[finboy]

From The New York Times, March 12, 2003

The Right War for the Right Reasons

By JOHN MCCAIN


WASHINGTON � American and British armed forces will likely soon begin to disarm Iraq by destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. We do not know whether they will have the explicit authorization of veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council. But either way, the men and women ordered to undertake this mission can take pride in the justice of their cause.

Critics argue that the military destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime would be, in a word, unjust. This opposition has coalesced around a set of principles of "just war" � principles that they feel would be violated if the United States used force against Iraq.

The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely. After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts � in this case, that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of violence is not going to be coerced into good behavior by nonviolent means � could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war.

These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths.
The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the conflict � likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours � is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people.

The force our military uses will be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons.

Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.

Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values. Saddam Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies and, even faced with the prospect of his regime's imminent destruction, has still refused to abide by the Security Council demands that he disarm.

Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness? Wouldn't people subjected to brutal governments be encouraged to see the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by Americans � rights that are assigned rather cheap value by the critics' definition of justice?

Our armed forces will fight for peace in Iraq � a peace built on more secure foundations than are found today in the Middle East. Even more important, they will fight for the two human conditions of even greater value than peace: liberty and justice. Some of them will perish in this just cause. May God bless them and may humanity honor their sacrifice.


John McCain, a Republican, is a senator from Arizona.

OK, for all of you guys who refuse to trust Bush, or you think he's a moron, or whatever, how about this guy? He isn't in the oil business, he has BEEN THERE and DONE THAT, and he knows almost as much about what is going on as anyone can know.

And we KNOW that McCain doesn't like Bush, yet he's FOR THE WAR. He sees the need for it.

As much as I HATE the f*cking NYT, I thought it might be helpful for folks to know that this is out there.

[MacGorilla]

Funny, I was just reading Scott Ritter's book "Endgame" about the first series of Iraq inspections and I it got me thinking.

He thinks the new inspectors wont find anything because there is nothing to find. That is, Saddam has had four years to hide his arsenal and scrub the evidence away.

Whether or not there will be war is up to the policy makers. I'm still antiwar but my views are changing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
OK, for all of you guys who refuse to trust Bush, or you think he's a moron, or whatever, how about this guy? He isn't in the oil business, he has BEEN THERE and DONE THAT, and he knows almost as much about what is going on as anyone can know.

And we KNOW that McCain doesn't like Bush, yet he's FOR THE WAR. He sees the need for it.

As much as I HATE the f*cking NYT, I thought it might be helpful for folks to know that this is out there.

You're assuming that people who oppose the war do so based on the personality of one, albeit powerful, man.
My feelings on war have more integrity than a popularity contest or feeling ambushed or intimidated by the likes of you.

grow up, move on...

[Nonsuch]

Pro-war types, why do you feel the need to convince everyone?

[thunderous_funker]

Since I my position on this issue has never been about whether or not a war is "just", this argument doesn't persuade me one way or the other.

I'm against rushing in while the inspectors are making progress. I trust Blix to carry on the good work of the inspections that made great strides in the 90's but were, unfortunately, incomplete.

I don't believe Iraq poses a threat beyond it's borders. As long as that is the case (and I've yet to see evidence otherwise) I support working through the UN for disarmament and restructuring the Oil for Food program to it's starts helping Iraqis instead of hurting them.

An Iraqi population not caught in the vise of crippling sanctions will do more to democratize Iraq and bring about an end to the Ba'ath regime than just about any other course of action.

Installing Gen. Franks as the mayor Bagdad will do more to incite terrorism and fan the flames of Arab Nationalism than anything since the 6-day war.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You're assuming that people who oppose the war do so based on the personality of one, albeit powerful, man.
My feelings on war have more integrity than a popularity contest or feeling ambushed or intimidated by the likes of you.

grow up, move on...

I surely hope you aren't suggesting there aren't a great many people in this world that are opposed of the war strictly because of Anti-Bush reasons.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Pro-war types, why do you feel the need to convince everyone?

I would ask the same about the people against any type of war. I don't think anyone is ever PRO war, I hate war. But I am not so delusioned to know it isn't needed sometimes. I HATE going to the dentist twice a year, but that doesn't mean I should just stop going.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Well, according to the AP, we can add another Nobel Laureate to the US camp. I guess that Lech Walesa kind of cancels out Nelson Mandela.

"International authorization for the United States is today the only way to solve common problems," Walesa said in a statement. "In view of the ineffectiveness of U.N. actions, the international community must authorize the United States and its allies, as its representatives, to take the necessary action."


"Otherwise, there will be further conflicts and mutual accusations will weaken cooperation between the nations of the democratic world," Walesa added.

Associated Press

[finboy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Pro-war types, why do you feel the need to convince everyone?

Because this is an important national action that needs the support of as many people as possible. Also, to counteract the B.S. from the other side ("nobody supports it," calling us "pro-war types," etc.). And also because there are going to be troops coming home shortly who need support and understanding.

Really, if I can help ONE PERSON (or better, one CHILD) see the light, then I've been successful.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I support working through the UN for disarmament and restructuring the Oil for Food program to it's starts helping Iraqis instead of hurting them.

This is my biggest problem with this whole debate. I'm very ambivalent about this war. Seriously, I've tried to weigh both sides equally but I still haven't heard a sensible solution to disarming Saddam without force.

