There was an interview with this guy on NPR yesterday. He said that it was (obviously) very difficult to keep these and other stories to himself when he knew what the consequences would be if he did not tell anyone. It makes me think though. This may not be the smoking gun of “weapons of mass destruction” that may or may not be found, but I think this does add legitimacy to overthrowing Saddam. We can argue about who made the US the one to decide who gets to be invaded and on what grounds but I think the evidence keeps pointing to the terror his regime perpetuated. To me at least, this makes the war more and more worthwhile.
I agree I don’t talk politics much because I don’t find the time to follow it enough to really be as knowledgable as I should be. But the fact of the matter is, whether Saddam has/had the weapons or not, he’s proven through past actions that he would use them eventually, given the chance.
He’s also proven that he has no qualms with killing anybody he feels is a threat to his power, or who he just doesn’t like. Not only is that scary, but that stands against the kind of government and world the UN was created to try and create.
I had kind of hoped that after the gulf war we might, as a race, move past using violence to solve political problems. But as long as there are still people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il in power, I will (to some degree) stand behind any US military action that removes them from their power.
The caveat, of course, is that if the UN as a whole decided they’d had enough of the US’s cowboy attitude towards international relations and came in and took over the white house and installed a new government, I would be outraged and incensed.
So it’s hard to really say if we’re doing the right thing or not. In the long run, I think the world is better without any more dictatorships, and thus the ends justify the means. But we shall see.
I agree with your points, but I do not think we (the USA) are qualified to make such judgements. The simple fact remains that we do not treat people outside our borders as we do inside. Any claim of ours as to the values of human rights or freedom seems pretty pale when you look at how we as a country actually apply those values.
These are all purely thought experiments, but they’re simple examples that illustrate what i mean…
Random terrorist group is discovered inside our borders… we bring in the SWAT team or equivalent. Random terrorist group is discovered outside our borders, we bring in a 2000lb smart bomb, and kill several civillians.
Terrorist is caught in the US, we send him though one of our court systems. Outside? Kill him.
It isn’t hard to see why people who live outside the US scoff at us when we stand up and deign to known what peace and human rights are all about. Sure maybe in the long run, but we sure do spill a lot of blood on the screens of the world.
Random country is abusing its people and they’re on the current political gains list? Invade. But if they have no money, or economic power, turn a blind eye. Rwanda? Congo? Ivory Coast? South Africa? Zimbabwe? Malaysia? Columbia? I don’t see our troops heading thattaways.
Yes there are dictators. Yes they should be stopped. But our government doesn’t even try to apply the standards or freedom in any manner that even remotely looks like evenhandedness, or god forbid, actualy moral judgement across the world.
We pick and choose our battles and our fights and our wars based on guarantee of success, and political gain. We do it unilaterally, and without considering the rest of the worlds opinion. If there is to be a jihad for peace and prosperity in the world, don’t you think that all those who are peaceful and prosperous should have a say? Shouldn’t we try and make it happen for everyone?
I just find it unfathomable that people think we’re doing the ‘just’ and ‘right’ thing and that it somehow vindicates us. If this country wants to set true precedent for world peaces, than this is not the way to go about it. This is a good way to make the road to world peace a lot harder to travel. Not impossible. Most definitely more bloody. Absolutely more dangerous.
Oh and jesus, lest we forget… why does the DPRK have nuclear capabilities? Because they purchased the materials and scientists from Pakistan. Where did Pakistan get them? From scientists who worked for the USA. Once again, if we want to point fingers, maybe WE shouldn’t have armed the world. The mistakes of 30 years ago haunt us now. I am dubious that our mistakes now (and I do think this is a mistake) will haunt us in another 30 years… or less.
Until we have a foreign policy that doesn’t end at HULK SMASH, we will continue to suffer, and so will our unfortunate targets.
You bring up some very good points. There has always been a dichotomy between our foreign policy and our state policy. One of the big complaints of the civil rights movement was that black troops fighting in Vietnam were allowed to fight and die for their country and yet they were treated like subhumans in their own home towns. You could also go back to WWII and see that some of the first troops to enlist in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor were of Japanese descent, and yet look at what happened to first and second-generation Japanese on the West Coast. Unfortunately, the US has had a history of this kind of “do one thing abroad, do another at home” and self-reflection is not one of our national or cultural traits. One would hope that this vicious cycle of US led dictators and arms races coming back to bite us in the butt years down the road will come to an end soon. But, like I said, we don’t have a history of being anything but short-sighted. That and the attention span of the American public and press is too short for things that should really come to our attention, like Patriot Act I and II, and fat business contracts going to companies whose former CEO is now VP, to really sink in and allow a time for us to discuss and contemplate them. I would really hope that the time has come for us as citizens of this country and the world to wake up and smell the coffee but there are too many people profitting from the model that’s out there now.
