Protests: Give tyranny a chance

[igloo]

Michael Kelly

February 19, 2003

Protests: Give tyranny a chance

PARIS--Last weekend, across Europe and America, somewhere between 1 million and 2 million people marched against a war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. All protests against war are ultimately ethical in nature, and Saturday's placard-wavers did not break with tradition: ``Give Peace a Chance," ``Make Tea, Not War," ``Bush and Blair--The Real War Criminals.'' These are statements of sentiment, not power politics, and the sentiment is, or is meant to be, a moral one. Of course, not all the marchers can be counted as 99.9 percent pure moralists. Some--perhaps many--marched out of simple reactionary hatred: for the United States, for its power, for its paramount position in a hated world order. London's paleosocialist Mayor ``Red Ken" Livingstone, a featured speaker at that city's massive demo, comes to mind. His enlightened argument against war consisted chiefly of calling George W. Bush ``a lackey of the oil industry,'' ``a coward," and ``this creature."

But doubtless, hundreds of thousands of marchers--and many more millions who did not march--believe quite sincerely that theirs is a profoundly moral cause, and this is really all that motivates them. They believe, as French President Jacques Chirac recently pontificated, ``war is always the worst answer.''

The people who believe what Chirac at least professes to believe are, at least as concerns Iraq, as wrong as it is possible to be. Theirs is not the position of profound morality, but one that stands in profound opposition to morality.

The situation with Iraq may be considered in three primary contexts, and in each, the true moral case is for war.

The first context considers the people of Iraq. There are 24 million of them, and they have been living (those that have not been slaughtered or forced into exile) for decades under one of the cruelest and bloodiest tyrannies on earth. It must be assumed that, being human, they would prefer to be rescued from a hell where more than a million lives have been so far sacrificed to the dreams of a megalomaniac, where rape is a sanctioned instrument of state policy, and where the removal of the tongue is the prescribed punishment for uttering an offense against the Great Leader.

These people could be liberated from this horror--relatively easily and very quickly. There is every reason to think that an American invasion will swiftly vanquish the few elite units that can be counted on to defend the detested Saddam; and that the victory will come at the cost of few--likely hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands--Iraqi and American lives. There is risk here; and if things go terribly wrong it is a risk that could result in terrible suffering. But that is an equation that is present in any just war, and in this case any rational expectation has to consider the probable cost to humanity low and the probable benefit tremendous. To choose perpetuation of tyranny over rescue from tyranny, where rescue may be achieved, is immoral.

The second context considers the security of America, and indeed of the world, and here too morality is on the side of war. The great lesson of Sept. 11 is not that terrorism must be stopped--an impossible dream--but that state-sanctioned terrorism must be stopped. The support of a state--even a weak and poor state--offers the otherwise deeply vulnerable enemies of the established order the protection they need in their attempts to destroy that order--through the terrorists' only weapon, murder. To tolerate the perpetuation of state-sanctioned terror, such as Saddam's regime exemplifies, is to invite the next Sept. 11, and the next, and the next. Again, immoral.

The third context concerns the idea of order itself. The United Nations is a mightily flawed construct, but it exists; and it exists on the side (more or less) of law and humanity. Directly and unavoidably arising from the crisis with Iraq, the U.N. today stands on the edge of the precipice of permanent irrelevancy. If Iraq should be allowed to defy the law, the U.N. will never recover, and the oppressed and weak of the world will lose even the limited protection of the myth of collective security. Immoral.

To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil.

This cannot be the moral position.

[igloo]

*Bump*

Just to irritate by pal Sassa

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by igloo

The situation with Iraq may be considered in three primary contexts, and in each, the true moral case is for war.

The first context considers the people of Iraq. There are 24 million of them, and they have been living (those that have not been slaughtered or forced into exile) for decades under one of the cruelest and bloodiest tyrannies on earth. It must be assumed that, being human, they would prefer to be rescued from a hell where more than a million lives have been so far sacrificed to the dreams of a megalomaniac, where rape is a sanctioned instrument of state policy, and where the removal of the tongue is the prescribed punishment for uttering an offense against the Great Leader.

These people could be liberated from this horror--relatively easily and very quickly. There is every reason to think that an American invasion will swiftly vanquish the few elite units that can be counted on to defend the detested Saddam; and that the victory will come at the cost of few--likely hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands--Iraqi and American lives. There is risk here; and if things go terribly wrong it is a risk that could result in terrible suffering. But that is an equation that is present in any just war, and in this case any rational expectation has to consider the probable cost to humanity low and the probable benefit tremendous. To choose perpetuation of tyranny over rescue from tyranny, where rescue may be achieved, is immoral.

The second context considers the security of America, and indeed of the world, and here too morality is on the side of war. The great lesson of Sept. 11 is not that terrorism must be stopped--an impossible dream--but that state-sanctioned terrorism must be stopped. The support of a state--even a weak and poor state--offers the otherwise deeply vulnerable enemies of the established order the protection they need in their attempts to destroy that order--through the terrorists' only weapon, murder. To tolerate the perpetuation of state-sanctioned terror, such as Saddam's regime exemplifies, is to invite the next Sept. 11, and the next, and the next. Again, immoral.