I think Sen McCain put it well:

After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

thunderous_funker, seriously, under what circumstances do you think you're going to convince Saddam to cooperate and give up his weapons? After sanctions, inspections, resolutions and now even with troops breathing down his neck he refuses to cooperate.

That's the biggest flaw, I see at least, with the anti-war movement. It has no viable alternative to reach the same results.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Because this is an important national action that needs the support of as many people as possible. Also, to counteract the B.S. from the other side ("nobody supports it," calling us "pro-war types," etc.). And also because there are going to be troops coming home shortly who need support and understanding.

Really, if I can help ONE PERSON (or better, one CHILD) see the light, then I've been successful.

Why? Its obvious support or approval is irrelevant to outcome in this instance.

and its an international action, not just a national one.

pro-war, anti-war...no need for either term to be inherently derogatory, or perceived as such.


Further, there appears to be an almost desperate concern that returning troops will not be treated well. I don't see any evidence that would be the case. that just seems like Drudge-induced paranoia drummed up to keep the fear fires burning in the pro-war camp.
I can assure you that it is precisely because I DO care about the troops that I want this action to be well-reasoned and justified.
Your assumptions to the contrary are baseless and just plain wrong.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I surely hope you aren't suggesting there aren't a great many people in this world that are opposed of the war strictly because of Anti-Bush reasons.

Maybe not in the world but in the US. In the world who is it that oppsoses the US? France? Germany? Russia? China? all with more vested interests in Iraq then the US.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by finboy:
Because this is an important national action that needs the support of as many people as possible.

By "support" you mean "approval," since, in contrast to WWII, the government has not called on the populace to make any kind of sacrifice to further a supposed greater good. I don't recall receiving any fliers asking me to plant a Victory garden or participate in a scrap metal drive. That being the case, I don't see the point. I for one am not going to change my opinion on anything for the sake of allowing either Bush or Hussein to use it as justification for their actions. I arrive at my opinions by considering the evidence and weighing my own feelings, not by determining how my opinion can best serve some person or cause.

Originally posted by finboy:
Also, to counteract the B.S. from the other side ("nobody supports it," calling us "pro-war types," etc.)

Sounds like there's plenty of BS to go around. I haven't heard anyone claim that no one supports the war. The strongest that could be said is that a majority of people in many allied nations appear to be against it. I'm not sure either way, as I don't follow the polling figures very closely (and as thunderous pointed out, it's irrelevant anyway).

And if you don't like having your views glibly summed up by a hyphen, you might want to think twice before doing it to the other side.

Originally posted by finboy:
And also because there are going to be troops coming home shortly who need support and understanding.

I don't think this is a problem. Apart from a very small minority, most people have the cognitive abilities to distinguish war from its combatants. I don't think people still go around calling soldiers "baby killers."

Originally posted by finboy:
Really, if I can help ONE PERSON (or better, one CHILD) see the light, then I've been successful.

[typoon]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
This is my biggest problem with this whole debate. I'm very ambivalent about this war. Seriously, I've tried to weigh both sides equally but I still haven't heard a sensible solution to disarming Saddam without force.

I think Sen McCain put it well:



thunderous_funker, seriously, under what circumstances do you think you're going to convince Saddam to cooperate and give up his weapons? After sanctions, inspections, resolutions and now even with troops breathing down his neck he refuses to cooperate.

That's the biggest flaw, I see at least, with the anti-war movement. It has no viable alternative to reach the same results.

If you will also remember if it wasn't for the US putting troops there in the first place no Inspections would have taken place again EVER.

[macvillage.net]

I always liked John McCain...

Him and Colin Powell are the only "politicians" I seem to be OK with...

cause they really don't care if they go against their party... or the entire world... they have an opinion... and that's it.

I respect that. I perfer that.

Not to mention McCain has a good sense of humor. That always goes well in my book.


I hate politics and political parties. I am for a constitutional ammendment to prohibit them. George Washington would back me on this one. Allowing political parties was the worst mistake the US ever made. It prohibits honest and intelegent people from controlling the government... and allows rich lying fools to get into places of power.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
thunderous_funker, seriously, under what circumstances do you think you're going to convince Saddam to cooperate and give up his weapons? After sanctions, inspections, resolutions and now even with troops breathing down his neck he refuses to cooperate.

That's the biggest flaw, I see at least, with the anti-war movement. It has no viable alternative to reach the same results.

Blix says Iraq is cooperating to his satisfaction so far. When they've stalled, we've called them on it and they have caved.

So the person who is the position to call it best says they are disarming.

Bush & Powell says they are not.

Blix is obviously trying to save war for the last option so maybe we can say he's been more patient than perhaps you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that positive steps are being taken. Things are moving along, even if it's slowly.

Bush & Powell, OTOH, have lost whatever credibility they might have had by starting the rhetoric for regime change long before they even bothered to pretend to be interested in a diplomatic solution. They showed their hand way too early. They've further lost credibility by insistantly repeating "evidence" that has been soundly refuted. They've even further lost credibility since the administration boasts a striking number of ideolouges who have been advocating the old "Kissinger Plan" of seizing military control of the region for decades.

So given the choice, I'm going with Blix on this one. Not only does have far more credibility and fewer poltical interests to question, supporting his call for continued inspections backed by the threat of war still leaves our options open in case Iraq ceases to cooperate.

Don't mistake my opposition to Bush's plan to be a rejection of the possible necessity for war. It still might come to that. I just happen to agree with most of the free world that we've not come to our "last resort" quite yet.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Blix says Iraq is cooperating to his satisfaction so far.