Question Ok, I do agree with you on some points. However, I’m trying to figure out what you point was supposed to be. Do you want us to do nothing? Perhaps we should become isolationist again and let another Hitler start doing heinous acts. Or do you want us to invade every country with peace loving emisaries? Perhaps then the UN would head it up. They could even get Iraq(the official UN disarmament lead) to come along. I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just trying to see the rationale behind your rant.
Personally, I think that diplomacy and economic/cultural pressure are the best option across the board. If I had my way, we would suck it up and actually go the distance towards isolating and crumbling countries that won’t act democratically. I’m not going to get into an argument about that. It is my belief.
My suggestions about invading everyone who misbehaves were meant to illustrate the fact that we have no coherent voice to go with our actions. If we invaded everyone that didn’t play fair, you could make a very strong (though probably not very palitable) moral argument for our actions. Under our current approach, that isn’t really the case. Indeed our current administration won’t even elucidate what their plans really are. That begs to ask wether they even have one (yikes) or wether it is so grand and devious that they couldn’t ‘sell it’ to the public if they told us what it was. Indeed we probably wouldn’t believe it.
I believe that if Americans truly held peace dear, then we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves when the Sept. 11 style events come along. If you want a peace loving world, then accept the fact that sometimes we, the average joe, will have to die for it.
It is a moral high ground approach to be sure. More oppresive regimes have fallen under pressure than under the gun in the last 50 years. Who is to say more people have died, because everytime you act militarily, you bring about the consequence of a much larger conflict than what you initially wanted.
It is an impossible question really, and if you corner me, I will admit that I am certainly not a pacifist. At some point you do have to fight.
I don’t think anyone will disagree that Saddam is scum. I’ve said this before: Being anti-war is not being pro-saddam *at all*. But looking at america’s history of foreign policy, I don’t believe for one second that the government’s sole intent is to “liberate” Iraq from a dictator. If anything, it is more of a “happy side effect.” And if one further looks at the history of America’s overthrowing of foreign governments it doesn’t like, the new leaders did not make things any better. Human rights atrocities still continued even with a leader that was installed by the american government. Sure, I can hope that by now they’ve learned their lesson, and things really will be better with the new american approved government. Sure, it can’t get any worse than with Saddam in charge, but is an american occupation of Iraq really going to free them? I *really* hope so. But I have little reason to believe that things will be better. I suppose the definition of “better” will depend on who you ask.
I don’t think anyone will disagree that Saddam is scum. I’ve said this before: Being anti-war is not being pro-saddam *at all*. But looking at america’s history of foreign policy, I don’t believe for one second that the government’s sole intent is to “liberate” Iraq from a dictator. If anything, it is more of a “happy side effect.” And if one further looks at the history of America’s overthrowing of foreign governments it doesn’t like, the new leaders did not make things any better. Human rights atrocities still continued even with a leader that was installed by the american government. Sure, I can hope that by now they’ve learned their lesson, and things really will be better with the new american approved government. Sure, it can’t get any worse than with Saddam in charge, but is an american occupation of Iraq really going to free them? I *really* hope so. But I have little reason to believe that things will be better. I suppose the definition of “better” will depend on who you ask.
My God! I can’t believe I got an intelligent response. I thought for sure I’d get flamed for my reply. That’s usually what happens when I reply to these “touchy” posts.
Ok, so again you make some points I agree with. As you say though, “It is my belief.” I guess I’m mostly disagreeing with you because of my own beliefs. Not because I feel I’m right, just becuase I believe my opinion is better. This is also not a good basis for an argument. :-p
Another belief ahead. I do believe that we were right to act militarily towards Iraq. As far as I understand we acted diplomatically as much as we could. We gave them 10 years to clean up their act and they did not. True, at times during our invasion I felt we were in the wrong. However, after the citizens stood up and welcomed our troops with open arms and started telling us all the horrible things they’ve had to endure, I am behind our actions 100%.
ugh
I have no words that would make an appropriate reply.
There was an interview with this guy on NPR yesterday. He said that it was (obviously) very difficult to keep these and other stories to himself when he knew what the consequences would be if he did not tell anyone.
