Journal singularity's Journal: On going to war... 4
Once again, I feel like I should write about what I see as obvious, since while it seems obvious to some people I know, it does not seem obvious to those who are in positions to do something about it right now.
From remarks by Attorney General John Ashcroft:
Since September the 11th, the U.S. intelligence community has indicated that the Al Qaida terrorist network is still determined to attack innocent Americans, both here and abroad.
innocent Americans
To Al Qaida, I do not think there is such things. Americans are guilty of interfering in the Middle East. We are guilty of ignoring the wishes of a lot of Arabs and Muslims living there. Remember - Bin Ladin used to be on our side, and only went against us after we did things (bases in Saudi Arabia) to tick him (and others like him) off.
Like it or not, Americans are guilty as a country and a people. As a country with a representative form of democracy, our decisions at the voting booth end up determining what sort of decisions will be made in regards to almost everything, including foreign policy.
We are a country, and a people of that country. We are each responsible, in the long run, for the decisions made by our government.
"A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
I am in no way saying that Americans deserve to die as a result of our country's previous decisions. I am saying that we are not the entirely innocent ones we believe ourselves to be. We may have acted like idiots before, but that in no way justifies death.
So what now? Let me examine some things surrounding a possibile war in Iraq:
1) We have no support from other countries. This goes along with my old response to "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" I always answer "Yes, since I trust my friends enough to make intelligent, rational decisions. If they all decide to jump off a bridge, there must be a good reason for doing so."
2) We have no exit strategy that I can find. Sure, we would probably roll over the Iraqi army in a matter of weeks. Where would that leave us? The Atlantic Monthly ran an article entitled "Iraq: The 51st. State?" a few months ago. Do we honestly think that the Middle East is stable enough to handle the removal of Suddam? As I type this, CNN is running an article entitled "After Saddam, then what?" How long were we in (West) Germany after WWII? Are we in this for how long it will take?
3) North Korea. We are hypocrites if we go to war in Iraq and not North Korea. Need I say more about this?
4) The final argument, and I believe to be the most strong one of all: We aim to go into Iraq on the grounds of terrorism. We aim to stop some terrorism threats by invading Iraq. Think about that for just a minute. What would make Arab terrorists more upset than almost anything? Gee, Alex, I am going to say "What is getting even more involved in an Arab country where Arabs everywhere believe we do not belong?" I will state this now: Invading Iraq will only increase the threat of terrorist's attacks. This is undoubtedly one of the results of a war in Iraq. This can be seen by the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks from before. A large basis for these attacks have their roots in the original Desert Storm.
I will not support an American war in Iraq, but realize that, as an American, I will be held accountable for the actions of my government on my behalf. This is a scary thought, as well.
In other news, I told my supervisor that I would refuse to assist in some anti-bioterrorism training and preparation. I am not sure how seriously he took me, but I stand by my decision. I am fairly confident I will not lose my job over this stand, but knowing my supervisors I might get some criticism for it from higher up.
Moo. (Score:2)
It is doubtful that there is no exit strategy. I'm assuming that there is one, and it will be presented when the time is ripe for it. Giving out too much information about what is going on would over-politicize it, and we'd end up having a catastrophe like Vietnam. We elected a Chief of ambassoders and the army, who decides our relationships with the world. Whether we agree with his opinions is a matter of debate, but to say he's incomepetant is to insult all that voted for him.
North Korea. We are hypocrites if we go to war in Iraq and not North Korea. Need I say more about this?
Yes, you do.
We are warring with Iraq because Iraq supports direct war with the US and has made some successful attacks. Further, Iraq monetarily supports terrorists who intend to destroy our closest ally. I don't think North Korea has all those qualifications.
You may want to reword your statement to say, "We are hipocrites if we go to war with Iraq, but are against another country's war with North Korea." That, I will agree with.
We aim to go into Iraq on the grounds of terrorism. We aim to stop some terrorism threats by invading Iraq. Think about that for just a minute. What would make Arab terrorists more upset than almost anything? Gee, Alex, I am going to say "What is getting even more involved in an Arab country where Arabs everywhere believe we do not belong?"
So you know what every Arab thinks? How arrogant you are. Or maybe you assume that what the Arab leaders think is automatically what their entire nation thinks? That is ridiculous.
The idea of war with Iraq is partially due to terrorism, and partially due to the lack of a democracy. How many democracies are in the Arab world? Are they that way by choice? Would they appreciate having a vote? I'd guess that if I could give the Arab world a chance to enjoy democracy, that they would choose it. I assume that because of the self-respect inherent in the average person, that their opinion counts. If they want to be ruled by someone else, they can do like Turkey, and vote the religious parties in power, or like the people did for the Duma in Russia putting the Communist party in power.