Absolutely no disagreement on Bush's handling of this. It's been horrendous. I guess that's what we get for electing a one-term Governor of Texas to President.

Powell, from all the accounts I've read, has been, up until recently, one of the few who has been trying to push a diplomatic solution. The fact that he's changed his position doesn't make him less credible in my eyes. Subjective opinion, I know.

Hans Blix, on the other hand, hasn't been too forthright with ALL his assessments. I don't follow all his reports word for word but I've had the impression that his judgment is being questioned recently. Specifically having to do with Iraqi drone planes. Not to say I don't trust him but I'd be uncomfortable relying on someone who is not accountable to a constituency like Bush is to the U.S. public.

But the point is, Saddam is NOW cooperating, in fits and spurts, but he was required to do so back in December and failed to do so. I've seen nothing that makes me think he will back down or leave the country. Agreed, I think the threat of war has to be there. I guess we digress on whether we've reached that point or not. I'm beginning to feel that the time has come because Saddam will only pose more of a threat as he prepares for invasion.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Absolutely no disagreement on Bush's handling of this. It's been horrendous. I guess that's what we get for electing a one-term Governor of Texas to President.

Powell, from all the accounts I've read, has been, up until recently, one of the few who has been trying to push a diplomatic solution. The fact that he's changed his position doesn't make him less credible in my eyes. Subjective opinion, I know.

Hans Blix, on the other hand, hasn't been too forthright with ALL his assessments. I don't follow all his reports word for word but I've had the impression that his judgment is being questioned recently. Specifically having to do with Iraqi drone planes. Not to say I don't trust him but I'd be uncomfortable relying on someone who is not accountable to a constituency like Bush is to the U.S. public.

But the point is, Saddam is NOW cooperating, in fits and spurts, but he was required to do so back in December and failed to do so. I've seen nothing that makes me think he will back down or leave the country. Agreed, I think the threat of war has to be there. I guess we digress on whether we've reached that point or not. I'm beginning to feel that the time has come because Saddam will only pose more of a threat as he prepares for invasion.

I'm absolutely in favor of the threat of war. I have no illusions about Saddam being all that willing. Bush is free to bully him as long as it works, as far as I'm concerned.

I think you bring up a valid point by saying Saddam's cooperation will probably dry up now that he feels invasion is inevitable. It's a mistake to push so hard if Bush is really interested in the disarmament process. OTOH, I have never believed that Bush is at all interested in the disarmament process. In fact, I suspect that Powell was given permission to go to the UN reluctantly and is now on the hot seat because he didn't get the same blank check for war that the congress gave him.

On a lighter note, The Onion had this to say:

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War

WASHINGTON, DC�Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

Maybe it's a bit too close to the truth to be really funny, but I'm trying to not get too gloomy about all of this.

The regime change vs. disarmament argument is vitally important, I think. Mostly because it parallels the argument for how much of the threat Iraq poses outside of it's borders. I think it's very telling that the only people who seem convinced of Iraq's threat are the most the people who have been vocal regime change advocates for a very long time.

After all, if Iraq poses no real threat beyond it's borders, we've got a helluva lot of options for security and for undermining the Ba'ath regime that we can start working on. Time is on our side.

Pay attention to who is saying Iraq is an imminent threat and who isn't. It's quite telling indeed.

[vmpaul]

Yeah, that's funny. Love The Onion and The Daily Show. They're probably the only good sources of political satire anymore.

The only thing that makes threats credible is the belief that it will be backed up by action at some point. I think the perception in the Middle East up until recently is that we wouldn't act. I think that view was shared by a number of terrorist groups because of our responses in the past (Lebanon, Israel,etc.etc.). That's why I think Bush is becoming more adamant about bringing this to a close. That's an understandable decision at least.

Playing the Devil's Advocate role here, Saddam is most definitely a threat beyond his borders. He's invaded his neighbors a number of times. Sent missiles into Israel, used chemical weapons, etc.. I don't think that's even debatable. Now, whether that's of vital interest to America and it's security is definitely worth discussing.

Another point about changing the regime without a war. Most of those tactics involve sanctions and increased military presence in the area. That's been the policy for 12 years. People are so concerned about civilian casualties but forget about the hardships with living under a regime with economic sanctions. It's not fun. I know, I know, it's better than having bombs dropped on you but at some point I bet most Iraqi's would hope for some final resolution. Interestingly most exiled Iraqi's I've heard on TV, are supporting the action against Saddam. Continued military presence will just inflame anti-American sentiment in the region as far as I'm concerned. At least if we ARE able to bring a positive change in the area we could generate some goodwill. It's a gamble no doubt.

It may sound like I'm all in favor of military action but I'm not. I'm just trying to work this out. This forum is so helpful for that. TV & radio talk shows are too frustrating. They don't ask the right questions.

The other thing about timing is that I believe Saddam with time = North Korea with nukes. It's too dangerous to let happen.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm for keeping the pressure on and keeping the threat of war very real. I don't think Iraq has doubts that the US will use force. If anything, they might have doubts that they can avert war by any means within their power (including disarmament).

No question that Iraq has been a threat in the past. But since the Gulf War, we must remember that the no fly zones cover practically half of the country. Saddam has essentially been little more than the mayor of Bagdad for 12 years. The idea that he could make a move on his neighbors now without us knowing WAY in advnace is pretty silly.

