A reminder
In the event that anti war folks need reminding why I think they’re either evil, blinded ideologues, or stupid, there is this:
The killers kept bankers’ hours. They showed up for work at the barley field at 9 a.m., trailed by backhoes and three buses filled with blindfolded men, women and children as young as 1.
Every day, witnesses say, the routine was the same: The backhoes dug a trench. Fifty people were led to the edge of the hole and shot, one by one, in the head. The backhoes covered them with dirt, then dug another hole for the next group.
At 5 p.m., the killers – officials of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party – went home to rest up for another day of slaughter.
In this wind-swept field in the central town of Mahaweel, witnesses say, this went on without a break for 35 days in March and April of 1991, during a crackdown on a Shiite Muslim uprising that followed the first Gulf War.
It is a noble cause to stop genocide, mass murder, oppression, and human rights violations.
Blood for oil, my ass.
December 7th, 2003 at 8:25 am
SU, you’ve hit on the one reason that America could have business going into Iraq. Between evil, blinded, ideologue, or stupid, I’ll answer to none of the above. The atrocities you describe should have and must have been stopped.
I opposed this war with knowledge of the past genocide and the current human rights violations of the Baathist regime. I still oppose it now, with all of the gory details laid out. The reasoning for an immediate war with only the backing of a “coalition of the willing” just did not exist.
It does not make sense to go to war as a first resort for dealing with human rights violations.
It does make sense to go to war to prevent an actual genocide, with as many allies as possible behind you, and just as soon as it is clear that you cannot stop the genocide through diplomatic pressure.
I don’t believe this war was an exchange of blood for oil. I think it was a spillage of blood in suppoort of a poorly constructed foreign policy. I believe that the foreign policy that took us to war was informed, as it should not have been, by political concerns, by economic concerns, and by misguided cold-war thinking about national security.
If this war had taken place in 1991 after going to NATO, the UN, and Iraq’s neighbors to ask for help in putting down an attempted genocide, then I would have been all for it.
To me, it was clear long before the first tank rolled across the Iraqi border that the Bush administration was determined to go to war no matter what Saddam Hussein did. I would still like to know what he could have done in January-March of this year to prevent a war.
December 7th, 2003 at 10:34 am
So you need world approval for anything your country does huh? You don’t think your country can act as a sovereign nation? Was it ok to stop the genocide in the Balkans because we had NATO/UN approval but its wrong to stop genocide in Iraq because other countries don’t approve? Did you know that Germany was killing Jews long before Dec 7, 1941? How would you have felt then? Lets imagine that we are in your bizarro world of no wars and holding hands…assume that Germany stopped invading Europe after taking over Poland but then proceeded to kill 6 million Jews. Would you have wanted to stay out of the “European problem” because “they are just Jews”, because “Hitler hasnt done anything to us yet” I’m glad people with your ideology don’t run my country. You would assume us act like the Swiss vs a protector of freedom and the weak.
December 7th, 2003 at 11:10 am
My goodness, AB, I don’t think you read my comment. I mean, you obviously got as far as the part where I said that I opposed the war, but you seem to have missed the rest.
For instance, you still thought I required world approval for any action, when my real message was that we should first ask for help from the world, then make an effort to stop the genocide without war, and then go to war, provided the diplomatic efforts failed.
I can’t see what’s wrong with that thinking. It’s what we did in the Balkans – we showed them the on-going genocide, we asked for help (got it from NATO, didn’t get it from UN), we told Milosovic to stop the killing, and when he did not, we dropped bombs.
In Iraq, the genocide ended a decade ago – we were down to some fairly hideous human rights abuse (along the lines of what we currently support in Uzbekistan), but not an emergency humanitarian situation. We never went to the UN with evidence of human rights violations and asked for their help in stopping them. We never suggested to Saddam that he could avoid war by cleaning up the atrocities. So we shouldn’t have gone to war. None of the conditions were met. There was no on-going genocide to stop. There is no American policy of nation-building in place to stop them. There was no discussion of the problems with the world to ask for help in stopping a human rights violation. Instead, we had some pictures of tractor trailers backed up to non-descript buildings in the desert.
It is bad policy to start a war with only scant evidence of a WMD program (no matter how much you believe they have WMD’s its the evidence that really counts), especially when you have intrusive inspections already set up on the ground, and the inspectors are asking to stay there and finish their job.
You said:
—-
assume that Germany stopped invading Europe after taking over Poland but then proceeded to kill 6 million Jews. Would you have wanted to stay out of the “European problem” because “they are just Jews”, because “Hitler hasnt done anything to us yet” I’m glad people with your ideology don’t run my country.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I clearly support action to stop a genocide. I’m glad that people who can’t tell the difference between an on-going genocide and war crimes a decade old aren’t running my country.