The Arab rulers may be terrified of what is done in Iraq. If people see that a democracy works, they will have a harder time keeping their rule over the people. Keep in mind that in Lebanon, Syria runs a lot. In Saudi Arabia, the minority is in power, and Arafat almost helped undo that. In Egypt, there are groups trying to overthrow the rulers. The countries are in power by force, and are not doing so well. If the new Iraq becomes a succesful democracy, that will start to undermine the other countries rule. That is why I think they are against it. Although, it is my belief that the poeple are for it. Of course they can't voice their opinions because there is no freedom of speech, and speaking your mind can cost your life.
I expect the war in Iraq to be quick, and hopefully, it will be rebuilt without the UN. If a democracy is put in place, it will lead to appreciation, not hate.
That's my $0.01. (I'm too cheap to give the other cent.)
Re:Moo. (Score:1)
Funny, I say exactly that in my journal when I said that Americans are responsible for the decisions made by her leaders.
And to say that he is incompetent is to do my duty as an American. The current administration might be doing its best to bring back the days of McCarthyism [schoolnet.co.uk], where speaking out against the government was suspicious and, at times, illegal, the First Amendment was created, in part, as a result of the crack-down of the British on the colonies complaining about the government. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that Americans would always have the right to criticize their government.
I suppose saying he is incompetant is to insult the people who voted for him. In my opinion, though, they deserve it - I feel they voted for an idiot (not that the current system gives a lot of choice in the matter, but that is a topic for another day entirely).
So you know what every Arab thinks? How arrogant you are. Or maybe you assume that what the Arab leaders think is automatically what their entire nation thinks? That is ridiculous.
Actually, I would show you statistics that back up the fact that a lot of Arabs disapprove of what the U.S. is attempting to do. I would direct you to a poll taken last year entitled What the World Thinks 2002 [people-press.org]:
Most people around the world are not fans of the U.S. going into Iraq to remove Suddam. They believe something must be done, but forceful invasion is not popular across the world, especially in Muslim countries.
In Saudi Arabia, the minority is in power, and Arafat almost helped undo that. In Egypt, there are groups trying to overthrow the rulers.
I will remind you that these are two of our larger supporters in the Mideast. Granted, even they do not like a war in Iraq, but if we were going to change anyone we could start no better place than with our friends.
That is why I think they are against it. Although, it is my belief that the poeple are for it. Of course they can't voice their opinions because there is no freedom of speech, and speaking your mind can cost your life.
I think I just showed you a survey that shows otherwise.
I am not a big fan of this "We are the United States, we are right, democracies are always the best for people, and therefore everyone should be a democracy, even if by force."
Note that I am in no way saying that I believe the Iraqis, especially the Kurds, would not be better off if they were not under Saddam. But I do not think that forcing a democracy is at all the best idea.
I expect the war in Iraq to be quick, and hopefully, it will be rebuilt without the UN. If a democracy is put in place, it will lead to appreciation, not hate.
You might be right about the democracy causing appreciation, *eventually*. My point is that, in the short term, forcing Iraq to do anything will cause a lot of hate, as demonstrated by the reprocussions from Desert Storm and from the survey I linked to above.
My other point: How long would it take to create this ideal Mideast democracy you seem to be in desire of? The war might be quick, but the rebuilding would be monstrous, lasting many years and requiring hundreds of billions of dollars.
No, I think that the other Arab countries are against a U.S. war on Iraq not for fear of democracy, but more short term fears: They fear that a war on Iraq, even one they disapprove of, will kill their economy.
Re:Moo. (Score:2)
Well, as soon as it is over, set up an interim government made up of non-Iraqi's for one month. During that month get ballots and debates out, and have them vote for a basic government. I don't see why that can't be done very quickly.
Re:Moo. (Score:2)
Funny, I say exactly that in my journal when I said that Americans are responsible for the decisions made by her leaders.
Yes, and in that I know that you agree with the first sentence. How about the second?
Specifically, you made your statement of, "We are a country, and a people of that country. We are each responsible, in the long run, for the decisions made by our government." under the heading "innocent Americans". You made that comment, not out of respect, rather, to say that everyone is guilty.
Then, in point 2) of "Let me examine some things surrounding a possibile war in Iraq:", you state, "We have no exit strategy that I can find.". Besides the implicit arrogance of the remark, you make it sound that there actually is no exit strategy. In other words, to make the president sound like a fool. I voted for him. Whether I like him or not is another question, but to make a statement to the effect that he goes to war with no exit strategy, is to say that he is a bumbling fool. I take offense to that. As I am sure mostly everyone who voted for him do.
