Saturday, March 18, 2006

The Iraq War: Three years later

Today marks the three year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And of course anniversaries like this cannot occur without the usual protests of our resident hippies and they're kissing cousins back in the Middle East.

Before I go on about the supposed "Peace Protestors", let's just go through what has been accomplished in the three years following the removal of Saddam's regime.

1. Iraq now has a democratically elected government that answers to its people and not from its inner circle. Individual tenants of freedom are now in place in Iraq. Such as Freedom of Speech, freedom of the Press, Freedom of worship etc...
2. Palestinian Terrorists have lost a major source of income and diplomatic backing.
3. Ditto for Al Qaeda.
4.Libya has abandoned its WMD programs.
5.Syria has withdrew from Lebanon after the Lebanese students movement protested the occupation of their country. (Actions and protests that Syria always ignored and rushed in the past)
6.Democratic movements have spread throughout the Middle East.
7.The voices of moderates in the Middle East is becoming bigger by the hour.

All these events cannot have occurred without the military action in which Bush, Blair and every single nation that took part of Operation Iraqi Freedom decided to take.

Of course order has not been "restored". But then again, "order" in a country like Iraq was absent for over 40 years. You cannot fix the crap that's been left over from the previous regimes for over 40 years in a mere three years.

Changing the status-quo (which in this case endangered the lives of Westerners) is never easy, no matter which country or region its taking place. Which brings me to our beloved "Peace Protestors".

"Iraq is a quagmire and has been a humanitarian disaster for the Iraqis," said Jean Parker, a member of the Australian branch of the Stop the War Coalition, which organized the march. "There is no way forward without ending the occupation."



As usual, the Liberal-Left take it upon themselves and use they're mysterious telepathic powers in order to convey what the Iraqi people feel and think about they're current situation.

It should be pointed out to Ms. Parker that the only people who are hoping to create the humanitarian disaster are the Iraqi insurgents themselves. Trying to create tensions among groups, slowing down the reconstruction of hospitals, schools, assassination elected officials etc. And that should we take her advice and withdraw all western forces from Iraq. These insurgents would have the upper hand, with barely anyone tracking them down.

So what does that say about the "Stop the War Coalition's" humanitarian outlook towards Iraq?

Let me be perfectly blunt here:

The Liberal-Left and the anti-war lobby couldn't give a fu*k about the well-being of the Iraqi people or anyone else for that matter. If anything they cheer on any sign of chaos as a justification to their own political views.
Rather than express concern about the innocent lives that it might affect.

They cry and scream about "prisoner abuse" that's easily comparable to hazing rituals at McGill University, yet shrug or ignore the un-humane torture and executions committed by the very regime they opposed toppling.

They suddenly become Isolationist Fiscal Conservatives when it comes to Financial aid packages to Post-Saddam Iraq, yet throw an tantrum when it comes to a leader who hints he will not financially support a terrorist organization which can be summed up as a "mini-Taliban".

In short, they want a failure of the Iraq mission, only to brag and feel exonerated in they're original political views, rather than aim to make the mission a success that would benefit the entire world.

And that's exactly why I not only disagree, but despise the modern anti-war movement. They're hatred and loathing of one man, runs soooooooooo deep, that they're willing to "cut and run" from a mission that would end up resulting in decreased security, more instability in Iraq, more human-rights disasters at the hands of Islamists, a bigger humanitarian crisis than any of us could ever imagine, all for political retribution.

(Will the real racists please stand up?)

So on this day. should any anti-war prick give you a hard time about your personal views on this matter: Just turn the table on his race-baiting tactics and counter it with:

"So what do YOU have against the Iraqi people that would make you want to withdraw U.S. troops and create chaos and havoc in the country"?

Should you get an interesting answer, please e-mail it to me.

17 Comments:

At Saturday, 18 March, 2006, Blogger robedger said...

ummm... I guess I'm what you refer to as an anti-war prick.