It makes me think though. This may not be the smoking gun of “weapons of mass destruction” that may or may not be found, but I think this does add legitimacy to overthrowing Saddam. We can argue about who made the US the one to decide who gets to be invaded and on what grounds but I think the evidence keeps pointing to the terror his regime perpetuated. To me at least, this makes the war more and more worthwhile.
I agree
I don’t talk politics much because I don’t find the time to follow it enough to really be as knowledgable as I should be. But the fact of the matter is, whether Saddam has/had the weapons or not, he’s proven through past actions that he would use them eventually, given the chance.
He’s also proven that he has no qualms with killing anybody he feels is a threat to his power, or who he just doesn’t like. Not only is that scary, but that stands against the kind of government and world the UN was created to try and create.
I had kind of hoped that after the gulf war we might, as a race, move past using violence to solve political problems. But as long as there are still people like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il in power, I will (to some degree) stand behind any US military action that removes them from their power.
The caveat, of course, is that if the UN as a whole decided they’d had enough of the US’s cowboy attitude towards international relations and came in and took over the white house and installed a new government, I would be outraged and incensed.
So it’s hard to really say if we’re doing the right thing or not. In the long run, I think the world is better without any more dictatorships, and thus the ends justify the means. But we shall see.
On the lighter side …
Check out http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
just..to be fair, saddam’s regime _has_ used chemical weapons on people in the past.
Well…
I agree with your points, but I do not think we (the USA) are qualified to make such judgements. The simple fact remains that we do not treat people outside our borders as we do inside. Any claim of ours as to the values of human rights or freedom seems pretty pale when you look at how we as a country actually apply those values.
These are all purely thought experiments, but they’re simple examples that illustrate what i mean…
Random terrorist group is discovered inside our borders… we bring in the SWAT team or equivalent. Random terrorist group is discovered outside our borders, we bring in a 2000lb smart bomb, and kill several civillians.
Terrorist is caught in the US, we send him though one of our court systems. Outside? Kill him.
It isn’t hard to see why people who live outside the US scoff at us when we stand up and deign to known what peace and human rights are all about. Sure maybe in the long run, but we sure do spill a lot of blood on the screens of the world.
Random country is abusing its people and they’re on the current political gains list? Invade. But if they have no money, or economic power, turn a blind eye. Rwanda? Congo? Ivory Coast? South Africa? Zimbabwe? Malaysia? Columbia? I don’t see our troops heading thattaways.
Yes there are dictators. Yes they should be stopped. But our government doesn’t even try to apply the standards or freedom in any manner that even remotely looks like evenhandedness, or god forbid, actualy moral judgement across the world.
We pick and choose our battles and our fights and our wars based on guarantee of success, and political gain. We do it unilaterally, and without considering the rest of the worlds opinion. If there is to be a jihad for peace and prosperity in the world, don’t you think that all those who are peaceful and prosperous should have a say? Shouldn’t we try and make it happen for everyone?
I just find it unfathomable that people think we’re doing the ‘just’ and ‘right’ thing and that it somehow vindicates us. If this country wants to set true precedent for world peaces, than this is not the way to go about it. This is a good way to make the road to world peace a lot harder to travel. Not impossible. Most definitely more bloody. Absolutely more dangerous.
Oh and jesus, lest we forget… why does the DPRK have nuclear capabilities? Because they purchased the materials and scientists from Pakistan. Where did Pakistan get them? From scientists who worked for the USA. Once again, if we want to point fingers, maybe WE shouldn’t have armed the world. The mistakes of 30 years ago haunt us now. I am dubious that our mistakes now (and I do think this is a mistake) will haunt us in another 30 years… or less.
Until we have a foreign policy that doesn’t end at HULK SMASH, we will continue to suffer, and so will our unfortunate targets.
Sasha
You bring up some very good points. There has always been a dichotomy between our foreign policy and our state policy. One of the big complaints of the civil rights movement was that black troops fighting in Vietnam were allowed to fight and die for their country and yet they were treated like subhumans in their own home towns. You could also go back to WWII and see that some of the first troops to enlist in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor were of Japanese descent, and yet look at what happened to first and second-generation Japanese on the West Coast.
Unfortunately, the US has had a history of this kind of “do one thing abroad, do another at home” and self-reflection is not one of our national or cultural traits. One would hope that this vicious cycle of US led dictators and arms races coming back to bite us in the butt years down the road will come to an end soon. But, like I said, we don’t have a history of being anything but short-sighted. That and the attention span of the American public and press is too short for things that should really come to our attention, like Patriot Act I and II, and fat business contracts going to companies whose former CEO is now VP, to really sink in and allow a time for us to discuss and contemplate them.
