Understanding the "Other"

[John Galt]

Imagine you are an American (not a stretch for most of the people here) and the date is September 12, 2001. You are in New York City and looking out at the ruin of the Twin Towers. A friend of yours is still missing and you fear the worst. You keep wondering why this has happened. Why? Why? Your home is full of ash and currently uninhabitable. You watch the news at a friend's place and hear that hundreds or thousands may be dead. Why? Why?

There are stories that some man named Bin Laden has orchestrated these terrible attacks. He believes that the U.S. is responsible for global attacks on Muslims and Muslim nations. He believes that U.S. support of Israel is killing his people.

You wonder what this has to do with you. Why? Why? You didn't have anything to do with the bombing of Sudan, the war in Iraq, the billions Israel has received over the years, the betrayel of Muslim freedom fighters in Afghanistan, the training of Muslim-hunters in Indonesia, the invasion of Somalia, the funding of anti-Muslim groups in Egypt, the maintenance of dictatorships that limit Islamic influence in Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, the crackdown against Muslim in the Phillipines, and the mediation of a peace argreement that has failed to protect Palestinians.

Why is Bin Laden attacking you? Why is your friend underneath all that rubble? When will you have your home back? When will the next attack come? Why? Why?

[John Galt]

Now, imagine you are an Iraqi (probably a stretch for most of the people here) and the date is a week from now. You are in a small Iraqi town. A friend of yours is still missing and you fear the worst. You keep wondering why this has happened. Why? Why? Your family is dead in your home has been destroyed by a U.S. bomb. You listen to the news on a friend's radio and hear that hundreds or thousands may be dead. Why? Why?

There are stories that another man named Bush has orchestrated these terrible attacks. He believes that the Iraq is a threat to the United States.

You wonder what this has to do with you. Why? Why? You didn't have anything to do with the invasion of Kuwait and that was a long time ago. You don't know anything about chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. You have never even seen an Islamic terrorist.

Why is Bush attacking you? Why is your friend underneath all that rubble? How will you go on without your family? When will the next attack come? Why? Why?

I hope that Americans can understand that in the next few weeks In Iraq, many Iraqis will die (probably many more than the total of Americans (and others) on Sept. 11). People will lose their families, their homes, and their lives for something that has nothing to do with them.

[Kodos]

The difference being, on one side, the civilian casualties were unintentional, and great effort was made to minimize them, whereas on the other side, all efforts were made to maximize civilian casualties.

[sachmo71]

Interesting, Kodos.

I would have to take the opposite point of view, however. If someone destroyed my house and killed my family, I don't think it would make much difference to me if he was trying to be careful. He still killed my family and destroyed everything I owned.

[Draft Dodger]

and, I'll bet that there are more than a few Iraqis who are secretly hoping that Hussein gets ousted...

[Qwikshot]

I think the Iraqis are quite intelligent to know what is going on. They've been through this before, and they know the reason why. Now if they don't know the reason why, because of the information is selective, Saddam being a dictator and all, then it is good and a sufficient reason to go in and liberate the Iraqi people.

By the way, I don't recall Al-Quada giving ultimatums before attacking us, they just did...at least, the United States offered options before going into attack.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Interesting, Kodos.

I would have to take the opposite point of view, however. If someone destroyed my house and killed my family, I don't think it would make much difference to me if he was trying to be careful. He still killed my family and destroyed everything I owned.

True, but if they're starving because of U.S. enforced Sanctions anyway, would it matter?

[Kodos]

Sachmo: I wasn't suggesting that the suffering would be any less on either side. Just pointing out that one side tries to maximize the suffering, and the other side's aim is to minimize it.

[Bishop]

To compare these two, and try to say they are the same says a great deal about your character... none the less...


The difference is 9/11 couldn't be prevented unless we caught them ahead of time... the attacks on Iraq have had SEVERAL chances to be aborted, but there 'leader' would have no part of it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Kodos
The difference being, on one side, the civilian casualties were unintentional, and great effort was made to minimize them, whereas on the other side, all efforts were made to maximize civilian casualties.

Good point. You never hear anyone talking about the great pains, money and American lives that we're willing to sacrifice to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties. We could accomplish our military objectives and likely lose not a single American life if we simply carpet-bombed all target areas until they gave up. Instead, we spend billions of dollars developing smart weaponry and even commit ground troops, some of which will almost surely lose their lives.

