A thread for peaceful discussion

[samnyc]

There's a lot of testosterone on the other threads, including my own. I just want simple and short answers to this question, so that I can better understand what others are thinking or, at least, how to communicate politely with them. For my part, I'll hold back on labeling and guilty-by-association talk. Please do the same.

Why do some people oppose this war if it will result in
the removal of a tyrant from power
the end of a regime with no respect for human rights or legitimate justice system
the end of the threat of Iraqi WMDs
the removal of a haven for terrorists
the freedom of the Iraqi people
making Iraq investment friendly
the healing of ethnic divisions within Iraq
the introduction of democracy into the Middle East
the development of the Iraqi economy
a new American ally in the region
a first step towards regional stabilization

??



This message was edited by samnyc on 3-31-03 @ 8:46 PM

[Recyclerz]

OK I'll play by your strange rules just to see what it feels like. ;-)

the removal of a tyrant from power &
the end of a regime with no respect for human rights or legitimate justice system

Agreed, these are noble causes & maybe the best reasons our people are at war. However, there are (at least) dozens of other regimes in the world with similar human rights records and we're not saying boo about them

the end of the threat of Iraqi WMDs
&
the removal of a haven for terrorists

The only WMD we're really worried about Saddam getting is nukes and thanks to the earlier dismantling of his program he's wasn't likely to build any new ones for a few years at least. More than enough time to build some consensus in the UN for removing him from power. One less haven for international terrorists is a good thing but to keep the garden clean is going to take a lot of weed pulling. Expect to have tens of thousands of American troops over there for the rest of our lives. They will also be an inviting target for all the Osama wannabes to kill a few at a time.

the freedom of the Iraqi people

making Iraq investment friendly

the healing of ethnic divisions within Iraq

the introduction of democracy into the Middle East

the development of the Iraqi economy

These strike me as the pipe dreams of Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. In the best case scenario, Iraq will be a society decompressing from a Stalinist regime, with no even remotely democratic institutions to balance out the society, and with only tribal allegiances to guide them on how to behave (other than their American teachers). I expect the majority Shiites to both look to get even with the Sunnis (Saddam's group) and also to establish a close relationship with Iran. The Sunnis will be hiding behind our skirts because everybody else will be out for retribution for the brutality of the Baathist Party. The Kurds will be agitatiing for ever more political autonomy (and the northern oil fields) making the Turks and Iranians very itchy.

a new American ally in the region

a first step towards regional stabilization


See above. I fear it is more likely (but not certain) that our efforts will have the effect of creating regional instability by inflaming the Islamist movement and increasing the possibility that there could be revolts that overthrow the nominally pro-Western governments in places like Pakistan, Jordan and our buddies, the House of Saud. What's that oath doctor's take? First, do no harm.

Maybe W, Cheney & Co. are right, and this will lead to the benefits you've itemized. But I view this war as a tremendously risky roll of the dice and I don't feel comfortable with the reasoning behind it that I've seen. However, I'm hoping that we kick out Saddam quickly and these guys get lucky with some of their assumptions. We all should be at this point because if they don't things could get very ugly.



[b]Free Yerdaddy![b]

[HBox]

I don't believe this war will result in the following:
the removal of a haven for terrorists

I don't believe it is that big of a haven right now, and I don't think that will change even if we take over the country.
the healing of ethnic divisions within Iraq

That may never happen.
a new American ally in the region

They don't seem to want us there.
a first step towards regional stabilization

If anything, I think this could result in the opposite.

I don't believe Iraq was a big enough threat to warrant a war, and I don't believe it is our job to liberate Iraq. That's just what I believe.

[DarkHippie]

I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so i'm just going to take one of my arguments from another thread and riff on that:

1) the destabilization of the Middle East by creating a power vacuum (watch the other countries grab for power as Iraq goes down. Iraq becomes a conflicted Police state, Iran,the saudis, and whoever else, make a political grab )

2) the use of Pre-Emptive War as a means to ensure peace (this is a diplomatic nightmare: imagine we used this policy in the Cold War, or Pakistan and India use it, Japan and N. Korea, etc. japan and N. korea have already threatened each other by saying that simple diplomatic moves could be seen as "acts of war" )

3) the fact that after taking Iraq, we now have the epic task of keeping the peace and installing a new government. This has gone poorly in Afghanistan. In Iraq where it will be much easier for "martyrs" from inside and outside the country (they are already coming) to cause havok, it will be much worse. we may be in Iraq for over 10 years at least! remember, this is not like Japan circa 1946, our troops will not become friends, they will become targets.

4) by acting against the UN's wishes, (by the way, these were some of the reasons that the UN didn't want to invade-- it's the one that has to clean up any diplomatic messes) we have ostracized the world's major diplomatic forum, and have turned the world's popular sentiment and sympathy against us. Using Weapon Inspectors may not have been as fast, but they were a fair compromise to all involved, which is what diplomacy is about. The world was very helpful to us after 9/11, shelping us to track down terrorists. after the next attack will they be such good samaritans?


<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Death Metal Moe]

WAR RULZ!!

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<b>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!</b>
666%

[high fly]

SAMNYC --Your outcomes look great on paper, and I think we'd all agree that it would be great were they to occur.
Unfortunately, they are not likely, given the history of the region.
Following the US victory over the Iraqi army in the field and the removal of Hussein, I doubt seriously that suddenly the sun will emerge from behind the clouds, the strings will swell as the choir bursts forth in heavenly harmony.
I don't think we'll see Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites and victorious US troops joyfully doing the cancan.
The region is packed with many, many ruthless, bloodthirsty groups who live to kill kill kill, and I don't see them just folding up their tents and opening Jiffy Lube outlets, while taking courses at the local community college at night.
No, they'll just find more excuses to kill.
Following the US victory, the arab media, the mullas, Iraqis and arabs outside the country will continue to whip the people into a frenzy that results in more blood being spilled.
You will find 2 things studying post WWII history of the region: 1] the arabs can be counted on to take decisions that are not in their best interests, and, 2] they love a loser.

" and they ask me why I drink"