The only really credible threat is the idea of Iraq supplying WMD to terrorists. The evidence is dodgy at best, but I don't think it's too far-fetched to imagine that this could happen. Of course, I'm not sure Iraq is the first (N. Korea and Pakistan top the list and Russia isn't far behind. Not to mention corporations without scrupples) place to shop for such things, but the threat is real enough to be very concerned.

But if we consider what happened in Afghanistan, we might actually increase this threat by invading right now. If the country starts coming apart at the seems, influx of "freedom fighters", civil unrest, ethnic tensions, Arab rage destablizing other nations, etc could all easily facilitate whatever WMD's Iraq might have stashed somewhere being sold to a 3rd party. In my mind, a US invasion at this time doesn't necessarily address this in a satisfying way.

As for the sanctions, there is no question that they have been a failed policy in their present form. The Oil for Food program has been grossly abused. I'm not sure what bothers me more. The fact that Saddam starves his people or that Western interests have knowingly done business with Saddam despite admissions from everyone that the Oil for Food program was paying for illicit activities.

The program could be restructured to make the UN humanitarian agencies administrate more of the program and give much less autonomy to Bagdad for spending that money. Right now we basically review the shopping list and then fork over the cash. There is no means of insuring that it's spent on social services instead of military or palaces. This policy should change right now. It could be the first credible step in demonstrating our solidarity with innocent Iraqis.

We need to create more reasons for Iraqis to trust us. There have been zero for the last 20 or so years. In fact, they have a very long list of reasons to NOT trust us or our intentions.

War might still be necessary to carry out the will of the International community. But the stage is NOT set right now for this to be more successful than it is messy and damaging.

[mr. natural]

McCain has some compelling things to say, but I still question a couple of his contentions.

1) "Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence."

What exactly are the human numbers here he is talking about? And secondly, we'll have to wait and see how many human deaths there are attributable to any war to see if he's right. That's really encouraging.

2) "The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the conflict � likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours � is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people."

I'm sorry, but 3,000 bombs falling in my neighborhood over a 48hr. time span would tend to piss me off; especially as someone I know is likely to still get their ass blown off by one so called "precision bomb" gone astray -- perhaps an innocent pregnant cousin. In that case, I might be inclined to want some good old fashioned tribal payback by whatever means available.

And 3) "The force our military uses will be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons."

Frankly, I just don't buy this. Compared to "the arsenal of world's most most destructive weapons" the USofA will unleash upon downtown Baghdad, what Saddam is alleged to have in stock doesn't amount to much.

Secondly, McCain supposes that Saddam will be allowed to "continue" to build such an arsenal. C'mon, we are now all over this guy and there is work being done to de-fang him!

He had a number of years since the last inspections program and what's he managed to build -- some drones? (Which have yet to have been proven they can carry and disperse bio or chemical agents. While such weapons sound bad, in most battlefield instances they aren't particularly effective.)

As has been pointed out, Saddam and his bio/chemical WMDs is not a threat I'm losing sleep over. As was proven on 9/11, a terrorist who wants to harm us doesn't need a greater WMD than their own suicidal self.

And lastly, this whole idea begs the question, once we enact this doctrine of "pre-emptive threat removal:" Where does it end? (And does it not then grant license to others to do likewise?)

Overall, thunderous_funker explains my sentiments too.

Posted by thunderous_funker:
Since I my position on this issue has never been about whether or not a war is "just", this argument doesn't persuade me one way or the other.

I'm against rushing in while the inspectors are making progress. I trust Blix to carry on the good work of the inspections that made great strides in the 90's but were, unfortunately, incomplete.

I don't believe Iraq poses a threat beyond it's borders. As long as that is the case (and I've yet to see evidence otherwise) I support working through the UN for disarmament and restructuring the Oil for Food program to it's starts helping Iraqis instead of hurting them.

An Iraqi population not caught in the vise of crippling sanctions will do more to democratize Iraq and bring about an end to the Ba'ath regime than just about any other course of action.

Installing Gen. Franks as the mayor Bagdad will do more to incite terrorism and fan the flames of Arab Nationalism than anything since the 6-day war.

We are wrong, I think, to assume that removing Saddam via this war as presently rigged will bring freedom, peace, and democracy to Iraq (or anywhere else in the Middle East). Iraq's a middle-eastern Yugoslavia, and with the Turks poised to roll against the Kurds, it could quickly become very messy indeed.

War is always a last resort, and we are not yet there in my mind.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
1) "Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence."

What exactly are the human numbers here he is talking about? And secondly, we'll have to wait and see how many human deaths there are attributable to any war to see if he's right. That's really encouraging.

Over the past twelve years, some two million Iraqis -mostly civilian- have died as a result of Hussein's abuse of the oil-for-food program (that is to say, diverting it from the people it's supposed to be helping). That comes out to about 166,000 per year. If we spread things out, that's 13,888 per month. Let's say war starts in April, lasts about two months, and 10,000 innocent Iraqis die. But as a result of this Hussein is removed from power, the embargoes are ended, and the humanitarian aid which should have gone through long ago finally does. That's over 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives, saved by the war this year alone.

That's something which I think people forget to realize. Over the last twelve years, diplomacy has failed, and two million lives have been lost because of that failure. Of all the wars in history, only one -World War II- can claim such horrific civilian deaths as those twelve years of failed diplomacy. There will be civlian losses if there is a war; that is a fact, and it is a terrible fact. But even the most pessimistic estimates of civilian deaths by war pale in comparison to the actual number of civilian deaths by peace. It is a sad, sick world when war actually reduces the death toll. But who ever said this world was anything else?