.

this is bullshit

1. if we were invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons we would have done so a long time ago. We would also have invaded most of Africa and southeast asia

2. Saudi Arabia has proven financial links to Al-Qaeda...Iraq does not. We are going after the wrong fucking country. We are wasting time, money, and putting thousands of our soldiers lives in danger for a link to Al-Qaeda that the government cannot prove.

complete fucking bullshit

[igloo]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

this is bullshit

1. if we were invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons we would have done so a long time ago. We would also have invaded most of Africa and southeast asia

2. Saudi Arabia has proven financial links to Al-Qaeda...Iraq does not. We are going after the wrong fucking country. We are wasting time, money, and putting thousands of our soldiers lives in danger for a link to Al-Qaeda that the government cannot prove.

complete fucking bullshit

You are completely off by saying this article is complete fucking bullshit...wrong choice of words/logic.....

I agree, I think the US should stop focusing on the al-Qaeda link, but that is not the ONLY reason we are, as you say "wasting time, money, and putting thousands of our soldiers lives in danger".....ridiculous statement......

I was just wondering, have you been paying attention to the past 12 years, or how about just the past 3 months?

Answer a simple question, if you can remove yourself objectively from your anti-Bush fog, .....

Why will Saddam Hussein not produce evidence that he had rid his country of chemical and biological weapons, which were confirmed by your beloved UN inspections teams?

Answer that simple question?...

Wouldn't logic suggest that the Iraqi's could avert war, embarass the US, and Saddam could stay in power if they performed this simple and required task??????????????????

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

You are completely off by saying this article is complete fucking bullshit...wrong choice of words/logic.....

I agree, I think the US should stop focusing on the al-Qaeda link, but that is not the ONLY reason we are, as you say "wasting time, money, and putting thousands of our soldiers lives in danger".....ridiculous statement......

I was just wondering, have you been paying attention to the past 12 years, or how about just the past 3 months?

Answer a simple question, if you can remove yourself objectively from your anti-Bush fog, .....

Why will Saddam Hussein not produce evidence that he had rid his country of chemical and biological weapons, which were confirmed by your beloved UN inspections teams?

Answer that simple question?...

Wouldn't logic suggest that the Iraqi's could avert war, embarass the US, and Saddam could stay in power if they performed this simple and required task??????????????????

Thats something I've always wondered about...how exactly would they prove that they got rid of something. I mean, it wouldn't be there anymore to prove its not there, no?

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Thats something I've always wondered about...how exactly would they prove that they got rid of something. I mean, it wouldn't be there anymore to prove its not there, no?

"If a tree fell in the woods, and no one was around to hear it, does it make a sound?".......haven't used this one since 6th grade

[kramadas]

n/m

[kramadas]

Originally posted by igloo

"If a tree fell in the woods, and no one was around to hear it, does it make a sound?".......haven't used this one since 6th grade

If that was an answer to my question, then I don't get it.

I think its a very legitimate question...how does the US govt want him to prove he has nothing? As far as I know, they haven't outlined the kind of proof they require.

All we have right now is the US govt demanding all nations unite against Iraq because they have "proof" that he still has WMD's, but of course that proof cannot be shown to anyone because its too top secret.

If the "proof" the govt so far has released, were something that had to stand in a normal court of law, it would immediately be dismissed as circumstantial.

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

If that was an answer to my question, then I don't get it.

I think its a very legitimate question...how does the US govt want him to prove he has nothing? As far as I know, they haven't outlined the kind of proof they require.

All we have right now is the US govt demanding all nations unite against Iraq because they have "proof" that he still has WMD's, but of course that proof cannot be shown to anyone because its too top secret.

If the "proof" the govt so far has released, were something that had to stand in a normal court of law, it would immediately be dismissed as circumstantial.

I was just offering a bad, rhetorical joke.....

Easy on the US demanding proof.....the United Nations, the World, including the brilliant French, are demanding proof of disarmament of WMD that have already been confirmed

If you recall, the UN inspectors, after years and years and years, got lucky, and were able to confirm that Iraq has WMD....and then were promptly kicked out (the term kicked out is often debated).....also, when Hussein gassed his own people and the Iranians, I think that was good enough proof....

And if you recall, Iraq was recently to declare the riddance of these confirmed WMD, and instead turned in a 12,000 page document of bullshit.....and still no proof of the destruction of these WMD.......

And again, you are asking for a definition of proof---not sure where you are going with this, but I would assume the UN, and the Inspection team know how to prove destruction (based on specific protocols)--I personally don't...I think this is a silly arguement on your part....

With respects to circumstantial evidence---that is intelligence--information from a variety of sources, and then connect the dots.....we do not have the luxury of 2,000 FBI detectives roaming the country with unfettered investigations....

Also, if you recall, the US and other foreign intelligence services estimated prior to the Gulf War that Iraq has x amount of WMD......not until during and right after the war did they realize that intelligence estimates were grossly underestimated.....