Job Discussion Forums

Changjiang · Joined: 14 May 2003 Posts: 55

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way Roger.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth but it sounds as if you feel the Americans are worse than Saddam. Perhaps the 300,000 corpses found in mass graves recently might have had a different opinion; but I guess we can't ask them, seeing as how they're dead. But you can look at them here: http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/ and consider the alternatives to the situation we have now.

It is an interesting viewpoint, but I guess we can't really debate, as our worldviews are fundamentally incompatible. Again, I defer to Iraqi's residents:

www.healingiraq.blogspot.com
www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com
www.geeinbaghdad.blogspot.com
www.messopotamiam.blogspot.com
www.iraqataglance.blogspot.com
www.baghdaddee.blogspot.com
www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

Most of whom have a more positive outlook than you.

I seem to recall that you are in China, so you'll need a way around the blocks such as http://anonymouse.ws/anonwww.html

Iain, yes, I agree it is confusing. I guess we'll wait and see.

Been_there, I must compliment you on being one of the few (actually the only), consistant anti-war activist I have heard of. I'd ask how you can be opposed to ethnic cleansing and simultaneously opposed to the interventions in Kosovo and Iraq, but again we'd probably be heading way off topic.

Dr J, I agree, protests do raise public awareness, how about some against North Korea? Or any other totalitarian regime? I doubt we will see that anytime soon, or at least as long as protestors focus on the personalities involved, rather than the issues. BTW, please don't feel you have to justify your opinion based on your area of origin, human rights are universal, and it speaks well of you to stand up for them. I too feel great shame at my countries performance through this whole sorry episode. There's a lot of shame to go around.

As regards the original point of this thread: I stand on my original statement. Protesting a fait accompli with positive results is the wrong thing to do.

dduck · Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Posts: 422 Location: In the middle

Changjiang · Joined: 14 May 2003 Posts: 55

Fair question, but in my country we occasionally show a lack of support for a government by voting.

Positive outcomes I can think of, off the top of my head:

1) The weapons of mass destruction programs are no longer being funded. (This is from the Kay report. I believe there is definite evidence that these programs existed. Yes, I know there are no actual functioning WMDs. I don't care. The evidence of a functioning nuclear weapon would have been a mushroom cloud over a city. We got there in time.)

2) The sanctions are lifted.

3) Children are no longer being poured into mass graves. (Anyone who says "Not in my name." needs to look at this one very closely.)

4) There is freedom of the press in a former totalitarian country. (ref the some 300 new newspapers in Iraq and the previously listed bloggers)

5) The UN no longer had control over another countries economy (ref the Oil for Food Program, currently unable to account for some billions of dollars.)

6) American troops can withdraw from Saudi Arabia. It might be a step towards seeing them withdraw from Germany, South Korea, and some of the other 39 countries they are in.

7) A despot that started two wars of aggression and used chemical weapons is deposed. Better, his two evil progeny have been killed.

Cool

Every jihadi with dreams of battling the Great Satan is now enroute to Iraq. The fighting and terror attacks are confined to the "Sunni Triangle", and are another phase of a sustained campaign. (Here's the choice: soldiers can fight them in Iraq, or civilians can fight them in America. ref: 9/11)

9) Documents of nations and individuals that illegally conspired with Iraq are now available for inspection. We can find out who on the Security Coucil played both sides. We also get to see who illegally sold weapons to Iraq (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml)

10) Terrorist training camps are not operating in Iraq.

11) Totalitarian regimes that have and seek nuclear weapons have been shown what can happen. I hope that Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs from Iran take the lesson to heart.

12) This event has so polarized political discussion that it now is a single question that reveals an individuals priorities. Whether you feel the means were improper, the motives were cloudy or the President a buffoon, either you feel the war was justified or not. This instantly clarifies who really believes in human rights, and who plays partisan politics.

Personally, I support every human beings inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Fewer Iraqi's are being killed now, they have greater freedom of movement, a socialist economy is being dismantled and they have some hope for the future. It is not the best possible outcome, but it is the least worst.

Regards,

Changjiang · Joined: 14 May 2003 Posts: 55

Ok, can someone explain why there is a smiley in the middle of my post? "Preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend..."

Dr.J · Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 304 Location: usually Japan

WMD claims are dubious, especially when somewhere like North Korea is actually admitting to pursuing a weapon and has more possibility of doing so.

I don't think the fighting and terror attacks will be confined to this area. They have spread to Turkey (eastern europe) and it's only a matter of time; after all, attacks on 'the west' get the most press, as any terrorist knows.

Besides, soldiers are people too, right?

Kim Jong is taking this lesson to heart, which is probably why he is accelerating NK's nuclear program. Whoops!

Generally I agree with you but these points are a little shaky.

arioch36 · Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 3589

As an American, I am selfish. I don't feel comfortable spending incredible amount of money and the lives of soldiers at the drop of a hat. I don't think Bush went about it right, but then, I am not an expert. Personally I am a McCain supporter.

But for anyone to say that there are no positive effects? Torture was celebrated bt the Baath regime. they had seminars about it. Basra (the country really) was in a grip of fear of torture, etc, maybe only second to North Korea. (Let China and Japan and Russia deal with North Korea, but the people there are suffering horribly)

The country was an open hole for corruption. The Baath Party loved to show how the restrictions on trade were hurting poor children in the hospital with no supplies. Billions were diverted from that to build Sadaam's huge palaces (complexes used to hide who knows what). Whole towns were gassed into oblivion. So it is documented that Sadaam had no compunction about using chemical weapons. What did the UN and the world do about it?