[shanraghan]

I have to say McCain has a point about the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and civilian casualties. Use of any weapons will have some unintended casualties on the civilian side. However, the circumstances behind the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite different. When fighting Japan, we were fighting a nation whose people were likely far more supportive of their governemnt. With Iraq, we have a nation held in place by fear, and a disrespect for its own citizens. This means that say, oh, dropping a nuke would hardly dissuade Saddam the same way as dropping a nuke in Japan would. Even if dropping a nuke in Baghdad ended the regime, such blatant lack of discrimination between soldier and citizen would no doubt make us look little better in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

At any rate, here's the main problems I have with the war:

Saddam has to go. That I will admit wholeheartedly. In fact, I'd love for him to be gone. But when, and how, and why? What would the effects be if we were to go in now, without the support of the United Nations? How would it affect the balance of power in the Middle East? How would it affect our relations with other countries? How would the Iraqi people feel about us coming in and 'liberating them'? During the American Revolution, how would we have liked it if France had started the revolution, and not us? How will we treat the Iraqi people after Saddam is displaced? Will we respect their customs, culture, wish to govern themselves, is the kind of government we think is right for them really what they need? No matter how much we want to be the big brother of the world, it cannot be denied that a people living under an oppressive rule can only truly be freed when they themselves take the sword in their hand and deal the final blow. Only when they can rule themselves, for themselves, will they be free. Being rid of Saddam to be placed under United States jurisdiction would not liberate the people of Iraq. It would only be a change of regime. It may be a more benevolent regime but a regime nonetheless. Britain was hardly as bad as Saddam, but it was still enough to start a revolution. How will they feel about us coming to 'liberate' them? We cannot liberate them. It is their task, not ours.

In the end, it is how we handle the aftermath that will likely make the greatest impression. If you ask me, we should try and minimize our involvement. We should protect it from invasion until a stable government can be formed, and we should pay for any damage we caused, however we should allow them to create their own form of government independtly. It really isn't our place to decide.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by shanraghan:
Will we respect their customs, culture, wish to govern themselves, is the kind of government we think is right for them really what they need?

How many countries have backtracked from representave government back into facist, authoritarian regimes? I can't think of many.

Besides if Millennium's numbers are correct in the above post (and I'd like to know where he got those numbers) it seems likely they'll be relieved to be rid of Saddam at any cost. Of course, in a couple of years they can gripe about the government just like we do. Especially when their representatives spend their time renaming fast food instead of dealing with real problems.

[Joshua]

Deadlier Than War.

This is an interesting read on the topic of sanctions vs war.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yep. Same ol' same ol'

Dubya haters are against the war and sensible folks support it.

Please try to hide your disdain for Dubya when you criticize the coming war. Oh wait. Then you would have nothing to say.

[nickdman]

Some one get the Fire extinguisher before a flame war starts

[Hash]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, according to the AP, we can add another Nobel Laureate to the US camp. I guess that Lech Walesa kind of cancels out Nelson Mandela.



Associated Press

Lech Walesa is former CIA spy and is deeply unpopular even in his native Poland. He lost democratic elections to former communists (sic!)

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, according to the AP, we can add another Nobel Laureate to the US camp. I guess that Lech Walesa kind of cancels out Nelson Mandela.

Elie Wiesel cancelled out Mandela a long time ago.

War is the only option

A former winner of the Nobel peace prize says we must stop Saddam's killing machine

Elie Wiesel
Sunday December 22, 2002
The Observer

Since the unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council, the world has lived in anguish, anticipating an event that would profoundly affect the course of affairs in the Middle East.

Will a war on Iraq, which Washington and London have advocated from the beginning, finally take place? And if it does, will it be justified? If UN arms inspectors come home with nothing to report, can we trust that Saddam Hussein has truly granted them the freedom to do their jobs? Or is Saddam a liar, concealing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons capable of devastating entire regions?

These are crucial questions, as troubling as they are complex. Impossible to resolve, but also impossible to circumvent.

Saddam almost certainly harbours deadly arsenals. Ideally, the international inspectors would uncover and then destroy the weapons that are putting many other countries in danger, not only Israel. But what if Iraqi hiding places turn out to be too deep, too well concealed? The weapons may be buried in hospital basements and cemeteries, and plants may be operating in presidential palaces. Do the inspectors have adequate tools to discover them?

Few intelligence specialists doubt that Saddam would be ready to use weapons of mass destruction. His mentality, his temperament and his past are well known: Killing a great number of human beings would not concern him. He proved that at the end of the 1980s, when he ordered the slaughter by gas of thousands of his own citizens.

In truth, that was the time for the leaders of civilised nations to raise their voices and condemn Saddam in the name of the world's conscience, plainly and clearly, for crimes against humanity. But for purely political reasons, they did not: At the time, Saddam was the enemy of Iran, which was the enemy of the United States and its allies. So he was handled carefully - while his regime grew ever stronger.

Will Saddam hesitate before using the same murderous tactics he has already proved himself capable of? Will he fear international reaction? It is possible. But it is also possible that he will be shrewd enough to exploit the stand-off between the US and the UN. Then time will be on his side. And when all is said and done, he will be the one to decide when, against whom and where to launch his missiles bearing poison and death.

This is the worst scenario of all. Because numerous lives are at stake. The lives of Israelis, Americans and, of course, Iraqis. Tens of thousands. Therefore one thing is obvious: we must do everything possible to prevent Saddam from using his weapons.

