Precisely how was the US supposed to get greater international support when you yourself admit that members of the UNSC (with veto) had interests in maintaining the status quo?
Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths
Saddam was cruel, but he was no Pol Pot or Idi Amin; millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. While there is little doubt Saddam did kill people, I'm not sure at all the number of people dying for bad reasons has come down now. It might well be the case, but I'd like to see something backing it up before I believe it.
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance.
Whereas if you want to sell liquor, armed mobs will burn down your shop. Iraq is no longer really secular. Saddam hated everyone equally, regardless of his problems with the Shi'a. As for protests, much good that's going to do you if the Americans aren't listening. Sistani and Chalabi seem to be the only two people in Iraq who they're talking to at all. The largest positive change the Americans made in their first 3 months of rule seemed to be removing Saddam's image from everywhere. Much good that did to kids who couldn't go to school, or for those whose A/Cs couldn't work throughout the 50°C summer because the Americans had bombed the power plans (the restoration of which apparently was NOT a priority). Is the economy geniunely better off? I'd like to see some figures.
but some things are more important than that
Political and civil rights are good. But getting food in your stomach comes first, everything else is usless without that. First get the infrastructure ready (without more bribes to Halliburton, s'il vous plaît) and then talk about those. Although for that matter, am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
he was more dangerous than we had thought
I'll have to look into what Kay said at that time, but from what I recall, he resigned while basically saying the hunt was useless, that there wasn't really anything to be found. The impression I've gotten from numerous sources is the direct opposite of what you said- that Saddam was not really a threat to his neighbors at all.
It is easy to say, "they should have given the inspectors more time," etc. and if Iraq continued to refuse to co-operate for another year then we could go in and attack with UN approval.
The problem with this is that the only reason Iraq was complying to any degree was the large American military presence just off the coast. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both acknowledged this. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq. After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence? No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good. They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war. Am I frightened by this? No. And let's remember, even Chirac said that Iraq had WMD's before the war. The point of difference was how to get rid of them.
millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. No. No no no no no. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq to give up its WMD programmes. It didn't. Sanctions continued while Iraq kept on its WMD programs, and building palaces, and the like. Saddam was more than capable of keeping his people from starving, even with the sanctions. He chose not to. Those millions of deaths are on his hands.
am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)? How are you going to ask the Iraqis what sort of government they want? Some sort of representative democratic structures have to be put in place before anything else. Otherwise the well-organised Shi'a leaders will get more votes than the divided "rest of Iraq" and could make Iraq even less secular than now. All parts of Iraq need a voice at first. Once this is in place, they can argue between themselves on what form the final democracy will take.
As long as the executive doesn't get too much power, things should be OK.
and if Iraq continued to refuse to co-operate for another year then we could go in and attack with UN approval
I'm not sure it would've taken a year, at all. The US/UK went in because he ostensibly posed a threat to the security of the region and the world. If they knew he didn't, which I contend was the case, then they went in for other reasons. Meaning they lied to their people. This might have what Hari describes as 'beneficial externalities'. And few people are sorry to see the end of Saddam. But don't you believe that lying to the country about the reasons for war is highly immoral, perhaps even treasonable?
It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq.
I certainly don't begrudge you that the American military did have some effect on Saddam. But even before the troop build-up, he'd started cooperating again. To me, there would not have been a problem if they went in if Saddam was played games with the inspectors. Thing is, he went out of his way to comply. They could've made it very clear that they'd go in only if the inspectors reported something fishy.
After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
They're spending a lot more money right now on rebuilding infrastructure they've just bombed.
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good.
Ah, here we come to what I believe is the central reason for our disagreements. It is a variant- perhaps a less black and white one, but still a variant- of the old question: Which is worse, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right ones? While the outcome certainly does matter to everyone involved, I think it is very important that a state (or indeed person) acts with the right intentions. I can see the positives to have risen America's invasion of Iraq. However, I feel the duplicitous manner in which said invasion was carried out makes several of them hollow.
They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war.
