It's a just war

Toronto Sun ^ | March 23, 2003 | Linda Williamson

[Clive]

A few people have asked lately how I came to support the Iraq war.

As a good Canadian, and generally peaceful person, I say I naturally had misgivings. I've marched in my share of peace demonstrations - in university, and after I joined the real world.

And like many good people around the world, my gut initially questioned the U.S.-led drive to oust Saddam Hussein. Did all those clever cynics crowing about how it was really Bush's "Daddy's war" and "all about oil" have a point? Was there really a 9/11 connection or was Saddam just a stand-in for the elusive Osama bin Laden?

But I've since been convinced this is a just war.

In part, because of the arguments and evidence we've all heard, from the eloquent Tony Blair, the elegant Colin Powell and others. In part, because I understand, as many Canadians instinctively do (even if our prime minister doesn't) that terrorism and the rogue states that sponsor it have to be crushed. In part, because of my first-hand observation of the dysfunctional UN earlier this month.

But what really convinced me this war was right was the behaviour and arguments from the other side - so wrong, in so many ways.

The arrogant, juvenile, pedantic, illogical, smarmy, smug and offensive nonsense spouted by so many of this war's opponents pushed me over the edge.

It's the sort of stuff I'd hope no self-respecting Canadian would want to be associated with.

Alas, much of it is coming not from fringe extremists, but from actual elected members of our Parliament.

Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish: "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards." Liberal cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal: "(U.S. President George Bush has) not only let Americans but the world down by not being a statesman." Liberal MP Janko Peric: "Do you think President Bush really cares about Iraqi people? I don't think so." NDP MP Svend Robinson: "It may very well be that many of us consider Bush a war criminal." NDP MP Bill Blaikie: "(Bush is) planning every minute of his life to kill as many Iraqi children as he can."

This isn't healthy dissent, it's pathological petulance. Nor is it the isolated ranting of a few bad apples. On the contrary, their bosses condone this stuff - including Canada's boss.

Indeed, Jean Chretien is the single person most responsible - other than Saddam, that is - for my stance on this war.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Chretien has rarely put a foot right. He has never made a strong, articulate statement against terrorism. He has never addressed the nation - and when he did talk about 9/11, he blamed it on our "greedy" society. He has shamefully neglected the Canadian victims and shrugged off terror threats to and within this country.

As for Iraq, he waffled on whether or not a war resolution was needed at the UN. In the end, he decided Canada's position was whatever the UN's position was - and since the UN failed to get its act together, the war was "not justified."

No debate, no discussion of what Canada stands for, whatever that may be. No troops, no support for our greatest ally and friend. It's shameful, and millions of Canadians think so.

No one can predict war's outcome, but I and others trust that it must result in a better Iraq (we will, of course, hold the U.S. to its lofty promises - the U.S. being the only country in the world that's expected to wage a politically correct war).

And if all goes well, the positive results will ripple well beyond Iraq. Already the UN and all its flaws have been exposed (along with some of the weapons France, et al. insisted Saddam didn't have), which could clear the way for a new and improved world institution. Dare we hope the same for Canada, where the Liberals and their would-be leader have been exposed as no better than Chretien - heedless of history and duty? ("Regime change," anyone?)

We can only hope someone, somewhere, will emerge to give voice to the anger and frustration that I and so many other Canadians feel right now. So far, the only politician in Canada who's even tried has been Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, who last week made a stirring appeal not just for supporting our allies but for the values on which Canada was built.

As he said, this war is about doing what's right. Not following the polls, not trying to have it both ways, not slapping back at the big American giant like a cranky child. It's about stating what you believe in and sticking to your guns (assuming you have any).

It's a defining time for us all, individually and as a nation. I, for one, refuse to be defined by the way my country's current leaders - and their whiny acolytes - have defined Canada.

[Clive]

-

[HighRoadToChina]

BUMP for Canadians!!! Of which I am one!

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[What Is Ain't]

Good find. It's nice to know not all Canucks are "cretins."

[Hobsonphile]

Bump for good Canucks.

[RonWebb]

I don't think it's a question any more of whether this is a just war. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but the fact is that a clear majority of the world community -- leaders and citizens -- felt that the war was not necessary at this time.

Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.

Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?

[Clive]

"As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?"

As to democracy, 75% of Americans, including 50% of Democrats support this war.

As to the rule of law, Did ressolution 1441 have any meaning?

As to might makes right, perhaps not, but there are circumstances in which might is the only thing that can put things to right.

Had Neville Chamberlain used, and enforced, an ultimatum when Hitler started his adventurism instead of waiting until Poland was invaded, there would have been a much smaller butcher's bill.

War is never desireable, sometimes it is merely necessary.

[Pukka Puck]

"As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law?"

You are daft.

There is no such thing as international democracy.

