Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 03-24-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman
BBC conducted several interviews with Iraqis inside the country. They all said the same thing: they hate Saddam and would love to see him dead, BUT when all is said and done, Saddam is an Iraqi and they don't want to have any foreign invaders on their soil.
Some do not feel that way, but nationalism is the reason why the coalition forces are being fiercely resisted.

You found this on their webpage, or via a broadcast?

Jane Bovary · 03-24-2003, 05:28 PM

The power to lift the UN Sanctions rested with Saddam.
It was shown that when left to his own accord he is a mass murderer of a very rare kind. The sanctions and scruntiny on Iraq were justified. They could have been lifted and even when left in place those million excess deaths did not need to happen. He left the world no choice but to keep the sanctions in place. He choose not to get aide to his own people.
Liquidrage

But if those imposing the sanctions knew they weren't working, and knew thousands of Iraqi's were dying as a result, aren't they also culpable? What you're saying is that death is justified if it's an indirect consequence rather than an intention. There's a very slim moral difference if you know the intent is causing the indirect consequence. To say these deaths were "unavoidable" and then claim to want to save Iraq's in a war seems hypocrytical.

But whatever the hyprocritical overtones, I do think the so called moral argument for war is the strongest justification...all the others rely on "might" and "probable" projections of a future threat. These arguments were not convincing, but a war on humanitarian grounds has persuaded alot of people into supporting the war. But this argument is fraught with difficulty too, since it completely turns around the notion that countries do-not invade others to change regimes. If this war transforms that, who decides what regimes are to go, and how do you stop political opportunism in the decision-making process, especialy if it happens independently of an International body like the UN? If you can justify a war in Iraq on such grounds, then why wouldn't you use a similar rationale for other regimes? Or worse still, exploit the rationale for self-interest.

Everyone knows the US realises it has to tread carefully in Iraq, with minimum civilian casualties. Since it used the moral argument as it's rationale, it has to follow this through in it's application. In a big production like this war, dead bodies are box office poison. Saddam Hussein will take advantage of this and it's quite possible, in the end greater force may have to be used, thus resulting in much greater casualties. If this does occur, how can you free a people by killing large numbers of them? Is freedom just for those lucky enough to survive?

Nor is there any firm guarantee, as plenty have mentioned, that once Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, the fighting will be over for Iraqi's. Many awful scenario's are possible.

In the end I'm not convinced of the moral argument either...it seems a gamble with the odds not good enough and has bad implications for the worlds future.

Liquidrage · 03-24-2003, 05:43 PM

But if those imposing the sanctions knew they weren't working, and knew thousands of Iraqi's were dying as a result, aren't they also culpable? What you're saying is that death is justified if it's an indirect consequence rather than an intention. There's a very slim moral difference if you know the intent is causing the indirect consequence. To say these deaths were "unavoidable" and then claim to want to save Iraq's in a war seems hypocrytical.

No

The UN spent 5 years trying to get Saddam to sign a food for oil agreement so that he could get more food, knowing that he was using what money he did have for military and personal reasons instead of food and medicine like he should have. They did this because he was letting people died. They didn't just stand by and do nothing.

The sanctions that actually let him feed his people didn't work. Adding the food for oil didn't work.

Letting Saddam have free reign was already proven to be a disaster.

The UN's biggest mistake was not removing him when he was there the 1st time.
The only way I see you can make a case for moral responsability on anyone other than Saddam (and even then Saddam still gets most of the blame) is that they didn't take him out long ago.

Happy Wonderer · 03-24-2003, 05:55 PM

Wait a minute, I thought that this whole war was about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Was I misled?

Saddam is one of the worst because he used chemical weapons -- however, Saddam used mustard gas against the Iranians and Rumsfield (as Regan's Middle East envoy) didn't bat an eyelash.

HW

Rumsfield and Saddam

Liquidrage · 03-24-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer
Wait a minute, I thought that this whole war was about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Was I misled?

Saddam is one of the worst because he used chemical weapons -- however, Saddam used mustard gas against the Iranians and Rumsfield (as Regan's Middle East envoy) didn't bat an eyelash.

