Was Iraqi Freedom really a Humanitarian Endevor? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a Humanitarian Operation?
yes 3 10.71%
no 25 89.29%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-09-2003, 11:24 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:24 PM
Deep,

"You consistently make the case that the Iraq war was justified by UN resolutions."

This is true.

"Do you remember when the President gave the speech to the American people and the world that Thursday night?"

Yes.

"When he walked down the hallway on the red carpet made his case, took a couple of questions and then turned and walked away?"

Yes.

I remember Deep, what is your point?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 12:06 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:24 AM
Thank you for answering.

Well, during that speech the President said there would be a U N vote. He said they would have to put their cards on the table, or something to that effect.

He undermined his credibility and legitimacy by not following through.

The Bush administration did not allow the UN to confirm that vote of many years back was still the proper action to take.

I donít understand how you can argue that attacking Iraq is following through with the UN, when it is something the UN voted years ago.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 06:14 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Here is the moral case, an interesting article, click on the link to read the whole thing:

The Moral Case in Favor of War: Iraq's Exceptionally Brutal Government

This is nothing less than astonishing. The Iraqi government is one of the most brutal on earth. Kenneth Pollack, Director for Research at the Saban Center at Brookings and one of the world's foremost Iraq experts, estimates that Saddam Hussein is responsible for approximately 200,000 deaths through torture alone.

That does not include the hundreds of thousands dead as the result of Saddam's military adventures and gross mismanagement of his country's economy and resources. And that does not include the countless millions maimed, raped, and otherwise made to suffer and endure life in Iraq.

The ostensible difference between yesterday's anti-apartheid protestors and today's anti-war activists is that the Bush Administration is gearing up for war, not economic sanctions. But is that much of a distinction? Not for the Iraqi people. For them, the captives of a murderous despot, daily life is a state of war. Indeed, it is worse, because it is a war with no allies and no hope of winning.

The alternative to war, in other words, is not any sort of "peace" that should matter to a moralist, even if it is the sort of peace that is good enough for foreign policy realists. While no wants to be responsible for shedding blood, it will be shed, one way or the other. It should be the job of our consciences - not the State Department - to point out that, morally speaking, there is not much difference between our allowing Saddam to use his own people for target practice and our waging war.

Indeed, this formulation is not fair enough to the war party. The point of any pre-emptive war, along with disarming Iraq, is to turn that nation into one in which its citizens (and others in neighboring states) are not subject to state-directed murder and aggression.

The choice, in other words, is really between bloody repression without foreseeable end, or warfare intended to end that repression. For our public moralists, that ought to be a very tough call.

Why U.N. Approval, While Desirable, Is Not Morally Necessary for War

While many religious leaders ignore conditions inside Iraq, they are slavish to the views of regimes outside of it. Many of the statements of religious leaders demand an international sanction for warfare. The American Bishops, for instance, insist that war requires "the framework of the United Nations."

This insistence on numbers is simply bizarre. Christianity began as a heretical sect within a persecuted Jewish minority. More than most religions, it teaches that might does not make right, that the many can be wrong, and that moral action is not preceded by a finger in the wind.

The truth is that checking international moral sentiment before acting is not integral to anyone's religion. And moral sentiment is not really what is being checked in any case. The United Nations, after all, is not a church synod. It is simply a place for nations to haggle about their differences and, occasionally, find common ground as a basis for action.

When France votes for a resolution authorizing weapons inspections in Iraq, it is expressing the view that at that moment, French interests are better served by voting for the resolution than not - and nothing more. Similarly, Russia's conflict with Chechens may well have informed its decision to support the resolution. It is hard to imagine, morally speaking, why a confluence of interests would transform an immoral war into a moral one.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/aronson/20021219.html
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 01:16 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:24 PM
Deep,

"Well, during that speech the President said there would be a U N vote. He said they would have to put their cards on the table, or something to that effect."

"He undermined his credibility and legitimacy by not following through."

"The Bush administration did not allow the UN to confirm that vote of many years back was still the proper action to take."

"I donít understand how you can argue that attacking Iraq is following through with the UN, when it is something the UN voted years ago."

The Bush administration already stated that it had the LEGAL justification to act last summer. Resolution 678 from November 1990 gives that justification. Resolution 678 was sited by the CLINTON administration for its military action against Iraq.

The Bush administration did allow the UN to reconfirm the resolution 678 with resolution 1441 in the fall of 2002. The UN voted 15-0 for the use of military force in that resolution if Iraq "failed its one last chance" which it did.

Bush indicated at one point the possibility of another vote but that was never confirmed as a certainty despite anything said in the speach. Russia was actually one country that was strangely against another vote despite its general agreement with France and Germany.

The UN resolution 1441 made no mention of the need for another security council resolution on the matter. The UN as a whole never requested another vote. France may have wanted another vote, but France is not the UN. The USA did not formally block or veto another resolution. Such a resolution was discussed but was never brought up.

