Do we need Swordfish - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Conclamo Ludus · 11-24-2003, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyraul
I don't really know much about the law, but I can tell you that given the fact that all of the reasons given to us for going to war in Iraq were not even justified, it was morally wrong to attack that country and involve ourselves in their affairs. If anyone truly believes that our attack was anything other than the US protecting economic interests at the cost of angering a lot of people, then you are either really naive or simply deluding yourself. The major difference between this operation and the one where we overthrew a democratically eleceted Chilean president when we feared for our economic interests is that the operation in Chile was carried out in secret, by the CIA. That wouldn't have worked in Iraq because Saddam is much less vulnerable than a constatutionalist president who trusted his country.

Sign me up on the "naive" and "simply deluding myself" list. I don't find the war "morally wrong". I think more good will come out of it than for just US interests. Of course there are US interests and that is probably the leading factor, but regardless I think the side effects will be for the best.

There's the real bitch behind having morals, everyone has a different definition of "morally wrong" so who's right? The old moral relativism cop-out, is all I can give right now.

happyraul · 11-24-2003, 12:31 PM

I agree with you, people have different morals, but do you honestly believe that our actions aren't creating hostility towards us? I mean we blew off the UN, so that right there just makes us plain bullies. We can do whatever we want, whenever we want, without having to answer to anyone. In no way do I endorse the slaughter of innocent civilians, but look at it from an outsider's point of view: The U.S. can attack your country at will, occupy it, take its resources, exploit your people for labor, choose your leaders, men who do not have your interests at heart, but rather those of foreign capitalists, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nor can anyone in the world, because the US is in charge. How would you feel? Sure they come in and get rid of an opressive dictator, but when they're gone, they leave a different dictator that does what the US wants. In the US we say, "Sure he's a bastard, but he's one of our bastards." This hasn't happened in Iraq yet, as we are still occupying it, but I expect it will.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-24-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyraul
[B]I agree with you, people have different morals, but do you honestly believe that our actions aren't creating hostility towards us? I mean we blew off the UN, so that right there just makes us plain bullies.

We didn't blow off shit. You have the gutless cowards like the French that weren't willing to walk the walk when it came down to crunch time. What good is the U.N. when all it does is negatively reinforce brutal despots like Saddam? Saddam here are resolution, you better abide by them or else... well as we all know the only reason action gotten taken in 98' was because the bastard got caught red handed in a lie and Clinton had the stones to call him on it. Same dance in 03' only again we were the only ones with the resolve to walk the walk. I don't see how that makes us bullies, it just makes the U.N. a bunch of self serving cowards.

I don't see how we violated international law. There were resolutions in place that warranted punishment if Saddam didn't abide... 16 resolutions over the course of 12 years were willingly and knowingly disobeyed. He spat in the face of international law, he called the U.N.'s bluff and the U.N. folded.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-24-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyraul
I agree with you, people have different morals, but do you honestly believe that our actions aren't creating hostility towards us? I mean we blew off the UN, so that right there just makes us plain bullies. We can do whatever we want, whenever we want, without having to answer to anyone. In no way do I endorse the slaughter of innocent civilians, but look at it from an outsider's point of view: The U.S. can attack your country at will, occupy it, take its resources, exploit your people for labor, choose your leaders, men who do not have your interests at heart, but rather those of foreign capitalists, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nor can anyone in the world, because the US is in charge. How would you feel? Sure they come in and get rid of an opressive dictator, but when they're gone, they leave a different dictator that does what the US wants. In the US we say, "Sure he's a bastard, but he's one of our bastards." This hasn't happened in Iraq yet, as we are still occupying it, but I expect it will.

Its created hostility in the short-term no doubt, but short-term hostilities can be proven wrong over time, and I at least hope they will be.

As for the UN fiasco, Mojo said it better than I could, they really blew their responsibility off for far too long. We didn't make them ineffective, they did that themselves when they said they would veto "any" resolution that involved force.

I don't see democracy in Iraq yet, but you assume we will leave a dictator there. I'm sure we will do everything we can to have someone that supports us as an ally in power, but I would say that is a far cry from a dictator, in a couple years or after a term or whatever, the Iraqis will be able to elect whoever the hell they want. A freedom that most of them have never had. You can say we are there to "take its resources" obviously we will have an interest in their resources, but we just gave them 87 billion dollars, not a loan.

We are helping them to get off their feet so that the people can live better lives than they had before. I believe this will happen, but its going to be ugly for a while. It will give a power to the people that they've never had before. This to me is important. I don't really care what Bush is going to get out of it, or who is going to profit, people are going to get a democracy eventually, and that is something that will rise above who's doing what to whom. Democracy will encourage a progress that will allow them to live happier and better lives. A life that they are more in control of. To me that outweigh's temporary hostility towards us. Even if they hate us in 30 years for it, they will be enjoying a freedom that we helped shape for them.

Oops, this is way off topic...kind of. So I'll add this...Swordfish would threaten to ruin everything. Terrorism is a two-front war, sadly I think this administration only understands one front of it. They are damn good at it. The first front is to go in and take out the terrorists. The second front is a diplomatic one. There is a place for "understanding" why terrorists do certain things. Know thy enemy. The diplomatic front on terrorism is what will win it in the long run. This is why I find it important to have a presence in the middle east. Iraq was a decent platform to show the region that democracy can be done, but this is obviously going to be a long term project. The diplomatic battle also heavily involves our support for Israel. Not that we shouldn't support them at all, but this support is something that the Arab world clings to when showing their displeasure for us. Bringing peace to that region would do far more to bring peace to the whole region than Iraq would do. But this is obviously not very easy.

I'm optimistic. Maybe too much so, but I foresee a time when people will look at Bush as a good president for getting the "dirty" work done right away, and I'm hoping that we'll have a very good diplomatic leader to follow-up on the other front of the war on terror. Maybe in '04, but at least in '08. If this combination of events arose, I think that history would judge us well for our actions in the region.

happyraul · 11-24-2003, 03:40 PM

Look, I don't really want to debate Iraq here because this is not an Iraq thread. Suffice to say that I agree with the fact that swordfish is not a good idea, and its an especially bad way of stopping terrorism.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-25-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by happyraul
Look, I don't really want to debate Iraq here because this is not an Iraq thread. Suffice to say that I agree with the fact that swordfish is not a good idea, and its an especially bad way of stopping terrorism.

Sorry I got off track. Agreed.

11-24-2003, 12:31 PM	#42 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	I agree with you, people have different morals, but do you honestly believe that our actions aren't creating hostility towards us? I mean we blew off the UN, so that right there just makes us plain bullies. We can do whatever we want, whenever we want, without having to answer to anyone. In no way do I endorse the slaughter of innocent civilians, but look at it from an outsider's point of view: The U.S. can attack your country at will, occupy it, take its resources, exploit your people for labor, choose your leaders, men who do not have your interests at heart, but rather those of foreign capitalists, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nor can anyone in the world, because the US is in charge. How would you feel? Sure they come in and get rid of an opressive dictator, but when they're gone, they leave a different dictator that does what the US wants. In the US we say, "Sure he's a bastard, but he's one of our bastards." This hasn't happened in Iraq yet, as we are still occupying it, but I expect it will.

11-24-2003, 03:40 PM	#45 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	Look, I don't really want to debate Iraq here because this is not an Iraq thread. Suffice to say that I agree with the fact that swordfish is not a good idea, and its an especially bad way of stopping terrorism.