EDIT: I wasn't paying attention...this was my 4,000th post!

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
True, but if they're starving because of U.S. enforced Sanctions anyway, would it matter?

If I were starving, then my family and home would be all that I had left. It might make me care even less for this caution.


Kodos,

I reread what you posted and I see where I missed that. Sorry!

[panerd]

Originally posted by Bishop
To compare these two, and try to say they are the same says a great deal about your character... none the less...


The difference is 9/11 couldn't be prevented unless we caught them ahead of time... the attacks on Iraq have had SEVERAL chances to be aborted, but there 'leader' would have no part of it.

This is questionable also. I bet an Al Quida member would say that the United States has had many chances to stop supporting Isreal, which of course we won't do. But then why do we think that Sadaam is going to freely step down? You have to admit they really weren't giving Sadaam any choices.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Good point. You never hear anyone talking about the great pains, money and American lives that we're willing to sacrifice to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties. We could accomplish our military objectives and likely lose not a single American life if we simply carpet-bombed all target areas until they gave up. Instead, we spend billions of dollars developing smart weaponry and even commit ground troops, some of which will almost surely lose their lives.

Skydog,

I don't know if people don't talk about this as much as the EXPECT it of us. It seems that America has, as a general rule, made in effort to minimize civilian casualties throughout our history. Not to say we've always been successful, but I think it's just one of those universal truths. At least that's the way most American's might see it!

[panerd]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Skydog,

I don't know if people don't talk about this as much as the EXPECT it of us. It seems that America has, as a general rule, made in effort to minimize civilian casualties throughout our history. Not to say we've always been successful, but I think it's just one of those universal truths. At least that's the way most American's might see it!

Devil's Advocate.

Hiroshima

[Bishop]

Originally posted by panerd
This is questionable also. I bet an Al Quida member would say that the United States has had many chances to stop supporting Isreal, which of course we won't do. But then why do we think that Sadaam is going to freely step down? You have to admit they really weren't giving Sadaam any choices.

Stop supporting Israel, let all there people fend for themselves, let them be blown up on the bus to work...



How unfair of us, to ask a man who has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, ruled his country with an iron fist and secretly been pooling more weapons of mass destruction which he constantly denied ever having...

Lets make sure we wait untill he kills thousands, perhaps millions of people before we can fairly ask him to remove himself, or remove his weapons (option 2).

Lets get real, oppose war all you want... Nobody *likes* it but if you have so many issues with ANY country that you LIVE IN, move the fuck out.

[John Galt]

Kodos and Skydog argue that the U.S. tries to minimize deaths whereas other countries or terrorists don't.

I think Sachmo's reply is consistent with the original purpose of my post. For the people dying and suffering, intention doesn't matter much - your family is gone. While that is all I really wanted to talk about in this thread, discussions have quickly gone beyond that, so let me offer a couple other arguments:

First, the US avoids maximizing civilian deaths because it CAN whereas poorer nations or terrorists don't have that luxury. I agree with Skydog in that the US is good because they have poored tons of money into smart weapons, but I'm not sure our motives are so pure. I think a reasonable argument can be made that smart weapons are just better militarily for targetting and that we decrease civilian deaths to prevent a public backlash in the post-Vietnam era. Either way, terrorists can't attack Fort Knox in the U.S. because they won't likely succeed. Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that the attacks on the Twin Towers where therefore justified. I am saying that if terrorists want to exercise their will through military means (like the U.S.), they can't do so in the ways we do.

Second, terrorists have not actually caused that many civilian deaths. Civilian deaths in the original Gulf War and in Afghanistan far exceeded the deaths on Sept. 11th. The point that they seek to maximize deaths seems wrong given the targets normally selected. The WTC was targetted for its significance - there were many other targets to hit to increase body counts.

Third, the US continues to support regimes that don't use our judgment. My examples in the original post go to this point.

Fourth, citizens of a dictatorship are "more innocent" (if that is possible) than we are. We are in a democracy and therefore responsible for the actions of our government in aiding anti-Muslim regimes. Citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have no influence over their government and no means to escape - they cannot be held accountable in the same way.

Fifth, the US does target a lot of dual-use targets that ensure civilian deaths including telecomm and other industries.

None of this defends terrorism - I only seek to highlight that the intentional killing line is a bit fuzzy.

