I don't like Saddam Hussein. I'm mystified as to how anyone could think we wouldn't be better off without him, or how anyone could support him. The man is evil. Period. We owe the Israelis a big huge thank-you for taking care of his first nuclear reactor back about 20 years ago. And the protesters -- well, someone else put the question: What is their alternative? What do they propose we do if Saddam gets the bomb, and, say, gives it to al-Qaeda? Do they realize the historical import of what they're doing and carefully weighed the options and the consequences? At the same time, while I don't view GWB as evil, I do view him clearly in the category of "Does he know what he's doing?" Yes, he's surrounded himself with a talented and knowledgable group of advisors -- but is their advice sound? And even if it is, GWB is going to be the one who ultimately makes the decisions. Has he shown that he realizes the historical import of what he's doing and carefully weighed the options and the consequences? Bah. I don't like either side. Hussein is evil, make no mistake, but that doesn't mean I want to give Bush a blank check. Here's a perspective from one of the most intelligent columnists in my area: Dissenters would do well to ridicule less, listen more And here's an interesting perspective from someone who's a doctrinaire conservative in the same way that Diego Maradona is on the short list for knighthood. Yes, this is Dan Savage, who writes the Savage Love column: ...And Pass The Ammunition Say "Yes" To War On Iraq Discuss.
Mr. Connelly is operating under a delusion that this country is a democracy where all views are considered. "Reasonable" dissent does not register in this media. The only dissenting messages that are delivered are controversial ones. The media gains consumers through presenting conflict between extremists (a/k/a entertainment). You can analogize political coverage to sports coverage. The media will only show the idiots with the face paint and the ridiculous outfits as the "true" fans. They do the same with political dissidents.
Sure there is a viable alternative. Keeping the status quo. But here is a question that I never hear answered by the pro-war side. What is your plan for after-Saddam Iraq? How will you appease the different demands of the groups in Iraq? What will you do if Turkey or Russia decide to "help the Americans destroy a world threat" and set up camp in prime real estate?
Those plans are not finalized as of print according to most news reports. The "plans" are being developed by his advisors. Bush has not officially selected one or developed his own plan based on the information provided. He has a political, emotional, philosophical, economic and whatever else comes into such decisions to balance. I see him willing to go to war, even though retorhic aside, it weighs on his conscience. Now, reports also demonstrate some plans for 18 months of US "nation building" and at least the US must view said interests (see above) as to select the next real possoble solution for Iraq after any conflict. Let's not forget the interests of Iraqi folks in the USA and the "good ones" we could help get control of power, elections being a far off option at this point in my mind. The people of Iraq, being told to defend their nation, have to pick sides. On outsider and white devil in the USA or the guy they may have very well come to view as their leader. I remember all those Iraqi soldiers willing to surrender to the (allied) forces just so willing to get some better treatment. I would think and hope the people of Iraq to be as willing as they finally see another possibility in their lives. If not, and even with holdouts and imported terror, the US troops and any new Iraqi govt would be best served to sleep with one eye open. There will be many abgry folks in the region and inside Iraq with any "US occupation" especially if and when the USA gets those oil fields working full tilt. Just think, any of you think we have been doing a good job in Afghanistan? I wouldn't trust anyone yet.
Really? What was all that nonsense about polls and signs in demonstrations? My point is dissenters who "listen" to the general public and come up with less "extreme" and less "rigid" anti-war arguments will be ineffective. Why? Because they will not be covered by the media.
How many nations have the bomb already? How many are not far from having it? Should we attack every one of them to prevent them from someday possibly giving the technology to Al Quaeda? The point is, TC, no connection has ever been made between Saddam and Bin Laden. And calling him "evil. Period" only makes sense if you consider us complicit in his evilness. I mean, when he committed most of the acts for which you want him to burn, he was our ally and acting with our material support. Then we tricked him into attacking Kuwait, a region for which he could at least make a reasonable historic claim as part of Iraq. Then we lied to the UN and to Saudi about his impending invasion of Saudi Arabia in order to convince Saudi to let us set up camp in their land. We got what we wanted out of the whole US concocted shennanigan: a military presence near all that oil. In any case, Iraq has never posed any threat to the USA. And the notion that they are near to getting the bomb and using it on us (why would Saddam do this, anyway?) seems to be getting slighter by the day as the inspectors keep finding zilch. Or perhaps you find him evil because his troups were all taking babies out of incubators in Kuwait City during the invasion and dashing them on the ground? Please tell me you know that this was totally fabricated PR work from Bush I.
Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! Leaving aside the disgusting "It's all the USA's fault" tone of your post, doesn't our complicity make it more important that we do something about Saddam now?
Look people, everybody "supported" Saddam against IRAN. By the way, most of his weapons where purchased from guess who, that's right the USSR.