I don't expect the Iraqi people to make a statue to Bush anytime soon.

But for someone to say there are no positive effects? As Lennon one said, clear your mind of hate first, because your vision is clouded.

Again, as always, I would like to know why so many of the Bush protesters never protested vehemently against the campaign to oust Milosevic, which was also unsanctioned by the UN, which i think targeted civilian structures illegally, something the Iraq campaign did not.

Anyone know what hypocrisy is? What is means to have double standards. I am becoming convinced that the protesters really don't care less about the realities, but simply have to do something to make themselves feel good about themselves becuase they feel inadequate for some reason.

Changjiang · Joined: 14 May 2003 Posts: 55

Off Topic (but a meta-comment about the discussion)

I would like to thank everyone involved in this discussion for remaining remarkably level headed and polite. I know this is an emotional topic and it's easy to get carried away when posting. I was initially expecting this to turn into a flame war and have been pleasantly surprised by the civilty shown so far.

dduck · Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Posts: 422 Location: In the middle

basiltherat · Joined: 04 Oct 2003 Posts: 952

To quote a acquaintance of mine:

"This is likely to be the first war in modern history that ends before the justifications given for fighting it are proven."

basil

nomadder · Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:31 pm Post subject:

A little more brains with the brawn would be nice.

Just read about the hundreds of suspected terrorist Muslim men and boys from many countries being held in Guantanamo(Cuba) with no hope of a trial in the next few years. Some are trying to kill themselves. Must be fun to be them.

Turn a blind eye. Think we need a return to the 60's. How much change can the average citizen affect?

Changjiang · Joined: 14 May 2003 Posts: 55

As for actual, functioning WMD, there are a number of possibilities.

1 ) In the 8 month run up to the war they were destroyed. Chemical weapons are inherently unstable and degrade quickly in nature. Bio weapons even more so. Nuke stuff can be dumped at sea fairly discreetly.

2 ) They have been hidden. (ref the Kay report, he makes the point that there are 130 weapons depots, collectively encompassing hundreds of square kilometers) They could be in a depot, they could be hidden in the desert. If the Iraqi's were willing to bury jet fighters http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml
they would be willing to go to great lengths to hide more incriminating things.

3 ) There were exported to Iran, Syria or other sympathetic states.

4 ) There weren't any. Either because Saddam was lied to by his own people, or he was bluffing.

Personally, I believe it's a combination of 3 and 4. Useful subcomponents were shipped out, but in point of fact, there were no functioning WMD in Iraq. There was however a totalitarian government with active programs to produce WMDs, that had employed them in the past, was subsidizing terror and had started 2 wars of aggression. The potential for disaster was too high.

To my mind, the final justification for this war is in the mass graves. It didn't take me a long time to see that 300 dead children in a hole in the desert was a bad thing, maybe other people have a more nuanced view. While preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing, I feel that supporting human rights is arguably of greater value.

As for the Americans cutting and running, Bush made some pretty strong statements in his speech in Iraq the other day
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17345-2003Nov27.html
if he follows through on what he says, I think they'll stay the course. If they don't, I agree, it will be a disaster for a long time to come.

I feel sorry for the terrorists in Guatanomo, but there is a war on, we may have to curtail some peoples civil liberties, especially those that take up arms. I'm pretty certain they'll be treated fairly and on a case by case basis with the innocents going free, as opposed to how Iraqi soldiers treated captured American troops (ref Pvt. J. Lynch) and how terrorists treat individuals that come into their power.(ref D. Pearl)

Regards,

shenyanggerry · Joined: 02 Nov 2003 Posts: 619 Location: Canada

[qoute]
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:44 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dduck · Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Posts: 422 Location: In the middle

Roger · Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 9138

So, Changjiang/Yangtse/Rob Biggs, you "...feel sorry for the TERRORISTS in Guantanamo..."
A Freudian slip of your tongue?
It seems to me this is remarkably similar to George Bush's various slips of his tongue, his grand-standing on various p0erceived moral issues, in short: it's rhetorics, nothing but that, and simpletons will always fall for this kind of mind-manipulating.

Mayh I humbly ask: how do YOU of all people know that those held at Guantanamo are bona fide 'terrorists'?

To a law layman such as me, they would at best qualify as "suspects".

I also notged that you have so far refrained from answering the very basic question: what's "Positive" about this totally wasteful and useless war???

Apart from regurgitating White House prolpaganda tidbits...

CountryClub · Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 46 Location: China

Changjiang (and anyone else),

I agree with and support your commitment to promoting and securing human rights and Saddam being out of power is truly a wonderful thing but I ask you, what makes the Iraqis so deserving of this attention? Why choose them over say, the Koreans, Iranians, or the people of Zimbabwe? For me, forceful regime change from the outside is folly. The US and others did it many times in the past and it tended to cause problems and resentment. I look at what recently happened in Georgia or what happened in Belgrade when the Serbs took to the streets to successfully oust Milosovic as evidence that it is the people themselves who must initiate their own move towards a freer, more open society. It is when the people are demanding change that we can play a role and support their efforts. Who are we to tell the Iraqis what they want? Who are we to tell them that this death and destruction is for their own good? Obviously relying on internal efforts is easier said than done but the people of Iran have been rising up despite the fact that many have been tortured and killed. A similar story has taken place in Zimbabwe. Why not invade Zimbabwe - that is a war I might support. Also, if the Solidarity movement can successful end the powerful, deeply entrenched authoritarian rule of Eastern Europe then I�m confident that many more can overcome their own tyrants.

I guess my question boils down to why the Iraqis?