Dave2112
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Messages
- 10,293
- Points
- 0
Good thought, Joby. I agree.
However, Marauder is right on a few things, and to be fair, I have to agree with some of it. This isn't over by any means. And as much as I hate to say it, we are at least partially responsible for much of the suffering between GW1 and GW2. Perhaps not through any deliberate act, but the lack thereof. We were misinformed on a lot of things, and I wish we could have done things differently in 1991.
I'll say this again...I thought that many of the reasons for starting this war were questionable. But it is the final humanitarian outcome that makes it worthwhile. I wish to exclude myself from the ranks of those who feel a need for Europe, the UN or anyone else to come along and apologize and say we were right or any of that garbage. I don't think we need things like that to happen. This is child's play when it gets to that level. We are so wrapped up in who is right and who is wrong that we forget who is suffering. There is no clear-cut right and wrong...only clear-cut need.
Oh, I have so many things to respond to...I hope I remember them all.
Kurch is dead-on when he says that this is Good vs. Evil and not Us vs. Them or US vs. Europe. That's politics, not lives. And we can squabble all we want and nobody who's directly involved really cares.
In order to fully justify this war (at least in the eyes of the UN), we will need to find evidence of WMD's. We will have to get a functioning government off the ground. (And not a US or UN government, but an Iraqi government...I know that others will have to step in for now, but I choose not to waste a lot of breath on that topic right now.)
I was watching Charlie Rose yesterday, and he was interviewing a man (whose name I cannot remember, but I suppose transcripts are available so folks know I'm not making this up) who was the former head of the Iraqi "Nuclear Weaponization Program" (His title, not my take on it). He has been in the US since after GW1. First off, he claims that once we are able to freely look around and once we have access to scientists not under the threat of death, that the weapons and materials are there and we will find them. Time will tell if that pans out, but I can't think of a reason for him to lie, escpecially if he can be so easily proven wrong and have his professional reputation ruined. He goes on to say that Saddam himself said that his biggest regret in the early '90's was that he hadn't developed his nuclear program before invading Kuwait. Another chilling claim that he made involved Hussien's whereabouts. He feels that a deal was brokered by the Russians to get him out with the envoy that left Baghdad. I don't really believe this, actually, I don't want to believe this. He doesn't actually claim it to be true, but gives several reasons...the Russian Embassy was the last to file out, as soon as they left, Baghdad was taken with almost no resistance, as if it's command had been pulled out from under it. Hell, we had more resistance in Basra than in the capital. There were several other reason he gave for this that are long-winded and political, and to be honest, I can't remember them all.
My reason for bringing this up isn't to start a conspiracy theory against the Russians, but to make a point. We just don't know. I pray to God that this isn't so, as it could lead to an international incident of biblical proportions. As he said...we may not take Hussien's possible survival seriously, as he is out of power. (Idi Amin is still alive and living in Saudi Arabia, but he could never return to any kind of power, so Saddam's death is not a neccessity.) However, after a thirty-year reign of terror, the people of Iraq simply will not stomach a complete lack of proscecution or, at worst, any UN nation harboring him. On with my point...until things are more settled and more truth comes out, it would be foolish for the UN to keep demanding the lead in a new Iraqi government. Not because of any contempt from the coalition, or anything as childish as "punishment" for not joining in. Simply put, I don't feel the UN could be effective, at least not at this time. Picture this..."Ok, people, we fought tooth and nail against your liberation, but now we're here to govern you." I know it's not that simple, and you know it's not really like that...but public perception will be just like that. People simply will not condone it, especially the Iraqis. Maybe they are over-exhuberant in thier support, maybe they aren't as educated in world affairs as you'd like them to be, but that's the point. They will see things in more simplistic terms.
A response and question for Hal:
You made it a point that this operation was illegal by international law. Perhaps open for debate, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Actually, it probably was illegal in those terms. My question is this; if it is an illegal operation, why does the UN need to be involved in something it doesn't recognize? Is this part of it now legal? Is it legal if the right people agree that it is and are involved? Or was it considered illegal in order to try to stop it, but now it's ok as long as those who villified it can get in on rebuil---oh, screw it, I'm too confused right now. My second question; If it is so absolutely neccesary for the UN to take the lead in governing in the interim, why not representatives from Spain, England, Poland, the US and Australia...not to mention those who gave us non-military support? Are they not members of the UN? Or will that now be up for debate, as was many nations' potential inclusion into the EU. Will this be another round of that debacle? Why can't nations that ARE part of the UN...AND helped in the liberation of Iraq be responsible for this? Again, not out of any need for personal retribution, but out of effectiveness. I'm not saying that France, Germany, Russia, China and others should be kept out of it because we're pissed or any crap like that....but that they might be wise to stay out (for now) because the Iraqis may very well not respect or respond well to that prescence. I hope you understand the differentiation I'm making.
