VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:48:53 01/23/03 Thu
Author: Perceptor II
Subject: Let me help you beat that dead horse.
In reply to: Goktimus Prime 's message, "responses to responses (eseses)" on 01:12:07 01/22/03 Wed

Well, that's the entire thing that everyone's criticising the US government on atm -- their seemingly unnecessary push for war on Iraq.

Bush can't find Bin Laden so he's mad and he wants to attack someone he doesn't like.

I believe that to be a grossly inaccurate description of Bush's motivations. Osama bin Laden is probably a factor, but more in regards that Iraq may develop WMD and then sell them to terrorists. Since Iraq has been supporting some terrorist groups monetarily, it's not that much of a stretch. Another motivating factor is that it's just illegal for Iraq to develop WMD (due to the treaty that ended the Persian Gulf War and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). But probably Bush's biggest motivating factor is just that between Saddam and the Bush family, it's personal. G.W. Bush has mentioned Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush Sr as a motivating factor, and it appears to me that Bush's push is due mainly to a personal vendetta.

Of course, it goes without saying that personal vendettas shouldn't be part of foreign policy...but it seems I've said it anyway...

There's no evidence to link Hussein to the Taliban. In fact, there is reason to believe that attacking Iraq may actually be counter productive to the US as opposed to conditions during the Gulf War.

First of all, during the Gulf War the US enjoyed international support and reinforcements -- not only from other Allied Western nations, but also from other Arab nations. After all, Saddam had just invaded another Arab nation, Kuwait, and other Arab nations were keen on helping the US to liberate it. A war on Iraq now - especially one not sanctioned by the United Nations, would NOT see the US enjoy such benefits. They would get support from a few nations like the UK and Australia who would commit forces, but that's it. They would not have the backing of UN troops or troops from other Arab allies. Secondly, the US could easily make more enemies for itself. Aside from other Arab nations possibly turning against the US against what they might see as an act of war against the Middle East, there's also a chance that they might have to face the combined might of Middle East states and terrorist factions. Atm, Middle East terrorist networks and nations are enemies. There is little love between the Taliban and the nation of Iraq. However, a US assault may see these factions unite against a common foe. What would this mean other than more troops for American, British and Australian soldiers to fight against? It would also mean increased terrorism in the US and possibly in the UK and Australia. While the Arab nations rally behind Iraq against the US led assault, the terrorists networks would work on assaulting the American people -- including through chemical and biological means... and there is virtually nothing that the US government can do to prevent that from happening. Also, a US assault would increase anti-American sentiments, which would bolster the number of frightened youths joining terrorist networks such as the Taliban (since terrorism is the tool of the oppressed).

All of this is a very good reason why the U.S. shouldn't "go it alone" against Iraq. In that regard I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Yes, the Hussein regime is indeed a cruel dictatorship... however, consider this:
(1) The US does not have the right to crush any form of government it doesn't like unless that state has declared war on them.

I would argue that the U.S. would also have that right if the U.N. finds that Iraq has been playing games with us and is flagrantly disregarding the aforementioned treaties and it gives the U.S. (a presumably a coalition if it has come to that) the go ahead. However, it hasn't come to that point yet.

(2) Has the US government formed any plans on replacing the dictatorship?

Yes. If the U.S. does attack, the goal will be to remove Saddam from power. The next step wold be to set up a provisional government to transition the country to democratic elections.

From what I've heard, Bush is primarily interested in disabling Saddam's ability to commit acts of mass destruction -- NOT to topple his dictatorship. And for what? Iraq has made NO indication of aiming any of their weapons at the US anyway

1. The primary concern concerning U.S. citizens is that Saddam would sell WMD to terrorist groups. While there is no proof of any link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, links between the Iraqi government and other terrorist groups, particularly Palestinian groups.

2. Are you suggesting that the U.S. just stand by while those weapons are aimed at someone else and say, "Oh well, at least it's not us." WMD are really only useful against civilian targets, since military targets can be destroyed just as easily with conventional weapons.

...and a lot of people feel that it is rather superficial for a nation like the US -- a big owner of nuclear arms -- to call for another nation to relieve itself of weapons of mass destruction.

1. Again, the aforementioned Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits Iraq from developing and manufcturing nuclear weapons. If "a lot of people" (see #2) have problems with this, they need to take it up with the United Nations, not the United States.

2. A very common logical fallacy is to express one's own opinions as being held by large group of anonymous people in attempting to give one's opinions more weight. This is a version of the "anonymous expert" argument, which is fallable because one cannot determine the validity and/or expertise of the source. The very least you can do is cite a poll.

Needless to say that war is something so horrific that it should only be considered if the benefits outweigh the risks (and here the risks are human lives). From what I can see, the risks far outweigh the benefits... a US led war on Iraq would only lead to the loss of more lives.

Let the United Nations play itself out. All alternative options to war must be tried. Because while the US may attack Iraqi soldiers, the terrorists will attack against US civilians.

Agreed. I do want my country to work within the framework of the United Nations. So far, it has done that, but I'm not pleased with some of the rhetoric that been said during the last few weeks. I hope that it's mere sabre-rattling with the purpose of getting all parties to comply with/enforce internation law, but I really can't say that for certain. I'm certain that Bush will wait at least until the inspectors' report to the U.N. on January 27, and then the U.N. needs to determine the next course of action. Bush's State of the Union Address on January 28 will bear watching.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.