The US, The UN and Iraq

I think Kurt V. is an outstanding author ... I enjoy his work very much. I don't share his views in the current matter. No matter; he's still a crafty wordsmith and a lively read. His political commentary is every bit as pertinent, insightful and relevant as is that of Susan Sarandon. Fortunately for both, and for The World, neither are Political Leaders nor Arbiters of Public Sentiment. I weigh them both equally for their art, and both equally for their sociopolitical understanding. Both are admirable artists. I'll leave that at that.


For about 48 hours in September of 2001, America, all America, "Got it". We are under attack. A couple of Superbowls later, some of that focus has been lost. Militarily and Diplomatically, America is not "attacking" a gawddam thing. America is responding to a heinous, cowardous, egregious attack upon Her Soil, Her People, Her Constitution, and Her Vision. WE ARE AT WAR! Like it or not, it is the present situation.

There are those who say "The War on Terrorism is endless, unwinnable, and nothing but a distraction from Real Issues".
I would like to point out to such that "The War on Terrorism" is just another battle in "The War on Tyranny", an exercize in which humanity has been engaged for a few millenia now. That conflict has no clear victory in sight, yet it must continue to be fought, for it is the very core of Civilization. ALL other issues are subsequent, and of no issue should mankind ever give up the fight.

What "National Interest" is served by disposing of Saddam? Very simply, peace and stability in The Middle East serves not only US but World interests. Saddam is a clear, demonstrated, and continuing threat to the peace and stability of The Middle East, and by extension, The World. Suffering a despotic, inhumane tyrant to exist is a denial of Human Rights. Period. We must not, we must NEVER, turn our backs to such.

Saddam knows he cannot "WIN". His victory, and his vindication, lies in his being undefeated, undeterred, unpunished. Every day he remains in power is a loss to Freedom, Liberty, and Humanity. Those who cavill for further delay, for "More Proof", are Saddam's allies in his fight to remain despotic, tyranical, and inhumane. A declared enemy not engaged is a declared enemy unimpeded and tacitly condoned, an enemy surrendered to by forfeit.

Iran, Kuwait, and Israel have suffered Saddam's hammer. So have his own people, his Kurds, his SHi'ites, his political opponents. Yes there are other fights to be fought, other enemies to be engaged, other wrongs to be righted. That there are in no way lessens the urgency of dealing with Saddam. Dealt with now, Saddam will be no longer a threat to anyone, though threats will remain. Those threats merit being dealt with too, and the measure of our rightiousness will be in our dealing with those other threats.

That DPRK holds the world to nuclear blackmail is reason enough to stop Saddam before he is able to do the same. That India/Pakistan threaten one another with nukes is reason enough to prevent a similar, and certain, Iraq/Israel confrontation. That the Israeli/Palestinian struggle shows no sign of abatement is reason enough to remove an enabler of its most vicious depradations.

It is not The US which sends checks to the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers. It is not Israel which blows up busloads of civilians. It is neither The US nor Israel which has used WMD against her neighbors and against her own populace. It is not The West which tries to wrap the conflict in the shroud of Religion.

It is time for Saddam to go. His downfall will send a powerful message, and will free badly needed resources to deal with equally pressing problems. "The War on Terrorism" is not the distraction. The distraction is the failure to recognize that the war has been thrust upon us. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted.



timber

Timber

Clap---clap----clap----very well said---thank you

Timber (I like you better when we are watching girls fight)

Your post obviously reflects deep-felt concerns and ideas. I'd be happier if we agreed on a number of elements here, but we don't. Still, I'd just as soon contend with you as anyone who wears pants.

blatham, I count myself honored that the two of us are freinds. Respect and regard are wholly independent of agreement, and if they are to be, they must be earned and be reciprocal. There is much on which we agree. That we disagree so strongly on this issue, yet unstintingly respect one another, one another's positions, and one another's motivations is quite satisfactory. There is no need for either of us to assume, or even to understand the other's place. It is quite enough that we allow one another our respective places, and that we do so equally with great passion is serendipitous bonus. Interacting with you is uniformly a delight. Debating with you is a stimulating, rewarding challenge. I thank you heartily for affording opportunity to engage in both.


Still, watching girls fight is a lot more fun than watching pixels form words.



timber

timber, As usual, a very well written post. However, I disagree with your decision to agree with GWBush's charge to war with Iraq on the basis that he is not good for Mid East Peace. Yes, he attacked his neighbors and harmed his own people, but we are talking about 'history.' Yes, he's a tyrant, but there are other tyrants in this world today. A preemptive strike by the US against another country changes the international rules of war. We become the aggressor nation, not the peacemaker. It is essential that we let any renegade nation attack first. The world community will then come together as a true coalition. Future rogue nations will realize the futility of any aggression towards their neighbors or anybody else. Peace will be assured in that manner. If the most powerful nation in the world becomes the aggressor, only confusion and resentment results, and we become the enemy to many. That does not bode well for the future of this world. c.i.

c.i., I refuse to allow you to distract me :wink:



timber

C.I. Said: It is essential that we let any renegade nation attack first. My God----what if that is a nuclear bomb in New York harbor.

Do you want that on your conscience?? Did you really want to say that?

I know your post was not addressed to me and I suspect Timber will deal with it adequately but Damn............................

Got a minute - or three? A little play-out of a war in the mid-east.

Scenario

Hypothetical...

The police have plausible evidence that a known felon has not lived up to the demands of his parole and intends to harm your family.