My answer to:

"So what do YOU have against the Iraqi people that would make you want to withdraw U.S. troops and create chaos and havoc in the country"?

would be this:

I find myself conflicted on the question of whether the U.S. should end the occupation of Iraq immediately, as some anti-war groups suggest.

Since the U.S. has waged an illegal war on Iraq and toppled the government, sending an already highly troubled country with a terrible standard of living into utter chaos, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to help restore Iraq. If the U.S were going to pull their troops, there would have to be an international coalition of some kind to replace them, because right now it would seem that the situation would get worse without some sort of policing force in place. Iraqi policing forces must be built up to the point where it isn't necessary for other countries' forces to be in Iraq.

That said, this occupation certainly can't last until the U.S. roots out everyone who they think they are entitled to root out in Iraq. That would lead to a perpetual occupation. Power (real power)must be turned over to Iraqi's as soon as possible.

If you're under the impression that the elections in Iraq mean that power has been transferred, I'm not sure that I can agree with you. What would happen if the Iraq parliament voted to expel U.S. forces, or nationalize the oil industry? I doubt that either one of these votes would be meaningful, other than the publicity nightmare that it would be for the U.S.

I think that the way to restore Iraq's country and policing forces isn't necessarily compatible with profiteering by Halliburton and other American companies. I think that the current U.S. administration is incompetently going about restoring Iraq, which often happens when cronyism and supply-side economic ideology get in the way of good management. This hasn't given me any reason to think that they will do any better in the near future.

This leaves me somewhat conflicted on the question of whether the U.S. should end their occupation, or "cut and run" as the chicken-hawk conservatives like to say.

If the U.S. leaves, it could get worse in Iraq. If the U.S. stays, the rebuilding of Iraq will continue to be done incompetently, the situation will continue to deteriorate, and the occupation could be in danger of becoming perpetual.

Obviously, all of the above arguments are in regards to what is best for Iraqis and the region. I haven't really addressed what is best for the U.S., or combatting terrorism that could be directed at the U.S., which are the only arguments that hold any political weight with the majority of Americans anyways. I don't think anyone would argue that the leading premises behind this war had anything at all to do with what was best for Iraqis.

Before the war, conservatives insisted that Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism. It wasn't then, but it is now. From Paul Krugman: "By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor."

It seems to me that the best defence against having Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorists in the future would be to have a stable Iraq with self-determination of Iraq in the hands of Iraqis. So I guess that my conflict on what is best for the U.S. mirrors the same concerns that I expressed above on what is best for Iraqis, since the answers to the two questions would be the same in my view.

So I am left with the same problem: pull the troops or not? Keep a bumbling and profiteering administration calling the shots, or leave it to an under-equipped fledgling democracy?

Despite how self-assure those in the "stay the course" camp are, I'm not sure that is the best route. Obviously many in this camp also have very little credibility after the mess they've made of this situation to begin with.

Despite how self-assured some of those in the anti-war movement are about pulling the troops out now, I'm not sure that I'm convinced that is the best route either.

 
At Saturday, 18 March, 2006, Blogger Louise said...

Arabian Knight, get your ass in gear and enter politics. This country needs people like you.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger Ranting Blue Tory said...

To Sid Lacombe / The Canadian Peace Alliance


What do you idiots think will happen when we pull out of Afghanistan, that the Tyrants are going to have a change of heart and start loving the free world. Do you think the Saddam loyalists will lay down their arms and beg our acceptance. The Canadian Peace Alliance philosophy have deceive the dopeheads and the ignorant of the passed , but we live in a post 911 area. If the free world leaders adopt a mindless and wreckless defense strategy as perpetrated by The Canadian Peace Alliance, we can kiss our freedom goodbye and forget about holding demonstrations because the Tyrants will see that never happens should they acquire control.

