Foolish WAR protests

[Richard G]

The Iraqi people are forbidden, under punishment of death, to protest against Saddam...

I know this. Protesters abroad in the world will not protest against Iraq however. They are to busy protesting against America, where they so often forget that they won't be shot for doing so.

 

[Kodiak]

I know this. Protesters abroad in the world will not protest against Iraq however. They are to busy protesting against America, where they so often forget that they won't be shot for doing so.

I assumed you were already aware of this RG, but I was afraid that this point would again be glossed over, which is why I answered your hypothetical question...

 

[iain]

In the UK, over a million people marched against war. A majority of people in the UK are opposed to war against Iraq under current circumstances.

However, when asked whether they would oppose a war if properly supported by a second UN resolution, fewer than 10% said yes.

A large number of "anti-war" folk are, like myself, not saying that war is always wrong, nor that Saddam is a nice guy who's just a bit misunderstood. What we are saying is that a US/UK war against Iraq outside the UN will probably do more harm than good and is less likely to achieve the objectives Bush/Blair have been talking about than a UN supported action even if getting UN support means a substantial delay in going to war.

The more the pro-war lobby play up to the strawman of all anti-war people supporting peace at any price, the less credibility (in my eyes) they have.

 

[fsol]

Just interested as the thread starts with a CNN link if people actually believe everything that tabloid tells them.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/news-cnnedit.htm

 

[Advocate]

In the UK, over a million people marched against war. A majority of people in the UK are opposed to war against Iraq under current circumstances.

However, when asked whether they would oppose a war if properly supported by a second UN resolution, fewer than 10% said yes.

A large number of "anti-war" folk are, like myself, not saying that war is always wrong, nor that Saddam is a nice guy who's just a bit misunderstood. What we are saying is that a US/UK war against Iraq outside the UN will probably do more harm than good and is less likely to achieve the objectives Bush/Blair have been talking about than a UN supported action even if getting UN support means a substantial delay in going to war.

The more the pro-war lobby play up to the strawman of all anti-war people supporting peace at any price, the less credibility (in my eyes) they have.

The problem with this stance is that there is essential no chance of a second resolution. France has made that abundantly clear. They will veto any attempt at such a resolution. Of course they also have a financial interest in maintaining the current regime. I am not saying they don't have other reasons, but it seems to me that they are unlikely to support a resolution under any circumstances. I believe that a sufficiently strong connection to terrorism (which is beginning to emerge) will help convince China and Russia, who both have terrorism problems of their own, that their interests in Iraq can take a backseat to their interests in having American support for their own issues. France, on the other hand, stands to lose nothing by allowing Saddam to remain in power regardless of his disregard for previous resolutions and his arsenal of WMDs. It amazes me that the same people who decry America's oil interests don't even seem to acknowledge France's.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Notice the sign this lady is holding. It says, "Are you willing to kill her to get Saadam?"

FACT: She and 500,000 of her children have been killed since 1991 due to sanctions that Saadam continues to not only allow, but invite.

FACT: We kill more Iraqis with sanctions than we ever would with war.

FACT: If these protests were about saving lives, they'd be marching for the removal of Saadam.

FACT: There have been dozens of wars in the last five years, some of which have had death tolls near a million people and we did not see these protests.

FACT: These protests are not against WAR, they are against America.

Flick

Have you ever heard of the concept of the false dilemma? It assumes that there are only two options and then asks someone to choose. For example, either remove Saddam with war or continue the sanctions indefinitely.

There are those of us who oppose the war and who have been for years wanting the Iraq situation to be resolved peacefully so that the sanctions could be lifted. Also, the argument could be made that the sanctions in place are unnecessarily harsh, such as not allowing Iraq to rebuild its water purification plants (ALL of which were destroyed by the US) because chlorine could be a dual-use chemical. The destruction of these facilities was the cause for most of the Iraqi deaths under the sanctions.

When Clinton pulled the inspectors out of Iraq, 90-95% of the banned weapons had been located and almost all of those destroyed. Apparently it was useful to have Saddam around to bully every now and then for political expediency. So what could we do instead?

First, it is not necessary to be 100% sure that every banned weapon has been destroyed. Iraq, with or without Hussein, could always build more. Realistically, Iraq can be deterred. Saddam was supported by the US when he invaded Iran and he thought he had the greenlight from the US to invade Kuwait. (Actually, it seems that he did have that greenlight, but the GHW Bush administration thought he was only going to grab the part of northern Kuwait that was the source of the conflict between them.) Hussein now knows that if he were to attack another of his neighbors that it would mean retaliation by the rest of the world and the end of his regime and, probably, his life.