I’m happy to have a discussion about the merits of policy with you, AB. Here – on your blog, on mine… it doesn’t matter. But please do me the courtesy of understanding my position first, and also cooling it with the inflammatory – “you’re pro-fascist” rhetoric. I won’t continue a discussion with someone who doesn’t take it seriously enough to keep a modicum of civility. I can take a little sarcasm, light-hearted mockery, humor — but if there isn’t any substance included, I feel like I’m wasting my time.
December 7th, 2003 at 2:07 pm
I dont think I called you a fascist…maybe YOU should re-read what I wrote.
I like how you seemingly dismiss the killings as
“…ended a decade ago – we were down to some fairly hideous human rights abuse…”
You remind me of Lindbergh.
I won’t continue a discussion with someone who doesn’t take it seriously enough to keep a modicum of civility.
Give me a fucking break, this isnt a university debate club.
December 7th, 2003 at 3:23 pm
I dont think I called you a fascist…maybe YOU should re-read what I wrote.
Those are called “scare quotes”.
You remind me of Lindbergh.
You remind me of Limbauh.
Give me a fucking break, this isnt a university debate club.
You either care about the issue and want do discuss it, or you just want to have a shouting match. If I was itching for a shouting match, I could get it for free, in technicolor and surround sound from my real life wife.
December 7th, 2003 at 9:24 pm
Uncle:
Yes. We get it. Hussein is a Very Bad Guy. Is it a justifiable reason for going in there? Maybe. Is it why we really went in? Almost certainly not. And in order to justify our actions there, we’ve admitted Uzbekistan, a country with an even worse record (boiling dissenters alive), into the “coalition of the willing.” Meanwhile, we still call two of the world’s largest terrorist factories, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, “friends.”
Humanitarian motives my ass.
If we finish in Iraq and move on to Nigeria or Saudi to depose their leaders, I’ll be proven wrong. But I’m not terribly worried about that happening.
December 7th, 2003 at 9:58 pm
I’d support deposing them. Add a few more to the list as well. But I digress.
I don’t think that the Bush admin necessarily had the noblest of purposes for invading. Maybe they did the right thing for the wrong reasons but that would have to be proven.
Additionally, you don’t need a coalition of the willing to right wrongs. You just need to be right.
Or as chuck would say One at a time, my friends, one at a time
December 7th, 2003 at 11:52 pm
The idea that humanitarian angle is anything more then an appeal to the better nature of the American people to support a war that had little in the way of justification, is sort of ironic in light of the fact that James Baker is now being sent to straighten out the mess. As late as the summer of 2001 Baker was proposing that we lift the sanctions in Iraq in order to restore the flow of oil coming out of the Middle East. (Oil production has been dropping for three stright years world wide) All of the atrocities that Hussein had committed were well known at the time and had been very well documented by, ironically again, left wing human rights groups. But Baker’s big suggestion was to drop the sanctions in exchange for the reestablishment of an arms control regime in Iraq, keeping Hussein in power.
Additionally there have been places much worse then Iraq for human rights abuses that the US avoided like the plague. More lives were lost in the violences against the Christian southern coalition in Sudan by the Norther Islamic regime then all of the deaths in the Middle East over the last decade combined (including the Iran – Iraq war), but hardly a peep in the popular imagination to do anything there. (Although the administration is currently pursuing a diplomatic strategy that is not going anywhere) Also, many of those who were so gun ho for the invasion of Iraq opposed the action in Kosovo. And as one last ironic twist, Bush ran in the 2000 election on keeping the US out of actions such as Kosovo where there wasn’t a clear American interest. In fact getting rid of Saddam was the only negotiable issue in the whole run up to war. Bush said on more then a one occasion that if Hussein complied with the UN resolutions fully, he could remain in power.
Frankly, I think that the desire to help the Iraqi people was not a factor at all in the decision to go to war, so talking about it is just a way of diverting attention to the more substantial issues in the discussion. It was a PR talking point at best. It was however one of the best reasons to do it though (perhaps the only good reason), but it was reduced to a cynical rationalization to appeal to the better nature of Americans, in order to shore up popular support.
In my opinion.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:03 pm
Su
First, I will just ignore the fact that the hummanitarian reaosns were never listed as reaosns for invading Iraq, and I won’t even point out that is was conservatives who were supporting Saddam when he was comitting those atrocities, and I wont even point out that iraqis are dying daily and that if Bush cuts and runs, we could have intiated a bloddy civil war, and get to the real problem with your argument.
Stop and think about what you are saying: people who thin invading Iraq is abad idea are in favor of genocide sounds to me like what you are saying.