In my books, you don't go to war without being pretty damn sure of what you're doing. Which brings us back to the did-they-lie-to-the-public question. Which in turns leads back to my previous point on intentions vs. outcomes. And while I still strongly defend my point of view, I also believe that good people can disagree on this matter.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Iraq
Date: 2004-02-02 04:03 am (UTC)Because those interests, while certainly present, were not all that strong; if the inspectors reported non-cooperation public opinion in said countries would allow for supporting action. Multilateral action that wouldn't have caused so much international friction. Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
inaction by the US would have led to far more innocent deaths
Saddam was cruel, but he was no Pol Pot or Idi Amin; millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. While there is little doubt Saddam did kill people, I'm not sure at all the number of people dying for bad reasons has come down now. It might well be the case, but I'd like to see something backing it up before I believe it.
Yes. Much better. If you are in Iraq and you dislike the current rulers, you can protest, and not get executed for it, for instance.
Whereas if you want to sell liquor, armed mobs will burn down your shop. Iraq is no longer really secular. Saddam hated everyone equally, regardless of his problems with the Shi'a. As for protests, much good that's going to do you if the Americans aren't listening. Sistani and Chalabi seem to be the only two people in Iraq who they're talking to at all. The largest positive change the Americans made in their first 3 months of rule seemed to be removing Saddam's image from everywhere. Much good that did to kids who couldn't go to school, or for those whose A/Cs couldn't work throughout the 50°C summer because the Americans had bombed the power plans (the restoration of which apparently was NOT a priority). Is the economy geniunely better off? I'd like to see some figures.
but some things are more important than that
Political and civil rights are good. But getting food in your stomach comes first, everything else is usless without that. First get the infrastructure ready (without more bribes to Halliburton, s'il vous plaît) and then talk about those. Although for that matter, am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
he was more dangerous than we had thought
I'll have to look into what Kay said at that time, but from what I recall, he resigned while basically saying the hunt was useless, that there wasn't really anything to be found. The impression I've gotten from numerous sources is the direct opposite of what you said- that Saddam was not really a threat to his neighbors at all.
Re: Iraq
Date: 2004-02-02 04:29 pm (UTC)The problem with this is that the only reason Iraq was complying to any degree was the large American military presence just off the coast. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both acknowledged this. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq. After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good. They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war. Am I frightened by this? No. And let's remember, even Chirac said that Iraq had WMD's before the war. The point of difference was how to get rid of them.
millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government.
No. No no no no no. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq to give up its WMD programmes. It didn't. Sanctions continued while Iraq kept on its WMD programs, and building palaces, and the like. Saddam was more than capable of keeping his people from starving, even with the sanctions. He chose not to. Those millions of deaths are on his hands.
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm is a reminder from me to you and everyone else to have some patience.
am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
How are you going to ask the Iraqis what sort of government they want? Some sort of representative democratic structures have to be put in place before anything else. Otherwise the well-organised Shi'a leaders will get more votes than the divided "rest of Iraq" and could make Iraq even less secular than now. All parts of Iraq need a voice at first. Once this is in place, they can argue between themselves on what form the final democracy will take.
As long as the executive doesn't get too much power, things should be OK.
Re: Iraq
Date: 2004-02-04 01:15 am (UTC)I'm not sure it would've taken a year, at all. The US/UK went in because he ostensibly posed a threat to the security of the region and the world. If they knew he didn't, which I contend was the case, then they went in for other reasons. Meaning they lied to their people. This might have what Hari describes as 'beneficial externalities'. And few people are sorry to see the end of Saddam. But don't you believe that lying to the country about the reasons for war is highly immoral, perhaps even treasonable?
It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq.
I certainly don't begrudge you that the American military did have some effect on Saddam. But even before the troop build-up, he'd started cooperating again. To me, there would not have been a problem if they went in if Saddam was played games with the inspectors. Thing is, he went out of his way to comply. They could've made it very clear that they'd go in only if the inspectors reported something fishy.
After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
They're spending a lot more money right now on rebuilding infrastructure they've just bombed.
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good.
Ah, here we come to what I believe is the central reason for our disagreements. It is a variant- perhaps a less black and white one, but still a variant- of the old question: Which is worse, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right ones? While the outcome certainly does matter to everyone involved, I think it is very important that a state (or indeed person) acts with the right intentions. I can see the positives to have risen America's invasion of Iraq. However, I feel the duplicitous manner in which said invasion was carried out makes several of them hollow.
They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war.
In my books, you don't go to war without being pretty damn sure of what you're doing. Which brings us back to the did-they-lie-to-the-public question. Which in turns leads back to my previous point on intentions vs. outcomes. And while I still strongly defend my point of view, I also believe that good people can disagree on this matter.