[Brillig]

never mind

[panerd]

Originally posted by Bishop
Stop supporting Israel, let all there people fend for themselves, let them be blown up on the bus to work...



How unfair of us, to ask a man who has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, ruled his country with an iron fist and secretly been pooling more weapons of mass destruction which he constantly denied ever having...

Lets make sure we wait untill he kills thousands, perhaps millions of people before we can fairly ask him to remove himself, or remove his weapons (option 2).

Lets get real, oppose war all you want... Nobody *likes* it but if you have so many issues with ANY country that you LIVE IN, move the fuck out.

Jesus Christ, why don't you chill out dude? I actually support the war with Iraq, I wonder what would happen if I opposed it.

Earlier I thought that Darkiller may have been a little over the line with his interpretation of FOF pro-war hawks. But damn, you take the cake. So I should "get the fuck out" for at least considering an opposing point of view. How refreshing.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
Kodos and Skydog argue that the U.S. tries to minimize deaths whereas other countries or terrorists don't.

I think Sachmo's reply is consistent with the original purpose of my post. For the people dying and suffering, intention doesn't matter much - your family is gone. While that is all I really wanted to talk about in this thread, discussions have quickly gone beyond that, so let me offer a couple other arguments:

First, the US avoids maximizing civilian deaths because it CAN whereas poorer nations or terrorists don't have that luxury. I agree with Skydog in that the US is good because they have poored tons of money into smart weapons, but I'm not sure our motives are so pure. I think a reasonable argument can be made that smart weapons are just better militarily for targetting and that we decrease civilian deaths to prevent a public backlash in the post-Vietnam era. Either way, terrorists can't attack Fort Knox in the U.S. because they won't likely succeed. Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that the attacks on the Twin Towers where therefore justified. I am saying that if terrorists want to exercise their will through military means (like the U.S.), they can't do so in the ways we do.

Second, terrorists have not actually caused that many civilian deaths. Civilian deaths in the original Gulf War and in Afghanistan far exceeded the deaths on Sept. 11th. The point that they seek to maximize deaths seems wrong given the targets normally selected. The WTC was targetted for its significance - there were many other targets to hit to increase body counts.

Third, the US continues to support regimes that don't use our judgment. My examples in the original post go to this point.

Fourth, citizens of a dictatorship are "more innocent" (if that is possible) than we are. We are in a democracy and therefore responsible for the actions of our government in aiding anti-Muslim regimes. Citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have no influence over their government and no means to escape - they cannot be held accountable in the same way.

Fifth, the US does target a lot of dual-use targets that ensure civilian deaths including telecomm and other industries.

None of this defends terrorism - I only seek to highlight that the intentional killing line is a bit fuzzy.

Grrrr...

John, overall that was a good post, worthy of a point-by-point response, and actually I agree with you on some points. However, I need to run. I'll be back fairly late (for me) tonight, and probably won't be too tired to be coherent. I'll get back to you dark and early in the morning.

(Although I DO reserve the right to post something silly and superfluous in this thread or another before I go to bed tonight )

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sachmo71
If I were starving, then my family and home would be all that I had left. It might make me care even less for this caution.


Kodos,

I reread what you posted and I see where I missed that. Sorry!

I'm just stating that it wouldn't matter on their views of the U.S. as anything but imperialists regardless of whether or not they are killed in the bombing.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Bishop
To compare these two, and try to say they are the same says a great deal about your character... none the less...


The difference is 9/11 couldn't be prevented unless we caught them ahead of time... the attacks on Iraq have had SEVERAL chances to be aborted, but there 'leader' would have no part of it.

Please don't say anything about my character because it has nothing to do with this discussion. You may disagree, but my character is not the issue.

A couple people have argued that the US didn't have warning before Sept 11, while Iraq had warning. This doesn't really address my point that the warnings didn't help the citizens who are dying, but it is also factually incorrect. Bin Laden warned the US on many occassions that if we did not withdraw from Israel and Saudi Arabia, attacks on the U.S. would result. We didn't listen, but the warning was there.

[illinifan999]

I just saw on FOX, that they are trying to get Iraqi people to listen to the coalition radio, so they can tell them how to stay safe.

[Bishop]

Originally posted by panerd
Jesus Christ, why don't you chill out dude? I actually support the war with Iraq, I wonder what would happen if I opposed it.

Earlier I thought that Darkiller may have been a little over the line with his interpretation of FOF pro-war hawks. But damn, you take the cake. So I should "get the fuck out" for at least considering an opposing point of view. How refreshing.