The Brave Men and Women who gave their lives for our freedom gave you the liberty to make an ass out of yourself. And I might add , you are doing a great job.They are the leaders who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, not the protestors who are willing and prepared to hand it back over to Tyrants.

You , and your group are completely ignorant of the anti freedom extremist of the Middle East. These people laugh at your stupidity knowing that your weakness to stand up against their resolve to wipe out Israel, and the Western World means, that you can be used as a pond by the very Tyrants themselves to undermine the need of support to our troops, and to withstand the sustained threat of terror that has been promised by these Thugs.

Pulling out our troops tells these guys that we are a pushover, and all we have to do is threaten harm, send suicide missions ,and get enough leftist activists to make enough noise to incite riot against a Government who is trying to secure order, spread democracy and give these oppressed people the hope of freedom , and liberty.

Your group would lay down all arms while the Terrorist's expand operations, plan attacks, oppress and kill their people , rape their woman, and deprive people of any form of dignified civil rights. You would pull us out of our charter status with NATO that was endorsed by the UN. My question is , what message does that send to our allies. We tell all our free world allies that we cannot be relied upon , now that is a strategy for disaster.

I notice your peace talk, but no plan to execute and enforce. Bottom line, is whatever strategy one employs has to have a plan, and then be enforced.Your feel good politics does not cut it in the real world Sid. Freedom has a price that never goes away, and one must be prepared to pay the ultimate price. The Brave Men and Women of our armed forces understand fully, that the price has never really changed. Yes Sid , they even died so that you can publically make a Jack Ass out of yourself and express your ignorance in a dignified fashion, but be rest assured ,Osama ,Saddam ,nor Omar would give you the same dignity.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Anonymous Anne (happier in Ontario) said...

Louise, I agree with your sentiment 110%, you must consider this Arabian Knight!

Could you please put this in a sidebar under a heading of "The Best of Arabian Dissent"? This is great stuff and finding it easily for reference would be handy.

The same old story that it's all about the oil just doesn't fly with me. Yes, there is oil there, we heard it the first 50,000 times but I firmly believe this would never be any major decision factor in a war there. The cost to the government in American lives, economic toll and politicl damage (are wars ever popular?) just are not something the government would spend without what they believed a credible threat both to the U.S. and the global community.

Saddam was told for what, a year?, that he was going to be invaded, plenty of time to dispose of any WMD, evidence and testimony of which is now mounting. All he had to do to avoid any of this was let the UN inspectors back in, why wouldn't he?

As already outlined here, Saddam was committing heinous crimes against his people to numerous to count. When it was revealed that he tortured, jailed or killed failed Olympic athletes and/or their families where were the outcrys from the left? Killing thousands with mustard gas, how come no outrage from the left? Mass graves everywhere, Saddam constantly battling with his neighbours all the while the scam of the Oil For Food program was being raided by several of the almighty UN members and making Saddam richer. This is what the idealistic socialists believe should have been left alone and allowed to go unchecked?

I won't even try to list the powerful Canadians connected to the Oil/Food scam, I believe it was Canadian Sentinal who had some great stuff on that. No point in reminding the left that as it turned out France had many side deals going on with Iraq which included weapons for oil deals. This was stuff that was not revealed until records were seized in Iraq after the invasion, stuff that France did not want known. Gee, wonder why they were opposed to the war?

What blows me away is that right now the U.S. has 130 missions going on world wide, Iraq is only one of them. Every time a Somalia, Bosnia, Darfur, Haiti or other nation is reaching a crisis the collective left screams at the top of their lungs to the U.S. "where are you, why didn't you see what was happening, what are you going to do about it, shame on the U.S. for allowing this to happen!" EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT FAIL. The U.S. is expected to patrol the whole world on the backs of their own citizens and at their own cost on a moments notice but are villified for all of their efforts.

As Canadians we don't consider ourselves to be failures, why? Because it is pretty easy to sit back and criticize when you do f*ck all, how can you possibly fail?

