Journal AntiFreeze's Journal: Warmongering: Opinions from a liberal 8
Two important observations about Saddam:
- Saddam only responds to the broad threat of force
- Saddam will do anything to remain in power
These to me say one thing loud and clear: strong international resolutions are needed if we want to handle Saddam.
The only way to force Saddam to cooperate is a strong UN resolution with four components:
- An ultimatum demanding what we must have from Iraq
- A reasonable deadline for compliance with the ultimatum
- A detailled guideline for what compliance is and is not
- The serious and overwhelming threat of force if the ultimatum is not complied with
This, and only this, will elicit a reaction and hopeful compliance from Saddam.
However, France has said that it will veto _any_ UN resolution with a firm deadline. This makes any such resolution impossible to come by, backing the US into a corner. Iraq is notorious for using wiggle room, and with no firm deadline there will be no results. So, with no such avenue to provide a strong international ultimatum, there is little choice (some would say no choice) left for the United States to take but to issue an ultimatum on its own.
Issuing an ultimatum on its own is horrible for America, horrible for the UN, and horrible for the Iraqi people. France was probably betting this would be enough to deter the American government from issuing an ultimatum on its own. Their gamble failed. [As an aside: France has now said, in an attempt to save face, that they will commit troops if the Iraqis use WMDs against US forces during the war.]
The American ultimatum is flawed, for there is no way Saddam will abdicate power, and hence no way he would ever accept the terms of the ultimatum. In fact, he has already refused the ultimatum. All that the American ultimatum does is give time for friendlies to flee Iraq, American forces to prepare, and possibly kill time until the moon is right for war.
So I stand by the ultimatum. Something must be done about Iraq. The international community refuses to do the one thing which might have a chance of stopping Saddam -- adopting a strong UN resolution with an ultimatum and a hard deadline.
And yes, I believe this is a failure of the international community as a whole, not a fault of France alone. For the international community could have rallied behind the US or UK and demanded a vote on a strong second resolution. They could have told France that a veto itself were an act of terrorism, an act which would allow Saddam to continue in his evil ways. But they stood mute. I don't blame France. France stood up for its own national interests. That is, after all, what the US is doing.
I believe this war will be immoral and illegal and illogical. But it will be legitimate, and in our best national interest. The reasons immoral and illegal and illogical are irrelevant. A conservative member of the British House of Commons put it best: If we were waging war for moral reasons, there would be many countries higher on our list than Iraq to fight with. If we were waging war for legal reasons, there would be many countries higher on our list than Iraq to fight with. If we were waging war for logical reasons, there would be many countries higher on our list than Iraq to fight with. We are left only with reasons of national security and national interest. And in that respect, Iraq is highest on the list.
I agree with that view pretty much. It neglects that this war would be illegal under international law, but since when has that stopped America (or anyone else) from waging war before? I believe the actions in Kosovo and Bosnia were legitimate, even though illegal.
So there are only two options left. Stand by the American ultimatum or back out. It is too late to back out, for doing so would only condone Saddam's actions and encourage him to keep up his games of deceit and his funding of terrorist activites. So as much as I wish to avoid war, as much as I protest war, I see no reasonable action other than following through completely with our ultimatum.
EDIT (5:20pm, 3/18/2003): Apparently I misquoted the British conservative from the House of Commons. What he said was that you cannot make a moral or legal case for war. If you were to make a moral case for war, there would be others higher on the list than Iraq to attack, and the same hold true with a legal argument. The only case you can make is the one concerning national interest or national security.
Blathering from another Bleeding Heart (Score:1)
That said, it doesn't mean I support this bully action, err, war! Let me list the reasons.
Interesting post and thread. (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe this war will be immoral and illegal and illogical. But it will be legitimate, and in our best national interest. The reasons immoral and illegal and illogical are irrelevant. A conservative member of the British House of Commons put it best: If we were waging war for moral reasons, there would be many countries higher on our list than Iraq to fight with. If we were waging war for legal reasons, there would be many countries higher on our list than Iraq to fight with. If we were waging war for logical reasons, there would be many countries higher on our list than Iraq to fight with. We are left only with reasons of national security and national interest. And in that respect, Iraq is highest on the list.
I see no reason why this must be illegal or immoral just because others may hold a higher spot on some arbitraty list, composed in a subjective manner, by anybody that wishes to list such things. As all of the legalities have been taken care of through the US Congress and through the UN it is patently not illegal. As Saddam has a proven track record of Stalinist behaviour it is certainly not immoral to remove him and his thugs.
If you, or the man you quote, would like to begin this action in a different spot on the list, by all means, gather your troops and have at it. Every movement begins someplace.
As for the first posting in response to you, that list is quite humerous. Duct tape, et al, when viewed in the context provided by the Administration, are all valid items. Pacifica radio wishes to spread hysteria and make fun of these measures, just as the rabid Left made fun of "duck and cover" during the Cold War, yes, this is a prudent reaction if you are even just a few miles from "ground zero".
Same with the nonsense that this war is "about oil", unless one is criticising the french, Germans and Russians. It is an empty, baseless accusation that does not even deserve the status of a bumper-sticker.
I am at a loss as to how the broken record of some (not you AntiFreeze) can continue to play for any action the US takes. I hate to break it to some readers, but often the US is right. We were right in Afghanastan and no, it was not "about oil" (remember Chomsky and his drones so recently?). We were right about Somolia at the beginning, wrong to leave, and that was not about oil either (yes, it was repeated endlessly). Plenty of wrong to go around over VietNam and it was not about oil either, yes this was said for decades there too.
If you want to see something "about oil" look to the other side fo the Atlantic, or examine the US policy to Iraq under Jimmy Carter that was finally REVERSED under Ronald Regan.
Same for the rest of that historical fiction spouted by the left.
There is nothing wrong with doing the right thing, even if it IS in your own interest.
What are the 'illegal' arguments? (Score:1)
* we are still at war from the 1992 conflict
* resolutions from 1992 up until 1441 threaten 'severe consequences' if he is in violation which:
* Hussein is in violation of many, many resolutions
The other day, I think it was Twirlip (and certainly many on the op-ed pages) said that the US seeking another resolution was a mistake, as action had already been authorized.
Just curio
Re:What are the 'illegal' arguments? (Score:2)
The only resolution which threatened "severe consequences" was 1441. And as the UN normally does, if consequences are threatened and terms not met, further resolutions outline and legitimize those consequences.
Yes, Hussein is in violation of many, many resolutions. And som
Re:What are the 'illegal' arguments? (Score:2)
If this is your positiojn then I really can not git a grip on where you are coming from.
On the otherhand, if you have not reviewed the other UNSEC resolutions since 1991 I can understand and only direct you to review them.
Re:What are the 'illegal' arguments? (Score:1)
Re:What are the 'illegal' arguments? (Score:1)
Throwing stones from afar (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that we've gotten that out of the way...
Don't get me wrong, I oppose this war completely. But the issue of legality is moot. In cases like this, international law is irrelevant, because it is unenforceable. Therefore, the Bush administration's attempts to wrap itself in legal justifications such as UN resolutions are little more than laughable. If the governing body of an ins