So you let the inspectors do all they can to find and destroy what they can. You relax those sanctions that can be relaxed for purely humanitarian purposes. (Some of the sanctions were relaxed already. As was pointed out already, Saddam used oil revenues to build new palaces.) At some point when the inspections are not making anymore progress (but not because of stonewalling), you say "good enough" and lift the sanctions.

I know that some of the hawks on this board will not be satisfied with this proposition because they believe all the propaganda coming out of the Bush administration that Hussein will build a nuclear bomb and give it to al Qaida, but I find that hard to believe. What I don't find hard to believe, and what you seem to ignore, are all the negative consequences that are likely to result because of a war. (For example, civil war in Iraq; guerilla war against occupying US troops in Iraq by angry Muslims; destabilization of Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; expansion of the war if Israel is attacked and retalitates; the strengthening of support for al Qaida and increased terrorism against the United States; a push by the Taliban to retake Afghanistan while the US has its hands full with Iraq; the ravaging of the US economy caused by huge deficits and the costs of a war and an occupation that could exceed a trillion dollars, etc.)

Edited to add: I don't think that all of the negative consequences I've listed are equally probable or that they all will occur. However, I think it is very likely that some of them will.

An example of relaxing the sanctions while the inspectors are there: rebuilding the water purification plants and having UN monitors for their operation and the transport of chlorine.

I thought I was through arguing on this board about Iraq, but the presentation of this false dilemma simply had to be addressed.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Where are the valid "anti-war"arguments? All I pick up from you is cowering fear and an opinion that it's better to do nothing than stir things up. Oh, and that war is bad.

Where are the valid "pro-war" arguments. All I pick up from you is cowering fear that is driven by believing uncritically everything the Bush administration tells you.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Some may find this interesting. Its a first hand account of a PRO war demonstrator in Colorado. As you read, note the lack of intelligence on the part of the anti-demonstrators.

The sign "if Osama was a piece of ass, Clinton would have nailed him" brings up the question, why hasn't Bush caught Osama yet? Osama seems to have morphed into Saddam in Bush's eyes.

Also, it doesn't say much for you that you don't realize that those photos that show a "lack of intelligence" were altered. The site even asks its readers to send it photos even if they are altered.

Edited to add: I'm not able to decifer what you mean by "anti-demonstrators." Do you mean "anti-war demonstators," or "counter-demonstrators (who favor war)"? As I read, I could note the lack of intelligence of the latter.

 

[iain]

The problem with this stance is that there is essential no chance of a second resolution. France has made that abundantly clear. They will veto any attempt at such a resolution.

This is not true. In the recent past, France has often set itself against something initially, then come round in the end. Whilst this time may be different, to say that there is "no chance" of France changing its position is a mistake.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Here's a White House Press release (with photos) of a pro-war demonstration.

 

[ZeeGerman]

Here's a White House Press release (with photos) of a pro-war demonstration.

Hehe,
isn't that JK holding that "Pinko Commie Homo Scum" sign?

Schtonk

Zee

 

[Advocate]

This is not true. In the recent past, France has often set itself against something initially, then come round in the end. Whilst this time may be different, to say that there is "no chance" of France changing its position is a mistake.

Well, I don't see it as any more likely than that the US will change its position. Maybe I should ask a different question. If it became clear that the resolution would not pass only because France was being obstructionist (and I am not saying that this is the case just yet) would you support an international coalition (not just the US and UK) enforcing the previous resolutions with military force? And would your position be any different if the roles of the members of the Security Council were reversed with the US being the objector to a French plan to enforce a resolution with force?

 

[iain]

If it became clear that the resolution would not pass only because France was being obstructionist (and I am not saying that this is the case just yet) would you support an international coalition (not just the US and UK) enforcing the previous resolutions with military force?

The honest answer is that I don't know. There are just too many unknowns and variables for me to feel able to make any sort of sensible judgement on that question right now. You are very welcome to ask me the question again if this should come about. I agree that if this happened, the situation would not be clearcut, but then when is it ever?

And would your position be any different if the roles of the members of the Security Council were reversed with the US being the objector to a French plan to enforce a resolution with force?

I don't believe so. My opposition is based on what I believe to be the likely outcome of a war now which bypasses the UN, not on the countries supporting that plan.

 

[stamenflicker]

Wayne,

First up, 95% compliance was the success of the inspectors, not the success of Sadaam's good nature. They were destroying weapons as late as 1998-- mark it down, that's a full seven years after the UN demanded they disarm. The inspectors were there to ensure not only that weapons were destroyed, but also that new programs would not be implemented.