I guess the left would rather the U.S. pull out of every single mission completely and let the rest of the world take care of all the problems. They would save untold lives, billions of dollars and all the critism, they would be just like Canada. What a wonderful world it would be then, huh? If it ever came to that I hope the rest of the world, including Canadians, would finally realize that the Americans are not all that selfish and bad, we are.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

Robedger:

"Since the U.S. has waged an illegal war on Iraq and toppled the government, sending an already highly troubled country with a terrible standard of living into utter chaos, the U.S. has a moral responsibility to help restore Iraq."

You see right there we have a problem. Illegal War? How? All the countries that sent military aid into Iraq has received the support of they're respective legislatures of government. The only leg in which you can stand on behind the "illegal" argument is that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not sanctioned by the U.N. And that argument alone is disputable, as we should question everything which the U.N doesn't sanction as being illegal. So using that logic opens a whole lot of can of worms.

"If the U.S were going to pull their troops, there would have to be an international coalition of some kind to replace them, because right now it would seem that the situation would get worse without some sort of policing force in place."

And how exactly would that "international coalition" be any different from that of the current coalition on the ground right now? Boots on the ground is just that simple, boots on the ground. The insurgent would have no problem shooting a Belgian Soldier any less than he would have problems shooting an American soldier.

"Iraqi policing forces must be built up to the point where it isn't necessary for other countries' forces to be in Iraq."

Just out of curiosity, what do you think some American and British troops are doing as we speak in Iraq?

"That said, this occupation certainly can't last until the U.S. roots out everyone who they think they are entitled to root out in Iraq. That would lead to a perpetual occupation. Power (real power)must be turned over to Iraqi's as soon as possible."

Occupation implies political control without any democratic feedback from the people in the area that is "occupied". Which in this case its not. So therefore, you can't exactly label the situation in Iraq an "occupation".

"If you're under the impression that the elections in Iraq mean that power has been transferred, I'm not sure that I can agree with you."

Well Robedger, if having full control over infrastructure, Finance, Military, Agriculture, Industry, Transportation, Foreign Policy, Citizenship and Commerce by a democratically elected regime is not a transfer of power than, please enlighten me...what is "power that has been transferred"?

"What would happen if the Iraq parliament voted to expel U.S. forces, or nationalize the oil industry? I doubt that either one of these votes would be meaningful, other than the publicity nightmare that it would be for the U.S."

Well both the U.S. and the U.K have been on record as stating that they're willing to comply with any wishes that the Iraqi parliament would convene. But as you have mentioned, the withdrawal of troops would lead to chaos. Therefore I'm not sure the Iraqi politicians would be eager to welcome chaos that would ruin all the progress which they have made so far.

"I think that the way to restore Iraq's country and policing forces isn't necessarily compatible with profiteering by Halliburton and other American companies."

You know for once Robedger, I would LOVE to debate the Iraq war without you guys uttering the words "Halliburton", but anyway, realize this: The profiteering is done in a two way manner. The western companies profit from the sale of oil and Iraq profits from the royalty fees in which these companies pay in order to have drilling permits. Which they in turn use it to help pay for the policing forces and valuable Infrastructure for the better of the Iraqi community.

"If the U.S. stays, the rebuilding of Iraq will continue to be done incompetently, the situation will continue to deteriorate, and the occupation could be in danger of becoming perpetual."

The rebuilding is difficult I'll say that, but that's mainly due to the continuing attacks by the insurgents to slow down the process. It wouldn't make a nickel of a difference if the rebuilding process was aided by the Americans or anyone else for that matter.

"I don't think anyone would argue that the leading premises behind this war had anything at all to do with what was best for Iraqis."

Actually it did. Most of the war supporters stated clearly that what was good for the Iraqi people was good the American people in the long run.

"Before the war, conservatives insisted that Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism. It wasn't then, but it is now."

