Pro-war debate (WAS: RE: [thechat] protests?)

Tara Cleveland tara at taracleveland.com
Fri Mar 21 16:54:28 CST 2003


Ken Kogler wrote:

> DISCLAIMER:
> This is a hot issue, and one everyone has a VERY strong opinion on.

Yah. Lot of emotion and opinion over here. But I'll try to respond with good
arguments and rational discussion. I'll snip where necessary

>>> I understand both sides of this issue and
>> Assuming that by "this issue" you mean "the unprovoked United States
>> led attack on the sovereignty of another nation."
> 
> Also known as "preemptive strike" or "aggressive defense".

Well, it's all how you want to spin it. I'm pretty sure that "aggressive
defence" is an oxymoron though. Even "pre-emptive" could be argued against.
Pre-emptive is defined in my dictionary as: "pre-empting; (of military
action) intended to prevent attack by disabling enemy." But there is no
accepted evidence that Iraq was planning to attack the US. If they weren't
then there is no pre-emption and therefore it is simply the US attacking
Iraq unprovoked.
 
> Are you honestly saying that you're as well informed as the president of
> the united states? Once you get an all access pass to military
> intelligence from around the globe, I'll take you word on whether or not
> Hussein has WMD. That's not blindly believing everything coming from the
> government, that's just common sense -- OF COURSE there's stuff they're
> not telling us.

Well, so far, most of the "intelligence" put forward by the US and Britain
has been discredited. There is certainly a lot of disinformation going
around. It's hard to believe that there are WMD in Iraq and that Hussein was
going to use them with all of the weapons inspectors around and no immediate
threat against him.
 
> As for feeling personally threatened, I do. Hussein's WMDs can't reach
> America. But that doesn't mean he can't kill some of my family that's in
> Europe. He can kill hundreds of thousands of people -- keep in mind he's
> got a track record for this sort of thing -- and he can also SELL his
> WMDs to some group, like a terrorist cell, which doesn't have much of
> that pesky international law to worry about. If Saddam sells anthrax to
> an Al-Qaida operative, they could pretty easily bring it over here and
> use it in Chicago. Border security is a joke.

Well that's true. It isn't totally unreasonable (in my mind anyway) to be
worried about WMD attacks of some kind. But who is responsible?  There are
others with WMD that are just as happy as Saddam to sell to terrorists
(assuming of course that there is a link between Saddam and terrorist
something which has not been proven by anyone). Many of America's former
allies included. Does the attack of Iraq prevent that? Or does it threaten
everyone even further by fomenting hatred and anti-Americanism and
anti-Western feeling (take Syed's anger as an example). What is the best
solution? Why didn't the US let weapons inspectors finish to the point where
*they* said there was no more progress?

> 
>> 2. Disagree with International Law that has for half
>> a century effectively contained the reign of
>> ruthless dictators.
> 
> You're backing laws to protect mass murderers?

I'm not sure that the US has any legs to stand on here. After all, they did
completely water down the ICC and then refuse to ratify it. The ICC being
the only international way of prosecuting these dictatorial leaders that
have committed mass murders. If they really wanted to change the laws that
"protect mass murderers" they would have signed on to the ICC. They also
wouldn't have supported Saddam in the beginning - nor Suharto, or Pinochet
or any of the other mass murderers that they have supported in the past. In
fact, the UN and those international laws have done more to try and get rid
of mass murderers such as Saddam that the US ever has - and they've done it
in a way that tries to severely limit war and aggression.

>> 3. Believe that might makes right.
> 
> It doesn't. But what about a justifiable use of force?

But was it a justifiable use of force? I'd say no. Many (perhaps even most)
of the world would agree with me. The US and Britain has tried to justify it
(especially to the UN), and most of their arguments have been thoroughly
shot down. The UN Security Council didn't believe them and wouldn't have
approved the use of force - they didn't think it was justified either. So,
the impression is that despite their attempts to justify the use of force,
they couldn't - but they are using their might, their power, to make
themselves be in the right.

>> There is no middle ground on this issue. You either back unprovoked
>> aggression, are against it, or have no opinion.
> 
> Or it's not unprovoked.

But there is *no* evidence that the Iraqis were going to attack. Therefore
it is unprovoked. But I see some middle grounds... People who would back it
if the UN did, etc. I don't think it is a with us or against us thing.