HW

Rumsfield and Saddam

I've said several times I don't give a shit what the wars about.

So don't confuse my reasoning or thoughts on Saddam for the US militaries. There wasn't any reason for you to do that, but it was obvious where you were going so I saved you the time.

Jane Bovary · 03-24-2003, 06:31 PM

Wait a minute, I thought that this whole war was about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Was I misled?

Yes, well it is confusing Happy Wanderer. Somewhere along the long the rationale shifted and now the official line is a War of Liberation, not pre-emptive self-defence.

Many people, who are impervious to these earlier arguments now support the war on humanitarian grounds, independent[or is it?] of what the Bush propaganda machine says.

Liquidrage · 03-24-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jane Bovary
[B]

Many people, who are impervious to these earlier arguments now support the war on humanitarian grounds, independent[or is it?] of what the Bush propaganda machine says.

Well since you asked the question.
(It was a question right, and not a provacative yet baseless jab, right?)

Myself, I just never gave a shit what Bush said, wanted, ate for breakfast or watches on TV, never voted for Bush, never will vote for Bush, but just always felt that Saddam was a threat and still is, that his horrendous crimes against humanity warrant a world response that removes him from his position of living, that Saddam has proven that he will let people die in mass numbers to build up his military, that if left to his own he will run campaigns of genocide and indiscriminately kill those that don't fall under the previous campaigns.

There is no doubt that there has been a propaganda shift from WMD to "liberation". Why this doesn't bother me is I have no doubt that each one is a defendable position.

Grad Student Humanist · 03-24-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage
but just always felt that Saddam was a threat and still is, that his horrendous crimes against humanity warrant a world response that removes him from his position of living, that Saddam has proven that he will let people die in mass numbers to build up his military, that if left to his own he will run campaigns of genocide and indiscriminately kill those that don't fall under the previous campaigns.

OK, then a world response is also warranted against Ronald Reagan and his administration (and the US) for enabling Hussein's dictatorial regime and providing him with the weapons needed to wage a genocidal war against his neighbor, Iran. It might be too late to indict Reagan, given his current mental incapacitation, but other members of his cabal can certainly be held responsible for their actions.

Funny how so many pro-war apologists like to compare Hussein to Hitler and talk about him being evil personified. Gee, I wonder when they realized this? Must be a rather recent development since the GOP administrations in the 1980's had no qualms about dealing with him, or providing him with weapons.

Liquidrage · 03-24-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grad Student Humanist
OK, then a world response is also warranted against Ronald Reagan and his administration (and the US) for enabling Hussein's dictatorial regime and providing him with the weapons needed to wage a genocidal war against his neighbor, Iran. It might be too late to indict Reagan, given his current mental incapacitation, but other members of his cabal can certainly be held responsible for their actions.

Funny how so many pro-war apologists like to compare Hussein to Hitler and talk about him being evil personified. Gee, I wonder when they realized this? Must be a rather recent development since the GOP administrations in the 1980's had no qualms about dealing with him, or providing him with weapons.

Funny, considering the French, Russians, Italians each all gave more to Saddam in the '80s then the US. And the Iran-Contra affair was because the US was supplying Iran with arms to fight Saddam. Facts are funny aren't they?

I'd really like to flame you since you haven't made any points and have made baseless assertions and mass generalizations.
But Pomp has already thrown a brick through my front window and I can't afford to replace it again.

Lastly, who does "we created the mess so we should continue to ignore it" make sense?

Happy Wonderer · 03-24-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jane Bovary

Many people, who are impervious to these earlier arguments now support the war on humanitarian grounds, independent[or is it?] of what the Bush propaganda machine says.

I wonder how long that line is going to last, the Iraqis seem to be a bit resistant to being liberated by force. The only dancing I have seen was dancing on an Apache helicopter. (Perhaps media bias?) However, I don't think the Iraqis like us as much as the French did.

It gets even worse on the humanitarian front (of course it is the fault of the Iraqis, if they all just surrendered it would be so much easier to give them aid to replace what they had...)