Would your opinion in this situation be that the police should wait until the felon attacks your family before acting?

perception, The nuclear age is with us, and there isn't much that's going to change that, unless all the countries of the world agree to a zero nuclear agreement. Can you name one country that has nuclear weapons that will attack the US first? MAD is very possible for the future of this world, but any country with a few nuclear weapons will only commit suicide by attacking the US. Yes, I agree, there is future danger, but I'm not fearful that any rogue national leader is stupid enough to use it against us. The first possibility I see is between Pakistan and India, and nowhere else. Fear is what is driving most people to follow GWBush's lead to war. I still believe that's the wrong strategy. c.i.

dys

Iran is next -----after Korea.

Guppie is paddling furiously to get away from the blast)))))))

I fail to see a 12+ Year escalation of tensions a "Rush to War". Seems a bit more like overly patient, if you ask me.

Screw The Middle East. Saddam and such as he are threats to World Peace, and inimical to World Prosperity. Not a small part of the global economic malaise now gripping us is due to Middle-Eastern instability, and considerable political unrest elsewhere on the planet is exacerbated both by economic downturn and by the perception of some that we are too heavily engaged there to address them.

For the Love of God, how much more "History" is Saddam to be allowed to write? How many more tombstone inscriptions is he to inspire before he becomes a footnote?

So what? I do not dispute that, nor do I see that it in any way invalidates the need to deal with Saddam. If one doesn't start somewhere, one starts nowhere. Lets get started.

I refer back to the 12+ year escalating conflict between The US and Iraq. As a matter of fact, lets go back further. In 1988, an Iraqi Mirage (a French Built Jet) slammed two Exocet Missles (Also products of our dear freinds The French) into the US Destroyer Stark, killing over 40 American Sailors. An armed attack on another nation's warship in International Waters is by any definition of The Laws of War an Act of War. Then there are the thousands of incidents of Iraqi armed resistance to the enforcement of the No Fly Zones. We didn't start this. We are not unprovoked. We are not The aggressor. we are by any definition of law The Agrieved Party, and we are legitmately redressing that grievance as is appropriate. An assault on Iraq is a counter-attack, not a pre-emptive attack.

Why would you suppose a thing which has never happened before might happen now?

What bodes ill for the world is its ongoing preference to avoid hostilities at all costs in preference to taking effective action to end the prospect of hostilities. When one is confronted by an armed thug, one is not required, nor even well advised, to wait for the thug to shoot first. Rules apply to those who follow rules. Those who disregard the rules must be afforded full sanction as swiftly, effectively, and conclusively as practicable, otherwise there is no point to having Rules.


Sorry, I DID let you distract me

again, c.i., I like and respect you, and I respect your argument and your motivation. I just don't share them. I am not wrong nor right, nor are you. We remain convinced of different things. That is good.



timber

Dys, every point you make is valid. Iran is among the most serious threats to World Peace there is ... a far larger practical threat than even DPRK. A stable, prosperous, Pro-West Afghanistan and a stable, prosperous, Pro-West Iraq cannot but be seen by the current Iranian Leadership as clear and proximate threat to Iran's interests. There is some undercurrent of democratic reform in Iran, and that should be fostered. Absent democratic, secular reform, Iran is on a collision course with The West. Settling with Saddam merely settles with Saddam. There remains much in the Middle East to be resolved. Things have barely begun. We should waste no time in addressing and resolving the pertinent issues, and there are many of them, all of pressing urgency.

It is time to act.



timber, who edited rather than previewed. Again.

timber, I see Saddam being contained. As long as the UN inspectors stay in Iraq, there's very little opportunity for him to be a threat to anybody. c.ii.

If his lies are revealed by his use of WMD, the world community will come together as a coalition to do whatever is necessary to stop him from further harm. I have no doubts about that! c.i.

c.i., The Inspectors are window dressing, and there at Saddam's whim and their own peril. If kids can grow pot on rural hillsides despite the active efforts of Law Enforcement to prevent such activity, a totalitarian government with considerable technical resources can hide and produce just about anything it wants to, with or without inspectors. And where are the tons of prohibited munitions Iraq is known to have possessed, but is unable to account for? These items did exist. There is no evidence of their destruction. They have not, despite specific demand, been revealed or accounted for. What conclusion may be drawn beyond that they are being concealrd intentionally? We're not playing with kids here, and them ain't marbles. I would feel far more kindly toward Iraq if her scientissts were freely interviewed by The UN, if The Inspectors were led to the storehouses in which the items are stacked or given incontravertable proof of destruction regarding those weapons and agents.
Saddam is contained only in that a powerful military presence enforces his containment. If the troops and planes and ships are withdrawn, how long do you think The Inspectors would be even as grudgingly welcomed in Iraq as they presently may be? There is a bit of history there, too. We have a pretty good idea what would happen to The Inspection Process if Saddam wasn't under the gun.
And to condone the risking of untold civilian casualties to confirm the fact that untold civilian casualties are a risk is just plain criminally irresponsible.

That's my take on it, anyway.



timber, who STILL doesn't use preview ... grrrr.

It's the Law of Kinetics. At peace is best to stay at peace - work at it, make it happen. At War may be the end of the world as we understand it.

I vote for at peace, it is proven, work at it hard, don't turn it over because something is tought to be, where is solid evidence?

I will state my stand again,

If we go to war with what is in existence right now - it is immoral.

If Bush goes to war claiming that Saddam has WoMD and is about to use them or he is directly link to bin Laden and 9/11 - and this is not a fact, it is criminal! This isn't a case where someone can say, "Oops, I was mistaken but he (and all the innocent killed with him) needed to go anyway". It is a crime, as a matter of fact!

Kinda like divorce. I like your stance BillW.