Does this mean war? Not necessarily. Since our intelligence services, which seem to be well informed, know where the plants in question are located (at least, I hope so), I am na�ve enough to believe that a kind of James Bond operation would be best.

I imagine American, British and Israeli commandos, the best trained in the world, would one night parachute into Iraq. They would destroy all the missile bases and centres for weapons production and set out again at dawn, if possible, without killing a single Iraqi.

Am I too romantic? Why wouldn't I be? After all, I am also a novelist. Only I must admit that the military professionals to whom I proposed my plan did not find it very realistic. And the fact that I know nothing about war strategies did not strengthen my position.

So where are we going? If all the roads to peaceful resolution are closed and therefore any attempts at negotiation are doomed to failure, and if Saddam sends the inspectors back empty-handed, vanquished and ridiculed, will only war bring the desired solution?

I find war repugnant. All wars. I know war's monstrous aspects: blood and corpses everywhere, hungry refugees, devastated cities, orphans in tears and houses in ruins. I find no beauty in it. But it is with a heavy heart I ask this: what is to be done? Do we have the right not to intervene, when we know what passivity and appeasement will make possible?

Is President Bush's policy of intervention the best response to an imperative need? Yes, it is said, and I am reluctant to say anything else. Bush's goal is to prevent the deadliest biological or nuclear conflict in modern history.

If the US, supported by the UN Security Council, is forced to intervene, it will save victims who are already targeted, already menaced. And it will win. The US owes it to us, and owes it to future generations. As the great French writer Andr� Malraux said, victory belongs to those who make war without loving it.

Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel says Saddam must be confronted

WASHINGTON - Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said Thursday that while he abhors war, he believes the world community must confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Wiesel, who survived the Nazi death camps and won the Nobel in 1986, urged Europe to put pressure on Saddam.

"I believe it is the moral duty to intervene when evil has power and uses it," Wiesel said. "If Europe were to apply as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as [it] does on the United States and Britain, I think we could prevent war."

He said the Holocaust could have been avoided if the world had intervened in 1939, a time he compared to the current crisis with Iraq.

"He cannot have weapons, I think he has these weapons, because he would use them," Wiesel said, stopping short of comparing Saddam to Hitler.

U.S. President George W. Bush dropped in briefly on Wiesel's meeting Thursday afternoon with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Saying, "I am not a man of war," Wiesel said military conflict still must be considered as a last resort. Wiesel is chairman of The President's Commission on the Holocaust and behind the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.

Wiesel and his family were forced to leave Romania in 1944.

The family was sent to Auschwitz, where Wiesel's mother and youngest sister were killed. In 1945, Wiesel and his father were sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany, where his father died.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Hash:
Lech Walesa is former CIA spy and is deeply unpopular even in his native Poland. He lost democratic elections to former communists (sic!)

CIA spy? It's now no secret that Solidarity received funds from the CIA that helped them make it through the martial law years, when many of its leaders (including Walesa) were under house arrest. But that isn't spying. It's supporting a free trade union working to free their country from what amounted to foreign occupation. And it worked too.

Oh I get it. Anything touched by the US is evil. So Walesa was evil and the human rights - violating, Soviet puppet Polish Communist Party were the good guys, I suppose.

As for his popularity, Walesa made the mistake of becoming president. I was in Poland during his last year in office. As matter of fact, I met him briefly. The Poles I spoke to described him as heroic as a union leader and peaceful revolutionary, but ineffective as a president of a country undergoing dramatic economic change. The guy after all was a shipyard electrician before becoming a Nobel Peace Prize winner. They didn't indicate that he was "deeply unpopular" so much as unsuited to being a president.

[daimoni]

.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


But if we consider what happened in Afghanistan, we might actually increase this threat by invading right now. If the country starts coming apart at the seems, influx of "freedom fighters", civil unrest, ethnic tensions, Arab rage destablizing other nations, etc could all easily facilitate whatever WMD's Iraq might have stashed somewhere being sold to a 3rd party. In my mind, a US invasion at this time doesn't necessarily address this in a satisfying way.

I think there is really little similarity between Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is far more developed and I think it will be easier to organize a recovery.

TF, not to backtrack too far, but how can one be for the THREAT of war and against war. I know you'll qualify what you said, again, but it seems to me that at some point the threat becomes moot if we aren't ready to stand up and get it on.

Millenium's post about continuing deaths in Iraq is extremely relevant. I've heard the same numbers someplace, and I wish we heard more about this on the nightly news. There is a cost to inaction. Right now, not just in terms of heightened risks here in the US.

But if you look at how the media and others have treated the deaths which have resulted from the sanctions, it's still the US's fault (I know it isn't, but that's how the spin goes). It's painfully obvious to THINKING PEOPLE who's killing Iraqi citizen's today, but remember that some folks are still blaming the US for famine in Cuba.

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Oh I get it. Anything touched by the US is evil. So Walesa was evil and the human rights - violating, Soviet puppet Polish Communist Party were the good guys, I suppose.

Welcome to LeftWorld(tm). In LeftWorld, everyone believes simultaneously that (1) the former Soviet Union was inefficient and would have collapsed on its own (Reagan had nothing to do with it; appeasement for 50 years worked) and (2) the Soviet system was superior to ours and it only collapsed because of a few greedy or ineffective people, or because the US meddled in its affairs, preventing it from finding economic "alliances" all over the world, such as it had with Cuba.