I guess what really confuses me the most is how the UN can say on one hand that this was illegal and wanted nothing to do with it, and on the other say that they want everything to do with it now that it's done. (Please save the "They want the spoils without having to fight" arguements for another thread, folks, I'm seriously looking for an answer here, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm being honest when I say I'm confused on this point and would welcome a little knowledgeable insight into this quandry.) Are there ties to Iraq that some members of the UN would rather we never uncovered? Is it a need to make everything fit properly on some resolution or other piece of paper? I can't make sense of it.
Public opinion will weigh very strongly in the coming months, and perhaps years. Personally, I know that there's a lot more involved than just trying to claim the spoils...but you must understand that the general public opinion is that those who opposed this let others do the dirty work so that Europe can pick through the pieces. Let me repeat that this isn't a personally held "truth", but you have to admit that it's the way it's coming across. The UN runs the risk of pissing off a lot of people if they continue to flip-flop on thier morality so much. This will serve to only widen the East-West gap.
My final question is this: Why are so many who were and will always be against this action, no matter what is found or proven (or not as the case may be) continuing to pick apart the little things that have minor bearing on the situation. Like when Hal commented about the children killed in a bad choice of attacks...yes, it's true, but it's a fact that would still be true even if this war HAD full UN backing. Would that then be France's fault, or Germany's, or Italy's? Things like that would and have happened in every nation's military operations. (By the way, Hal...I'm not picking on you personally, it's just the first point that popped into my head to make my arguement. You speak with intelligence, and I know that you are a caring person who was trying to make a separate point. Please don't take my example the wrong way...I needed a fine point to put on a general face.)
I'm simply hoping that we can eventually put fallable politics aside for the betterment of the citizens of a torn nation.
However, Marauder is right on a few things, and to be fair, I have to agree with some of it. This isn't over by any means. And as much as I hate to say it, we are at least partially responsible for much of the suffering between GW1 and GW2. Perhaps not through any deliberate act, but the lack thereof. We were misinformed on a lot of things, and I wish we could have done things differently in 1991.
I'll say this again...I thought that many of the reasons for starting this war were questionable. But it is the final humanitarian outcome that makes it worthwhile. I wish to exclude myself from the ranks of those who feel a need for Europe, the UN or anyone else to come along and apologize and say we were right or any of that garbage. I don't think we need things like that to happen. This is child's play when it gets to that level. We are so wrapped up in who is right and who is wrong that we forget who is suffering. There is no clear-cut right and wrong...only clear-cut need.
Oh, I have so many things to respond to...I hope I remember them all.
Kurch is dead-on when he says that this is Good vs. Evil and not Us vs. Them or US vs. Europe. That's politics, not lives. And we can squabble all we want and nobody who's directly involved really cares.
In order to fully justify this war (at least in the eyes of the UN), we will need to find evidence of WMD's. We will have to get a functioning government off the ground. (And not a US or UN government, but an Iraqi government...I know that others will have to step in for now, but I choose not to waste a lot of breath on that topic right now.)
I was watching Charlie Rose yesterday, and he was interviewing a man (whose name I cannot remember, but I suppose transcripts are available so folks know I'm not making this up) who was the former head of the Iraqi "Nuclear Weaponization Program" (His title, not my take on it). He has been in the US since after GW1. First off, he claims that once we are able to freely look around and once we have access to scientists not under the threat of death, that the weapons and materials are there and we will find them. Time will tell if that pans out, but I can't think of a reason for him to lie, escpecially if he can be so easily proven wrong and have his professional reputation ruined. He goes on to say that Saddam himself said that his biggest regret in the early '90's was that he hadn't developed his nuclear program before invading Kuwait. Another chilling claim that he made involved Hussien's whereabouts. He feels that a deal was brokered by the Russians to get him out with the envoy that left Baghdad. I don't really believe this, actually, I don't want to believe this. He doesn't actually claim it to be true, but gives several reasons...the Russian Embassy was the last to file out, as soon as they left, Baghdad was taken with almost no resistance, as if it's command had been pulled out from under it. Hell, we had more resistance in Basra than in the capital. There were several other reason he gave for this that are long-winded and political, and to be honest, I can't remember them all.
