What's gibberish is this childish and intrinsically meaningless "war for oil" line that I'd thought people on your side had finally gotten tired of. I suppose you would still consider reporting on such abuses to be "emotional gibberish" if it was your parent, child, or sibling being unearthed from the mass grave, or your baby who was frozen after its death so it could be put on propaganda display on some later date, or if you yourself were about to be put feet first into an industrial shredder? My reason for introducing the two articles was not chiefly for the sake of justifying the war, but rather to give one response to Alfonso's ludicrous notion that Saddam's regime was trustworthy - and his underlying assumption that leaving it in power would have been some costless and morally superior policy. The context was obvious. If you weren't so eager to spray your lefty cliches, you'd have noticed. I've gone into the multiple justifications for the war many times on other threads on ET. If you had been paying attention, you also could have heard them enunciated by the Bush Administration. They include many of the reasons that led President Clinton to back and sign the Iraqi Relations Act in 1998, officially making Iraq regime change the bi-partisan policy of this country. However, I do consider the evils of Iraq's regime and the suffering of the Iraqi people to be among the arguments for the war. In the case of Iraq we had special responsibility for this situation - not because, as many on war movement inaccurately and pointlessly claim, the US was ever a major supporter of Saddam's - but because we participated in the post-Gulf War sanctions program, and turned away both when people we had encouraged rose up against Saddam, and also when Saddam's government flagrantly violated the ceasefire agreements that ended the Gulf War. As for the larger point, when human rights abuses reach genocidal proportions, I do believe there's an argument for intervention. Of course, the interventions have to be practicable - they have to have some prospect of durably altering the situation for the better- and there's a risk of exhaustion. Unfortunately, most countries in the world community are incapable of providing substantial assistance. Once upon a time, the left looked favorably on the end of tyranny, and many of its members would have celebrated the fall of a Saddam Hussein almost regardless of how it was brought about.
you never answered my question -- why haven't we stuck our noses into the business of other countries with similar human rights violations?? as for your "it's all about the oil" thing -- how could it NOT be about oil?? the entire administration is full of oil men...i really don't think you understand how much power these people have. i don't blame you. it would blow your mind. they stole an election, for christ's sakes... the HAL contracts speak for themselves. and again, your response is the same emotional heart wrenching "well, what if it was YOUR child buried in some ditch??" well, if it was i hope that my intellect would stay firm enough not to let my gut dictate my actions. like i said before -- you can't handle the truth. it's staring you right in the face, and you're letting imagery of saddam and his sons and dirty hospitals get in the way... i remember when W said he was against "nation building" --- could he be so stupid to not even know the meaning of that simple phrase??? maybe. but i hope not. and when the fuck is HAL going to give us our $60B back???
There are numerous answers to that question. I believe I stated my own position and beliefs fairly clearly, but you appear to have a problem either with reading comprehension or with simple logic: The conditions that obtained in relation to Iraq - multiple justifications for intervention; special responsibility including past history and active, ongoing involvement; practicality and prospects for success - do not obtain everywhere in the world where madmen and despots hold power. In addition, as sorry a state as many countries in the world are in, the number that are on a par with Saddam's Iraq is actually relatively small. If you would like to discuss this specific question - when human rights violations in themselves justify external intervention - we can do that. It would help if first you made the effort to read and think about the material that's already before your eyes. Implying that the war offered special benefit to particular oil or oil service companies or other oil interests - and more than some other policy might have - is not a response to any other argument about the war. It's a hobby horse to ride for people who hold simplistic notions about how the world works. They say virtually nothing. Even if there was something to this point - or if, merely for the sake or argument, we pretended that the Bush Administration pushed the war solely in order to benefit HAL - that wouldn't logically force us to conclude that the war was unjust, unnecessary, mistaken, or immoral. If the war was just and necessary - independently of whatever the Bush Administration thought or said or intended - then whether or not HAL benefited is a minor concern. If the war was unjust, then, even if it was prosecuted for altruistic reasons, it would still remain unjust. The rest of your statements simply re-iterate your prior point - about the supposed emotionalism of pointing out the Iraqi regime's atrocities - while continuing to ignore the contexts that I put them in. What really is stupid is thinking that Bush might not understand the phrase. It's probably about as stupid not to notice what has changed in the world, and, thankfully, in Bush's own thinking, since the Presidential campaign. Bush was as willfully blind about the world as most of us were back in the '90s. Expecting Bush to have backed an aggressive, interventionist policy in the '00 campaign is just about as unrealistic as thinking that Clinton could have launched a full-scale intervention in Afghanistan in response to the embassy bombings, or in Iraq in response to Hussen's frequent violations of post-Gulf War agreements and resolutions: They might arguably have been just and appropriate responses, but they weren't in the cards. As I was saying, once upon a time, the Left stood for principle in the world - for human rights, social justice, progress - now it stands for conspiracy theories and phony, narrow-minded budgeting.
facts? why is that any more or less believable than anything else said on the issue? another piece of unsubstantiated hype. all that's missing is a cheesy synth-drum foxnews soundtrack. and the last sentence, "The author is an MP and special envoy on human rights in Iraq to the Prime Minister," does little to inspire confidence in the objectivity of the article. why is there even a need for a persuasive essay to sell such a patently obvious, monstrous genocide? one single piece of solid evidence would be enough to shut up every french/commie/nonbeliever on Earth. why is there a need to rely on "bureaucratic" strategies to justify the war?
Was that "once upon a time" you speak of, back when you were a young idealist communist? Now your conversion to the polar opposite likely contains the same degree of certainty, and faith in party. Sell yourself to the right or the left, you are still selling yourself. You sound like a ditto head. You spend a tremendous amount of time in the practice of justification these days. Running for the job of the next press secretary? Or is it minister of propaganda you are after. Seriously, you have no objectivity any more......maybe you never did.
"What really is stupid is thinking that Bush might not understand the phrase. It's probably about as stupid not to notice what has changed in the world, and, thankfully, in Bush's own thinking, since the Presidential campaign." If it looks like nation building, if it walks like nation building, if it quacks like nation building.....it is nation building. Justification, thy name is Fye.
that sums up the entire post nicely: those that do not agree are whacko lunatic liars and just all around bad people.
What planet are you on? I suppose you believe that ALL of the world's major, middling, and minor news organizations are in on bungrider's HAL conspiracy? The mass graves and reams of material, video and photographs, and endless direct testimony about the Ba'ath police state have been on display in every venue operated by professionals who aren't ideologically committed to ignorance. Even the leaders of the anti-war movement decry the evils of the Iraqi regime, however hypocritically. Are there any news sources you consider adequately trustworthy for such purposes? Do you have any source of information about the world? Please do tell if so. If not, then what makes you think you have anything to contribute to a discussion on world events?
Attacking me or questioning my motives or objectivity may make you feel superior to the discussion, but it is not the same as engaging in discussion. It does, however, offer surrogate ad hominem attacks to the people who are taking the other side. At best, it's a distraction.
Please read more carefully: I did not deny that Bush's position had changed, quite the opposite, and for reasons that should be rather obvious. It the concept is too complicated for you to process, why don't you butt out?