I would really hope that the time has come for us as citizens of this country and the world to wake up and smell the coffee but there are too many people profitting from the model that’s out there now.
Question
Ok, I do agree with you on some points. However, I’m trying to figure out what you point was supposed to be. Do you want us to do nothing? Perhaps we should become isolationist again and let another Hitler start doing heinous acts. Or do you want us to invade every country with peace loving emisaries? Perhaps then the UN would head it up. They could even get Iraq(the official UN disarmament lead) to come along. I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just trying to see the rationale behind your rant.
Well…
Personally, I think that diplomacy and economic/cultural pressure are the best option across the board. If I had my way, we would suck it up and actually go the distance towards isolating and crumbling countries that won’t act democratically. I’m not going to get into an argument about that. It is my belief.
My suggestions about invading everyone who misbehaves were meant to illustrate the fact that we have no coherent voice to go with our actions. If we invaded everyone that didn’t play fair, you could make a very strong (though probably not very palitable) moral argument for our actions. Under our current approach, that isn’t really the case. Indeed our current administration won’t even elucidate what their plans really are. That begs to ask wether they even have one (yikes) or wether it is so grand and devious that they couldn’t ‘sell it’ to the public if they told us what it was. Indeed we probably wouldn’t believe it.
I believe that if Americans truly held peace dear, then we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves when the Sept. 11 style events come along. If you want a peace loving world, then accept the fact that sometimes we, the average joe, will have to die for it.
It is a moral high ground approach to be sure. More oppresive regimes have fallen under pressure than under the gun in the last 50 years. Who is to say more people have died, because everytime you act militarily, you bring about the consequence of a much larger conflict than what you initially wanted.
It is an impossible question really, and if you corner me, I will admit that I am certainly not a pacifist. At some point you do have to fight.
I don’t think this is one of them though.
Hope that maybe clears my rants up a little :)
Sasha
You took the words right out my mouth.
I don’t think anyone will disagree that Saddam is scum. I’ve said this before: Being anti-war is not being pro-saddam *at all*. But looking at america’s history of foreign policy, I don’t believe for one second that the government’s sole intent is to “liberate” Iraq from a dictator. If anything, it is more of a “happy side effect.” And if one further looks at the history of America’s overthrowing of foreign governments it doesn’t like, the new leaders did not make things any better. Human rights atrocities still continued even with a leader that was installed by the american government. Sure, I can hope that by now they’ve learned their lesson, and things really will be better with the new american approved government. Sure, it can’t get any worse than with Saddam in charge, but is an american occupation of Iraq really going to free them? I *really* hope so. But I have little reason to believe that things will be better. I suppose the definition of “better” will depend on who you ask.
I don’t think anyone will disagree that Saddam is scum. I’ve said this before: Being anti-war is not being pro-saddam *at all*. But looking at america’s history of foreign policy, I don’t believe for one second that the government’s sole intent is to “liberate” Iraq from a dictator. If anything, it is more of a “happy side effect.” And if one further looks at the history of America’s overthrowing of foreign governments it doesn’t like, the new leaders did not make things any better. Human rights atrocities still continued even with a leader that was installed by the american government. Sure, I can hope that by now they’ve learned their lesson, and things really will be better with the new american approved government. Sure, it can’t get any worse than with Saddam in charge, but is an american occupation of Iraq really going to free them? I *really* hope so. But I have little reason to believe that things will be better. I suppose the definition of “better” will depend on who you ask.
whoops… didn’t meant to be a nameless jerk…
My God!
I can’t believe I got an intelligent response. I thought for sure I’d get flamed for my reply. That’s usually what happens when I reply to these “touchy” posts.
Ok, so again you make some points I agree with. As you say though, “It is my belief.” I guess I’m mostly disagreeing with you because of my own beliefs. Not because I feel I’m right, just becuase I believe my opinion is better. This is also not a good basis for an argument. :-p
Another belief ahead. I do believe that we were right to act militarily towards Iraq. As far as I understand we acted diplomatically as much as we could. We gave them 10 years to clean up their act and they did not. True, at times during our invasion I felt we were in the wrong. However, after the citizens stood up and welcomed our troops with open arms and started telling us all the horrible things they’ve had to endure, I am behind our actions 100%.
Plus the Minister of Information was too funny.
Yes. Hussein’s a butcher, his regime is an affront to human dignity, and the US is building an empire.