So by your logic, the sanctions should end when the weapons are gone, even if he's just going to turn around and build more? That's like taking a kid's rock away, but letting him keep his slingshot. It absolutely doesn't work that way.

Fact is that Sadaam begin re-arming as soon as they left. Clinton should have taken care of Iraq but he didn't want to spend the $$ when he could go down in history as a good economic leader.

Second, of course we backed Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Stability in the region was crucial, and still is. At the time the anti-American sentiment is Iran was (and some argue still us) autrocious. We were protecting our interests. That's what countries do. Maintaining balance and national boundaries was important to us.

So you let the inspectors do all they can to find and destroy what they can. You relax those sanctions that can be relaxed for purely humanitarian purposes. (Some of the sanctions were relaxed already. As was pointed out already, Saddam used oil revenues to build new palaces.)

Exactly, Sadaam could care less about his people. He did rebuild his palaces the moment sanctions eased. He also funded a variety of weapons programs.

Hence the idea of either / or is viable. There is no other way to consider the matter. Sadaam has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the will of the world. So we either shrug our shoulders, or remove him. Re-instituting inspections last Fall was the real joke of all jokes. America did that to appease the weak-kneed rest of the planet.

Flick

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Protestors

Though I disagree with the protestors and see them as more or less leftist radicals(what I call pseudo-liberals) I must admit I found the the people dancing around in Bush masks amusing.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: Protestors

Though I disagree with the protestors and see them as more or less leftist radicals(what I call pseudo-liberals) I must admit I found the the people dancing around in Bush masks amusing.

It's easy to dismiss them when you erroneously and lazily put them into one fringe category. How simple minded! They anti-war movement stretches across the political spectrum. I never knew that the Libertarian Party or guys like Pat Buchanan were leftist radicals.

Edited to add: Here is an article on the anti-war movement from The American Conservative. Read and learn.

The Antiwar Movement Takes Shape

While the marchers have gone mainstream, many difficult choices lie ahead.

by Justin Raimondo

Edward Hamm is peeved. He not only voted for George W. Bush, he gave half a million dollars to the Republican campaign—and now he wants a refund. On Jan. 13, Hamm and a group of Republican businessmen placed a full- page ad in the Wall Street Journal. Headlined “A Republican Dissent on Iraq,” it gave voice to their complaint: “The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back.”

A week later, 100,000 turned out in San Francisco and nearly as many in Washington, D.C., to protest the war. A neoconservative smear campaign was launched that tried to label the protestors radical leftists, but these were not just the usual suspects. The throngs who waved handmade signs and marched through the streets of cities all across America were mostly made up of ordinary, middle-class Americans who oppose taking this giant step on the road to empire. I was proud to march in San Francisco alongside Veterans for Peace, who stood out even in a crowd of 100,000-plus, their banner emblazoned with this trenchant slogan: “Preemptive War is Un-American.”

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Actually I very much supported them in their mockery of Bush....

 

[Wayne Grabert]

So by your logic, the sanctions should end when the weapons are gone, even if he's just going to turn around and build more? That's like taking a kid's rock away, but letting him keep his slingshot. It absolutely doesn't work that way.

So I suppose we are supposed to colonize Iraq?

You seem to have missed my point on deterrence. This is the concept that a nation (like the USSR) that possesses WMD will not use them first because of the retaliation it fears would result. You remember the USSR? They actually did have nuclear weapons--and lots of them. Deterrence worked.

Second, of course we backed Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Stability in the region was crucial, and still is.

If we were interested in stability, we would not have backed a war that Iraq started. We were interested in overthrowing a regime (Iran's) that was not friendly towards us.

Exactly, Sadaam could care less about his people. He did rebuild his palaces the moment sanctions eased. He also funded a variety of weapons programs.

Saddam has a warped sense of priorities, but before the sanctions and the Gulf War, Iraq had a very modern infrastructure, probably the best in the region.

Hence the idea of either / or is viable. There is no other way to consider the matter. Sadaam has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the will of the world. So we either shrug our shoulders, or remove him. Re-instituting inspections last Fall was the real joke of all jokes. America did that to appease the weak-kneed rest of the planet.

Flick

I couldn't disgree more. It is still a false dilemma, but I won't repeat my arguments. And it could be argued that Bush has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the rest of the world (on Iraq, the Kyoto treaty, the international court, etc.)

