General Board

Gotta respond to this

Posted By: The Lion (65.103.26.61)
Date: Wednesday, 22 January 2003, at 12:20 p.m.

In Response To: A Link for Brian (Paul)

I think that my record here shows me not to be a hawk or a dove, but more of a pragmatist...but I can't believe what I read from this group. Due to space constraints, I did not cut and paste the entire link, just the subject headers with my comments below them. My parts are the bolded and italicized.

"We believe that war is not the answer."

War is a horrible thing, sowing nothing but destruction as it rolls over cities and countrysides alike. However, sometimes, war is the only option. Should this be the case with Iraq, then war should be waged with the full force of the coaltion.

"The coalition went to war with Iraq to assist a sovereign nation in repelling a militarily superior aggressor from its borders. The deaths of Iraqis from those actions, and subsequent coalition actions to ensure the viability of the Kuwaiti government, while unfortunate, are a nature of war. The lesson: Don’t attack your neighbors. "

Infrastructure destruction is again, part of the nature of war. Destroying your enemy’s ability to move troops and materiels is essential in ending a conflict in a quicker manner. The lesson: Don’t attack your neighbors.

"Saddam Hussein repressed internal revolts much earlier than the Gulf War. He did so during the Iraq/Iran conflict of the 70’s/80’s and earlier than that. Clearly, Saddam needs no apparent reason, other than the fact that he is a spittle emitting, lunatic dictator to repress his own people. The lesson: The Gulf War did not cause Iraqi repression."

Sanctions were a method used, much like the Cuban Missile Crisis’ embargo, as a step to avoid war. Unfortunately, the leader of Iraq has not learned from history. The power to end the sanctions is in Hussein’s hands. He can live up to the responsibilities placed upon him by the international community.

The coalition has built up significant numbers of troops and has enforced the no-fly zone to ensure the safety of Iraq’s neighbors. Considering that Iraq has been involved in two wars of aggression within 15 years, prudence requires that a significant force should be available to resist a third war of aggression.

"We believe that peace is more than the avoidance of war."

So….how DO we end repression in Iraq? You don’t want war. You don’t want sanctions….we’re dealing with a dictator here, not the Canadian Parliament. The nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Were the governments of the world to disarm, then they would be held hostage by rogue elements who can build a bomb. Universal prohibition? Aren’t drugs universally prohibited in many places? Isn’t murder universally prohibited?

"We believe that peace is linked to human rights and the will of the people".

I challenge the writer of this document, or those who believe as this person does, to show me (as a former resident of Missouri, I can demand this by state law) where in the recent history of the Middle East, there has been democracy (other than Israel). Democracy has not flourished in the Middle East…ever. It has not required the often ineffective western powers to kill it, it has never been alive.

"We believe the arms race in the Middle East must be ended."

Okey-dokey. How do we do this? The tone of your document blames the western world for the ails of Iraq….Plus, you don’t want this arms race détente to be enforced through military means…oh, and, don’t use sanctions, they also hurt people. So…we do it with best 4 out of 7 games of Scrabble?

"We believe we must put the people of Iraq first."

Truthfully, Saddam Hussein must put the people of Iraq first. He is their leader. We must ensure that our nation, as well as those under immediate threat by Iraq, are safe. It is not our responsibility to be Saddam’s enabler.

We can only give material support to Iraq when we can be assured that it will not be used to further a regime that has, by your own words, been cruel and despotic.

The United States, through the Marshall Plan, helped rebuild much of Europe and Japan. Through this rebuilding of nations, a rebuilding of diplomatic relations has happened as well. Should Hussein be toppled, it is clear that the world community would welcome Iraq back with open arms and provide humanitarian, technological, and other assistance.

"We believe it is time to act for peace, not war.
a) Reject further war on Iraq – the consequences of which are borne primarily by the people; "

Okay, tell me how you achieve your human rights, regime toppling, and disarmament goals…

"b) Persist in a vigorous strategy of containment to prevent Iraq’s acquisition and/or retention of weapons of mass destruction through internationally mandated inspections and ongoing monitoring;"

Okay, and if Iraq is being bad boys, what does Canada do? Challenge them to a game of no-check hockey?

"c) Pursue diplomacy toward establishing the entire Middle East as a region free of all weapons of mass destruction; "

Jaw, jaw, jaw, IS better than war, war, war. But will diplomatic means in and of themselves solve the problem?

"d) End the comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq;"

Hello? Hello? What impetus then do the people have to revolt against the government? Why should they rebel if they’re working and have a full belly? Why would they care, as long as Saddam’s axe wasn’t coming down on their neck.

"e) Embark on diplomatic and political engagement, including material support for Iraqi civil society, to advance respect for human rights and accountable governance; "

Okay, so we talk with exiled Iraqis. That accomplishes… nothing? Saddam’s still there and all we have are a whole bunch of people who are p!ssed at Iraq standing in a buffet line in some swanky Washington, Ottawa, or London hotel talking about how much of a difference THEY would make if they were over there.

"f) Reinvigorate diplomatic efforts with states of the region to address outstanding issues, notably the Israel/Palestine conflict, in the context of region-wide talks on security and cooperation in the Middle East; and "

Okay. Makes sense. But…does that solve the problem at hand? As JFK said in 1962, “The issue isn’t Turkey or Guantanamo Bay. The issue is missiles. Missiles in Cuba.”

"g) Explore legal/judicial and other measures to address accusations of crimes against humanity".

Okay, so we indict Hussein. I doubt that the Iraqi government will extradite him to the Netherlands to stand trial. What have we accomplished? Nothing. The reason it worked with Pinochet is because he was toppled.

[Return to Post of the Week] [Main] [Mission] [Scribes] [Art] [Interact] [Resources] [Email Us]