Lusatian, I have heard the speech and I do not share your sentiment. See, I grew up in the communist Czechoslovakia and I have listened to a ton of ideologically charged speeches. Strong words about 'democracy' and 'duty' and 'brighter tomorrow' therefore do not 'do it' for me anymore. And unfortunatelly, that is all I hear, from Tony Blair, from GWB, even from Powell, just phrase after phrase, stripped off meaning. THat is not the true motivation by far, don't we all know that. I am not a pacifist by principle, I support war when it is justifiable. This one in my view is not. And you are right, that does mean I do not support what the U.S. troops are doing, sorry. But it is not their choice or fault. And since I cannot prevent the outbreak of the war, I want to see their swift and victorious return. Saddam is no angel, so if they MUST go, I'd like to see him fall (I would prefer other way still). But those are two very different things (not supporting the war vs. wishing the troops all the best once the war does break out) and that is, i believe, what this whole discussion was meant to be about.
Lusatian,
I don't "do" politics here anymore but as you can imagine I disagree with you categorically and with more vehemence than that you referenced.
Come home soon, we'll argue later.
Opposite to steissd, I wish that all soldiers of any nation engaged in the war against Saddam return alive, safe and sound.
Yes, the war will be won.
Yes, I pray for the victims.
Yes, I will protest.
No, I don't think all politicans showed responsibility before God, there own conscience and history.
Opposite to me???
Steissd wrote:I want to use the opportunity and to wish to all the American soldiers to return home alive, safe and sound, and to bring with them captured Hussein family for trial. God bless America and her glorious Army!
I wished them the same!!! Well, of course, my wishes cover the UK and Australian troops as well. It was not explicitly written, but I implied this...
I agree with sozobe, dagmaraka, CDK and Walter.
I am not against any war. For example, the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a good thing. And, while Saddam is despicable, this attack is against international law and common sense.
Good luck, Lusatian. I hope you come back safe.
As I have said on another thread. IMO once the die is cast and the attack begins the protests should stop. At that point the only thing is important is a swift and as, bloodless as possible, victory. Protest at that point gives succor to the enemy and undermines our troops. If you disagree with Bush do it the only effective way. With your vote. Protests at this point are IMO a feel good exercise.
is conscience a feel good exercise? maybe, but it usually is a good check of official politics. i don't think it is a good idea for people who disagree to just turn away and pretend they now agree. no country is one united block were people agree on main policies unanimously. why would that undermine any countries' actions? i do not see that.
au1929 wrote: If you disagree with Bush do it the only effective way. With your vote.
Why should that be the only effective way? Is citizen nothing more than a voting machine?
Au1929, sorry to say this, but your position has a resonance of "democratic centralism", invented by Lenin.
You can disagree within the (Communist) party, but you must keep an image of unity.
That was the first step.
You can disagree, but you must keep your mouth shut, even within the party.
That was the second step.
You can't disagree. Or even think about it.
That was the third step.
You can't do anything but applaud. Or else... the Gulag or the executioner.
steissd
Sorry, if I got you wrong. But reading your ...all the American soldiers ...
i will continue to oppose.
OK, Mr. Hinteler, you are right. It was my mistake not to mention explicitly all the allies of the USA. By the way, tomorrow I join the ranks. Not the American, though, but the IDF ones: reserve service in Gaza Strip.
fbaezer, you bring up more that i like to even admit. but observing this country within the past two years i am increasingly worried. i lived half of my life under communism, and there just seem to be some similarities appearing lately, since 9/11. and you can see it especially in the rhetoric used to rally support for war. hopefully they will disappear after the crisis, or the crises. i understand fear, i lived it. but there are just other ways of dealing with it than via doctrines, preaching, and forcing ideas on others.
dagmaraka, I've really appreciated your perspective in these discussions.
Good luck, steissd.
Do I want your troops to win? Yes. In the unlikely case this war would go on only to have Saddam and his regime survive, that would be a tragic and useless waste of lives.
Do I want your troops to win quickly? Yes. I want there to be as few casualties as possible - and with "few casualties" I mean casualties among both Americans and Iraqis (whoever counted the Iraqi victims of the last Gulf war?). The sooner the war ends, the less victims, and considering Saddam can never win, that means a speedy American victory would be best.
I have one apprehension: that the easier the victory will be, the greater the temptation will be for your government to move on to the next "axis of evil" thorn in its side afterwards, and start another war. But I would never be as cynical to propose that therefore it is better if this war costs the US some. I just want it to be over - I wanted it to be over before it even started, in fact.
The choice between Saddam and Bush in itself is easy. I do think life after Saddam, when the US has won, will be better for the Iraqis, no matter what exactly happens. The extent to which they will appreciate it will largely depend on just how many casualties will fall.
From Vietnam onwards, wars that involved the US had one thing in common: the number of American soldiers who died was a fraction of those among whom the Americans were fighting. It is a given that many more Iraqis will die in this war - both soldiers and civilians - than Americans. In that sense our feelings should go out to the Iraqis in Saddams prison of a country, who can do nothing but helplessly wait for the US bombs to start raining down on them now.
I hope (but doubt) journalists will be able to critically monitor what casualties will fall and by whom. There can be no unconditional support for anyone. Any soldier who commits war crimes and any general who orders them to do so, whether Iraqi or American, should be persecuted afterwards. There can be no 'supporting of troops' who commit them.