>> How could someone start a war without "wanting to"? Seriously, that is
>> a serious question, I'd like you to answer it.
> 
> Seems to me the current administration feels it has to, but does so
> reluctantly. They've exhausted all normal diplomatic channels, and now
> they have to resort to something more drastic. And if you're going to do
> something, do it well...

They have not exhausted all normal diplomatic channels. They were just
unwilling to accept the outcome of those diplomatic channels. They wanted to
go to war now. They didn't want to wait for the inspectors to finish.
Besides, many of those in power positions now have been advocating the
invasion of Iraq for years (see Project for a New American Century - and
other documents). So I have absolutely no belief that this war was
completely unwanted or that the American government is as reluctant as they
should be. War should be the *absolute* last resort. There were other
options but the Americans wouldn't accept them.
 
>> Things have happened that you're not aware of this week. Hundreds of
>> people in various US cities have been arrested for legally assembling
>> and asserting their First Amendment rights in an orderly and peaceful
>> manner. I can send you links if you wish.
> 
> Please do. I legally assembled and asserted this week in protest to this
> war, and nothing happened to me. I bet there's more to the story than
> that...

I've seen shit happen at demonstrations - especially when two opposing sides
of an issue meet each other - that results in completely disproportionate
police reactions and the arrest of people who are completely innocent. In
Toronto police have started to pre-emptively arrest people that look
suspicions *before* the demonstrations even begin. The Toronto police chief
recently asked the federal minister of justice to make it illegal to
demonstrate with your face covered. Which sounds reasonable at first, but
then you have to remember that Toronto is *cold* in the winter and everyone
who is sane wears a scarf and hat that at least partially covers their
faces. So sometimes you get 100% of cops that are reasonable, sometimes you
don't. Sometimes you get 100% of protesters that are reasonable, sometimes
you don't. You *can* easily get arrested for doing nothing illegal in some
situations where demos get out of hand for one reason or another and you get
caught in the middle.
 
>>> My concern about present day protestors are:
>> 
>> I'm so glad you're concerned about personal choices I make.
> 
> If your choices affect *MY* life, then you're damn right I'm going to be
> concerned.

How concerned are you allowed to be? Do you want to shut down protest? Isn't
that going against the spirit of democracy?
 
>>> 3.  They are distracting military and local law enforcement from very
>>> important duties and issues concerning national security, regardless
>>> of what country they are in.
>> 
>> That's exactly the point! To raise a ruckus. That's what every living
>> creature does to indicate discontent. Make noise!
> 
> Can't you make noise without "distracting military and local law
> enforcement from very important duties and issues concerning national
> security"? Seems a bit counterproductive to do otherwise.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about here. There are more than
enough traffic cops to handle the demos. These guys aren't FBI, they aren't
INS, they are usually beat cops and traffic cops. Protesting is part of the
fabric of the country. It's part of democracy. If you don't allow it because
of the threat of terrorism then the terrorists have won. If anything, those
protesters are fighting the good fight against having terrorism completely
change your country.
 
>> Among the reasons I protest ...
>> 
>> 1. To show the rest of the world that not all Americans are raving
>> homicidal lunatics.
> 
> If they need to be told that, then they don't understand anyway. That's
> like saying all Muslims are terrorists. It's an ignorant generalization,
> and those who resort to that are not people who's opinions I care about.

There are an awful lot of people in the world that have a low view of
Americans. They can't see or don't understand that most people don't vote,
if they do vote they are voting for the lesser of two evils, have very
little influence over policy decisions etc. etc. But they do see that
American people don't all necessarily agree with their government when they
protest - because those protests are shown on newscasts around the world.

Perhaps the homicidal lunatic he's referring to is George W Bush (I'm not
saying if I agree with that characterisation). And he's saying that he wants
to show the world that not all Americans agree with Bush. If that's the
case, it's not exactly the same as saying that all Muslims are terrorists.
Muslims don't vote for terrorists. Americans do vote for their President -
and the inference is that they support his actions - unless they protest
publicly. It's not stupid or ignorant to assume that Americans support their
president. 

Anyway, good discussion. I hope I wasn't too irrational ;-).

Regards,
Tara



More information about the thechat mailing list