Maybe not for you, but I think the common man in iraq might disagree. They were peaceful because they were on the leash. Are you suggesting that the US leave the region entirely and that we allow it to devolve into chaos? Look at iraq's history: chemical weapons used on their own kurdish/shia populations. quarter of a million people disappeared by the fedayeen. $35k to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. Come on, don't tell me you think that the solution to the israeli/palestinian conflict is suicide bombers?

The point of the inspectors was to keep him from developing WMD. When they were kicked out in 98, they had no proof that he had destroyed his stocks. The burden of proof did not lie with the inspectors, to "find" his stockpiles. The onus was on hussein to prove that he had disposed of his stockpiles, verifiably. He refused to do this. The UN recognizes that the period of 91-98, the inspections were marked by constant deception and elusiveness on the part of iraq. The inspectors wouldn't have been readmitted in 02 if the US hadn't ramped up the military threat. And again, the burden did not lie with us, to prove he had weapons, but with him, to prove that he had disposed of them. Why wouldn't scientists talk to inspectors, in private, with no iraqi personnel present? I think hussein's history of extortion and domestic violence is well documented. I'd be surprised if they were actually willing to take risk. If hussein had my family, I know I wouldn't risk talking to inspectors without some way of verifying that I hadn't said anything inappropriate.

Finally...we're all bad guys? Hussein is bad for lots and lots of reasons, and we're bad for trying to stop him? So, the good guys are the ones who leave him alone, to kill his people, right? Right. The good guys are the ones who look the other way. Curious...

Alex--why should the US stay away from Iraq? How can you justify this? (And frankly the following arguments are a tough sell for me: "We didn't do it in this other country, so why are we doing it in Iraq?" or, "We gave him weapons 20 years ago, so its our fault." These arguments don't really prove anything, they just distract from the actual issue at hand. I didn't clean my room yesterday, so why should I clean it today? I messed up my room yesterday, so why should I clean it today? I didn't clean the living room, so I can't clean my bedroom.)

Maybe I'm just being too short-sighted, or too practical, but I truly don't understand why NOT do this. (For the record, I believe that if this conflict was about Oil, the U.S. would have traded for it without going to all this trouble. Also I believe that this is more about Oil for France and Russia and China that it is for the U.S.--since they WERE trading for it). I could be wrong, but we'll see in the end that this is how it was, I think.

Even if there are 10 other dodgy reasons for invading, (and I'm not saying there are) isn't the result of liberating the people from Saddam and his Baath goons worth it?

How else could this have been done while hurting the Iraqi civilians less than they are being hurt right now?

Nate:

Yeah, that argument, that the US was friendly with Hussein twenty years ago, so the US has no right to oppose him now, has always frosted my cookies real good.

If you are friends with someone in your neighborhood, going back and forth to cookouts, lending DVDs, and then one day that friend beats his wife to death, and the next day walks over and blows away the family of four living across from him and steals their TV, then you have no moral grounds to oppose those actions in word or deed?

Hell, if the justice system leaves someone alone while they are innocent, does that mean the justice system has no right to prosecute them when they kidnap and rape a nine year old girl?

It's ridiculous.

No Shadoth, I don't think the iraqis are noble freedom fighters and the US soldiers are evil babykillers. But I tend to side with innocent people that are caught in the middle and today there are plenty of them dying and getting wounded. Sanctions hurt? So does shrapnel. The common iraqi man might be opposed to being blown to smithereens too. Maybe he would have preferred change from within and an increased pressure from a united international community.
Do I believe in inspections? Well, I would have given them the few more months they wanted. I believe war is the last resort because innocent people - whether they are civilians in Iraq or orphaned children in Idaho - are going to be among the victims.
Don't you find it's strange that so many countries - and, contrary to popular belief in the US, there were a whole lot more than France - were against the war at this time? Are you the only ones that have drawn the right conclusions - are there not other issues at work here?

This just in:

Breaking News on SkyNews:
13 women and children in fired-on Najaf vehicle.
7 dead, 2 hurt as coalition troops fire on car in Najaf.

This is what i'm talking about.

how many more innocent people would have died under his regime? How many have died in the twelve years since GW I? So you'd give the inspectors a few more months...do you think that a few more months would have been anymore profitable than the last twelve years?

Look, I know that a lot of different countries are opposed to the war. France, Germany and Russia were the big three. You do know that those three were buying oil at a nice cheap rate from iraq, and were making a good deal of money off of the hussein regime, selling military supplies, telecommunications gear etc. But I'm sure their motives are completely clean. Nothing ulterior ever happens in russia.

to quote:
-Maybe he would have preferred change from within and an increased pressure from a united international community.-

change from within? Hussein has spent how many years outright killing his political opponents, so change from within by whom? hussein? maybe aziz is the great liberator, eh? As far as pressure from a united international community, that's a thought. Oh wait, we had that for twelve years. The united international community let inspections fail, and depended on sanctions. Sanctions make me sick. They've never worked, ever, on any country. The only one they hurt is the common man, not the corporations, not the dictators. Only when the US showed some muscle did iraq let the inspectors back in, and they still played their little game of obfuscation. Yes, mounting pressure from the international community. The only thing that makes pressure work is if there are legitimate consequences. When we pass a resolution that says 'this is your last chance. prove that you don't have any WMD' and then he plays a game of three card monte with the inspectors, refusing interviews, refusing flyovers, well guess what? That was your last chance. Now, there are consequences.

