nobody here is saying tht we can appease these violent freaks
I am saying that we should fight a smart war
otherwise we risk swelling their ranks. . . . especially when we do things they say we truly want to do, under apparently false motivations, and things that result in our apparent appropriation of huge amounts of "islamic" resources . .
bad fighting plays right into their hads . . and has done so
so you are agreeing with the statement that the war with Iraq was motivated by reasons other than those presented to the American people and the world?!?!
And my position has always been that i do not support the way the justification for war was presented to us, nor do support the context it was presented in. (The War on Terror)
However, I support the removal of Saddam from his position of authority. And I support the goal of freeing the Iraqi people from the brutal rule of him and his sons. So although this wasn't why we were told we needed to go in, it was part of the end result.
I don't condone being lied to. But I don't condone mass murder either.
And my position has always been that i do not support the way the justification for war was presented to us, nor do support the context it was presented in. (The War on Terror)
However, I support the removal of Saddam from his position of authority. And I support the goal of freeing the Iraqi people from the brutal rule of him and his sons. So although this wasn't why we were told we needed to go in, it was part of the end result.
I don't condone being lied to. But I don't condone mass murder either.
All of which frames the question nicely:
Was it worth it? Does the "freeing of the Iraqi people" (assuming they haven't traded the tyranny of a man for the tyranny of chronic violence and insecurity) justify the loss of life, enormous expense, and, perhaps most importantly, the errosion of American credibility and security in the region?
I think it's the only fair way to judge the situation, since "aren't you glad Saddam is gone" isn't an intelligible question without some reckoning of the bill.
I would be happy to see "all crime in America end", but not if it entailed check-points and random searches.
Was it worth it? Does the "freeing of the Iraqi people" (assuming they haven't traded the tyranny of a man for the tyranny of chronic violence and insecurity) justify the loss of life, enormous expense, and, perhaps most importantly, the errosion of American credibility and security in the region?
Why? So you can find a place where i leave myself open to attack? No thanks.
I have stated that I think it is worth spending tons of money, having soldiers die, and defacing our own image to liberate oppressed people. Wether or not their liberation was in fact our real goal.
You may choose to disagree with that, but those are my personal convictions and I don't want to open mine up to be twisted and distorted any more than you'd like yours.
I have stated that I think it is worth spending tons of money, having soldiers die, and defacing our own image to liberate oppressed people. Wether or not their liberation was in fact our real goal.
Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.
Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration?s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown?an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.
Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention?conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war?s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.
In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war?s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein?s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention...
And it goes on to explain the position in detail....
I wholeheartedly agree with this. But surely you don't think that Al Qaeda or whoever would not see us making efforts to do things such as this and sit idly by. We would still get attacked in retaliation.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
If we could actually trust our government to [sucessfully] fight this form of islamic terrorism, then [casualties] would be acceptable. But we can't so it isn't
giant, you simply can not keep yourself from creating conflict can you?
I had a lengthy response all typed out for you, but instead have decided to say I no longer choose to engage you in debate because you are unrelenting in your opinions and all too willing to cause tension in AO.
I'm sure you'll consider this to be an acknowledgment that you have gotten the better of me. And that is fine with me.
giant, you simply can not keep yourself from creating conflict can you?
I had a lengthy response all typed out for you, but instead have decided to say I no longer choose to engage you in debate because you are unrelenting in your opinions and all too willing to cause tension in AO.
My opinions? I posted HRW's statement on why a humanitarian justification can not be used for the Iraq war. All I hope it that you read it and think about it, especially considering you have developed an opinion on the matter.
In case you missed it, I was speaking in overall terms, not just within the context of this one single thread.
If Human Rights Watch's statement causes you tension, then that's between you and the statement. Don't attack me for a post where I barely commented and certainly didn't explain my opinion.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
No kidding
nobody here is saying tht we can appease these violent freaks
I am saying that we should fight a smart war
otherwise we risk swelling their ranks. . . . especially when we do things they say we truly want to do, under apparently false motivations, and things that result in our apparent appropriation of huge amounts of "islamic" resources . .
bad fighting plays right into their hads . . and has done so
In complete agreement here.
Originally posted by pfflam
But that was its justification
so you are agreeing with the statement that the war with Iraq was motivated by reasons other than those presented to the American people and the world?!?!