In light or resolutions 678, 687, 1441, and now 1483, it is perfectly clear that the USA followed the UN path and with other member states, has successfully brought Iraq into compliance with many of the resolutions and requirements from the first Gulf War Ceacefire of 1991, that had remained unfufilled by Iraq for the past 12 years! Operation Iraqi Freedom was long overdue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 05:44 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:24 PM
I am curious.....

I wonder how many here would have supported the war if it was displayed as a humanitarian cause?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 06:01 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:24 AM
I think this is an impossible question to answer. The events leading up to the war would have to had been totally different. But I think many would have been a lot less critical.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-10-2003, 06:18 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:24 PM
Just for comparisons sake, a majority of Americans were actually against US intervention in Bosnia.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-11-2003, 04:13 AM   #23
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 05:24 PM
It's funny how Tony Blair has come out of it as the 'most popular western leader in the world' (a survey of a number of countries a couple of weeks back) in most cases beating the local leader in their own country (US included), while GW's international standing is somewhere just above satan, but they both did the same thing.

Or how Powell would say something, Rumsfeld a couple of days later would then say pretty much the exact same thing and people would say "Yay for Powell! He should be president!" and then "F*ck you Rumsfeld! Crazy right wing psycho war freak!"

Point is, I think alot of it has to do with the image of this administration. They could have started talking it up as a humanitarian mission right from the start but everyone would have still cried "bullsh*t" simply cos its Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc telling them that. I know even here in Australia the government was saying in regards to their difficulty in 'selling' the Iraq war idea to the public here that one of the best things that could happen would be if Bush etc kept their mouths shut for a couple of weeks.

How do you think it would have gone down if the US were not involved at all? Imagine say everything had gone wrong for GW since 9/11 and he was so low in the polls that they figured another war would be the end of him.
But Tony Blair & the UK take the place of GW & the US and from when it started, about a year ago, he's trying to get international support for attacking Iraq, WMD or humanitarian reasons or otherwise. The US is not involved at all.
You think he would have had international support? International trust? Better luck with the UN? The US knows that the threat of WMD's would be removed, Iraq is turned into a democracy, and they didn't have to lift a finger. Think they'd like that? Think the US would have supported it, even though they had no direct involvement and stood to gain nothing from it economicaly (but didn't have to pay for it in blood or money either)?

I know it's not realistic at all, but I think you can see it would be quite different.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 06-12-2003, 08:30 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:24 PM
If it had been a humanitarian operation with humanitarian concerns, it would have happened a whole lot sooner. Then again, maybe it wouldn't have; financial concerns always take precedent.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 06-12-2003, 09:19 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:24 PM
If it had been a humanitarian operation the troops would have prevented the hospitals from being looted, not the Oil ministerium
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-14-2003, 03:11 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:24 PM
If Bush and Blair had attempted to present it as a humanitarian invasion (which, to an extent, Blair did - especially in his local govt. speech back in February) I would still have opposed the war as I wouldn't have considered that claim to have any credibility.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 06-14-2003, 03:44 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
If Bush and Blair had attempted to present it as a humanitarian invasion (which, to an extent, Blair did - especially in his local govt. speech back in February) I would still have opposed the war as I wouldn't have considered that claim to have any credibility.
In my mind it is certainly the most credible of all of the arguments. Food for Oil and the sanctions were killing more Iraqi's monthly than the death from the war did.There is no comparison in the numbers.

The second argument that I firmly believed in was that because of Saddam's influence on our policies in the region we had been forced to keep troops in the region. Directly or indirectly, this was one of the main causes of 9/11. Within the coming years, our troops will be dramatically reduced and possibly be close to removed from Saudi Arabia.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 06:48 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:24 PM
It definitely was anything but a humanitarian endeavor. If it had been, basic services would have been the priority, protecting national historical treasures would have been important, using cluster bombs that are still killing innocent civilians would have been unthinkable. And that's just to name a few.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 07:54 PM   #29
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

The second argument that I firmly believed in was that because of Saddam's influence on our policies in the region we had been forced to keep troops in the region. Directly or indirectly, this was one of the main causes of 9/11. Within the coming years, our troops will be dramatically reduced and possibly be close to removed from Saudi Arabia.

Peace
For the life of me, I can't ever remember hearing this argument. I wish I had. I could have supported the war more if I had heard this earlier--it makes some good basic sense.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 06-17-2003, 07:55 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:24 PM
My biggest fear, before the war, was that it would make an already bad humanitarian situation (25% of Iraqi children were malnourished) worse. I know some people think we were jumping to irrational conclusions but this disorder and chaos are exactly what made me nervous about the whole thing. By emphasizing WMD's rather than Saddam's less-than-humane behavior the U.S. screwed up the case for it being a humanitarian endeavor big time. If Iraq isn't stabilized a humanitarian disaster could still occur. I'm really nervous about this stuff.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com