You don't like either side? No problem. The nation to which you claim citizenship, and I assume by birth, needs your support. It is like a dysfuntional family (and all families are). We can argue and fight amongst ourselves but when it comes time to fight the neighbors because they have two cars on blocks on the front lawn, you yourself know where you will stand. It is like when Bobby Knight made those comments to Connie Chung about rape. Once it becomes certain that you will be raped, after fighting off the attack, you had better try to enjoy it.
That's two extremely huge "ifs". North Korea is a lot more likely to give the Bomb to al-Qaeda. I agree with Israel taking out Iraq's reactor. I think we're within our rights - hell, we would have the obligation - to do the same. In fact, I don't even have a problem with the idea that sovereignty is outmoded these days, especially when the sovereign is an outright SOB. But taking out Saddam, with a full-scale invasion, is more trouble than it's worth. There are lots of SOBs out there. We can't invade them all.
Re: Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! Wake, what "it's" are you referring to in my supposed blame here? I hope you are not talking about 9/11. If you are talking about the Gulf War being "our fault" then I wouldn't call that my "tone," I'd call it my whole freakin point. And "fault" probably isn't exactly the right word, since the Gulf War was a very cleverly planned and intentional act. Saddam was an idiot and fell into the trap Bush set for him. And can you really see the new war in any terms other than our "fault"...again, if "fault" is a good word to describe outright thuggery with the intention of mass murder for the sake of oil.
What f-ing moron social studies teacher did you have in school? Is this really your understanding of deliberative democracy? Never read Thoreau's "Civil Disobediance?"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! The "It" in your "It's all the USA's fault" rant is the Gulf War itself. You make it sound as though poor wittle Saddam got tricked by big, bad America into invading Kuwait. Wittle baby Saddam couldn't help it, huh? And nice job at not answering my question!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! Not "little baby" Saddam, but "greedy, power-hungry" Saddam got tricked. As for our responsibility to "do something" about him now if we admit our complicity in his past atrocities--I suppose a case could be made for that, though the "something" would not be the type of imperialistic war we are about to initiate. But that is NOT the case Bush and Cheney or any conservative on these boards is making. And if it was, Saddam would have to step in line behind a long line of murderous *********************s who we've supported over the years.
In my case, no. At least not to the point of joining up with them. And that's something that my fellow liberals are all too ignorant of too often -- politics is partly about convincing other people to come over to your side, not about just simply garnering media attention. I agree with this. Sorry, folks. I am not going to buy into the "Blame America first" philosophy. Not now, not ever, no matter how much I dislike George W. Bush and the policies he pursues. If you don't like that, too bad.
But what if Saddam doesn't want to keep the status quo? Those are excellent questions, and I'd like to see some of the pro-war people answer them. I'd also like you to answer my questions, spejic. Heck, anyone's free to try and answer my questions.
Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! An excellent point. But what if that changes? I went back and read Savage's second article: He also goes on to suggest precisely what Dan Loney has suggested: Saudi Arabia should be at the top of the list.
Re: Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! That's pretty much the argument that Savage makes. If we were accomplices in Saddam's rise to power and his abuses of that power, then it's even more important for this country to do something about him. And if we don't, then who will? France? Somalia? Bhutan? Abba? The Powerpuff Girls?
I agree. Garcia, I'm not going to take a "My country, right or wrong" approach. It's our duty as citizens, as small a voice as we each individually may have, to think about the issues. It can get tough, particularly if you're busy with your job or two jobs, or if you have a family, or if you're turned off from politics by the Bob Barrs and Cynthia McKinneys, but if more citizens did this, we'd have a better country. Note: As previously noted, I also refuse to take a "My country sucks, right or wrong" approach.
Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! I agree with Dan's observation on North Korea, and the last two sentences of his post. Except that I'm not a real big believer in the philosophy of "If you can't do everything, do nothing." I'm more like Teddy Roosevelt: "Do what you can with what you have where you are."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! Actually, I have made that case. As for the long line of murderous thugs, you're advocating a "one-size-fits-all" approach to foreign policy? Interesting.
Then you can respond. That is the action of a person who wants to keep the peace, not being an aggressor. Here is my answer:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bah! I don't like either side! This was a compelling argument for the Afghanistan war against the Taliban, as well. I remember hearing it first from Christopher Hitchens, and it made a lot of sense. But the Taliban was a compelling threat against the American people, in that they were giving shelter to al-Qaeda. Our responsibility and our interest went hand in hand. That's not the case here with Iraq. It's our responsibility, granted, but it's not in our interest to cause the damage necessary to overthrow Saddam. Unless I'm badly mistaken about how difficult it will be to overthrow Saddam and establish a new regime. I doubt his army could sock it to the Harper Valley PTA, but that's not the only thing we'll be doing here.