I wasn't specifically talking about you, and I wasn't asking or saying you if you did or didn't support the war.

There is nothing wrong with having an opposing point of view, but when people start forcing there point of view apon others such by taking a terriorist attack and trying to drive sympathy for something someone already has it for... then that is forcing your view.

I can't speak for the majority, but I support the war, I support the people who are fighting in the war. Not because I want to see iraqi's killed or suffer but because there is someone who controls that country that I honestly feel endangers many people, including my family.

I hope and pray that there are few casualties on both sides, and in the surrounding countries.

and you may wanna look at yourself in the mirror when it comes to chilling out, because with a reply like that,it makes you no more better then me.

[GrantDawg]

Nothing anybody would say will be good enough for you John, but I'll give it my shot (how be it off target I'm sure).

Your comparison is faulty. The person looking at the burning hulk in New York probably didn't have the government come into his home before it was destroyed, take his family to prison, subject his wife and daughter to rape, and himself to torture because he didn't agree with the President.

Have you? Have you been imprisoned because you do not agree with Bush? When you go to the polls, are you threatened to keep you from voting for whomever you like? Has anybody in your family been killed because they did not agree with the Republican party?

I think many Iraqi's, though they will bemoan the loss of their home, will still be glad that the war happened. The majority of the Iraqi people will celebrate the end of Hussien's regime.

The two are not an even comparison.

[CamEdwards]

John,

Having spoken to many Iraqi Americans over the past two months, I am appalled at your comparison. You are talking out of your rear end when you make this comparison.

I strongly suggest you talk with people like Kato Saadllah and members of the Iraqi-American community in Dearborne, MI before you try another one of your clever analogies.

[John Galt]

CamEdwards and Grantdawg - I agree the human rights situation in Iraq is abysmal. And I agree that makes the US different than Iraq. I would not go as far as Cam and say I'm "talking out of my rear end," but I will not dispute that some of the things that happen in Iraq are horrific.

With that being said, let me offer three points:

First, my original post was about those who die or suffer tremendous loss. To them, I doubt the "liberation" will make much of a difference. And for them, I feel solidarity and sorrow. I hope that all the Iraqi citizens survive the night (although I know that will not happen).

Second, while I know there is opposition in Iraq, I think both of you underestimate the support Saddam has. It is impossible to know for certain because free speech is non-existent, but I also think it is a mistake to assume those that have escaped and moved to the US are representative. The fact that they came here proves they were a self-selected group of Saddam-haters. The reason I believe support is high is based on experience of other countries with long term dictators. When the leader is removed, not as many cheer as one would think.

Third, support or human rights is a little beside the issue when the US is killing civilians. Yes, Saddam is wrong and bad, but I'm not arguing against his removal - I'm arguing against the way we are going about it (I know we have already had this discussion before Cam, but I bring it up to highlight that I don't support "doing nothing"). And I'm a very big supporter of human rights promotion. Unfortunately, war is a poor means to bring it about and believe it or not, Iraq, is not the worst human rights offender in the world.

BTW Cam, how can a TMBG fan be so angry sometimes? Is there no birdhouse in your soul?

[Buzzbee]

Hmmm. If I were an Iraqi and Saddam was killed, I can picture myself singing the following while dancing in the streets:

[Begin dream sequence)

Ding, Dong, the witch is dead. The wicked witch is dead.

Ding, Dong, the witch is dead. The wicked witch is dead.

[cut to different scene]

We represent, the TowelHead Guild, the TowelHead Guild, the TowelHead Guild.

And on behalf of the TowelHead Guiiiiiiiiiild, we'd like to welcome you to desert land.

[End dream sequence]

[GrantDawg]

The majority of the population are not Sunni Muslems (which Saddam is) but are either Kurds or Shiites (who have been severely oppressed by Saddam). I think that saying a huge majority will be glad of Saddam's end is not an over-estimation by far.

As for bringing down Saddam by "other means" that has been tried for 12 years and has not worked. Less people will die in war than would die by another 12 years of peace.

[GrantDawg]

dola: By the way, I hope along with you that there will be very little loss of life on both sides. Understand, I wish nothing but the best from the Iraqi people and hope this come to a quick resolution.

[John Galt]

We represent, the TowelHead Guild, the TowelHead Guild, the TowelHead Guild.

