Unread post
by ticohans » Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:49 am
While I agree that the war is wrong and am against it myself, let me say that Dave exaggerates the situation and speaks as truth that which he can only guess, and can only guess with very little information. I respect his opinions and his motives, but believe that his statement doesn't show a lot of knowledge of the subject at hand. Conservatives underestimate the might of Saddam, if he indeed does have chemical and biological weapons, as in a war which has the sole purpose of removing him from power, Saddam will undoubtedly use whatever means possible to stay in power. However, liberals underestimate the value of having Saddam removed from power. As Dave said, Hussein is a genocidal maniac. The countries surrounding Iraq may not officially support the war, but they DO want Saddam removed from power. Many Iraquis would like to see Saddam gone. Dave talks about regime change and how that should be the responsibility of the oppressed. Quite honestly, this is an ignorant statement. Saddam has a very powerful and capable army, and one that is QUITE loyal to him. His most elite forces he keeps well, and they are comitted to him. To assume that an unarmed, uneducated, unorganized people that are starving, suppressed, and living under the iron fist dictatorship of Saddam could successfully rise up against his well-armed and motivated army is foolish. Dave also talks about the innocent Iraquis that would die, saying that "hundreds of thousands" will perish, and "children by the thousands." These numbers seem grossly inflated when considering modern warfare techniques and actual casualty numbers from the Gulf War. The earliest and worst estimates of Iraqui casualties numbered approximately 100,000. More recent and accurate numbers say that 20,000 Iraqui soldiers died along with 2,300 innocents. I do not pretend that those numbers are insignificant. That is 22,300 people dead. However, the vast majority of them were members of Saddam's millitary. When one considers actual numbers, it is obvious that the "hundreds of thousands" and "children by the thousands" are absurd exaggeration. Given improved technology, we can now conduct war even more accurately and efficiently than in the Gulf War. We've had a decade to improve our smart bombs and missiles, which were very successful in the Gulf. However, this war, if it occurs, WILL result in more casualties for Iraq, as it will be a fight to the finish for Saddam. But again, the numbers that Dave is throwing around just don't hold water. In terms of a link between Al Qaeda, Dave has a valid point here, as the US has yet to establish a sound, credible link between the two. However, it is hard to deny that the US' claim makes sense: a mutual enemy makes two groups friends. And while I am not saying we should take everything the government tries to spoon feed us, the truth is that they have a wealth of intelligence that we are not privy to, and to make assumptions that there is absolutely NO link seems a little uninformed. Dave talks about "putting out the fire with gasoline." Again, he does have a valid point here, however, we do not know if the Iraqui people will welcome the US military with open arms or with gunfire. Because the truth is that they are oppressed, and many would like to be free from Saddam. Also, while there is a good chance that unilateral US action would provoke more anti-US feeling, it must also be acknowledged that brainwashing dictatorships like Saddam's regime in Iraq are the spawning grounds of the radical Islamic factions that the US finds itself in arms against. There is a VERY good chance that UN action would provide a GREAT amount of legitimacy to this war, and thus I think that if war is the course that is decided upon, UN must be the vehicle for it. That being said, I too would like to see the inspectors permitted more time. Dave's final assertion that the war is about oil and the failing economy is nothing more than embittered conjecture, spoken from a highly biased stance. It is an insult. To sign the letter with "Peacefully Submitted" seems highly hypocritical after such an assault. I know that many are making this claim, but it is unfounded and unsubstantiated. The truth of the matter is that Saddam is a threat to world peace. The truth of the matter is that he IS in violation of Resolution 1441, which the Security Council passed unanimously, and by which the US, Britian, and others could wage war on Iraq if that is their choice. Bush and the administration have a real moral conviction that they are in the right on this one; for any of you who have studied political science, the position is classic NeoCon. Given these morals and these truths, the questions that must then be asked are these: Is war truly necessary right now? Are there other diplomatic solutions to be pursued? Will the region truly be more peaceful after the conflict? How are we going to work to rebuild the Iraqui system, and how do we propose to implement democracy in a nation that has known so little freedom for so very long? These questions the administration as NOT answered sufficiently. As I said at the outset, I am against this war right now, and until the above questions are answered, I will remain so. And finally, the only way we can hope that this possible war ends well is if we go through the UN.
, here is the statement that Dave released recently...
it is nice to hear what dave thinks though.