Warnings mount of humanitarian crisis in Iraq

Quote:

GENEVA (Reuters) - Warnings intensified of a humanitarian crisis in Iraq on Monday as fighting in the south delayed entry of much needed aid and water grew short in the country's second city, Basra.

In New York, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for urgent action to make sure there was enough water in Basra, a southern city of some two million people where temperatures can soar to 104 Fahrenheit.

HW

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2003, 05:28 PM	#22
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	The power to lift the UN Sanctions rested with Saddam. It was shown that when left to his own accord he is a mass murderer of a very rare kind. The sanctions and scruntiny on Iraq were justified. They could have been lifted and even when left in place those million excess deaths did not need to happen. He left the world no choice but to keep the sanctions in place. He choose not to get aide to his own people. Liquidrage But if those imposing the sanctions knew they weren't working, and knew thousands of Iraqi's were dying as a result, aren't they also culpable? What you're saying is that death is justified if it's an indirect consequence rather than an intention. There's a very slim moral difference if you know the intent is causing the indirect consequence. To say these deaths were "unavoidable" and then claim to want to save Iraq's in a war seems hypocrytical. But whatever the hyprocritical overtones, I do think the so called moral argument for war is the strongest justification...all the others rely on "might" and "probable" projections of a future threat. These arguments were not convincing, but a war on humanitarian grounds has persuaded alot of people into supporting the war. But this argument is fraught with difficulty too, since it completely turns around the notion that countries do-not invade others to change regimes. If this war transforms that, who decides what regimes are to go, and how do you stop political opportunism in the decision-making process, especialy if it happens independently of an International body like the UN? If you can justify a war in Iraq on such grounds, then why wouldn't you use a similar rationale for other regimes? Or worse still, exploit the rationale for self-interest. Everyone knows the US realises it has to tread carefully in Iraq, with minimum civilian casualties. Since it used the moral argument as it's rationale, it has to follow this through in it's application. In a big production like this war, dead bodies are box office poison. Saddam Hussein will take advantage of this and it's quite possible, in the end greater force may have to be used, thus resulting in much greater casualties. If this does occur, how can you free a people by killing large numbers of them? Is freedom just for those lucky enough to survive? Nor is there any firm guarantee, as plenty have mentioned, that once Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, the fighting will be over for Iraqi's. Many awful scenario's are possible. In the end I'm not convinced of the moral argument either...it seems a gamble with the odds not good enough and has bad implications for the worlds future.

03-24-2003, 05:43 PM	#23
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	But if those imposing the sanctions knew they weren't working, and knew thousands of Iraqi's were dying as a result, aren't they also culpable? What you're saying is that death is justified if it's an indirect consequence rather than an intention. There's a very slim moral difference if you know the intent is causing the indirect consequence. To say these deaths were "unavoidable" and then claim to want to save Iraq's in a war seems hypocrytical. No The UN spent 5 years trying to get Saddam to sign a food for oil agreement so that he could get more food, knowing that he was using what money he did have for military and personal reasons instead of food and medicine like he should have. They did this because he was letting people died. They didn't just stand by and do nothing. The sanctions that actually let him feed his people didn't work. Adding the food for oil didn't work. Letting Saddam have free reign was already proven to be a disaster. The UN's biggest mistake was not removing him when he was there the 1st time. The only way I see you can make a case for moral responsability on anyone other than Saddam (and even then Saddam still gets most of the blame) is that they didn't take him out long ago.

03-24-2003, 05:55 PM	#24
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	Wait a minute, I thought that this whole war was about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Was I misled? Saddam is one of the worst because he used chemical weapons -- however, Saddam used mustard gas against the Iranians and Rumsfield (as Regan's Middle East envoy) didn't bat an eyelash. HW Rumsfield and Saddam

03-24-2003, 06:31 PM	#26
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	Wait a minute, I thought that this whole war was about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Was I misled? Yes, well it is confusing Happy Wanderer. Somewhere along the long the rationale shifted and now the official line is a War of Liberation, not pre-emptive self-defence. Many people, who are impervious to these earlier arguments now support the war on humanitarian grounds, independent[or is it?] of what the Bush propaganda machine says.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.