The status-quo defended by Saddam was indeed throwing many gullible young Arab men into the arms of the fundamentalists.

"From Paul Krugman: "By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.""

If you have followed the news more carefully you'd realize that the Iraqi government's economic legislation was anythig but a "right-wing economic theory" so right there Krugman's credibility is questioned.

"It seems to me that the best defense against having Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorists in the future would be to have a stable Iraq with self-determination of Iraq in the hands of Iraqis."

THAT'S RIGHT!!! Now explain to me why you and your fellow ideologists were against this war in which it aimed to make Iraqis self-rule they're own fate?

Personally Rob...I think your just shooting blanks. But that's just me.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Arabian Knight for MP. Common sense, knowledge and courage. Now that a good thing.

Pat

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger robedger said...

I don't know why I am surprised.

Any time I decide to peruse through the right-wing blogs, and then decide to make a comment, some right-winger (in this case the blogger himself) forgets how to have civil discourse and starts the attack, rather than just civilly discussing the ideas presented.

I really do think that it is too bad that few people on the blogging tories list seem to be unable to have a polite discussion with someone who doesn't agree with them 100%.

I guess I'll reply to some of what you said, and if I end up checking back, hopefully your reply will be a bit more civil.
On a side note, is anyone is aware of a right-wing site with civil discourse and disagreement, please let me know, because I like to read political thoughts of all stripes.


"You see right there we have a problem. Illegal War? How? All the countries that sent military aid into Iraq has received the support of they're respective legislatures of government. The only leg in which you can stand on behind the "illegal" argument is that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was not sanctioned by the U.N. And that argument alone is disputable, as we should question everything which the U.N doesn't sanction as being illegal. So using that logic opens a whole lot of can of worms."

Do some research on international law, and what the United States and the international community has decided is legal and illegal war. I don't think that my claim on this point is even particularly controversial. Pre-emptive war is not within the bounds of legal war, but it doesn't really matter because nobody is ever going to prosecute the United States for a war crime, since they've not signed on to those treaties. I'm sorry that I'm not being more specific, it's kind of late at night and I don't feel like doing the Google searches.

"And how exactly would that "international coalition" be any different from that of the current coalition on the ground right now? Boots on the ground is just that simple, boots on the ground. The insurgent would have no problem shooting a Belgian Soldier any less than he would have problems shooting an American soldier."

Agreed. Good point. I thought about mentioning this problem in my original post, but it was ridiculously long to begin with. An international coalition would bring the possible advantage of being led by people more competent than the current U.S. administration, but there's certainly no assurances of that. It would be hard to be worse than the U.S. crew though! And a coalition would have the additional advantage of not having a history of torturing Iraqis.

"Just out of curiosity, what do you think some American and British troops are doing as we speak in Iraq?" (in regards to training Iraqis)

ummm... yeah. I know that. I didn't say they weren't.

As for your quote in terms of pro-war people using the plight of Iraqi's as their justification, I would argue that WMD's were the main focus, but then the rationale shifted as the old arguments turned out to be bull.

As for the U.S. occupying Iraq, I didn't think it was particularly controversial to call a country an occupier when they invade a country, and then occupy them (i.e. don't leave).

As for the right-wing economic theories being played out in Iraq, and how if I think that it means I don't pay attention to the new, I'm not sure how reduced tax rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws are not considered right-wing economic theory. Sound like supply-side trickle down voodoo economics to me.

"Now explain to me why you and your fellow ideologists were against this war in which it aimed to make Iraqis self-rule they're own fate?"

I'm not really an ideologist, I'll leave that to you and your ilk, and the far left, neither one of which includes me on their membership list. I can't speak for everyone who thought this war was a bit of a sham, but I know that I was skeptical about the accuracy of the statements made in support of the Iraq war. I didn't think the case for war had been proven. I don't like the pre-emptive doctrine, because it leads to war. Warring pre-emptively is sort of like saying that you are going to go to war so that we don't have to go to war later on. How foolish of me to not be supportive of such a doctrine.