Real funny, a joke with racial slurs.

The majority of the population are not Sunni Muslems (which Saddam is) but are either Kurds or Shiites (who have been severely oppressed by Saddam). I think that saying a huge majority will be glad of Saddam's end is not an over-estimation by far.

I think you are pretty right, but Saddam has done a pretty good job of making Iraq more secular than other Islamic nations. He has doled out a lot of abuse, but his support is still amazingly high. Either way, his support isn't really the core issue - the whole country could be asking us to invade and it wouldn't necessarily follow that war is "right."

As for bringing down Saddam by "other means" that has been tried for 12 years and has not worked. Less people will die in war than would die by another 12 years of peace.

While I don't want to get into this in this thread, I made the argument elsewhere that the US should have lifted sanctions to remove Saddam (just as it should for Cuba and North Korea). The strategy we used for the last 12 years sucked, but I think the war sucks a lot too.

[GrantDawg]

I will not get into it if you don't want to, but I'll go ahead and point out the sanctions are UN sanctions not US sanctions.

[The Afoci]

Just a question? How would lifting the sanctions remove Saddam from power? Now how many countries go into war doing everything they can to avoid civilian deaths. The US has made it overly clear this is only about Saddam and his Senior Leadership group. We are even delaying the big one because we feel that many of his people are going to surrender.

Somehow I don't think the terrorists on 9-11 were waiting to see if we were going knock down the twin towers or light the pentagon on fire. Iraqis are trying to revolt against there oppression constantly. They are trying to defy Saddam. Big difference between 9-11 and the war...

[GrantDawg]

This is a strange coincidence. CNN is interviewing Iraqi's in the US and one lost a home to a missile in 1991 and does not blame the US.

[John Galt]

Ok - let me make a brief case for lifting sanctions:

First off, they are UN sanctions, but US driven. Does anyone really doubt that if the US wanted to lift sanctions, the UN would? Besides, every one around here seems to hate the UN anyway - we could just start trading with Iraq.

Now, I believe open, agressive free trade is the best way to improve human rights and remove dictators. The spread of free markets typically bring freer societies that can't be controlled by dictators. The development of a middle class has proven pivotal in societies around the globe for brining development and greater respect for personal liberty. The cases are numerous ranging from small countries in Southeast Asia and South America to large countries that undergoing slower transitions like China.

Also, sanctions bring about cultural exchange that diminishes hatred between peoples. During the Cold War, we all thought Russians were different and should be feared. Nowadays, we understand they aren't much different. I also believe for this reason, CBM's (confidence-building measures) should be pursued with Iraq and other "terrorist" nations. Engaging those who hate us is the only way to bring trust and peace. War only sows the seeds of new enemies.

Sanctions have starved the Iraqi people and allowed Saddam to maintain a tight control on his society. Open borders and wealth into the country would eventually diminish Saddam's control. Yes, Saddam would try to control things and hoard the wealth, but virtually every country with trade with US has found out that black markets develop and eventually a middle class with power follows. Maybe Iraq would be an exceptional country that would violate the rule, but we will never know now. We never gave real peace a chance.

BTW, Afoci - to answer your other points, read my long post above concerning civilian deaths.

[ahbrady]

America is trying to take out a ruthless dictator that has a history of cruelty towards his and other people. The terrorists, while they would probably argue that Bush is ruthless and been cruel to their people, were not trying to do anything to him personally. Their attacks were intended to kill as many civilians as possible. I do realize that if your family were dead, you might not care why they were killed. There will be some Iraqis that feel that way, but my hope is there will be more that will be happy to be liberated. I realize that this is different, but do you think that people in France, Poland, etc. weren't happy to be liberated from Hitler? I'm sure they were devastated by their losses but still glad that it was stopped. Should we just sit idly by and wait for Saddam to amass more and more weapons until we can't do anything or until he starts attacking other countries? At some point enough is enough.

[Bee]

First, the US avoids maximizing civilian deaths because it CAN whereas poorer nations or terrorists don't have that luxury. I agree with Skydog in that the US is good because they have poored tons of money into smart weapons, but I'm not sure our motives are so pure. I think a reasonable argument can be made that smart weapons are just better militarily for targetting and that we decrease civilian deaths to prevent a public backlash in the post-Vietnam era. Either way, terrorists can't attack Fort Knox in the U.S. because they won't likely succeed. Let me be clear, I am NOT saying that the attacks on the Twin Towers where therefore justified. I am saying that if terrorists want to exercise their will through military means (like the U.S.), they can't do so in the ways we do.

