I think all people are anti-war, I mean no one wants war. For lack of a better term, I guess it will have to do. There is just no other way to disarm Saddam. I have not heard a rational alternative solution from your like-minded(anti-war) crowd yet. Just that war is bad, peace is good. Seems like a no brainer right?
Yes, I'd probably agree that
in general, people are anti-war. To nit-pick a bit, I never actually said I was anti-war either, not that it matters. I'd probably agree with you that much of the anti-war crowd hasn't put forth a great argument against the war either. I'm sure that many of those protesters in LA probably were simply protesting because they saw celebreties like Martin Sheen saying war is bad, and decided to follow suit. I'm not saying that the anti-war movement is perfect (I could certainly come up with some very valid criticisms of the anti-war side as well), but it seems to me that the majority of posters on here were pro-war, and I was trying to provide the other side of that debate. For the record, yes, I am against the conflict in Iraq. And I'm also fully willing to accept the possiblity that I may be wrong about that, I'm certainly not infallible. I just haven't heard a very good argument on either side of the coin, and when in doubt I think you err on the side of not dropping bombs.
Giving peace a chance...Working within the confines of the UN....hmmm I thought that's what we tried for 12 years through 17 UN resolutions. If Saddam were going to disarm he would have by now. The burden to do so was on Saddam. It cannot be further simplified. If the UN cannot enforce its own resolutions then it has outlived its usefulness IMO.
I'm breaking this part of your post up, because I feel like there are multiple points you're making here. I can't really respond to this one incredibly well because I'm not all that familiar with the UN and their processes. However, one thing I do know is that in invading Iraq without UN support the US is violating UN charter, and this sets a very dangerous precedent in international law. There is a very strong and valid fear that since the US has decided to invade without UN consent, that there's nothing in the future to stop say North Korea from invading South Korea for example. You may be right that the UN has not lived up to it's expectations, but that's a different debate than whether the US is justified in dropping bombs on Baghdad.
You really think France, Germany, Russia, or China are thinking of what's in the best interest of America?
Flip that statement around, do you really think that America is thinking of what is in the best interest of France, Germany or Russia and not simply thinking of what's best for themselves? The US (as well as virtually all other countries in the world today) subscribe to the realist paradigm of international relations, which as one of it's core beliefs is that you have to look out for yourself, and that conflict between nations is inevitable. So to say that France, Germany, Russia, or China isn't acting in the best interests of America is certainly a point I'll give you, but what it has to do with the US's position on Iraq I don't see.
As far as proof, if you are American then you voted, or were given the chance to vote (if over 18) for the people in office that acquire the proof with which to make these decisions. To think that the president is required to prove to Pedle Zelnip that he has the proof that justifies this action is kinda ridiculous. Can't you consider the fact that even showing the proof could put the operatives that acquired it in danger and negate their future usefulness? My point is the people we put in office are supposed to be better informed to make these decisions.
Uhm, accountable government? I'm not necessarily saying that Bush has to knock on my door and show me the proof, or to broadcast it on CNN, but certainly behind closed doors in the UN is very much a reasonable expectation. If you take the statement you just made to a greater extreme, then any conflict can be justified, all a president/prime minister/dictator has to do is say "Country X is violating international law" without any evidence to prove it whatsoever and then invade. Perhaps you think this is the way it should be, but I certainly don't.
I almost don't know what to say to this. You really think Britain and Russia are a threat to world peace? You think Saddams leadership is somehow comparative to Tony Blair? If you can't see the difference, you wouldn't understand the explanation. Personally I am very impressed that Blair stands for what he believes in in the face of even the opposition of his own party. He's basically killing his career for the sake of his belief that this is necessary.
Actually this was a rhetorical question. No I don't think we should invade Britain, or that Tony Blair is equivalent to Saddam Hussein. The point I'm making is that if you belive as a general rule that war on a nation is justified when that nation is in possession of WMD, then you'll live in a world where conflict is completely unavoidable between virtually all technologically advanced nations. What I'm saying is that possession of WMD is a necessary condition for war, but not a sufficient one. In this message you're saying that you believe that Saddam represents a threat to world peace, and you may be right about that, but what are the identifiable characteristics that distinguish a threat like Saddam from a non-threat like Blair?
This country would know no peace if we hadn't fought for it. You think leaving Saddam in power brings peace or justice to the Iraqi people? If so you need to enlighten yourself. Saddam kills his own people by the thousands. Sure war kills people but hopefully not many and only over a short period. The way our forces seem to be going about it with precision I don't think many non-combatants will die. The hope is that the region will be better off when we're through.
Absolutely, you have to fight for peace, and I totally agree with the Mill quote you gave regarding the need to fight for what you believe is right. Hence the peaceniks fighting for peace, because they believe that that is what is right.
As for the claim that many non-combatants will die, show me a piece of credible evidence that this is the case. For that matter, how many is "many"? 100? 1000? 10000?
I must say I didn't vote for Bush of think much of him at that time. He has grown in my eyes since then. I still don't think he is a perfect president, but he at least is doing what needs doing.
Well, I didn't vote for him either, but that's because I don't live in the US. =;-> As for doing what needs doing, I disagree, but hey we're all entitled to our own opinion.
This comment was edited on Mar 29, 15:23.
PZ
------------