Also in LeftWorld, people believe that the Warsaw Pact states were better off behind the Iron Curtain. They also believe that Soviet communism is on its way back one day (Workers Unite!). After all, Stalinism is working out for the North Koreans -- they're keeping the mean old US at bay.

Oh, and all of our space and military technology was stolen from the Soviet Union. And our tactics.

LeftWorld has many visitors each day, most of them are self-appointed VIPs and media representatives.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Welcome to LeftWorld(tm). In LeftWorld, everyone believes simultaneously that (1) the former Soviet Union was inefficient and would have collapsed on its own (Reagan had nothing to do with it; appeasement for 50 years worked) and (2) the Soviet system was superior to ours and it only collapsed because of a few greedy or ineffective people, or because the US meddled in its affairs, preventing it from finding economic "alliances" all over the world, such as it had with Cuba.

Also in LeftWorld, people believe that the Warsaw Pact states were better off behind the Iron Curtain. They also believe that Soviet communism is on its way back one day (Workers Unite!). After all, Stalinism is working out for the North Koreans -- they're keeping the mean old US at bay.

Oh, and all of our space and military technology was stolen from the Soviet Union. And our tactics.

LeftWorld has many visitors each day, most of them are self-appointed VIPs and media representatives.

Hm. Apparently in Rightworld�, people are fond of creating imaginary worlds in their heads that have no basis in reality.

Making Rightworld� right next door to Paranoid SchizophrenicWorld�, with a large confluence of visitors back and forth.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Speaking of which... do you guys remember FutureWorld? and WestWorld?

YES! although WestWorld was better....gotta love the plotline, which was inconceivable at the time: a computer virus.

LOL!

[finboy]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Speaking of which... do you guys remember FutureWorld? and WestWorld?

Cool pic. I loved that stuff when I was a kid. Michael Crighton (?) is a genius.

Sure, Lerk, you can visit all manner of 'Worlds if you want to. Just make sure you check out "DenialWorld" while the vacation lasts.

Oh, I forgot that the official radio network of LeftWorld is NPR, who reminds us daily that anything produced in the Third World (art, fiction, etc.) is better than anything that we have here, and that true culture and/or intellectualism can never thrive in capitalist states, not really.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by finboy:
Welcome to LeftWorld(tm). In LeftWorld, everyone believes simultaneously that (1) the former Soviet Union was inefficient and would have collapsed on its own (Reagan had nothing to do with it; appeasement for 50 years worked) and (2) the Soviet system was superior to ours and it only collapsed because of a few greedy or ineffective people, or because the US meddled in its affairs, preventing it from finding economic "alliances" all over the world, such as it had with Cuba.

Also in LeftWorld, people believe that the Warsaw Pact states were better off behind the Iron Curtain. They also believe that Soviet communism is on its way back one day (Workers Unite!). After all, Stalinism is working out for the North Koreans -- they're keeping the mean old US at bay.

Oh, and all of our space and military technology was stolen from the Soviet Union. And our tactics.

LeftWorld has many visitors each day, most of them are self-appointed VIPs and media representatives.

Psst ... you forgot your jacket this morning.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Psst ... you forgot your jacket this morning.

If I have to put up with Leftist revisionism and wishful thinking too much longer, I might need one of those.

In LeftWorld, history consists of the ancient past (slavery) and the immediate present (the Bush Administration). In particular, the period between 1992 and 2000 seems to be the time of legends, and LeftWorld historians and commentators have a hard time attributing anything but goodness of mythic proportions to that time period. Evidently, nothing that happened during that period impacted anything that happened afterwards unless those outcomes can be construed to appear positive; in that case, the influence of 1992-2000 is ubiquitous. All good things came from then.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Welcome to LeftWorld(tm). In LeftWorld, everyone believes simultaneously that (1) the former Soviet Union was inefficient and would have collapsed on its own (Reagan had nothing to do with it; appeasement for 50 years worked) and (2) the Soviet system was superior to ours and it only collapsed because of a few greedy or ineffective people, or because the US meddled in its affairs, preventing it from finding economic "alliances" all over the world, such as it had with Cuba.

Also in LeftWorld, people believe that the Warsaw Pact states were better off behind the Iron Curtain. They also believe that Soviet communism is on its way back one day (Workers Unite!). After all, Stalinism is working out for the North Koreans -- they're keeping the mean old US at bay.

Oh, and all of our space and military technology was stolen from the Soviet Union. And our tactics.

LeftWorld has many visitors each day, most of them are self-appointed VIPs and media representatives.

I've never claimed to be a pacifist. I'm not anti-war, per se. I'm just against this war under present circumstances.

I still see room for diplomacy. Which should immediately include revisions to the Oil for Food program. It's time we actually backed up our rhetoric of caring for the Iraqi people with actions. That will set the stage for us a helluva lot better if invasion becomes necessary. Right now they have no reason to trust us.

I'm also against going in without any support. I don't feel like footing the bill for occupying and rebuilding Iraq as well as providing security for untold years without alliances that really matter.

I think we need to separate our security interests from our political pipe-dreams regarding the Ba'ath regime. Our first priority is security which I honestly feel can be achieved without invading.

Once we have security, we can use other means of helping Iraqis help themselves and oust the Ba'ath regime.

Of course, things look very bleak now since France seems to have taken a completely rejectionist stance. I thought the UK's new hoops for Iraq to jump through were a worthy goal and I have no idea why France would reject it outright, especially after Bush said he'd wait for a vote and Britain said they would even compromise on some of the 6 requirements. It seems now that Iraq will take their cues from France, and that is a terrible strategic decision by Chirac.