Let's talk about these women and children that just died, because I've already read the article. A couple days ago, a suicide bomber drove up to a checkpoint and killed four marines. Now, whenever a car drives up to a checkpoint, we order them to stop and get out of the car. This car, this truck, blew by the far checkpoint and drove straight at some soldiers. They fired warning shots, ordering it to stop. It didn't, and they fired into the crew compartment. Now we have a bunch of dead women and children. So. Way to go, suicide bomber. Allah must really love you.

Wanna hear my paranoid theory. Betcha those women were dead, or were there against their will, and the driver was fedayeen, or some female color thereof. Everyone into the back of the truck. We're gonna make the evening news.

First of all, yes that sucks. Killing and war is bad, and killing women and children--

However, my thought was that the Fedayeen (sp?) had kidnapped the husbands and sons and forced the women and children to run the checkpoint by threatening torture and worse to the men.

Its pretty smart on his part, especially if he didn't put any explosives in the truck, to make us look even worse.

Saddam believes that he has two aces that will stop the allies: Media reports of allies killing civilians and media reports of Ally casualties. He is realizing that its not working and maybe he is upping the ante.

The soldiers had no choice but to do what they did, even though I'm sure they'd be the first to say they did not want to.

The main question seems to be one of legitimacy. Is the U.S. authorized by legitimate legal reasoning to unilaterally engage in "pre-emptive" war without demonstrable evidence that it is in immanent danger of being attacked (more or less the definition of pre-emption)?

Apparently a majority of the world (UN) thinks not (El Salvador and Eritrea notwithstanding).

If the Coalition of the Willing can't maintain legitimacy, the boomerang effect may well outweigh the benefits of overthrowing the bad-ass & his kin. From news-reports, it's clear that many in the Arab world see the current conflagration as some sort of neo-Crusade to injure and debilitate Islam.

Credible or not, this angle is going to butt-bite the U.S. once the bullets stop.

There's also the question of whether the role of America is to "prevent atrocities" around the world. Is the U.S. competent to thrust democracy upon other countries, some who may not be in a position to understand or implement said socio-political principles?

Shit: I'm starting to sound like Kissinger!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex:
US did not fight enough in WWII, and never got seriously hurt, so it keeps this warrior mentality, everyone else (maybe with exception of someone in Middle East) sees it as a kind of ancient warrior got here through some kind of a time warp, pulling out a sword every time he sees two drunks lazily swinging their fists at each other.

---

WTF?! The US did not fight enough in WWII? Are you out of your bloody mind? If my shell-shocked grandfather were still around, tossing that gem to him would provoke a heart attack and a couple of strokes for sure. What would have been fighting enough for you? If, instead of standing up with the USSR to save the world from fascism on a grand scale we had.. what? Killed everyone on the planet? Damn, I think I just fell for a troll.

-----------------
"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code, does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code." --Major Napier, Stephenson's THE DIAMOND AGE

What about this scenario? (I know its idealistic, but hear me out).

Say that its a year from now, the Saddam Regime is history, the Iraqi civilian population turns out to be ecstatic about the liberation by the U.S. after they realize that Saddam is really gone, and a new democratically elected government exists in Baghdad.

U.S. Troops are keeping the peace and helping out, and Iraq is glad to have them there to keep things stable while they ramp up their own self-sustaining infrastructure for the next year or so.

How will the rest of the Arab world deal with this? NONE of their countries are democracies.

The more I think about the shape of the Arab world, the more serious I believe this is. (And of course I thought it was serious to begin with).

On the question of legitimacy, I guess I have to say I believe it was preemptive. I believe that the U.S. govt has intelligence that it is not sharing with us that points to Saddam as an essential source or ingredient in successful terrorism against the West, which is the reason we are going in to Iraq, and not, say, Rwanda.

Do the U.N. resolutions make a war legitimate? I don't know, honestly, but is the war itself necessary? Yes, I think it is.

Can I post something here as a "thought-piece", ie something for discussion rather than a serious proposal?

I wonder what might have happened if one-tenth of the dollars being spent on the war had instead been used to win (ok, buy) the hearts of the Iraqi public.

It's hard to hate someone who's demonstrably keen to deliver medical supplies to your community, fund new water purification systems, provide agricultural advice & expertise, etc.