In that case, by your own reasoning, you are absolutely in favor of mass musrder and genocide. Uzbekistan is a member of the Coalition of the Willing. They have a human rights record as bad as Iraqs. As we speak, dissendts are being tortutred to death. But the US is doing nothing, and will continue to do nothing as we need their aid in toppling Iraq. The Indoenesian miliray has one of the worst human rights reconds in history, and they too have partiicpated in amss killings and genocide. And yet, we are increasing the amount of money we send them, becasue we think they can help kill terrorists. I can go and on and on. By your own reaosning, your genocidal, evil, partisian manic becasue you support policies that support mass murders today.
Put up or shut up time, SU: either admit that you suport genocide when it suits your polcy aims, or admit that the question of hummanitarian good is a complicated one with no easy answers and it is perfectly possible to being opposed to represion without thinking that invasion is necceasarily the best route to ending the suffering.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:14 pm
Put up or shut up time, SU: either admit that you suport genocide when it … the suffering.
First, I have no policy aims. I’m just some guy not a political office holder. And I did say:
I’d support deposing them. Add a few more to the list as well. But I digress.
It is atrocious the the adminstration continues to play lip service to these other regimes.
By your logic, i am fairly certain that opposition to the war is strictly partisan for most democrats.
And of course humanitarian good is a complex issue. While I support the iraqi invasion (which will have casualties that are not voluminous compared to say the rwandan genocide) i’d be leary of invading a country like China. China obviously has human rights issues but a war with china would lead to a likely nuclear conflict and billions would die.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:20 pm
And one other thing, you’re wrong about the human rights not listed as the reason
for invading:
December 8th, 2003 at 12:21 pm
Uncle:
Then why did you bring up the humanitarian issue, if it’s only selectively relevant? What you’re taking is an “ends-justify-the-means” approach to this, and it just doesn’t work. It’s apologia, nothing more.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:22 pm
I think Kevin was talking about reasons given to the American people, not reasons given to the UN.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:25 pm
I bring up the issue because it is the most important. Selectively relevant? Human rights from brutal suppression are never selectively relevant.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:29 pm
“First, I have no policy aims. I’m just some guy not a political office holder. And I did say”
Thats a cop out, mate. War protesters don’t make policy either. If you are going to call them:
“either evil, blinded ideologues, or stupid” for opposing the war, then you MUST accpet that your continued support fo a President who hob-nobs with the world’s worst human rights violators is subject to the same criticism.
“i am fairly certain that opposition to the war is strictly partisan for most democrats.”
Huh? I just said that its possible to be opposed to a government without thinking invasion is the best plan, and that tramslates to strictly partisian? There is a step missing there.
“While I support the iraqi invasion (which will have casualties that are not voluminous compared to say the rwandan genocide) i’d be leary of invading a country like China. China obviously has human rights issues but a war with china would lead to a likely nuclear conflict and billions would die.”
Which is my frickin point. It is hardly “evil” to think that the cost of invading Iraq in terms of new terrorists created, support for loathsome regimes and the resultant creation of new terrorists, bloodshed and sectarian violence inside Iraq itself, and the expediture of military assests makes the humanitarian an security situaion in the world worse than it would have been if the invasion had not taken place.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:31 pm
Oh, and I was talking about the reasons trumpted publically, but its a small point, and the Adminstration apparently did tack it on officially somewhere, so I will stand corrected on that.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:36 pm
Which is my frickin point
Proving again that we argue even when we agree 🙂
So, it seems the point of contention rests solely on how many will die in the liberation? or how the liberation will be done?
Is that a fair assessment?
December 8th, 2003 at 12:48 pm
I don’t think you agree. You call anyone who supports the invasion evil or an idiot. I think Kevin and I disagree pretty vehemently with that assessment.
Human rights from brutal suppression are never selectively relevant.
Then why do we selectively act? You’re being horribly inconsistent here, I’m afraid.
And I might add, this is a very un-libertarian stance from you. We’re not the world’s policeman, per the libs, and it’s not our business to go around the world and clean up everyone else’s messes.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:57 pm
evil or an idiot
You forgot the third choice, ideologue.
And I might add, this is a very un-libertarian stance from you.
Yeah, i know.
December 8th, 2003 at 2:28 pm
Consistency is a virtue in house paint. In thinking beings it is not so useful.
Yours,
Wince
December 8th, 2003 at 3:38 pm
But even idealogue doesn’t fit. Believing that invading when we did, how we did, may in the long term cause more harm than good, is not as unreasonable a stance as you seem to think. And it still doesn’t address your ends-justify-the-means line of reasoning.