I tend to disagree with your assumption (or at least it appears to be your assumption) that the terrorists only kill civilians because they can't afford to avoid them. That's obviously not true. They've attacked military bases, the USS Cole, etc. They have also intentionally targeted civilians. I'm somewhat of a liberal and have supported "freedom fighters" that have in the past been portrayed negatively in the US. But they were fighting against a repressive government by attacking the government, not the people. The terrorists are attacking civilians and that is totally unacceptable to me. I may understand their cause and even sympathize with it, but I will not support their actions. I may think the US sticks its nose in places it doesn't belong too often, but terrorism against citizens is absolutely not acceptable.


Second, terrorists have not actually caused that many civilian deaths. Civilian deaths in the original Gulf War and in Afghanistan far exceeded the deaths on Sept. 11th. The point that they seek to maximize deaths seems wrong given the targets normally selected. The WTC was targetted for its significance - there were many other targets to hit to increase body counts.

First, the civilian deaths in both the Gulf War and Afghanistan has been greatly disputed. I've actually seen numbers lower than those of 9-11, but assuming you are correct you are comparing a single act of terrorism against two wars? Do you want to go back over the last 12 years and count up all the civilians that have been killed by islamic fundamentalists and compare that to all the civilians killed in those two wars?
I do agree that terrorists do not try to maximize civilian deaths, they try to maximize terror. They do so with no regard to civilian deaths at all.

Third, the US continues to support regimes that don't use our judgment. My examples in the original post go to this point.

I agree totally. The US supports countries that disgust me.


Fourth, citizens of a dictatorship are "more innocent" (if that is possible) than we are. We are in a democracy and therefore responsible for the actions of our government in aiding anti-Muslim regimes. Citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan have no influence over their government and no means to escape - they cannot be held accountable in the same way.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure if I agree totally. In a way, I agree they have less control over their government than we do. In another way, I disagree because there are many cases throughout history where people in similar conditions have thrown off the chains of a dictator and revolted. While I understand the fear these people have of their dictator, I think there is some culpability on their part for not fighting against it. Like I said, I'm torn on this issue and see both sides.


Fifth, the US does target a lot of dual-use targets that ensure civilian deaths including telecomm and other industries.

I agree. There's also a history of the US providing aid, food, medicine, etc, even during military conflicts.



None of this defends terrorism - I only seek to highlight that the intentional killing line is a bit fuzzy.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think the line is fuzzy at all. The US is not perfect, and I have disagreed with many things they have done in the past (especially in the 80's). I'm also not thrilled by this war and to be completely honest I don't think war was absolutely necessary at this time (although I do understand the reasons behind it). I also think Bush really screwed up diplomatically and we could have had world support if it would have been handled better. Bush is a cowboy diplomatically and I for one will not be voting for him in the next election. I also understand that the degree of suffering by loved ones does not differ whether the death was intentional or accidental. But all that being said, there is a huge difference between the two cases you are describing in my eyes and to be honest, I can't imagine how anyone can not see the difference.

[EagleFan]

It's amazing, you think that lifting sanctions will suddenly lift Saddam's control. He will still be in control of what his peoplpe get and what happens in his country. The 50 years of the Cold War weren't because of sanctions, they were because of the communist government's control over the people. If you want to wait anothe 20 years for his regime to finally end and for several more hundred thhousands of people to die than you are a real hypocrit.

Imagine, waking up one morning in Iraq and your wife has been taken away because she is a teacher and her students have opposed the government. Imagine being forced to watch her rape and murder. You had nothing to do with this, and neither did she. You hear that some other country wants to end your government's reign of terror but the french and others are blocking it. Why? Why? Why?

[John Galt]

Bee, you raise several good points. I'll try not to omit any important points, but I don't want to end up with a massive reply taking up too much space.

They've attacked military bases, the USS Cole, etc. They have also intentionally targeted civilians.

Very true, but attacking military targets in the US is a whole different matter. Bin Laden, it could be argued, was trying to get at the US and embassies, military boats, etc. were not getting the job done. Bin Laden and other terrorists attack civilian targets in part because most military targets are extremely high risk ventues. The Cole was exposed and made a target, but there aren't many chances to focus on the military of the US. Israel has also created this reality by heavily securing military targets causing terrorists to focus on significant symbols and civilian targets. It isn't right, but it isn't as if Bin Laden could have used "smart" weapons.

