Human Shield Admits He Was Naive

You bring up a topic I've been wrestling with for a while. The whole idea of humanitarian reasons for military action.

I'd like to think we've learned something from the Holocaust in that we wouldn't stand by and let that type of murder take place anymore. Maybe that's just being a Monday morning quarterback, I don't know.

It seems like we took a step in the right direction in Kosovo, missed it in Rwanda. Iraq ( and North Korea for that matter) seems like a perfect example of a despot who is a serious danger to his people. Hundreds of thousands murdered, militaristic campaigns that has left almost a million dead. (Iraq-Iran war). Saddam is bad news.

Not looking for rationalization for this war but it doesn't seem like the WORST reason to add to the list.

How do you determine when too much is enough? I'm really dubious of the UN after this episode and the U.S. has a mostly isolationist tendency...

you could have a 1000 iraqis talking about the evils of saddams regime, and liberals still won't believe it because Bush was the one who actually decided to do something about it..

want to talk more about Iraq? visit my website (see sig) and post up comments in the blog.

One of my best friends in Sweden was from Kurdistan. Believe me, I know how SH is an Evildoer�. But what was done then? Nothing, except trying to pin some of the things(Halabja) on the Iranis, giving up the location of Irani troops so SH could gas them, and not to mention giving them the technology needed for gassing the people.

The question is why now, why this way and why without international support. And don't even try to mention the coalition of the willing. I've talked about it before.

Is over 40 countries not support Logic? Come on now. It's not the US against the rest of the world like some want you to believe. Really, it's not.

You agreed that what he did and perhaps still does are horrible things. You implied that he could have been removed long ago. I agree...I wish he had. But, I ask why NOT now? You sound cynical...like there are other motives behind what the Bush administration is trying to achieve in Iraq. I don't believe there are...but let's entertain that idea... Will not the Iraqis have benefited from our getting rid of Saddam anyways?

Plus, there are about 45 countries who are on our side...more than the Gulf war.

It's not a question of whether or not he should be removed. It's a question of who should do the removing and through what means.

Despite every attempt at covering their tracks, this is still considered by most of the world to be an unilateral act of aggression. We can debate the legality of it til we're blue in the face, but the world won't judge us by our intentions.

The riots have started. The guerilla resistance has started. Saudi's have offered a cease fire plan. The formal diplomatic front against the war is starting. Obviously whatever we've done to justify this thing to ourselves has NOT convinced very many others.

And please. Don't bring up the "coalition". It hurts your cause more than helps it. The administration is embarassing itself by continuing to insist that the "support" of Eritrea, Malaysia, Portugal, Bulgaria, Estonia, El Salvador, Columbia et al means anything to anyone.

Anway, i'm not trying to dredge up the should or shouldn't we argument. We already are so it doesn't matter. I'm just pointing out that despite our own justifications, this is still a staggeringly unpopular decision in the world. We're going to have to deal with that and it's probably just starting.

People asked me if there was another way to oust Saddam. I've emphatically stated for years that there is, but every chance has been squandered and we've resorted to this extreme measure. It's academic now. We'll never know what might have been.

For being so concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about the war, I find it interesting that you dismiss the international coalition that the Bush administration has garnered by saying:



Hypocritical if you ask me.

Anyways, what's right is not always popular and what's popular is not always right.

Please publish the list of the first Gulf War coalition and then the list of the current coalition. See if you can identify what the substantial difference is between the two.

Saying that they compare in any way economically, militarily, or diplomatically is nothing short of a lie.

You should also note that I was making the point that right or wrong (it doesn't really matter now that it's started) we will have to deal with the popularity or unpopularity of the decision. You might feel warm and snuggy about us making the moral choice, but that doesn't mean that what the rest of world thinks won't matter. It will.

If the current diplomatic rift grows any worse, it could actually lead to economic and political isolation for the US. Trust me. That matters. It matters a whole helluva lot.

.

Actually, the lack of food and clothing would promote an environment where Saddam's regime might be overthrown. As long as the citizens of Iraq are not suffering - they are satisfied with Saddam.

.

After a quick google search I found this from the Taipei Times :



All I'm saying is there are more countries in this coalition than in the first gulf war. Take that for whatever it means, but that's not my point. My point is that we are doing what is RIGHT. Not what everyone else things is right.




I guess I would just disagree. First off, I don't think it would ever go that far. The world needs us too much. However, if it ever came to that...honestly, I think the world would suffer greater than the US for severing ties with us. Call me arrogant, but if we were cut off from the international scene in whatever way, we'd get along just fine. We could buy American-Made products, we could keep the insane amount of foreign aid that we hand out. Come to think of it, we may be better off in many ways...

So higher numbers means more moral righteousness? Dubious.

No matter what you think of the policy, you can't honestly say that the "coalition of the willing" packs anywhere near the economic, military or political clout of the Gulf War coalition. It won't change the rightness or wrongness of the war for you to at least admit that.

Right or wrong, this action does NOT have the same support as the Gulf War did. We can perhaps question why that is the case, but I don't see how you can deny the reality of it.





I would agree with you if it weren't for the massive trade imbalance. The truth is we buy way more than we sell. It's been that way for years. There are fewer manufacturing jobs in the US than anytime since WWII.

I tend to agree that right now our critics probably won't take things far enough to create such an economic rift. But it's not because they want to buy American products, it's because Americans buy their products. We consume more than we produce in terms of goods.

I also take exception to your characterization of US foreign aid. The US spends less on humanitarian aid as a percentage of budget than just about any major power. The numbers are big, but represent a very very very low priority in our budget. Also, the bulk of US foreign aid is military.

Those are the slight exceptions I take with your argument but I do tend to agree that things won't come to that. At least, not unless something really dramatic happens. I was merely trying to illustrate to you that what the world thinks does matter. It's fine to take a stand and lead from the front, but we can't simply ignore world opinion. It's obvious to me that the administration is trying very hard to bolster support (with questionable success) which tells me that, even if you don't think it matters, they know it does.

No, and that was exactly what I meant when I said:



You said:


There are more countries. That's all I'm saying. Economic, military, or political clout? Who knows... There are more countries than in the Gulf War.



Either way, they need us. And they may get mad and huff and puff. But I doubt seriously they would ever do anything to harm any relationship between them and the US.



I suppose it matters in the sense that some people will be critical of a war simply because we're the US. The more countries we can get on our side, the better it looks to those who are against the US. I will maintain the fact that deep down it really doesn't matter who's with us. Saddam must go, period. It's been long enough.

I'm no history buff, but from what I understand many countries wanted to appease Hitler. Unfortunately millions of casualties had to happen before action was taken. I don't want something like this to continue to occur. We should have taken care of this earlier, yes. (I just now heard on the radio that Iraqi forces have put a tank inside the waiting room of a hospital...sheesh! This guy is demented!) He has to go ASAP.

I think we're on the same page though. Maybe there are a few paragraphs in between, but the same page...

What does this mean?

In this particular case, the choice is the peace of the graveyard or war. If the Iraqis are really against their current leader, they'll help us oust him, and get another option for "peace" other than what they've got now.