catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

"I don't think war is noble"

Default

mrsanniep
Feb 06 2003
03:02 am

Cuba:

We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??

Default

Adam
Jan 22 2003
03:12 pm

Let’s not forget about the dog booties we got from Canada after 9-11. Those were cool. Hey, at least the average person in Canada has a clue about what’s going on in the world. (Whereas the average person in the states knows more about Ben’s latest gift to J-Lo.) — present American company excluded.

I read a story about refugee Iraqis living in Canada. They’re eagerly waiting the overthrow of Saddam, yet none of them like the U.S. or its war. They all want Saddam out, but they all agree “the U.S. is bad.” Gee, how could this be? Say what you want about the good that may or may not be accomplished, no one believes for a minute that the U.S. is doing this out of the goodness of its heart. We’re doing it for us. And while I don’t think this issue is as black and white as everyone lately seems to be trying to make it, there are other things that need to be addressed. So far on this website, the pro-Bush, pro-war people have been more vocal. Where are all the people that voted no war in the little poll?

The first argument from the article, that we have every “right” to protect our interests, is profoundly antagonistic to any semblance of Christian values. Fighting to improve our economic status puts us in the same ranks as Napoleon. I don’t really think that argument deserves or gets much credence in this thread.

I think the Japan comparison is a way to look at one of the big issues here: whether or not to use the Ring of Power to save some people. Perhaps our military victory over Japan did play a part in ushering in a new era of prosperity. But that’s mostly speculation. Who’s to say they wouldn’t have prospered without being crushed? Moreover, what would the world be like if we had never used that damned bomb? Did it usher in the nuclear age? By crushing Japan, did we merely pave the way for more crushing? I think that many would say yes. And if the U.S. wins the war, will it be good for the Iraqi people? The U.S.‘s track record in helping nations after fighting their wars for them isn’t pretty.

In theory, I could see the argument that we’re doing good; protecting human rights. But the whole world seems to think that we’ve got other plans in mind.

Default

BBC
Jan 22 2003
03:50 pm

Bottom line for me is that I don’t think the United States has the right to blow up anyone they want just because they percieve them as a threat. Am I saying we need to wait until we are attacked? Maybe. Or at least until we have the kind of credible evidence for an attack that will convince the world community (and our own citizens) that there really is a threat.

mrsanniep suggested that if I wanted to know the top secret evidence about why Iraq is a threat, I ought to join the CIA. Sorry, mrsanniep, but in a free society, that isn’t the way it is supposed to work, and here is why: what would happen if (and I know this is a crazy idea, but just imagine with me for a moment) our administration decided they wanted to attack someone, say to perserve our connection to foriegn oil, but they didn’t have any evidence. They could just SAY they had evidence, and do whatever they wanted. The US is a democracy. Because of this we have checks and balances to make sure that the power continues to reside with the people. If we give the president (or if the world gives the president) the power to declarte war on whoever he feels like, we are not a democracy, but a dictatorship.

So if my contry is going to war, even though I am not part of the CIA, I think I’ve got a right to know bloody why!

Ahem. Sorry about that. Got a little excited there. Ahem.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 22 2003
06:04 pm

It’s my understanding, BBC, that the President cannot declare war on his own unless that power is given to him by our elected officials.

Make information up to justify a war? Okay, Oliver Stone. I’m not saying one should be naive, but let’s not get dramatic, either. And yes, I do believe the government has the right to keep some information secret when it comes to war and other tactical operations. At least at first. Nothing annoys me more than having a game plan blasted all over CNN for the world to see. Speaking of CNN and conspiracy theories, how do you even know that the information you DO receive is true? Perhaps it’s conjured up by the government to divert attention? You can’t trust anyone. I’m going to sleep with one eye on my husband tonight.

I guess what’s really irritating me about this discussion is the lack of proposed alternative solutions to the Iraq issue. Let’s hear them, armchair leaders!

Please don’t feel sorry for the Americans who signed up to join the Armed Forces – they live to defend their country and the skeptical intellectuals. No questions asked, so that you can continue to debate the possibilities, the what-ifs and talk about a better way of handling things.

(Patriotic music fading in the background as mrsanniep salutes goodnight …)

Default

dan
Jan 22 2003
09:11 pm

As armchair leader and skeptical intellectual being protected by America’s good ol’ boys I would do the following.

I would wait. If I know Iraq is guilty of a thing or two, I’d wait til the weapons inspectors find them. Then the world will look at the horrid array of chemical and biological weapons which aren’t supposed to be there and will say, “Wow, the US was right.” The UN resolution sanctioning war in case of Iraqi non-compliance is already on the books. Now the United States can do what it wanted to do all along with the blessing and help of the United Nations.