Do you want to go back over the last 12 years and count up all the civilians that have been killed by islamic fundamentalists and compare that to all the civilians killed in those two wars?

If you count all the deaths from terrorists, then you should also count the deaths of Muslims caused by US sponsored regimes. The deaths Israel has caused exceed those caused by Palestinian terrorists and other regimes have far worse imbalances. And I think the Gulf War numbers were pretty high (I can't find a good source right now). Terrorists actually kill a very small number compared to the attention they get (which is one of their purposes).

I agree totally. The US supports countries that disgust me.

You may agree with me in principle, but I'm guessing you don't think one of those countries is Israel (like I do).

there is a huge difference between the two cases you are describing in my eyes and to be honest, I can't imagine how anyone can not see the difference.

My original point wasn't to make this a pro-war/anti-war discussion. I was trying to argue that the notion of "sides" on this issue ignores the commonality we have with Iraqi citizens. While the situations might be different, the pain an Iraqi suffers from a bomb is similar to the pain we suffered on Sept. 11. "Sides" don't matter as much when you lose your family. That was all I was trying to convey - some people in this thread have just read between the lines because they know my overall beliefs, but that shouldn't effect my original point.

[John Galt]

It's amazing, you think that lifting sanctions will suddenly lift Saddam's control.

I never said it would, but we should have spent the last 12 years trying. Our record of regime change through war is not so good since WWII. Ever since then, we have usually caused more problems than we have solved. We seem to forget that we aided Bin Laden and Saddam to trigger regime changes in Iran and Afghanistan. Look where that landed us. Free trade is a slow solution, but one with a better track record.

[TroyF]

John,

Here's my take:

1) I don't know how I'd feel. I'm NOT in their shoes and never will be.

2) I can empathize with them and can imagine how they'd feel if they assumed the US did it not trying to help them, but slaughter them.

3) I have always worked very hard to understand the "other" side of a debate. It's something I believe you have to do.

I do understand and I still feel this war not only should take place, I feel it is a necessity. I can "see" the other side and why they think the way they do. Hell, maybe they'll be right and this will end up being worse for us than I can possibly imagine.

My opinion that this needs to be done isn't some emotional, non thought out decision. I understand it won't be 100% pretty and that Americans and Iraqis will die. I also understand there will be anti-American sentiment for doing this.

If your question is one of just making people understand the other side, I respect that. . . I think it's a fair question that SHOULD be answered by all those supporting military conflict. However, I think you may have missed the fact that many of us who are for the war have already thought about that.

I wonder how many anti-war protesters are asking similar difficult questions. Is it morally OK to sit by while a tyrant slaughters and rapes his own people? Should we always wait until a psychotic murderer gets nuclear warheads before we step in and stop them? If the answer to that question is yes, when will too much be too much, when do we step in and take care of business?

Are the questions above loaded? Damned right they are. Still, they should be asked and they should be thought about.

TroyF

[CamEdwards]

I'm sorry, didn't we have free trade with Saddam up until the Gulf War?

Yep... worked very well. It sure stopped him from gassing those Kurds.

Intent DOES matter, and your argument (and this whole discussion) is pointless until you recognize that. Even people who are bombed understand the intent behind the action. The intent of Osama bin Laden is to rid the Islamic world of Western influence. Of course, instead of lobbying or bribing the Saudi officials with his billions of dollars, he'd rather go about it by killing civilians. He's not after regime change, he's not after liberating a country, he's about imposing his twisted view of the Muslim faith on a region.

Our purpose in Iraq has been stated here and in other threads. I don't need to get into it here.

I would again state that you need to talk to people who've been affected by the US in the first Gulf War, people who've fled Saddam's Iraq, people who remember what it was like before Saddam, and people who wonder why the world (with the exception of the US and the coalition) has turned it's collective back on the people of the Iraq.

Are there other countries with worse human rights abuses? Yes, and we deal with them in other ways. This, bottom line, is not a war of liberation. It's a great side effect, but that's not why we're there. If the UN places disarmament obligations on other countries and they defy for twelve years, then I guess we'll be obliged to go into those countries as well.

And to finish with a quote from TMBG

"This is where the story ends,
I can't stand here listening to you..."