Well, at least now we can blame whatever crisis of solidarity squarely on France. Bush didn't really get too involved (he let Blair do all the dirty work) but at least he cooled his jets and gave the SC another shot at finding common ground.

P.S. Donald Rumsfeld needs to shut the hell up. Half of this mess is his damn fault. If I were Powell, I'd kick the living shyte out him for making my job a thousand times more difficult. The man should never be allowed to discuss any topic outside of our borders again. What a complete and utter fool.

[Hash]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
CIA spy? It's now no secret that Solidarity received funds from the CIA that helped them make it through the martial law years, when many of its leaders (including Walesa) were under house arrest. But that isn't spying. It's supporting a free trade union working to free their country from what amounted to foreign occupation. And it worked too.

Oh I get it. Anything touched by the US is evil. So Walesa was evil and the human rights - violating, Soviet puppet Polish Communist Party were the good guys, I suppose.

As for his popularity, Walesa made the mistake of becoming president. I was in Poland during his last year in office. As matter of fact, I met him briefly. The Poles I spoke to described him as heroic as a union leader and peaceful revolutionary, but ineffective as a president of a country undergoing dramatic economic change. The guy after all was a shipyard electrician before becoming a Nobel Peace Prize winner. They didn't indicate that he was "deeply unpopular" so much as unsuited to being a president.

You dont get the point. If even his compatriots know that the guy is unable to run the country and judge about domestic matters, then there is no value whatsoever in what Walesa thinks about international matters - he understands them even less. So, he isn't a person, whose judgments on international politics matter somehow. Let him stand on tanks in front of shipyard workers and thats enough for him.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Hash:
You dont get the point. If even his compatriots know that the guy is unable to run the country and judge about domestic matters, then there is no value whatsoever in what Walesa thinks about international matters - he understands them even less. So, he isn't a person, whose judgments on international politics matter somehow. Let him stand on tanks in front of shipyard workers and thats enough for him.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

P.S. Donald Rumsfeld needs to shut the hell up. Half of this mess is his damn fault. If I were Powell, I'd kick the living shyte out him for making my job a thousand times more difficult. The man should never be allowed to discuss any topic outside of our borders again. What a complete and utter fool.

Yeah I wonder about this. Maybe its some kind of super-sophisticated good cop bad cop routine... but even if it is (and this is the most generous assessment I can think of) it's not working. The guy is a living liability to international cooperation.

[palmberg]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's the biggest flaw, I see at least, with the anti-war movement. It has no viable alternative to reach the same results.

This is also my concern. I'm not all for going to war, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what countries like France and Germany hope to gain (except for lots and lots of money from Iraq) by NOT forcing Saddam to disarm. Sometimes I wish George would say, "OK, France, we won't go to war with Iraq. The burden of proof is now squarely on your shoulders. Prove to us that Saddam does not have WMD in violation of the UN. We'll be waiting...."

[palmberg]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I thought the UK's new hoops for Iraq to jump through were a worthy goal and I have no idea why France would reject it outright, especially after Bush said he'd wait for a vote and Britain said they would even compromise on some of the 6 requirements.

Hello?! Answer = $$

Also, I suspect much of it comes from Chirac's fear of being seen as internationally irrelevent.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Welcome to the world of Hash.

[palmberg]

I just love this line from ElBaradei:

"'We haven't really told them specifically what they need to do,' he said of the Iraqis."

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81016,00.html

IT'S YOUR JOB TO TELL THEM! What the hell has he been doing over there these last months?

"Give us all your weapons, now." How difficult is that?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's the biggest flaw, I see at least, with the anti-war movement. It has no viable alternative to reach the same results.

I don't understadn that at all. First of all, most of the people who don't support the invasion are of the opinion that we've already gained a substantial amount of assurance about Iraq's not being a real threat.

It's only when we confuse our security interests of preventing Iraq from posing a legitimate threat with our political/economic interests of wishing we could dictate how they should run their country that we come up with bad ideas like the current Bush policy.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by palmberg:
but I'll be damned if I can figure out what countries like France and Germany hope to gain (except for lots and lots of money from Iraq)

What? What are you talking about?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I don't understadn that at all. First of all, most of the people who don't support the invasion are of the opinion that we've already gained a substantial amount of assurance about Iraq's not being a real threat.

It's predicated on two principles:

1) That Saddam and his regime must disarm themselves fully of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

2) That he must comply fully with UN inspectors to insure that he has disarmed.

Now if you don't subscribe to the above than it doesn't make any difference to go on. Even most of the anti-war protesters I've heard agree on the goals. There's just disagreement on how to achieve them.

You can argue whether or not we need to press the issue, or whether it's in our vital interests. But that's a different road.

The road we're on is to disarm him and see that he cooperates. And I haven't heard an effective alternative to military action yet. Do you have one? And I mean an alternative that will guarantee he has no WMD and fully complies with the UN mandates.

And you have to be sure about the WMD's because by now I think he's pretty well convinced that we're his enemy and I think he'll do anything in his power to inflict retaliatory damage. So you better be sure he isn't armed to the teeth when you leave him be. And regarding #2, he hasn't fully cooperated. He has in fits and spurts but not totally.

We discussed this before but I'll say it again: after 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops breathing down his neck he still refuses to cooperate.

What viable alternative is there to make him cooperate?