My dilemma with the war on Iraq.

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

On one side, Saddam being one of the worst dictators around, he is certainly not someone I would like to see in power. **(1)**His track record of war with Iran, his treatment of the minority groups especially Kurds & (2) his own lavish life style while his people live in poverty makes me want to support every action against him (other than sanctions on the whole nation). So, I would very much like to see a ‘regime change’ in Iraq.

On the other side, (1) I do not believe US or any other country should force various other sovereign states to their own liking, interests & ideals. I disagree with the policy of crusading around in the world for the triumph of democracy. And any regime change in Iraq will be perceived as such by the masses around the world. (2) According to the hearings of the senate committee(s) that I have watched on C-Span and the various articles from reliable journalists (of magazines like TIME, Newsweek etc.) there seems to be no concrete proof of Iraq being any immediate threat to its neighbors, let alone to the US. Mostly it is speculations and conclusions based on those speculation that “Saddam might be helping Al Qaida” or “What if Saddam is able to make Nukes tomorrow?” etc. Even the Ex-UN-inspector is harshly against the notion that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction. (3) According to the very constitution of the great land of US, you cannot punish someone on the basis of suspicion that he might do something bad in the future. There is no department of Pre-Crime where nations or individuals are convicted based on their perceived intentions.

There are theories that the Bush administration wants to attach Iraq for the petro industry, or the booming defense industry or to score even from the last desert storm & to look tough for the next presidential elections or just to vent out the frustration of American people as they can’t seem to find OBL. I don’t necessarily believe in them all, but they are good propaganda arguments that people all over the world will use to gather support against any such actions & pump up more hatred towards the US.

Lastly, I hope & pray that the US policy makers realize that the creation of weapons of mass destruction are out of the bag and hatred doesn’t need government sponsorship! Regardless of what the US masses believe the righteous intentions for the global “policeman ship” or “peace making efforts” of their government are … what is perceived of the government actions around the globe is what matters.

2

I agree with all of your points, except "On the other die" #3. The constitutional right of innocent until proven guilty has no bearing on our relationship w/another country. It applies to US citizens and others within our borders.

Everybody wants the sanctions to stop, everybody wants Saddam gone. The world community needs to figure out the best way to make this happen.

-Stu

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
Everybody wants the sanctions to stop, everybody wants Saddam gone. The world community needs to figure out the best way to make this happen.
[/QUOTE]

true, and we have to look at it from all angles, is war the only option? is it the best option, are there other options. the off and on bombings and the sanctions have not done anything to put a dent in Saddam's grip on power. Should we rethink our whole approach and go at it differently.

The people have suffered too much and the administration has suffered little there. I am not a fan of war, however if that is the only way to get rid of this guy and to get rid of these sanctions then be it. If there are other ways to do the same thing, I would be in favour of those.

4

No matter what happens, US will go for war!

5

Ahmadjee Bhaijan, this is a very old and bogus dilemma. The Iraqi butcher has continued to defy the inspection teams, moving his weapons plants from place to place (just as he sleeps in a different place every night).

In terms of America being the policeman, my dilemma is that why doesn’t the world cry foul when US does things that they like? Everyone is crying about Russia’s perceived Veto (being on the SC of UN) of any more UN involvement in Iraq, while they conveniently forget that Russia Vetoed all UN Resolutions concerning Yugoslavia. Inspite of that the US took the lead to clean the place up. Why doesn’t anyone complain about that? Particularly the Europeans?

Sovereignty argument is an old rotten concept. Kuwait was a sovereign state, so was Afghanistan, and so are India and Pakistan which are shooting firecrackers at each other for the past 55 years and 29 days.

Fraudz, the other way is to remove him.

6

Why "they" hate US & not the others alike is a question only "they" can answer. IMHO, had Russia won the cold war (ha ha) and thus had assumed the role of super power of the world, "their" jealousy along with all the justified and unjustified criticism would have been directed towards Russia.

I can never understand why those who live in UK, Australia or other countries of the western Europe criticize the US & not their own leaders, while their leaders are side by side with whatever administration is in the white house.