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
This, bottom line, is not a war of liberation. It's a great side effect, but that's not why we're there.

No offense is meant by this Cam, but these are bush's own words:

US President George W Bush rallied US troops on Friday, telling them that a war in Iraq would be "not to conquer but to liberate".

gotten from here:link

[CamEdwards]

Yes, in terms of conquering versus liberation, we're liberating. In terms of why we're going to war... it's to disarm Iraq.

BTW, Bush might have been addressing the troops, but he was talking to the world.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by John Galt
I never said it would, but we should have spent the last 12 years trying. Our record of regime change through war is not so good since WWII. Ever since then, we have usually caused more problems than we have solved. We seem to forget that we aided Bin Laden and Saddam to trigger regime changes in Iran and Afghanistan. Look where that landed us. Free trade is a slow solution, but one with a better track record.

actually free trade would have made them into a North Korea, and we know how well that's working out...

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Yes, in terms of conquering versus liberation, we're liberating. In terms of why we're going to war... it's to disarm Iraq.

BTW, Bush might have been addressing the troops, but he was talking to the world.

I have about 15-20 articles in front of me saying we're going in there to liberate the Iraqi people. Not saying you're wrong, just saying what Bush and his advisors are saying, have been saying. There can be many reasons to go in there I'm sure.

[ahbrady]

I think we're going in their to liberate their people, but also liberating any other nations that are living in fear of Saddam.

I don't think free trade is the way to work out problems we have with other countries. There are several countries that we have had free trade with, but they haven't always worked our way. I know war hasn't always worked either, but I think if this is done right then it can and will work.

[illinifan999]

Go USA!!!

[Tarkus]

Now, imagine you are an Iraqi (probably a stretch for most of the people here) and the date was a month ago. You are in a small Iraqi town. A friend of yours is still missing and you fear the worst. You keep wondering why this has happened. Why? Why? Your family is dead in your home has been destroyed by an Iraqi dictator. You listen to the news on a friend's radio and hear that hundreds or thousands may be dead. Why? Why?

There are stories that another man named Saddam Hussein has orchestrated these terrible attacks. He believes that your family is a threat to his regime.

You wonder what this has to do with you. Why? Why? You didn't have anything to do with the Kurds and that was a long time ago. You don't know anything about chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. You have never even seen a Kurd.

Why is Saddam Hussein attacking you? Why is your friend underneath all that rubble? How will you go on without your family? When will the next attack come? Why? Why?

I hope that Americans can understand that if you do nothing in Iraq, in the next few months many Iraqis will die (probably many more than the total of Americans (and others) on Sept. 11). People will lose their families, their homes, and their lives for something that has nothing to do with them.

John, I've taken a few liberties with your story. Hopefully this will provide some insight regarding the motivation for the War in Iraq.

Tarkus

[Noble_Platypus]

Originally posted by Bishop
Stop supporting Israel, let all there people fend for themselves, let them be blown up on the bus to work...



How unfair of us, to ask a man who has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, ruled his country with an iron fist and secretly been pooling more weapons of mass destruction which he constantly denied ever having...

Lets make sure we wait untill he kills thousands, perhaps millions of people before we can fairly ask him to remove himself, or remove his weapons (option 2).

Lets get real, oppose war all you want... Nobody *likes* it but if you have so many issues with ANY country that you LIVE IN, move the fuck out.

Amen

[Radii]

Originally posted by Tarkus
John, I've taken a few liberties with your story. Hopefully this will provide some insight regarding the motivation for the War in Iraq.

Tarkus

I think you totally missed the point of the post, Tarkus. I'm assuming none of us remember the Civil War personally, so the comparasion to 9/11 seems a valid one to me. For those of us in America it is the only example of innocent lives being taken within the safety and security of our homeland by an outside force.

For the compassionate among us, it seems reasonable to simply think about the fact that there are going to be a lot of innocent iraqi's who die at our hands, intentional or not.

The fact that Saddam is a ruthless leader who has been known to kill his own, is certainly a valid counter to this argument, but still I don't see the problem with simply letting the initial posts speak for themselvse without twisting them wildly.

If we're going to pre-judge Darkiller because his location is "Paris, France" the least we can do is pre-judge John Galt for his location saying "Manhattan" He certainly has more of a right than my "Atlanta, GA" to discuss 9/11.

Third post of the day I'm going to regret not deleting.