And my position has always been that i do not support the way the justification for war was presented to us, nor do support the context it was presented in. (The War on Terror)
However, I support the removal of Saddam from his position of authority. And I support the goal of freeing the Iraqi people from the brutal rule of him and his sons. So although this wasn't why we were told we needed to go in, it was part of the end result.
I don't condone being lied to. But I don't condone mass murder either.
Originally posted by rageous
And my position has always been that i do not support the way the justification for war was presented to us, nor do support the context it was presented in. (The War on Terror)
However, I support the removal of Saddam from his position of authority. And I support the goal of freeing the Iraqi people from the brutal rule of him and his sons. So although this wasn't why we were told we needed to go in, it was part of the end result.
I don't condone being lied to. But I don't condone mass murder either.
All of which frames the question nicely:
Was it worth it? Does the "freeing of the Iraqi people" (assuming they haven't traded the tyranny of a man for the tyranny of chronic violence and insecurity) justify the loss of life, enormous expense, and, perhaps most importantly, the errosion of American credibility and security in the region?
I think it's the only fair way to judge the situation, since "aren't you glad Saddam is gone" isn't an intelligible question without some reckoning of the bill.
I would be happy to see "all crime in America end", but not if it entailed check-points and random searches.
Originally posted by addabox
All of which frames the question nicely:
Was it worth it? Does the "freeing of the Iraqi people" (assuming they haven't traded the tyranny of a man for the tyranny of chronic violence and insecurity) justify the loss of life, enormous expense, and, perhaps most importantly, the errosion of American credibility and security in the region?
In my opinion, yes.
Originally posted by rageous
In my opinion, yes.
I'd like to see some reasoning as to why that's your opinion.
I have stated that I think it is worth spending tons of money, having soldiers die, and defacing our own image to liberate oppressed people. Wether or not their liberation was in fact our real goal.
You may choose to disagree with that, but those are my personal convictions and I don't want to open mine up to be twisted and distorted any more than you'd like yours.
Originally posted by rageous
I have stated that I think it is worth spending tons of money, having soldiers die, and defacing our own image to liberate oppressed people. Wether or not their liberation was in fact our real goal.
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.
Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.
Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration?s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown?an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.
Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention?conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war?s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.
In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war?s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein?s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention...
And it goes on to explain the position in detail....
Originally posted by rageous
I wholeheartedly agree with this. But surely you don't think that Al Qaeda or whoever would not see us making efforts to do things such as this and sit idly by. We would still get attacked in retaliation.
Originally posted by giant
If we could actually trust our government to [sucessfully] fight this form of islamic terrorism, then [casualties] would be acceptable. But we can't so it isn't
I had a lengthy response all typed out for you, but instead have decided to say I no longer choose to engage you in debate because you are unrelenting in your opinions and all too willing to cause tension in AO.
I'm sure you'll consider this to be an acknowledgment that you have gotten the better of me. And that is fine with me.
Originally posted by rageous
Why? So you can find a place where i leave myself open to attack? No thanks.
Well then you're not really part of the discussion.
Originally posted by bunge
Well then you're not really part of the discussion.
"What are ya ganna do? Send out the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you?"
Originally posted by bunge
Well then you're not really part of the discussion.
Aslo, who are you to dictate who is and is not part of anything around here?
Originally posted by rageous
giant, you simply can not keep yourself from creating conflict can you?
I had a lengthy response all typed out for you, but instead have decided to say I no longer choose to engage you in debate because you are unrelenting in your opinions and all too willing to cause tension in AO.
My opinions? I posted HRW's statement on why a humanitarian justification can not be used for the Iraq war. All I hope it that you read it and think about it, especially considering you have developed an opinion on the matter.
Originally posted by rageous
In case you missed it, I was speaking in overall terms, not just within the context of this one single thread.
If Human Rights Watch's statement causes you tension, then that's between you and the statement. Don't attack me for a post where I barely commented and certainly didn't explain my opinion.
Originally posted by rageous
In case you missed it, I was speaking in overall terms, not just within the context of this one single thread.
Originally posted by rageous
Aslo, who are you to dictate who is and is not part of anything around here?
I'm not dictating anything. Your ability or willingness to respond dictates your own participation.