Anyway, being the sole super power has its disadvantages along with all the perks of the job.

*Stu *- Technically, yes the constitution only applies on the borders of US but in principal if I believe in the right of freedom of speech as a basic human right (and thus in the constitution of the US) I have to give that right to all human beings regardless of their nationality or ideology. Otherwise my belief in that right is only superficial & will prove that I abide by it not because its the right thing to do but because its the law.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Fraudz, the other way is to remove him.
[/QUOTE]

chanda read my whole thread and not just the last few lines. Removal is great.. i was looking at alternative approaches to his removal and aside from war I dont see any real plan put forth by anyone else.

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
I can never understand why those who live in UK, Australia or other countries of the western Europe criticize the US & not their own leaders, while their leaders are side by side with whatever administration is in the white house.

.
[/QUOTE]

abay when was the last time you read a european newspaper or a british newspaper? aa jatay hain kahan kahan say uth kar baaat karnay.

9

^^(Cafe Style) I was talking about the guppies. :-P

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee:

I can never understand why those who live in UK, Australia or other countries of the western Europe criticize the US & not their own leaders, while their leaders are side by side with whatever administration is in the white house.

[/QUOTE]
*

The leaders come in for plenty of criticism here but generally on domestic issues rather than international ones. On foreign policy, generally some journalists fall in line with US policy, some are more critical. In fact, there were plenty of very critical pieces written yesterday despite the fact it was Sep 11. The best-selling tabloids might well have been printed in New York however, so don't worry about not being represented.

The British press is far superior to American IMO.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

chanda read my whole thread and not just the last few lines. Removal is great.. i was looking at alternative approaches to his removal and aside from war I dont see any real plan put forth by anyone else.
[/QUOTE]

There is no alternative to removal. We have gone over everything. He needs to be removed. Those who do, Do. THose who can't look for alternatives

12

yet again someone who did not read my initial post and just let the fingers loose on the keyboard.

Now scroll back up and read. I said removal is needed.. What are the alternative approaches that can be used for that. War is one, what other approach is there for his removal.

I should have said alternative approaches "for" his removal in my second post but u get the point.

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *

There is no alternative to removal. We have gone over everything. He needs to be removed. Those who do, Do. THose who can't look for alternatives
[/QUOTE]

We??? As in you and NYA??

I agree he should be removed, but then again, isnt he working in the interests of the US in the first place? All the starving ppl in Iraq?

14

Ok.. i wont repeat what u have all ready stated. Mr Frudia. That would have been the best way to trid the world of this tyrant.

But i think the US has other objectives, if it really wanted to help alleviate the suffering of people then it would have also attacked Israel or India, or the many other countries that have dismissed UN resolutions.- and are causing a great deal of suffering to the people of palistine, lebanon (in the case of isreal) and Kashmir (By india).

This 2 faced attitude in itself is all the more reason to oppose the US attack on Iraq as it will not have a benificial result for world peace.

We can deduce this from the US support for

a) Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war! - Look at the result - a saddam with weapons of mass destruction
b) Usama and Taliban against USSR. - look what they ended up doing!
c) Supporting the undemocratic regimes in the middle east - these puppet regimes, just like saddam would rather kill their own people than to see the US/europe be unhappy
d) i cannot remeber, but there are other incidents such as american support for factions in Somalia, or sudan etc.... nothing benificial came about ...

so it is best if the US stayed out, and whenever the UN deems necessary, it may remove saddam.

Talking about russia veto(ing) attacks against yugoslavia ... the number of times the US has vetoed resolutions against israel is humongous.

Both russia and US have shown that they are not worthy of leading the world against terrorists. or for any other matter.