My reason for bringing this up isn't to start a conspiracy theory against the Russians, but to make a point. We just don't know. I pray to God that this isn't so, as it could lead to an international incident of biblical proportions. As he said...we may not take Hussien's possible survival seriously, as he is out of power. (Idi Amin is still alive and living in Saudi Arabia, but he could never return to any kind of power, so Saddam's death is not a neccessity.) However, after a thirty-year reign of terror, the people of Iraq simply will not stomach a complete lack of proscecution or, at worst, any UN nation harboring him. On with my point...until things are more settled and more truth comes out, it would be foolish for the UN to keep demanding the lead in a new Iraqi government. Not because of any contempt from the coalition, or anything as childish as "punishment" for not joining in. Simply put, I don't feel the UN could be effective, at least not at this time. Picture this..."Ok, people, we fought tooth and nail against your liberation, but now we're here to govern you." I know it's not that simple, and you know it's not really like that...but public perception will be just like that. People simply will not condone it, especially the Iraqis. Maybe they are over-exhuberant in thier support, maybe they aren't as educated in world affairs as you'd like them to be, but that's the point. They will see things in more simplistic terms.
A response and question for Hal:
You made it a point that this operation was illegal by international law. Perhaps open for debate, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Actually, it probably was illegal in those terms. My question is this; if it is an illegal operation, why does the UN need to be involved in something it doesn't recognize? Is this part of it now legal? Is it legal if the right people agree that it is and are involved? Or was it considered illegal in order to try to stop it, but now it's ok as long as those who villified it can get in on rebuil---oh, screw it, I'm too confused right now. My second question; If it is so absolutely neccesary for the UN to take the lead in governing in the interim, why not representatives from Spain, England, Poland, the US and Australia...not to mention those who gave us non-military support? Are they not members of the UN? Or will that now be up for debate, as was many nations' potential inclusion into the EU. Will this be another round of that debacle? Why can't nations that ARE part of the UN...AND helped in the liberation of Iraq be responsible for this? Again, not out of any need for personal retribution, but out of effectiveness. I'm not saying that France, Germany, Russia, China and others should be kept out of it because we're pissed or any crap like that....but that they might be wise to stay out (for now) because the Iraqis may very well not respect or respond well to that prescence. I hope you understand the differentiation I'm making.
I guess what really confuses me the most is how the UN can say on one hand that this was illegal and wanted nothing to do with it, and on the other say that they want everything to do with it now that it's done. (Please save the "They want the spoils without having to fight" arguements for another thread, folks, I'm seriously looking for an answer here, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm being honest when I say I'm confused on this point and would welcome a little knowledgeable insight into this quandry.) Are there ties to Iraq that some members of the UN would rather we never uncovered? Is it a need to make everything fit properly on some resolution or other piece of paper? I can't make sense of it.
Public opinion will weigh very strongly in the coming months, and perhaps years. Personally, I know that there's a lot more involved than just trying to claim the spoils...but you must understand that the general public opinion is that those who opposed this let others do the dirty work so that Europe can pick through the pieces. Let me repeat that this isn't a personally held "truth", but you have to admit that it's the way it's coming across. The UN runs the risk of pissing off a lot of people if they continue to flip-flop on thier morality so much. This will serve to only widen the East-West gap.
My final question is this: Why are so many who were and will always be against this action, no matter what is found or proven (or not as the case may be) continuing to pick apart the little things that have minor bearing on the situation. Like when Hal commented about the children killed in a bad choice of attacks...yes, it's true, but it's a fact that would still be true even if this war HAD full UN backing. Would that then be France's fault, or Germany's, or Italy's? Things like that would and have happened in every nation's military operations. (By the way, Hal...I'm not picking on you personally, it's just the first point that popped into my head to make my arguement. You speak with intelligence, and I know that you are a caring person who was trying to make a separate point. Please don't take my example the wrong way...I needed a fine point to put on a general face.)
I'm simply hoping that we can eventually put fallable politics aside for the betterment of the citizens of a torn nation.