If many do die, who will I blame? George Bush Jr. This is the first so-called "pre-emptive war" - nice speak for attacking a country that hasn't actually done anything against you yet, but that you think just might in some unspecfied future.
Saddam's regime posed no "clear and present danger" to the US or to Europe. He was supposed to pose a threat because of ties with Al-Qaeda, of which in the end not a thread was proven; he was supposed to pose a threat because of suspicions of a nuclear program that turned out to be based on forged documents. Sure he is a bad guy, and he used every trick he could to hold on to any weapon he could keep, whether legal or illegal, but the bottom line is: he wasn't preparing to wage a war - against anyone. Bush is sending out your children into war against a regime that posed no danger to you.
To cheer this on you have to be either very idealistic - and believe toppling any dictator around the world as cruel as Saddam is worth dying for - or very, let's say, ambitious, and believe a Pax Americana around the world is worth dying for.
I am not cheering your soldiers on. I believe they are waging an illegal war. I feel for them though, very much. They didn't choose for this to happen. I do hope for a minimum of casualties, and that is why I would wish every of your soldiers out there to succeed in his or her individual mission, and to return home safe and sound.
nimh - always good to read what you have to say!
And, I agree with Soz, thanks for sharing Dag.
Permit me one more foray into politics (I'm using the excuse that this is the first political discussion I've had with my brother this year) to say:
Undermining something that one feels is wrong is entirely their prerogative. Claiming that this opposition is unwarranted is just the same old "please shut up with your opinions" argument. It seems many will never understand that differences of opinion are not solved by calling for the opponent to shut up and it's a low blow to try to paint the vociferations of the opposition as untoward. Especially when one's own viewpoints (in this case a call to war) are just as untoward to those who did not share it.
To answer tress's question directly:
If this were any other country other than America invading Iraq under these circumstances I'd wish for their resounding defeat.
As it stands I wish for the expected cakewalk but vainly hope that the backlash on this type of preemptive policy is severe. I do not want this to become the norm. I hope there is a consequence when a nation disregards international opinion in an international matter. There will be no backlash against Bush because this kind of policy sells well domestically. That would be fine and dandy if this were a domestic issue. It is not. We invoke the resolutions of an entity (UN) to start the drums and then call the entity irrelevant when they reject our war.
The UN only lost relevance this year because a nation powerful enough to disregard them was led by a man willing to do this. Willing to destroy much of the progress the world has made over the years. Civilization means might is used based on premises other than ability. That there is structure for resolving conflict other than "let's shoot first".
The UN was told that if they didn't "act", which to the US administration meant act in accord with what they want, they would be irrelevant. The UN members feel that if they rubber stamp our resolution just because of this threat they are already irrelevant.
My personal opinion on this war is that it is this century's great lie. Iraq is this year's boogyman. If that was the only factor I'd have supported the war. If it took hyperbole to get the mandate for this I'd have accepted it. If it took pulling a connection to 9/11 out of thin air I'd have accepted it. It would have only sullied the office of politicians and it's not like they are thought to be honest.
sadaam deserves what he will get, the US didn't. The US didn't deserve to go down in history as the power that circumvented the only global body in existence for conflict resolution to start a war to protect neighbours who don't feel the need to be protected, to defend themselves against an attack that existed only in the realm of possibility.
The possibility of an attack always exists. Preemption is a tricky issue precisely because any attack can be called preemptive. Using twisted reasoning even the attacks of 9/11 can be called preemptive.
Justifying war on preemptive grounds is not something to be taken lightly. Much of the international opposition to this war was not as politically based as its domestic counterpart. It was in regard to the danger of validating an offensive as preemptive without the requisite situational elements.
When a nation's existence would be harmed by the lack of preemptive action it is a gamble that is life and death. In this case there is no threat to the existence of the US and it can be argued that Iraq posed a negligible threat before all of this.
Not neglecting a threat is a casus belli often tossed about. References to 9/11 are made frivolously. The fact is that anyone on earth could pose a threat. A couple of idiots can cause devastation (Oklahoma City).
It stands to reason that if a threat is so easily conjured and the embodiment of the threat so readily available that the justification of acting on each threat preemptively can't be arbitrary.
Every human on this planet poses a potential threat to each of their peers, this does not give them the license to act upon the fear the threat results in.
Civilization is such that we do not stoop to those levels. The criteria for preemption should be far more discriminatory.
Regardless of whether this war was justified my criteria has been simple. It should only happen if there there is a return of investment. By this I do not mean a ROI for us. Justifying this for domestic gain would have damaged the paradigims of geopolitics even further. I wanted the region, this world, and our nation to see an improvement.
If our ability to flout international opinion is the only reason why we will do so we do the world a disservice. That means our position is guaranteed only by superiority and superiority is not eternal.
To end my rant I would have supported this war if we could convince a significant sampling of the rest of the world of its necessity. Even if it was not a needed war having others think it was needed would lessen its impact on geopolitics.
If international support for the war were impossible I would then the war would need to be justified.
As it stands I feel that the war is both unjustified, but more importantly, opposed internationally.
This means that while this will, in all likelihood, make Iraq a better place it hurts America and the progress man has made toward civilization takes a blow.
I hope the price for such recklessness is enough to deter such action in the future. This will become the norm if there is no consequence.
That should be my politics fix for a while.
<backs out>