And to say that he is incompetent is to do my duty as an American. The current administration might be doing its best to bring back the days of McCarthyism [schoolnet.co.uk], where speaking out against the government was suspicious and, at times, illegal,
What does suspicion have to do with incompetence? Suspicion at least grants the suspected the competence ascribed to most human beings. Your comment saying that he is incompetent, is not only pedantic, but shows that you would rather deal with ad-hominem attacks then intelligent questions. You probably assume that there are no intelligent answers. Well, if you can't grant basic dignity to another human being, I think very little of you.
the First Amendment was created, in part, as a result of the crack-down of the British on the colonies complaining about the government. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that Americans would always have the right to criticize their government.
Not quite. Virginia wanted that. The "Founding Fathers" would have no such thing.
The idea that people have rights is ridiculous. Noone has any rights. The Declaration of Independence [archives.gov] refers to inalienable rights, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Inalienable rights are not "rights" per say, they are respect for the human being. The Constitution, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, which was written by the "Founding Fathers" did not give rights to anyone. It only restricted the rights of government, and stated exactly what the various responisibilities are. Then came Virginia, for better or worse, and created this notion of "rights". IMO, the "Bill of Rights" was a "Bad Thing". It created this notion that people have "rights", a radical idea, and one that is at the heart of all too many disputes and misunderstandings.
Anyway, Freedom of Speech grants the right to speak. Though, I'm certain even Virginia didn't intend it to be used for vicious malignment of anybody.
I suppose saying he is incompetant is to insult the people who voted for him. In my opinion, though, they deserve it - I feel they voted for an idiot (not that the current system gives a lot of choice in the matter, but that is a topic for another day entirely).
You sir, have lost most of my respect. I cannot stand it when someone does not have the basic respect for others. To argue on points is one thing, but to say that someone that you disagree with is incompetent, is a very bad thing.
Actually, I would show you statistics that back up the fact
As is well known, or at least I think is well known, when one lives in a regime, one is suspect of everyone. How many people from those asked actually believed they were independant? Further, you spoke of Free Speech. Need I remind you that almost no other country has such a thing, especially the Arab regimes? Can the Arabs then make informed decisions?
Most people around the world are not fans of the U.S. going into Iraq to remove Suddam.
Most people in the world is a ratio dependant largely on Russia and China. China is a communist entity, with controlled media. Thus, they cannot be truly polled. Russia, has many deals with the Arab world (a prime source of selling weapons, next to France) and thus is automatically biased. With Russia's economy still in shambles, their very few revenue streams are of extreme importance. The Arab world is also there, but they are almost all regimes, with no free press, and opposition is generally met with incarciration or worse.
So, with Russia, China, and the Arab world not truly pollable, it is pretty much impossible to say accurately what "most of the world" actually thinks. You are better off trying to find out what "most of the *free* world" thinks, assuming you can find an organization to ask unbiased questions.
>In Saudi Arabia, the minority is in power, and Arafat almost helped undo that. In Egypt, there are groups trying to overthrow the rulers.
I will remind you that these are two of our larger supporters in the Mideast. Granted, even they do not like a war in Iraq, but if we were going to change anyone we could start no better place than with our friends.
Our friends? Our supporters?!?! What in the world has Saudi Arabia done to be a friend. They harbor kidnappers of US children, they put up a fight when we want to use their bases? Seriously, why are they a "friend"? Saudi Arabia is pretty much an enemy, I don't know how much worse they could be, besides doing what they do outright.
>That is why I think they are against it. Although, it is my belief that the poeple are for it. Of course they can't voice their opinions because there is no freedom of speech, and speaking your mind can cost your life.
I think I just showed you a survey that shows otherwise.
I disagree. Simply because it is nearly impossible to question such people and get informed, unsuspicious, replies.
I am not a big fan of this "We are the United States, we are right, democracies are always the best for people, and therefore everyone should be a democracy, even if by force."
Democracies are good for people. What other way respects their rights? If they don't want it, let them vote for a regime. But at least have the decency to let the every human being involved have a say.
But I do not think that forcing a democracy is at all the best idea.
How can it possibly be bad, if correctly implemented?
No, I think that the other Arab countries are against a U.S. war on Iraq not for fear of democracy, but more short term fears: They fear that a war on Iraq, even one they disapprove of, will kill their economy.
Whose economy will it ruin? Most of the economy dos not come from tourism (though Egypt is working on that). In some cases it comes from oil. Having Iraq out of the picture for a while will *help* their economy. I think the true fear is the regimes themselves. When the Iraqi's have a democracy, the regimes will have less of a hold on their own people. So, they use their controlled press to make people afraid of it for various reasons. But, when it gets down to it, it's just a few people, afraid of losing their control.