(no subject)

[weaktwos]

Perhaps the conflict with Iraq isn't just about oil. But I doubt it's about human rights. We're not really diligent about really helping out other countries, per se. We just like to send our military out to play once in a while.

Arguably, war is a great distraction to our woes at home.

Consider this: http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/02/ma_219_01.html

Comments

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

I'd have to say that you're right, this thing with Iraq has little to do with human rights. The whole thing about how Saddam most definitely would hold the entire middle east for ransom if he got his hands on more deadly weaponry than he already has at his disposal. That when he uses these weapons of mass destruction, and he will, that he wont care if his own people or soldiers get caught in it's deadly grasp. That this war is a strategical move in the security of our freedom. (Well, at least the freedoms we have left.) But this guy is drunk with power. He's addicted to it. He couldn't have enough even if he was the dictator to the entire world. You know where you end up in America if you're like that? Either dead, in jail, or in a mental ward. Quite possibly you could be the CEO of a major corporation as well. *grins*
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of grey in the issue. I think it's pretty much black and white. I think the disarmament of Iraq is the moral thing to do. That it's kind of like removing a group of crazy people from any populated area and confiscating all of their hand guns. Because it's generally a bad idea to give a gun to a guy who would prolly close his eyes, spin around, point and shoot, at random. You know, just to see if a bullet would really kill someone, and how quickly, and then have his personal scientists figure out how one bullet could kill more than one person, and a lot faster than usual.
But I do agree that there does need to be a bit more focus on what's going on at home. But I think that's what state govenors are for.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

I don't see gray, black, or white. I smell some heavy duty BS, and we will be seeing a lot of red.

Your moral argument would be good and well, except for the fact that a)our current administration (minus dubya, but including some of his cabinet members) were involved with Iraq 15-20 years ago in a different way. We've always known Saddam is a nut job. But in 1983, Rumsfield was engages in negotiations to build a favorable relationship with Iraq. Under Bush Sr. other attempts were also made.

And where do you think Saddam got some of his biological weapons? Well, we gave some to him in the mid 80s. How's that for a helping hand from moral, upstanding, kind-hearted Americans? Oh, but we didn't mean for those mean ol' weapons to be used against us! Heavens, no! We gave them to Saddam to use against Iran. Isn't that sweet? Three cheers for the moral Americans!

If I thought for a minute that an overt conflict like this is going to thwart Saddam, I'd be all for it. But it won't. He keeps himself very secure. We'll just destroy the countryside and kill civilians more innocent than Saddam. We're more or less doing the same things we did in the early 90s, except we're fighting a weaker Iraqi military. We need to oust him from government, but this current strategy is not going to make that happen.

Yes, I enjoy many aspects of being an American. I appreciate the freedoms we enjoy (though they get curtailed). But America wasn't just created by people like the Bushes, Cheneys and Rumsfields. Its evolution has been helped along by peaceniks and warhawks alike. My critque of our current foreign policy is out of a love of our country and my desire to have it be a better part of this global community that is becoming increasingly interdependent.

Re:

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

*nods* yeah, we did send some stuff to Saddam a while ago. But hey, if someone shoots someone, do you arrest the person that sold the gun, arrest the gun, or the trigger happy muck brain?

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Not "to" grasshopper, "with". Hey, we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no one arrested us. So, there's your answer. In the world of international politics, it appears you arrest the weaker party. The stronger one writes the history books.

Notice morals aren't involved.

Re:

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a retalliation strike. I'd make a guess that that particular tactic saved more lives than it took.
Japan didn't attack us in retalliation of America jumping over and trying to take over a neighboring nation. The two incidents are entirely unrelated. America's major screw up in that World War is that it didn't get involved sooner. It kind of points out that the waiting game just makes a bad situation a whole lot worse.
The scary thing about Saddam getting nukes, is that there wont be any warning or anything, Isreal would just immediately be turned into a glass parking lot while the rest of the middle east (for the most part) would cheer, laugh, and point fingers. Saddam isn't exactly the person you want living next door to you, wondering if your children wanted to come over and play.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole issue of the bomb ending the war sooner is moot. The fact is, an atrocity is an atrocity. We were first to market with the big bomb at the time, so of course the War ended. But we're not in such a position now. The rules have shifted just a bit.

There's a timeless truth, if the Israel-Palestine "1000 or so year grudge" has demonstrated anything: Retaliation begets more retaliation. And Saddam isn't a new problem. The use of force previously was not sufficient to rid us of him. We're not going eliminate him this way. His government appears to be run by all his close family. He's been around for 30 years, so he's demonstrated some longevity, here. It's abundantly clear that there is no quick solution to this problem. For a whacko, he's remarkably stable.

Slower, tentative economic sanctions and steady negotiations are the best path, because it builds a cooperative environment.

In addition, this conflict creates more fear of terrorist retaliation which leads to further restrictions of our freedoms.

Then we must consider that we're expending our military might on perhaps a lesser problem, with North Korea and their nuclear developments. Korea has been fairly unfettered are considered more powerful than Iraq. India and Pakistan...getting everyone pissed off and compelled to take sides lacks prudence for the long term.

When we helped to defeat Hitler, we didn't just win and leave. We had to occupy the country for 40 years. War was not the solution. You don't just kill a bad government and a good one grows back.

Hey, thanks for the cool discussion!

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

It's how you judge something to be an atrocity. Shooting someone in the head, dead, is an atrocity, right?
In cold blood, saying, "HI!" *BLAM!* yeah, that's not so good.
Walking down the street, then someone trying to rape your wife, then *BLAM!* not so bad.
But you know, kinda like abortion is an atrocity, right?
It's not really the act, but the why.
Nuke a city, lives are saved, many ways of life are preserved, I'd say we made out pretty good.
Nuke a nation because you don't like their stinking ugly jewish faces, not so good.
And then you end up with a whole good egg and bad egg explanation.

Isreal and Palestine. Easy. Palestine suicide bombs innocent civilians. Isreal attacks military and terrorist installations. Isreal is right in the assertion of trying to keep their inhabitants relatively safe.
Saddam, for a whacko, he's remarkably intelligent. He's playing head games with the entire world, to buy time to achieve his own goals. Sanctions and negotiations have been proven totally worthless. All it does is to keep Saddam in pants and cigars while the rest of the entire nation, which he couldn't give a rat's ass about, degrades and suffers. But if we don't go in there and do what we promised we would do, then we would be just as worthless and inefectual as the UN is. The situation would degrade, and then there really most liekly *would* be world war 3.
Fear of terrorist retaliation. Right now, it's a fact of life. These guys would attack us whether or not we went in to Iraq. Terrorism is basically just a method to conquer. The only reason our freedoms get restricted is because the people of Americ

Re: Hey, thanks for the cool discussion!

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Dude. The end of your reply looks like it has been circumcized by a drunken rabbi.

Re: Hey, thanks for the cool discussion!

[jonastio.livejournal.com]

Gawdammit! Now I got to remember what I typed.