It saddens me that Iraqi people can actually look back and remember slightly more safety and less poverty under a tyrannical dictator than in their current situation. I can't imagine that others who were against the war feel differently (what a horrendous charge in your original post).

As I said in my original post, I'm not sure that a complete withdrawal at this point is the best route of action; I suspect its not. The problem with discussion about this topic though is that it is dominated by the extremists. The "pull out now" people and the "stay the course" people are both sullied by the fact that their positions on the topic seem to just be conveniant ways to remind us that their original position on the Iraq war was correct. I find it difficult not to put you in this group sir.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger Louise said...

BBWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!! As usual, the peaceniks over estimate their own importance. What a bunch of lying losers.

Organizers estimated 2,000 people took part, while Toronto police put the number at around 500.


Police put the number attending at 15,000, but organisers said between 80,000 and 100,000 were at the rally.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger Louise said...

Here's some quotable quotes for the peacenik in our midst:

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

-----

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

-----

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

-----

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.”

--Congressional Record - 10/9/02

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

“If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.”

--LA Times - 1/31/03

Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, speaking about Iraq: "We had to intervene in South Africa, against apartheid, and in the Soviet Union in its persecution of Jews and minorities and other dissidents.... If mass violations of human rights exist in a country, we must interfere."

[snip]

"America came twice to Europe to save the continent. We had no economic or any other interest in the first World War and not even the second. America went to war against Hitler because he was evil and that was a just war. The American people have shown their willingness to accept sacrifices."

Speeches made by George Bush on the eve of the war:

March 15, 2003


March 17, 2003

One made by Bush, Blair, Anzar (Spain) and Barroso (Portugal) on the eve of the war.

March 16, 2003

The United Kingdom's dossier on Saddam Hussein's crimes and human rights abuses, issued during the lead up to the war.

Research and statements by a human rights groups

270 mass graves filled with 400,000 people and 290,000 disappeared.

A young Iraqi dissident argues that the incomparable nature of his people’s burden makes the forced removal of Saddam Hussein the only ethical solution. ‘Regime change’ from outside, wrong in principle, is in this case justified and necessary.

Another young Iraqi dissident pleads for outside intervention. All the arguments about war must recognise an essential truth: the vicious tyranny of Saddam Hussein can only be ended by force, and with outside help.

Letters from Iraqis to Tony Blair.

Read and weep, robedger. I've got many more. You cold and indifferent peacenikers have a lot to answer for.

Pray that if your sorry ass ever has the misfortune to live under a regime like Saddam Hussein's you will be lucky enough to have a Bush and a Blair and a Howard and a Koisumi around to free you from it's grip before you end up in a mass grave.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger Chuckercanuck said...

Arabian Dissent - congratulations on the courageous post.

"Pacifists" in our country are a dangerous lot.

If you want a hidden agenda, go ask them who they think it behind the whole thing...

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

"Any time I decide to peruse through the right-wing blogs, and then decide to make a comment, some right-winger (in this case the blogger himself) forgets how to have civil discourse and starts the attack, rather than just civilly discussing the ideas presented."

Attacks? Oooookayyyy...I did "attack" the points in which you raised, but that was merely deconstructing rather than "attacking" you. Well Rob, I believe I answered your post in a civil manner, there was no personal attack, just disputes of ideology and opinion. But if that constitutes as "Personal attacks" and "uncivil discourse" than I just have to conclude that we both have a different definition of those matters.

Anyhoo...

"Do some research on international law, and what the United States and the international community has decided is legal and illegal war. I don't think that my claim on this point is even particularly controversial. Pre-emptive war is not within the bounds of legal war, but it doesn't really matter because nobody is ever going to prosecute the United States for a war crime, since they've not signed on to those treaties. I'm sorry that I'm not being more specific, it's kind of late at night and I don't feel like doing the Google searches."

