[CLUE-Talk] Sure its 'Not About Oil' was: Why Iraq? Why now?

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday,  4 February 2003 at 19:09:08 -0700, Jeffery Cann <fabian at jefferycann.com> wrote:
> On Monday 03 February 2003 07:29 pm, Randy Arabie wrote:
> > And those points were exactly the ones that I hoped you would elaborate
> > upon.  Please address the "meat & potatoes".
> 
> Randy,
> 
> Fundamentally, I don't agree with his (or the general) premise to use violence 
> / war to end the real (or perceived) thread of Saddam Hussein.
> 
> I agree that Hussein is not a good guy and he probably does not have good 
> intentions with respect to WMD.  For his abuses of his countrymen, Iranians, 
> and Kuwaitis, he should be punished.  But, I don't think he should be killed 
> as punishment because that would violate my belief in the sanctity of human 
> life.
>
> To me, any human life is valuable and I believe a person never loses their 
> human rights, such as the right to live - regardless of what they do or how 
> badly they may act.   Since Saddam has clearly abused the rights of others, 
> his privileges (which are different than his human rights) in society should 
> be revoked as punishment - e.g., life in prison.

Am I correct in assuming that you are pacifist?  That is my conclusion.  It 
sounds to me that, in your opinion, war is _never_ justified because it would 
violate the enemies right to live.

> I do not trust nor defend Saddam Hussein; however, I think as the most 
> powerful country in the world, we can surely figure out another way to bring 
> him to justice besides a war.  There will be too many innocent people killed 
> in a war and the removal of Saddam never justifies the killing of anyone. 

Had you been alive, would you have been equally opposed to war against
Hitler?  I _DO_NOT_ mean that to equate Saddam Hussein with Hitler.  I am
simply trying to find the point at which you would concede that war and
the associated "collateral damage" (i.e. the death of innocent civilians, 
enemy and allied soldiers, etc.) would be justified to stop an evil 
dictator.
 
> Often, people choose violence when the believe it to be the last resort.  It 
> seems that many people believe that the conflict would be resolved if Saddam 
> were simply killed.  I don't think it's quite that simple.  For example, what 
> happens to Iraq afterwards.  Imagine what would happen in the US, if our 
> government were disbanded forcefully by another country.

I contend that that is excatly what al Qaeda had in mind when they flew
jumbo jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and attempted to
fly one into either the White House or the Capitol building. Hence our 
current "War on Terrorism".  While al Qaeda is not another country, their 
intention was to destroy America.  I think our response has been appropriate.

Imagine what would have happened on December 7th, 1941 if FDR had been a
pacifist and refused to go to war against the Axis Powers because it
would have violated their right to live.

> Finally, I disagree that we need to 'bring democracy' to Iraq.  I think 
> deposing Saddam would be a good start, but then we should let the Iraqis 
> decide what form their government may take.  Our goal would only be to 
> prevent another brutal dictator like Saddam and keep the peace until a stable 
> and respectable government can form.  

I don't think that is too far off from what has been proposed.  As the essay
pointed out, we were quite successfull in Germany and Japan.  The
current Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan calls for a US Military occupying force
to "keep the peace until a stable and respectable government can form."
(your words, that was not quoted from Rumsfeld or Wolfowitze)
Powell and the State Department are more in favor of a UN Nation
Building operation.
 
> It's ironic to me that Americans will go to great lengths to avoid being told 
> what to do or how to live their lives, yet find it so easy to tell others 
> what to do.  Perhaps the culture of Iraq does not support democracy.  Perhaps 
> it does.  But, we have no right to force our beliefs or form of government on 
> another sovergn nation - even if it happens to have one of the worst leaders 
> in recent history.
> 
> So, when I read an essay that tries to justify war to resolve the conflict 
> with Saddam, I just can't agree.  None of the points in the essay (or any 
> point that anyone has yet told me) will sway my belief.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.  I strongly disagree, but
certainly respect your right to believe as you do.  That right, among
others, is bestowed to you by God.  And, it has been paid for in 
blood by the men and women of the US Armed Forces.
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20030204/9cc22cea/attachment.bin