radar]

One more thing. A few questions all with one answer.

What nation designs, builds, and stockpiles more weapons of mass destruction than any other?

What nation is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons against another?

What nation most often gets involved in military conflicts in foreign nations that are not a threat to their own?

As such what nation is clearly the most dangerous and should be kept from having these WMD's?

[ChrisD]

Originally posted by Radar
My question to you is, "How can you use the fact that inspectors didn't find weapons as evidence that he's hiding them?" It would be like me asking you for a million dollars and then accusing you of hiding it when you couldn't give it to me.

If I had a million dollars that I stole from a bank, 2 months ago, and didn't spend it, didn't give it away, didn't destroy it, wouldn't you be right in accusing me of hiding it?

He could boil a million babies in oil on television and skin their mother's alive and we still wouldn't be justified in sending our military.

You are well informed, well spoken for, perhaps somewhat abrasive to those who disagree. However, I can see here that we pretty much simply have a difference in fundamental opinion. I believe that as a world community we should attempt to work with each other to make the entire world a better place, perhaps calling on the help of our neighbors when the time comes that we might need it, obviously only taking preemptive action in times of intense duress, where (what I percieve as) basic human rights to life, freedom from oppression, generic-catch-phrase-rights, etc, are infringed or otherwise denied. You believe that each nations right to behave as they wish is a culturally relativistic perrogative, provided they don't step on anyone else's toes, and that we wouldn't have the problems (in fact, much of the world wouldn't have the problems they do) if nations wouldn't muck in other's business.

While I respect your opinion, I have to simply respectfully disagree. A couple of thought questions for you:

ChrisDbekistan invades Canada, Canada asks for our military and economic help. Do we help?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder/genocide 3 million Canadian residents/militia in a bloody civil war. The only world power capable of checking ChrisDbekistans power is the USA. Do we do something?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder/genocide 3 million Canadian civilians in a large prision camp. The only world power capable of checking ChrisDbekistans power is the USA. Do we do something?

ChrisDbekistan decides to murder all American citizens (tourists, government diplomats, native born americans) - all 30 of them. Do we do something?

I'd just be interested in hearing your response, your purely isolationist viewpoints are unique.

[Undertoad]

The radar worldview:
If it doesn't seem to work
It doesn't exist!

Others must obey
the law that I recognize.
Reason: just because!

You say the voters
Wanted something else? Fuck them!
Ignorant dummies.

Murderous tyrants?
They can maim and kill at will -
IF they run a state.

Our own government?
I prefer it hogtied down -
It wants to kill me!

But if it kills me
Murdering to gain power
Hey, it's still legit!

Please, O Canada,
Do not come and rescue me!
Recognize borders!

Invisible lines
Latitudes and longitudes
They're inviolate!

On foreign affairs,
Harry writes my opinion.
Without Him I'm lost.

[wolf]

Toad ... Brilliant. relevant, to the point, and nice haiku

(I also need to compliment ChrisD for having the energy to wrangle with him)

[ChrisD]

Kudos UT, nice haiku!

And thanks wolf. I love the political discussions. I wonder if anyone has the energy to read what I've written.... :p

[elSicomoro]

Oh, schnap! UT broke out the flame haiku! I thought it was supposed to be a limerick though...

[jaguar]

Plenty.

Lets start with law.
Now sadly your link to resolution 1441 was broken, although i managed to track down a copy, for the purposes of this discussion i think what matters in the above mentioned resolution is the question of whether Iraq is in material breach based on whether there are any "false statements or omissions" in Iraq's list.

Now while, based on anecdotal evidence, you declare Iraq to be in breach. This alone obviously does not mean Iraq is, I'm yet to see hard evidence it is, we have yes, plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is, a few 10 year old shells in the corner of a mostly disused warehouse, and missiles that may or may not carry WMD warheads that may or may not have been destroyed. This, it seems does not either constitute a material breach. Despite powell's wonderful discrediting campaign with his last speech he did not produce any hard evidence and what he did produce was questionable at best. If you want to play the 'legal action' game, you're going to have to do better than that.

My second paragraph was simply paraphrasing what you said for purposes below.

Be more specific?

Well the US played a pivotal role in getting Saddam into power in an era of anticommunist paranoia, along with many other bloodythirsty dictators, does the US's moral obligation only extend to those regimes the US is responsible for in the first place or to home-grown regimes such as many notable African leaders and places such as say, Burma.

A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change
A. Possession and willingness to use WMD.
B. Terrorist Links
C. Humanitarian Issues
D. A reason to end trade sanctions.
E. Oil and other Corporate Interests
F. Regime change

Now possession and willingness to use WMD is an interesting one, if as you seem to be suggesting, it is a moral issue. Primarily because many of those agents were directly supplied by US companies with the full knowledge of the US government. Doesn't the virtual sanctioning of such activities, since they were sold even after they were used on civilian populations thereby mean any moral argument based on this is null and void?

Terrorist links is another odd one, in short, what terrorist links? I mean i've seen poor old Powell and make a statement along the lines of "despite Bin Laden calling Saddam in infidel and decrying his regime he clearly has links to him because he does not support the US invasion of Iraq", if that doesn't sound pathetic i don't know what does. It seems despite the best efforts of the worlds biggest intel network, no concrete links have been found, if you no something we don't, please, do tell, otherwise i'd advise you to omit it from the list.

Corporate Interests? I'm not sure if you support a war for all these reasons or are merely listing the reasoning behind such a war from an impartial bystanders point of view but surely invading and destroying a sovereign state over corporate interests, with possible strategic interests is if anything, worse than they invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, which was for strategic reasons.

North Korea has a history of selling missile technology, Iraq does not. North Korea also exports drugs, fake US currency, and now is producing significant numbers of nuclear weaponry. THe leader of the DPRK is clearly nuts. Saddam while a bloodythirsty leader of a despotic regime, is very, very sane and clearly pretty damn smart. The CIA's own report had Saddam down a 'low' threat - unless provoked. He's smart enough to know that doing anything like that would guarantee his destruction, his ultimate aim is survival.

I assume after the invasion of Iraq (what would you call moving in thousands of sovereign troops into a sovereign state, removing the existing government and replacing it with one of your choice) a government of some sort will be set up, it's membership and funding will be decided entirely by the US. Thus it will become what is known as a 'client' state, a British term from the 19th century for a state that you exploit for resources that is all but in your pocket. Such control i'd classify in the same category as a colonization, what would you call it?

[novice day off]

I'm saddenned by the fact that, having just read this thread from start to finish, I'm no closer to knowing what, if anything, should be done about Iraq. I do, however, take solace from my belief that, no matter which road is chosen, it will be chosen for the right reasons. If there must be a big brother then 'god bless America'.
ps. Radar v Bill whittle. I'd pay big bucks to see that live

[Griff]

If anyone but Radar had linked to that article we could have discussed it.

We cannot know what would have happened if our government had chosen the non-intervention path back in WW1. We do know that our intervention was part of the blood soaked road that the century became. We do know that our Presidents manipulated and lied to involve us in the blood letting. I doubt Bush is of higher character than the other politicians who held his office.

[novice day off]

sorry to be melancholy but where does that leave us future wise

[Undertoad]

Originally posted by sycamore
Oh, schnap! UT broke out the flame haiku! I thought it was supposed to be a limerick though...

The flame limerick is like a grenade, while the haiku is a precision sniper rifle. The limerick can be too devastating in a closed area. It has to be used with care, and not too often, otherwise the law of averages says one might be hurt in collateral damage.