Okay...tell you what I won't answer this, and will leave you time to do your "google searches" in order to proove me wrong.

"Agreed. Good point. I thought about mentioning this problem in my original post, but it was ridiculously long to begin with. An international coalition would bring the possible advantage of being led by people more competent than the current U.S. administration, but there's certainly no assurances of that. It would be hard to be worse than the U.S. crew though! And a coalition would have the additional advantage of not having a history of torturing Iraqis."

Just because its "international" and multilateral doesn't make it more competant on the matter. The Oil-For-Food scandal prooves just that. If anything one can argue that multilateral coalition under an international organism such as the U.N. creates many layers of bureaucracy and waste within the coalition that it tends to underperfom in many of its fields. And I'd be curious to know what exactly is the "history of torturing Iraqis". Abu Ghraib? Like I said in the original post, there are worst treatments of that in University Campuses among soriority groups and Football teams.

"As for your quote in terms of pro-war people using the plight of Iraqi's as their justification, I would argue that WMD's were the main focus, but then the rationale shifted as the old arguments turned out to be bull."

That's true. Very true. But truth is it was the best way to get people's attention on Iraq. And once you go through the original articles prior to the war in 2003, you'd realize that the plight of the Iraqi people was mentioned as a major goal.

However for the WMD's, I should stress that information of what came out recently points out that Saddam did in fact hope to aquire them in the future, and that there are some reports that they were transfered to Syria. (In my honest opinon I don't really buy the second arguement).

"As for the U.S. occupying Iraq, I didn't think it was particularly controversial to call a country an occupier when they invade a country, and then occupy them (i.e. don't leave)."

Well then we both have a different take on the word "Occupation". I look at it from the litteral definition, political power exercised by a Foreign ruler with no democratic input. You look at from the presence of military force. Which I guess using that lgic means that Japan and Germany are currently "occupied" as they have been a. Invaded. and B. Allied miliatry presence never left since 1945.

"As for the right-wing economic theories being played out in Iraq, and how if I think that it means I don't pay attention to the new, I'm not sure how reduced tax rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws are not considered right-wing economic theory. Sound like supply-side trickle down voodoo economics to me."

Well then quick, let's also labale countries such as Sweden, Britain, Norway, Finland, Denmark and every single country in the west which is exercising those things as "right wing countires". And again, had you REALLY looked into the Iraqi government's actions yoiu'd also realize your just looking at one side of the coin. There's also increased spending on social programs, socialized health care system, they're also discussing labour laws to allow unionization, and get this...pay equity! That's right, they're looking at pushing through pay equity laws in the public sector among men and women. What's "vodoo" about all this?


"I don't like the pre-emptive doctrine, because it leads to war. Warring pre-emptively is sort of like saying that you are going to go to war so that we don't have to go to war later on. How foolish of me to not be supportive of such a doctrine."

Actually the Pre-Emptive doctrine is based around the theory that intervention now would be easier than intervention in the future when its certain war will break out. Example: Had the allies "Pre Emptively" attack Nazi Germnay in 1934 rather than 1939...we'd be looking at a whole new world right now. One which would'nt necessarily have holocaust museams and gas chambers if you know what I mean.

"It saddens me that Iraqi people can actually look back and remember slightly more safety and less poverty under a tyrannical dictator than in their current situation."

I'm just going to refer you to the Iraqi blogs on my sidebar..ask THEM what they think of the Saddam era.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger Louise said...

Abu Ghriab prision during Saddam Hussein's regime.

Read this, Mr. Robedger. Do you really want us to believe that you believe what the Americans did in that prison was in the same league as what Saddam Hussein did? I'm sure you don't want to appear so silly, do you.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger Louise said...

Oh yeah, and the warring pre-emptively thing: In WWII who attacked first? England or Germany? Canada or Germany? The United States or Germany?