 

[Advocate]

The honest answer is that I don't know. There are just too many unknowns and variables for me to feel able to make any sort of sensible judgement on that question right now. You are very welcome to ask me the question again if this should come about.

Thank you for your honesty. It is my hope, and I believe that of many in the US administration (Colin Powell especially comes to mind.) that something very much like this will come to pass. Just because I don't believe France will ever allow the Security Council to support military action does not mean I think it is time to stop trying to convince as many nations as possible to support it before moving forward. To this end, I think we have seen progress to some extent in the Middle East and to a greater extent in Europe outside France and Germany. I hope this will continue. The less of a unilateral action this is and the more nations that are involved - especially in the reconstruction after any war, the better the outcome is likely to be. On the other hand, I also believe that sitting and waiting will not be a viable option too much longer. How much longer is a question I am neither prepared nor qualified to answer. But it is not something that can go on forever and I think we do need a deadline for compliance and a standard for determining whether it has occurred if we as a world are going to wait for Iraq to disarm.

I agree that if this happened, the situation would not be clearcut, but then when is it ever?

Exactly. I don't think the current situation is as clearcut as I would like it to be. The only thing I see as clearcut is that Iraq must be made to disarm. Beyond that its all a matter of how best to acheive this. A decade of sanctions and inspections have not completed the job, but have killed a large number of Iraqi civilians. Can that be permitted to continue indefinitely?

I don't believe so. My opposition is based on what I believe to be the likely outcome of a war now which bypasses the UN, not on the countries supporting that plan.

How much of that outcome is due to their being a war at all and how much due to it being done without UN support? Also, have you considered the consequences of letting things continue the way they have for the past 12 years? As you said before, it is never clearcut. I am not cheering for us to go to war - though some people are. However, from what I have seen of possible options, it may end up being the lesser of evils.

 

[Advocate]

So I suppose we are supposed to colonize Iraq?

No. If we do go to war, the government we set up afterward should be a temporary one to restore stability after a war. It would then be replaced by an elected Iraqi government. Even the temporary government should have representatives of the major factions in Iraq (except of course Saddam's own faction that is in power now). Will this happen? I don't know. But I think it will be a lot closer than outright colonization.

You seem to have missed my point on deterrence. This is the concept that a nation (like the USSR) that possesses WMD will not use them first because of the retaliation it fears would result. You remember the USSR? They actually did have nuclear weapons--and lots of them. Deterrence worked.

Iraq is not the USSR. Do you really think the world would be a safer place if Iraq possessed the kind of arsenal that the USSR had (or Russia has today)? IMHO the whole point behind the past 12 years of sanctions and inspections is to make sure that the current Iraqi regime never comes to possess nuclear weapons and is stripped of its biological and chemical ones. The world has already been through one nuclear standoff (US/USSR) and is in the middle of another (India/Pakistan). Should we tempt fate by allowing Iraq (whose invasion of Kuwait prompted the war that started these sanctions to begin with) to possess such weapons? Who else will develop such weapons out of fear of an Iraqi aresenal? Or who will Iraq use them on because they do not possess such weapons to retaliate with? Or even if they do? Saddam has already shown himself willing to attack without regard for the retaliation on his country. Why would he not also do this with WMDs?

If we were interested in stability, we would not have backed a war that Iraq started. We were interested in overthrowing a regime (Iran's) that was not friendly towards us.

"Not friendly" is an understatement. Iran was actively supporting terrorists that attacked US citizens. Thats a bit more than "not friendly". And the US did not want to overthrow Iran in favor of Iraq. What was desired was a balance of power to keep Iran from becoming a greater threat than it already was. At this the US was successful. Despite the "axis of evil" rhetoric, Iran is much less hostile to the US now than it was 20 years ago. Today it might possibly qualify as only "not friendly", although even now I would want to be careful in dealings with Iran. But it is certainly not as actively hostile as Iraq or North Korea.

Saddam has a warped sense of priorities, but before the sanctions and the Gulf War, Iraq had a very modern infrastructure, probably the best in the region.

True. And a postwar Iraq could have this again with the support of the US and Europe, but without a leader who builds palaces while his own people die.

I couldn't disgree more. It is still a false dilemma, but I won't repeat my arguments. And it could be argued that Bush has demonstrated his unwillingness to comply with the rest of the world (on Iraq, the Kyoto treaty, the international court, etc.)

The US does not have the same status as Iraq. More comparable would be Russia and China (though still not perfectly so) due to their greater roles in world affairs. As I recall, neither has joined the ICC and both have stayed out of other world agreements to about the same extent as the US has.