The difference between waiting and not waiting might seem small to Americans, but it makes a world of a difference. Waiting means America cares about due process, international law, and the international community of nations. Not waiting means America cares only about itself.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 23 2003
02:56 am

I agree that a thorough weapons inspection would help justify war. However, Saddam has repeatedly denied full, unfettered access to his areas. What does that indicate to you? And if the discovery of weapons is required for war, but you don’t find any, and yet you’re not allowed to inspect everywhere you’d like, what do you do then?

After a point, it just seems like playing nice with a manipulator who will not return the same courtesy.

Default

dan
Jan 23 2003
04:12 am

In fact, Hussein has been totally cooperative with the weapons inspectors this time. Yes, Hussein is a slimy piece of poo but he is making Bush look like the same kind of slime right now. Bush agreed to the weapons inspectors and the UN resolution last year. Now, in the eyes of the world, he is turning his back on his word. They (and I) see this as the worst kind of politics: agree to something to make yourself look good when you’re under pressure, and change your mind when the terms of your agreement aren’t giving you the results you want. It shows lack of foresight and lack of experience, not to mention lack of principle. Every time I hear a Bush speech about how frustrated and impatient he is, I imagine Saddam sitting in his bunker gurgling with delight, knowing he is winning the world propaganda war.

Default

grant
Jan 23 2003
04:23 am

I’ll give the “why Iraq?/why not North Korea?” issue a shot.

The Bush administration (especially Powell, in the last few days)has been clear that the burden of proof rests with Saddam Hussein, not with the U.S. The U.N. resolution (1441, if you want to look up the exact language) demands Hussein’s full cooperation in revealing any weapons of mass destruction. If he does not divulge fully (and much evidence has shown that he hasn’t even fessed up to the weapons he had when the inspectors were there the last time), a coalition of united nations may go in to do it for him. If Hussein is not forthcoming, it is a breach of the U.N. resolution and it becomes necessary to remove him and his regime.

From the perspective of the Bush administration, such a course of action may prevent Saddam Hussein from becoming as powerful as Kim Jong-il. When a dangerous person has nuclear weapons to use as a bargaining tool, it raises the stakes of war, as we’ve all seen with the doomsday scenarios of possible war with North Korea. Saddam Hussein is powerful enough already to keep his enemies at bay. Imagine him with nuclear weapons. Kuwait will quickly become as nervous as South Korea (Israel already is). And other nations surrounding Iraq will be in danger as well.

For the Bush administration, the reality of Kim Jong-il only supports the necessity for taking action against another potential North Korea in the Mid East. The U.S. would much rather deal with Saddam now, before the danger becomes much greater.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 23 2003
04:30 am

I just don’t understand why you put more faith in the cooperative nature of a man who hates us than the President of the United States. What has Saddam done to gain your trust and what has President Bush done to lose yours? Mainly, though, what has Saddam Hussein done for you lately?

Former U.N. weapons inspectors have gone on record before the House Armed Services Committee testifying that the weapons inspection process is ineffective, based on the nature of Saddam’s regime, of international politics and of Iraq itself. Totalitarian dictatorships are not prone to respecting the rules of the international order and forswearing weapons. Totalitarian dictatorships thrive on lies and force. Saddam’s nuclear program was a massive effort costing $20 billion and 40,000 people. That just went away?

What’s wrong with preemptive measures against this man? We might kill some Iraqi citizens in the process? What about the thousands of soldiers who would gladly risk their lives to fight this war? You think that many people are just foolish? I’m not sure what your stake is in all this, either way.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 23 2003
04:31 am

Well-put, Grant!

Default

grant
Jan 23 2003
04:39 am

And I think Bush is frustrated precisely because the rest of the world is falling for anti-Bush propaganda. The more Bush is portrayed as a war-mongerer in peace protests, the less attention is given to the clear, principled plan of action that has been established. Bush is constantly forced to remind seemingly deaf opponents that it is not the task of the U.S. intelligence community to establish a reason for war. The U.N. resolution already has been put into place so that the sole responsibility lies with Saddam Hussein.

War could be avoided if Hussein follows the resolution. If he followed it, then the U.S. might not be justified for bombing Iraq. As it stands, however, Saddam’s apparent unwillingness to cooperate with the resolution gives the U.S. the option of doing it for him. If peace protestors really want to prevent war, they ought to go to Baghdad and convince Hussein to fully reveal his weapons of mass destruction (if he’s not willing to do that, at least to go into exile).