The answer is not Germany. Yet it came too late for the six million Jews who must have wondered what it would take to spur the world into action.

And we've been saying "Never Again" ever since. But I have to wonder if the peaceniks had their way how bad would it have to get before they would intervene.

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Anonymous Andrew Brehm said...

"Since the U.S. has waged an illegal war on Iraq and toppled the government, sending an already highly troubled country with a terrible standard of living into utter chaos,"

There it is again, this weird theory that somehow Iraq was better off before the invasion. Yes, fascism is less chaotic than a civil war even. But fascism is so much more expensive, it's not even in the same league.

Saddam's regime killed more people in one year than have died due to the invasion and "insurgents". How is that better? Where is the moral dilemma?


"Oh yeah, and the warring pre-emptively thing: In WWII who attacked first? England or Germany? Canada or Germany? The United States or Germany?"

And indeed Vichy France didn't attack anybody, yet America invaded them.

Perhaps when peaceniks say "never again", they are talking about fighting fascism?

 
At Sunday, 19 March, 2006, Blogger robedger said...

I guess at this point I seem to be taking on all-comers.

The google search thing was just in regards to the treaty's name that many countries signed in regards to prosecuting war crimes. That doesn't affect the illegality of the war (again, not really a matter of particular dispute).

The United Nations (with the agreement of the United States) has outlined various justifications for a war to be legal. The U.S. tried to twist the self-defence justification into fitting this war, which is obviously a laughable claim. Again, readily available information.

In regards to the various arguments about this war being in regards to Humanitarian Intervention, I actually do think that these arguments come the closest to justifying the war - Ignatieff's writings in this area are particularly instructive.

Nobody but the most blindly ideological person (or perhaps the nieve)would argue that this was real reason behind the war, but I think it is still an important argument.

I guess my problem with the HI arguments is also the inherant problem with HI being (arguably) one of the legal kinds of war: that countries will exploit it to start wars or aggression, rather than use it to start with the worst situations of the world and eradicate them.

If the United States decided to be a leader in regards to HI like the French intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, later backed by a reinforced U.N. peacekeeping presence, I would agree with the action (many who were against the Iraq war may not though, again, I don't really speak for them) In Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire, West African and French forces intervened to enforce a peace plan but also played important humanitarian roles. Again, HI in action, and from what I know of the situation, I am supportive.

Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and this was only brought up occasionally as a periphery issue, I found it much more difficult to support the war. In fact, I opposed it.

War involves death, in this case on a massive level. Did it prevent as many deaths? Of course not.

On a side note, before people put forward arguments comparing this situation to Nazi germany, they should really read a history book or two first.

 
At Monday, 20 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

"The United Nations (with the agreement of the United States) has outlined various justifications for a war to be legal. The U.S. tried to twist the self-defence justification into fitting this war, which is obviously a laughable claim. Again, readily available information."

So the fact that Iraq had cordial connections to Al Qaeda (an organization which attacked the U.S. on September 11th) as well as openly financing groups that were on the U.S. terrorist list (e.g. Hamas, Islamic Jihad) or the imminent threat they Saddam was trying to get his hands on Weapons of Mass Destruction posed no threat whatsoever?


Look, like I explained a million times, the humanitarian mission tied to Iraq is easily connected to the well-being and safety of the United States. Establishing a well-functioning democracy that listens to the people, in where life can be aimed at individual fulfillment and well-being rather than martyrdom and religious fundamentalism would in turn make the U.S. a safer place, as young men and women in the Middle East would be focusing on getting jobs and trying to help they're own respective communities rather than joining up with the Islamists. Because regimes like Saddam made life so unbearable to young people in the Middle East that at one point the religious fanatic promising redemption and paradise in the afterlife began to sound pretty good to they're ears.

So this is one humanitarian mission that CAN be tied to national security.

 
At Thursday, 15 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

票貼 借貸 借錢

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home