It has been twelve years since Saddam agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire and over four years since his intransigence forced the first set of inspectors out of Iraq. You must be a French Fool to think that a few more weeks of Saddam's nonsense would cause the French and Germans to see the light. The only think delay would have caused is additional casualties to coalition forcers and additional time for anti-war activists to demonstrate and agitate.

[lodwick]

bttt

[Weirdad]

(1) Bump to the indices so that others will have the opportunity to comment on your comment.

(2) Re "democracy" - You know what? This web site is called Free Republic because it is dedicated not to "democracy" but to freedom and especially to government that has a moral basis in electing moral representatives who can then make the decisions that need to be made including those necessary to protect the interests of those they represent, in a manner that does not encroach upon unalienable or constitutional rights. Democracy is MOB RULE. I do not believe in raw democracy, most Freepers do not believe in it, no surprise President Bush does NOT believe in Mob Democracy, and honestly neither should you. And if you expect Americans to jump in bed with the mob rule of the UN, comprised of a bunch of "countries" with various forms of generally dysfunctional governments often lacking moral underpinnings and representing essentially mob rule, then you don't really understand (or have forgotten about) these United States and Americans in general.

Our government's actions in Iraq decided upon and implemented through our existing system fit quite well with our laws and values and experiences. Moreover, we have the absolute right to self defense. Moreover, we also have the unalienable right as a country, if we choose to make the sacrifice, to defend the helpless. Nothing binds us to sit by and watch people be tortured and mistreated in the name of "international law." We do not have, nor for the sake of freedom do we want "global government" and accordingly, your so-called "international law" is VOLUNTARY, and subject at any time to being disregarded when it is at odds with our own government.

(3) You betray yourself with your question "does might make right?" Americans more than any country that has ever existed believe that the end does NOT justify the means. We have of course not been perfect on behaving that way, but we've done better than anyone else ever. But, IF WE ARE RIGHT, then your question is completely moot. And if you claim your question is NOT moot, then you have just stated that you think that these United States are wrong but taking what we want by force, and you could not be more wrong on that issue!

(4) If you sit by and watch one person abuse another in the name of an idealistic "international law" then what does that do to you? If fact, sitting by will CHANGE you for the worse, corrupt you, and make the "end" of "international law" justify the "means" of condoning torture; and when such inaction is demanded of a person who is not accustomed to tolerating abuses, it actually constitutes a form of attack upon that person. In other words, I feel attacked is someone tries to compel me to sit idle while a man unjustly and cruelly beats "his" child. There are times when the United States is essentially attacked if expected if expected by the UN and people with your views to sit on its hands and WATCH as a regime tortures its own people--just so that desensitized half-countries like France and those running in its UN mob won't be upset.

The US already in the name of "international law" puts up with enough abusive regimes, but when there is a concurrence of us being attacked by a country (remember 911?), us being threatened by a country, others being threatened by a county, and on top of that the people of that country being perpetually being abused by the tyrant who "owns" them, then how can you seriously continue to question the terribly difficult decision to respond to that act of war thrust before our faces by the Iraqi leadership?

I doubt I will answer any response from you because the points I have made above are basic orthodox American views and are not substantially arguable. However, others in the bump list may choose to address different aspects of your comment or to address any replies.

[Catalonia]

“Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but the fact is that a clear majority of the world community -- leaders and citizens -- felt that the war was not necessary at this time.”

You’re assuming the ‘world community’ has benevolent intentions. That is a remarkably naïve position.

“Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.”

Perhaps 2.5 million people would not have died in Southeast Asia if the anti-war movement hadn’t helped facilitate American withdrawal from Vietnam. But we’ll never know.

“Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law. “

International law is a remarkably fluid concept at best. And you are assuming that the stated positions of foreign governments are their true positions. I would suggest that they have motivations other than genuine concern for U.S. and world security, or concern for the Iraqi people. France is an excellent case in point. We all know France’s opposition was more a power play and an attempt to prop up an ally in the Middle East, thereby increasing their influence in that part of the world, than any legitimate position on security.

“As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?”

Do you believe in representative democracy? The protestors sure don’t. And might doesn’t make right, but that doesn’t mean the mighty don’t have the right to use their power. This is a straw man argument.

Now give us some real game and provide a real argument. Thank you.

[RJL]

I don't think it's a question any more of whether this is a just war. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but the fact is that a clear majority of the world community -- leaders and citizens -- felt that the war was not necessary at this time.

I doubt this is true. The US & Britain have 44 other countries supporting them. How many countries are backing Saddam and France?

Given another few weeks or months of futile inspections and continued Iraqi stonewalling, I think that world opinion would have changed. But we'll never know.

After 12 years and 18 UN resolutions, all that was needed was another few weeks? How foolish.