I would like to add that all the allegations against Iraq can also be alleged against isreal...

iraqs illegal occupation of Kuwait (for lets say aprox. 6 months) ..... compared to isreals illegal occupation of palistine ( for yonks) and also occupation of lebanon for 13 years, and also occupation of golan hights etc from syria for as many years also.

iraqs possible nuclear arsenal .... isreals definite known and accepted nuclear arsenal.... but both have not been proven... only alleged

iraq... killing iraqis, iranians, kurds ... in their thousands... by what ever means.... so has isreal killed thousands in Lebanon, and the unknown number in palistine...... and has made more than half of the palistinian population, refugees.

Any one supporting US attacks on iraq, should support attacks on Israel but any other country... to remove the present regime in isreal.. cus Sharon is also a well known blood spilling terrorist.... whether its is a democracy or not......

Thats all folks!

15

There appears to be a near unanimous opinion that Saddam and his regime are bad for the Iraqi people. Objectively speaking, the only two reasons given for opposing a US led effort to change regimes are the following:

  1. Since the US does not lead efforts to depose other regimes that may also be viewed as violating international law, the US should not act against Iraq.

  2. We don’t know whether the regime that will follow will be better than Saddam.

As to the first, I can see how many people would consider it to be hypocritical to force a regime change on Iraq. What I don’t understand is why being hypocritical is a reason not to do it and/or to support it. If 2 bullies live on your block and one is your friend and one is your enemy and you decide to get rid of only the bully who is your enemy, you are still doing a great service to the people who have been bullied by your enemy in the past and would be future victims of his actions later. You may be a hypocrite, but you’ve done something good for a group of people. I don’t see why you need to take out all bullies in order to take out one.

As to the second argument, would not the end of sanctions alone do more good for more Iraqis than the harm that could possibly be caused by any successor to Saddam? If you are to believe that sanctions have killed 5 million Iraqis over the last several years, does anyone seriously believe that anyone who would succeed Saddam would kill 5 million Iraqis. Even if such a madman took over and killed 4 million Iraqis, aren’t we a net 1 million to the good? Whether you agree with sanctions or not, it should be abundantly clear that they will not be lifted as long as Saddam and his regime stay in power. If the US alone or in conjunction with the UN forces a regime change, sanctions must and will be lifted. [Please don’t jump out and pollute this thread with arguments that sanctions ought to be lifted without war or a regime change. That is a whole different topic that has been beaten to death. Let’s just assume that the facts are that sanctions will not be lifted without a regime change.]

Isn’t the real objection to US action forcing a regime change in Iraq the simple fact that it is the US that is doing it instead of some other group?

16

The US is making a big mistake, especially if they attack without world suport. Bush is going to screw America worse then his father did... Do you honestly think Saddam is so easy to topple? Remeber in Somalia when they tried to take out that local War lord, and about which they made that "Black Hawk Down" flick... Remember how embarasing that whole thing turned out to be? Now if they couldn't take out that local War Lord, with UN support and all their training and their fancy Black hawks, you honestly think they can take out Saddam? Come on!!
Americans are going to get stuck over there like they did in Vietnam and at the end of the day, they will have absolutely nothing to show for it except a lot of dead Iraqis and US soldiers. Im certain a world without Saddam would be a better one, but I dont think its as simple as the US would like to think.
I think the best option would be an Israel style assasination if thats even possible. Its quick, its clean, and its efficient.
But regardless of what happens, its the fallout that most worries me. Pakistan is going to be hit hard with Anti America protest that will probabaly be a LOT worse then the previous ones.

17

There were some fundamental military flaws in American ops in Somalia that most likely will not be repeated in that manner going after Saddam. The US will not be short of hardware in that type of enviroment. If Saddam ever gets pragmatic, he will allow complete acess to all WMD, preserve the military strength he does have, save his people from bloodshed and allow for a new day in Iraq.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
There were some fundamental military flaws in American ops in Somalia that most likely will not be repeated in that manner going after Saddam. The US will not be short of hardware in that type of enviroment. If Saddam ever gets pragmatic, he will allow complete acess to all WMD, preserve the military strength he does have, save his people from bloodshed and allow for a new day in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

Hardware is one thing, but do I dont think it will help in this kind of war. This is a ground war, they will have to send in troops, who will have to hunt down Saddam on their own.