Posted on 09/24/2002 11:51:53 AM PDT by Protagoras
Nothing is different today from September 10, 2001, or any time since Iraq was ousted from Kuwait.
The writer's argument is standard. It can be broken down into two basic themes:
1. You can't have a war unless you bring enough for everybody.
2. If you have a war, bad stuff may happen.
Let's look at them briefly. The first argument says that it is inconsistent to be friends with the House of Saud and enemies with Saddam, therefore you may not be enemies with Saddam. It also says that you can't defang Iraq unless you also defang N. Korea, China, Pakistan, etc. Why? Because it would be inconsistent to do otherwise.
I disagree. That's like telling a cop he has to let the perp go because he is unable to arrest every perp. It makes no sense. One less perp is a good thing, the American people support it, let's go.
The second argument is hardly an argument at all. It is the old "quagmire" riff gussied up as "urban combat." We have the most dominant military force the world has ever known. We will win. Now mind you, I have a good buddy who could be called to duty in the event of a war. I am not callously sending other men to fight. I understand what is at stake. People will die. All the more reason to give them our full support and honor their sacrifice.
Third, the arguments seems to assume a static world. Isn't it possible that if the US shows resolve ( something we didn't show much of from 92-00) in Iraq, that other nations might begin to modify their behavior? Isn't it possible that the dynamics of our relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could change by virtue of our willingness to act in Iraq and elsewhere?
The article seemed so much like the same junk coming out of Jesse Jackson's and Phil Donahue's pie holes that I hardly thought they warranted more than sarcasm. But hey, what do I know?
Can we go bomb them now?
Yes, very true.
However, neither you nor I have any knowledge of the intelligence detail available to those we have entrusted to lead us.....We can hardly call ourselves sufficiently informed to question tactics and strategy on a war footing. All we have is the pathetic media pablum and the wonders of editorialized information which is fed to us by every imaginable means....both left and right
There has to be great trust in our leaders in time of immense threat.....such as the present.....and I don't think any sane person can assume that the well and frequently demonstrated Islamic effectiveness in killing us without mercy is not not a clear and present danger.
Please have a very nice day.
Thank you, I stay away from all the latest fads here as much as possible. Like the wonderfully enriching "all your fill in the blank are belong to us" comments in the past.
It's evident that only a few of the posters so far have read the article and thought about what it says. It's sad really.
I have not taken a final postion on the question myself. The questions are important, and the jury is, or should be, still out. IMO
I agree with some of what you say, but my trust in governments in light of the past, is less certain than yours. Once we "trust" them about secret information which cannot be diviluged for reasons unexplained, it would be difficult to ask questions in the future.
I also would like to point out that the government has thus far not used your point.
If we aren't allowed to know what the evidence is for starting such an attack, it is hard to imagine under what circumstances we would be allowed. What might be more important for us to know?
Please have a nice day as well.
The government has not said it was contemplating attack because of the terrorism on 9-11-2001.
Saudi Arabia- no elections, hereditary monarchy, the legislature is appointed by the king, no political parties and no political groups permitted.
Iran- cabinet: Council of Ministers selected by the president with legislative approval
elections: leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts; president elected by popular vote for a four-year term; election last held 8 June 2001 (next to be held NA 2005)
election results: (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani reelected president; percent of vote - (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani 77%
Legislative branch: unicameral Islamic Consultative Assembly or Majles-e-Shura-ye-Eslami (290 seats, note - changed from 270 seats with the 18 February 2000 election; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: last held 18 February-NA April 2000 (next to be held NA 2004)
election results: percent of vote - NA%; seats by party - reformers 170, conservatives 45, and independents 10; 65 seats were up for runoff election on 5 May 2000 (reformers 52, conservatives 10, independents 3)
Judicial branch: Supreme Court Political parties and leaders: the following organizations appeared to have achieved considerable success at elections to the sixth Majlis in early 2000: Assembly of the Followers of the Imam's Line, Freethinkers' Front, Islamic Iran Participation Front, Moderation and Development Party, Servants of Construction Party, Society of Self-sacrificing Devotees Political pressure groups and leaders: active student groups include the pro-reform "Organization for Strengthening Unity" and "the Union of Islamic Student Societies'; groups that generally support the Islamic Republic include Ansar-e Hizballah, Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution, Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam, and the Islamic Coalition Association; opposition groups include the Liberation Movement of Iran and the Nation of Iran party; armed political groups that have been almost completely repressed by the government include Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), People's Fedayeen, Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan; the Society for the Defense of Freedom
Interesting...isn't it?
Actually, YES! Of course, the only other nation that comes near to fitting the appropriate category (having both biological weapons of mass destruction and a leader who is a big enough nutball to actually use them) is North Korea, and my impression is the Kim Il Jong isn't as big an unstable nutball as Saddam Hussein.
I consider Saddam's past acts- like the attempt on former president Bush- and his capabilities "sufficient evidence".
While I don't think it unreasonable to ask for more evidence, it seems unreasonable to assume that it will not be forthcoming when and if war is neccessary to remove Saddam.
So its better for everyone to be alive, but living under the Taliban, than for a relative handful to have been killed and the rest enjoying at least a respite from the Taliban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.