Sunny
Empire Builder
What is your opinion??
Should the U.S invade Iraq and take out Iraq´s "Root of Evil"??
Should the U.S invade Iraq and take out Iraq´s "Root of Evil"??
U.S invading and taking out Iraq's Root of Evil - wrong or right??
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
Jimcat
Culture Vulture
"Root of Evil"? You make it sound like a bad rip-off of "Lord of the Rings", as if there was something nasty growing in the ground, and all we'd have to do is go into Baghdad and dig it up and the country would be all sweetness and light again.
Invading for the sake of President Bush's popularity would be wrong. Invading for the sake of "regime change" without having a reasonable alternative to Saddam would do more harm than good in the long run.
What is needed is for the whole world, or at least the advanced countries, to work with Iraqis and build a nation that is concerned first and foremost with peace and prosperity for its people, and not with expansionism or the rule of a single dictator.
Invading for the sake of President Bush's popularity would be wrong. Invading for the sake of "regime change" without having a reasonable alternative to Saddam would do more harm than good in the long run.
What is needed is for the whole world, or at least the advanced countries, to work with Iraqis and build a nation that is concerned first and foremost with peace and prosperity for its people, and not with expansionism or the rule of a single dictator.
Sunny
Empire Builder
The qoute is from Military.com .... "If George W. Bush gives the order to take out Iraq's Root of Much Evil..."
Jimcat
Culture Vulture
Well, then it's not your fault, but it's still an over-simplifying metaphor of the sort favored by teenagers and Americans.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Yes.
They should.
They will.
And they will triumph.
They should.
They will.
And they will triumph.
Sunny
Empire Builder
Agree, but I wasn´t sure if it was improper to post the name of the leader ....
Sunny
Empire Builder
I had a feeling you would say that ...
after reading your "Free Press"-thread, from which I borrowed the qoute, BTW ...
Sunny
Empire Builder
Could we here some opinions from any of you 'no'-sayers??
First the political point:
To attack Iraq with the intention of changing their regime without the consent of the UN is unlawful, full stop.
The west can't claim to be a bastion of freedom and democracy under the law if we keep ignoring it when it suits us.
Second the moral point:
It's all very well for us to go bleating on about Saddam, we had no compunction in supporting him when he was fighting Iran and he was a bloodthirsty butcher who gassed his own people then as well. Frankly we in the west are completely hypocritical, we don't mind evil dictators as long as they are OUR evil dictators. Then we wonder why the third world doesn't like us...
Finally the practical point:
In order to eliminate terrorism we need to cut terrorists off from their support framework - this is best achieved, it seems to me, by separating the extremists from the moderates and taking every opportunity to support moderate arab/muslim opinion.
By attacking Saddam against the express views of almost every arab moderate we are simply driving the moderates to become more extreme, the exact opposite of what we seek to achieve.
That's my view, FWIW
Of course, it would be great to see the back of Saddam, as long as we didn't replace him with someone worse. Based on our track record as sponsors of the Shah, Saddam and the Taliban that is not exactly a good bet though.
jpowers
Emperor
I am a 'no'-sayer. I think any move from despotism to democracy should be encouraged, but the context of this decision is not about freeing the oppressed Iraqis or any such nonsense. There are a bunch of generals at the Pentagon who have been pissed off since 1991 when Colin Powell and King George I told them they couldn't go after Hussein. Now that George II is in office, and cynically taking advantage of the 9/11 tragedies, these generals think they can get their revenge. We used to have civilian control of the armed forces in this country, but it appears that's no longer the case.
The UN is nice but it doesn't really have a say when it's time to take effective measures to prevent casualties in the future.
Talk about hypocritics after he nukes Israel, fine?
What do you consider a moderate? What are your statistics for the number of moderates? Do you know that most of the Arabs blame the west for all of their problems anyway?
Either way it doesn't really matter, 1000 terrorists more or less, at least that way they won't have nukes and we have control over their oil.
Sunny
Empire Builder
And who is then?? the U.S??
G-Man
A One Man's War
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
Yes, the USA should, and we will be with them.
bobgote
Trousers
I agree with everything bigfatron said. put nicely, thanks.
But on top of this i would say that I don't care if the US attacks him. It will just make everyone dislike the US even more than they already do. You can't just roam around looking for fights. They will see their allies become neutral (already happening) and the neutrals become enemies. One can't help feeling that this will come back to haunt the US.
But I don't mind, just as long as they don't drag everyone else into it.
But on top of this i would say that I don't care if the US attacks him. It will just make everyone dislike the US even more than they already do. You can't just roam around looking for fights. They will see their allies become neutral (already happening) and the neutrals become enemies. One can't help feeling that this will come back to haunt the US.
But I don't mind, just as long as they don't drag everyone else into it.
Iceblaze, from that I conclude that you do not support the concept of the UN or international law. Is that correct?
That's fine, but remember that it is that same international law which says that terrorism, in particular attacking civilians, is against the Geneva convention. It's the law which stipulates you right to self defence. That is the law which lends some legal support to your actions in Palestine and the claims to moral superiority as a democracy fighting under the law.
Therefore, get off your soapbox about terrorism - if there is no moral or legal framework to our relations with other countries then there is no super-national moral or legal objection to bombing a bus or anything else.
Take your choice - you are either in favour of international law and accept the restrictions as well as the entitlements that flow from that support, or you don't care for it in which case anything goes, including invading Baghdad or nuking Tel Aviv. It is intellectually indefensible to pick and choose.
[edited to make it clear who I was talking to!)
That's fine, but remember that it is that same international law which says that terrorism, in particular attacking civilians, is against the Geneva convention. It's the law which stipulates you right to self defence. That is the law which lends some legal support to your actions in Palestine and the claims to moral superiority as a democracy fighting under the law.
Therefore, get off your soapbox about terrorism - if there is no moral or legal framework to our relations with other countries then there is no super-national moral or legal objection to bombing a bus or anything else.
Take your choice - you are either in favour of international law and accept the restrictions as well as the entitlements that flow from that support, or you don't care for it in which case anything goes, including invading Baghdad or nuking Tel Aviv. It is intellectually indefensible to pick and choose.
[edited to make it clear who I was talking to!)
Xiahou-Dun
Retired Super Hero
If the US didn't attack and instead decided to try and contain Iraq, would the world call this a noble goal? Would the cries of Iraq children be forgotten? Or would the "bleeding hearts" start screaming the US is killing thousands of Iraq children every year?
Convince me Saddam will feed his people before he buys weapons and I will say no the US shouldn't invade.
Convince me that any embargo against Iraq will not be broken by some country in the world.
Convince me that Sanctions work.
The options I see.
1. Do nothing and 5 to 10 years down the road, Iraq will invade it's neighbors again..with the possiblity of having nukes in their invertory.
2. Continue the sanctions and watch the Iraq children die.
3. Invade and take the chance some innocent Iraqs will die.
4. Let the UN handle it.
Out of the 4, I would choose number 3....even though I could look at number 1 and say...it's not near the US, why worry about Iraq. Option 2 will not last and shouldn't, it is a failure like all sanctions are. Greed will always be the underminding factor in sanctions. And finally number 4, the biggest failure of all.
Sunny
Empire Builder
Well, I can only say that in the EU there are voices (from various different governments) being raised, stating that an U.S attack against Iraq has no support from the european countries, nor the U.N ....
Similar threads