The whole inspections farce was part of a delaying game. France, working for Saddam, was trying to delay the use of force until it was too hot in Iraq for us to attack. Would you be willing to done a chemical suit for a couple weeks at the hottest time of the year in the Iraqi desert? Oh yea, you’ll be in combat too.

Even the US & Britain can’t afford to keep 300,000 troops and equipment stationed on the Iraqi border for another 8 months waiting for the weather to cool.

Having failed to make his case at the UN, and having failed to convince even most of his allies, Bush decided to attack Iraq anyway, in complete disregard for international law.

UN resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, the only (false) debate was what was meant by severe consequences. Saddam and France wanted it to mean double secret probation, not real consequences.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is: in international relations, does GWB believe in democracy and the rule of law? Or does might make right?

Is the UN the only place for democracy to take place? How is it democracy when only 5 nations have veto power?

As stated earlier, the US & Britain have 44 other countries backing them, it sounds to me like democracy has spoken.

I am happy to stand with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, I hope you are as comfortable standing with Saddam Hussein, a man know worldwide as an evil brutal dictator and madman.

[RonWebb]

Clive, Resolution 1441 said nothing about war. If "serious consequences" necessarily implies lethal force, perhaps I should have been more concerned when my bank manager discussed the ramifications of defaulting on my student loan.

Pukka Puck, you're right -- there is no such thing as international democracy. And there never will be as long as the US can ignore the will of the majority with impunity.

Weirdad, you're a scary guy. Perhaps you don't believe in democracy, but at least GWB claims to. The promotion of democracy in Iraq was one of the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

Catalonia, I'm not assuming anything about the positions of particular foreign governments or their benevolent intentions. Any more than I assume the positions or the intentions of individuals when they vote. Any more than I'm assuming GWB's benvolent intentions toward Iraq, for that matter. Individual nations, like individual voters, may be corrupt or devious. I am assuming only that the majority will act in good conscience. To assume the contrary -- that mankind as a whole is malevolent and untrustworthy -- is to assume a level of nihilism and chaos that IMHO would not be worth enduring.

RJL, in Catalonia's words, "you are assuming that the stated positions of foreign governments are their true positions." The U.S. spent billions of dollars bribing and browbeating the "support" of those 44 countries. Even at that, the list is a bad joke. Have you looked at it? (Turkey is part of their "coalition of the willing"??)

---

And just for the record, I am in favour of the use of force to oust Saddam. I just don't like the way it's being done. A majority of the world wanted to give Hans Bliz at least a few more weeks, and that's what should have happened.

Had Bush been willing to wait, he would eventually have had a true world majority on his side. As it is, he's given every tinpot dictator a justification to invade his neighbor whenever he feels "threatened". Not to mention the boost he's given Bin Laden's recruiting efforts.

It's the difference between a fair trial and a lynch mob. It has nothing to do with the guilt of innocence of the accused, or the appropriateness of the penalty.

[Clive]

"And just for the record, I am in favour of the use of force to oust Saddam. I just don't like the way it's being done. A majority of the world wanted to give Hans Bliz at least a few more weeks, and that's what should have happened."

Interesting that you should put it that way. That is just about the way that Canada is putting it and Canadians are taking a real bruising on Free Republic for their government having taken that stance.

[kanawa]

Visited a Legion, Naval Club and Air Force club today to try and start some motion towards a Support the Troops rally in the Kitchener/Waterloo Ontario area. They were sympathetic and will bring it up with their executive and let me know. Any suggestions on running a successful rally or support from Freepers near this location would be greatly appreciated.

[Pukka Puck]

"A majority of the world wanted to give Hans Bliz at least a few more weeks, and that's what should have happened."

Sez you with absolutely no evidence.

Those countries, like the French, Russians, and Chinese, who wanted to wait a few more weeks, wanted to wait so that the weather conditions would be so unfavorable that there would have been no war, whatsoever. That was the true aim of the delay strategy.

Twelve years is plenty long enough to wait. 1441 called for the IMMEDIATE disarmament of Iraq, not more shilly-shallying. In diplomatic lingo, "serious consequences" does necessarily imply lethal force. It means something else when dealing with your frigging bank or for that matter when dealing with your little kid, numb nuts. Stop being deliberately obtuse or no one will take you seriously.

The difference between twelve years and twelve years and a few weeks, is negligible, thus making your, and your fellow sob sisters', protestations in favor a few more weeks, fatuous.

International democracy, based on one man- one vote, without a constitution and checks and balances, would simply be mob rule, write large. I pray your version of utopia never comes to pass.

[Sloth]

Anyone who believes in something called "international law" is out of place on FR, in my opinion.

[Weirdad]

Great points. Well said.

[Kevin Curry]

Anyone who believes in something called "international law" is out of place on FR, in my opinion.

The founders of our great nation recognized the need for international law.

It isn't international law per se that is bad.