When politics dictate reason

[somecallmetim]

... we all look stupid.

I wrote an article about Iraq because I was getting fed up with all the lefty and righty rants about it:

http://www.con.ca/issues/8/4/1303?id=1080,1048778455

Up here in the thawing North, Canadians are really going at it over whether or not we should have supported the US. Our government said no, because they didn't have UN support, yet the UN seems choked with politics and can't get anything done.

Do Americans care that we aren't there?

In the end the pro and against war sides seem about equal and both are very passionate about their posiiton. I wrote what I wrote in a vain effort to get past all the propaganda and spin doctoring and look at the situation with a clear eye.

Saddam is a mad dog that needs to be put down. The reasons the US wants to do this aren't the most pure, but Hussein is still a danger to his own people, so shouldn't we take the opportunity, even if US is doing it only for its own selfish reasons, to support the removal of a megalomaniac who kills his own people by the thousands?

Bit harsh on the US.

I do agree with most points but still feel some things are extreme examples.

Overall very incisive.

[Epidemic]

The irony is that taking out Saddam is the right thing to do, but the Coalition of the Willing is doing it for the wrong reasons. Rather than doing it for motivated self interest, why not do it because it's the right thing to do? ... And then keep doing it because it's still the right thing to do. I'll tell you why: 'cause that don't pay!


We are doing it for the wrong reasons?

What are our reasons?

Please back your opinions.

Even if our reasons were impure the fact is that this is the right thing to do and people may very well be better off for it.

I agree that the worlds dicatators sould be the target of the UN however the UN will never address dictators because many of them are dictators. The US is the reason they have ever taken action.

As such as the US is the one who puts its bodies and money on the line for such actions and as the US is a limited resource we only address ones which favor us.

IMO this war is about stability, freedom, US security, ally security, and to kill a scum sucking sadistic son of a bugger.

When the UN starts prosecuting wars and correcting the worlds wrongs the US may actually be able to stand down as world police. Until then its either us and our choices or no one.

But once again I pose the question. Had the current UN and the UN of history been the only authority and had the US remained as just another member of the do nothing crowd, I contest that we would be fighting a much larger much stronger Iraq. This Iraq would be working on syria, turkey, iran, under the threat of nukes and bio weapons. Israel would be littered with the bodies of thousands of bodies which lead to the dropping of nukes on bagdad killing millions. Argue that. Sometimes war is the only way.

The biggest mistake of gulf war II is really not a mistake of this war at all. It was the mistake of listening to a liars promises of compliance after gulf war I. For listening to the stupidity of the UN expecting saddam a confirmed liar. I had no problems with sending in the first inspectors. But at the first or second stall or delay I would have resumed the war.

[somecallmetim]

Originally posted by Epidemic
What are our reasons?

This isn't about dictators and bad governments, the US will back dictators and bad governments if those dictators and bad governments are willing to support US interests. This is about the US gaining a foothold on the backdoor of the middle east, which will give them leverage in dealing with other arab countries. Saying this is all about oil is ridiculous, it's about controlling the destinies of other countries and peoples in order to secure US interests (of which oil is just one).

Originally posted by Epidemic
Even if our reasons were impure the fact is that this is the right thing to do and people may very well be better off for it.

Exactly. This is why I'm onside with the invasion. I believe that if this is a choice between homocidal dictator with insane sons running death squads, or US domination, the US is a kinder dominator than aforesaid insane dictator.

Originally posted by Epidemic I agree that the worlds dicatators sould be the target of the UN however the UN will never address dictators because many of them are dictators. The US is the reason they have ever taken action.[/B]

Many of those dicatators are secure because they have US backing. I would like to see both the UN AND the US go after dicatatorships around the world... as I said:

"If G.W. walked into the U.N. tomorrow with a revised U.S. foreign policy that promised no further economic aid, support or trade to dictatorships and that all the money formally going into that would be solely for assisting developing democracies around the world, I'd be there in a flash. That's an ass kicking I'd like to see happen..."

About that larger, stronger Iraq. If Saddam only had to contend with his neighbors, Kuwait would be part of Iraq now. With the money he gained from that conquest he could have purchased enough Russian weapons to obliterate his old enemies the Iranians. His push east would have probably ended at a bristling, nuclear equiped Pakistan. Turning west he'd probably leave Saudi Arabia alone so as not to excite the muslims and taken chunks out of Syria and Jordan on his way to taking a swing at Israel.

There is no doubt that Saddam is a menace (his hero is Joseph Stalin for god's sake!).

[Epidemic]

This isn't about dictators and bad governments, the US will back dictators and bad governments if those dictators and bad governments are willing to support US interests. This is about the US gaining a foothold on the backdoor of the middle east, which will give them leverage in dealing with other arab countries. Saying this is all about oil is ridiculous, it's about controlling the destinies of other countries and peoples in order to secure US interests (of which oil is just one).

How are we going to control this foot hold as we have already stated our presense will not be permenent. I agree that we are interested in the destiny of this country but more from the stabilizing force a more reasonable government might provide. The hope being that it will act as a beacon for other countries to seek same.

However there is the security issue. Not so much that saddam and his regime currently plays a direct role in terrorism or in a direct attack on the US. Saddam's toys are extremely likely to fall, for monetary gain or just for revenge to that of terrorists hands. This can happen at a regime level or even individual ordinancemen's hands.

Once again I too am concerned that the US should take on this role but I do not see an alternative right now. The UN's power strictly and only comes from the US and UK as we are the only ones who back their paper complaints up.

Distinguished Member Epidemic, your views seem somewhat hawkish and Right Wing Fundamentalist nowadays.

[Epidemic]

Don’t critique my views, put down yours. Applying your jingoistic terminology to my thoughts is as useless as those things I described earlier on a baseball bat. If you disagree with my position then explain, do not pot shot mine.