My guess is that Saddam's regime would have found the situation intolerable, and opposed it all the way. Which might have made regime change a bit easier - certainly there'd be a better chance of Iraqi public opinion being anti-Saddam.

The present tactic simply unites the Iraqi public behind him - nationalism's a very powerful thing.

I'll have to think about it, although on the surface it sounds like a good idea.

However, I bet that when Saddam "opposed it all the way" he would have sabotoged it, or delivered flu shots that were actually botulism toxin, or something like that, and blamed it on the U.S. (Something like he does with missiles in markets right now).

However, you would think that a country with the might and intellect of the U.S. would be able to out maneuver him...

Its a good question.

And how do you propose this would have been carried out under the Saddam Regime? Do you really think Saddam and his Fedayeen would have allowed the US or anyone to just march in there with halo's over our heads and provide medical, agricultural assistance and/or education. That would have undermined his government entirely. They ruled out of fear. Dictators don't let outsiders help the people because it just proves that they're failing as leaders. Like you said idealistic, but not very realistic.

If your not outraged, you're not paying attention!

The flippant response is that if you're smart enough to drop 500kg of high explosive within a few metres of the target you can probably work out a way to deliver tractor parts or flu shots.

But my point was principally that if the US could credibly demonstrate a real effort to aid the citizens of Iraq and show the world community that its efforts were being thwarted, once it sent the tanks in it might now be getting a reception from the Iraqis somewhat closer to the promised "flowers and music".

The people you're trying to motivate are the Iraqi public, who you want to convince to oust Saddam and support the coalition. What motivates you better - a carrot or a stick?

In addition to your thought piece, you also might ask yourself the following questions:

1. When was the last time, in this age of global capitalism, that two nations with middle-classes went to war against each other or even came close to hostilities?

2. When was the last time you saw a country with a middle class that was not democratic?

3. What happens when you force a country without a middle class to adopt a democratic system of governance?

4. What do North Korea, Iraq and Cuba have in common?

5. Did our calls for the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam in the first Gulf War and then our subsequent inaction when Saddam put down these revolutions make him a more or less vicious dictator?

6. What is the history of the Fedayeen Saddam?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gromit:
The flippant response is that if you're smart enough to drop 500kg of high explosive within a few metres of the target you can probably work out a way to deliver tractor parts or flu shots.

---

We can work out a way. It's called "arming Saddam."

quote:

---

The people you're trying to motivate are the Iraqi public, who you want to convince to oust Saddam and support the coalition. What motivates you better - a carrot or a stick?

---

The motivation is already there. It's the people outside of Iraq, stupidly enough, that need convincing.

Virtual Reverie: Videogames as VR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gromit:
What motivates you better - a carrot or a stick?

---

These people have a gun to their head though and they're being told if they even look at the carrot they'll be killed.

If your not outraged, you're not paying attention!

If I understand the last 2 posts correctly, the Iraqi public are really in favour of the current military action against Saddam, but are repressing their joy because Saddam's regime is still in place.

They're motivated in favour of the US-led coalition, but the guns are at their heads.

I think you may be underestimating the extent to which the US is loathed in the region, even if Saddam is also hated and feared.

From the viewpoint of the Iraqi-in-the-street, their country's been invaded by their enemies and they can see ample coverage of dead countrymen - soldiers and civilians - on their (state-run) media.

Hatred of Saddam doesn't mean they don't hate the US too. Some groundwork beforehand might have made things easier now.

quote:

---

I think you may be underestimating the extent to which the US is loathed in the region, even if Saddam is also hated and feared.

---

And I think you're overestimating the extent. I've posted a number of articles on the board showing Iraqi support (not all of them, however). Watch CNN and you'll see coverage of Iraqis happily greeting U.S. soldiers. There was a mother who cried out that we came too late, because her daughter had already been killed. I'm not saying this is representative of all Iraqis, but I think there's good reason to believe it's representative of most. I'd like to see some hard evidence that we are as loathed as you seem to imply.

Virtual Reverie: Videogames as VR.

I have some friends who are Iraqi immigrants in Canada. They say that the general feeling in Iraq is wide-spread annoyance at the US sticking it's nose into 'Arab' issues.

we don't know what the iraqi people are thinking. we're not mind readers. sure they probably dislike saddam's regime but are they willing to risk their necks again to fight it?

what we can be sure of is HISTORY. towards the conclusion of the first gulf war we encouraged the iraqi people to rebel against saddam. then we stood by and watched him brutally put down the revolution. in fact, it is a direct result of this revolution that saddam's regime is even more oppresive and brutal, with a tighter grip on the public then before even the first gulf war.

now, if we watched the rebels get their shit ruined during the first gulf war, when we had a coalition of a million people standing by, why the fuck are the iraqi's going to believe us now when we've already betrayed them and are coming back with only a fraction of the forces? it's probably not a question of loving america and hating saddam, but hating america less.

all you know is cnn but the information is in history