Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Resolution 687 (adopted in 1991): Demanded Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.

It also called for all information concerning all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, without further delay.

It created the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) and called on inspection teams to be given "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect.

Resolution 1205 (adopted in 1998): Condemned "the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease co-operation ... as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions."

Resolution 1284 (adopted in 1999): Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace UNSCOM. It said UNMOVIC would ensure "the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations ... (to reinforce a) system of ongoing monitoring and verification."

And Iraq did not comply and thus far will not comply.

Though its not on the Hitler level, isn't that appeasement?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
What about France?

Absolutely.

[Juggernaut]

Economic war is like shooting yourself in the foot.

[Andrew1999]

The main problem I have with this war is that it's a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. It's not about chemical weapons or human rights or the UN, it's about a man who has stubbornly refused to crawl away and die for the last 11 years.

It could be argued that killing Saddam would still be the right thing to do even if it's for the wrong reasons, but the right thing to do involves a lot more than dashing in, putting a bullet in him, and pulling everyone back out before he's cold and abanoning the Iraqis to their fate. I've read a lot of crap about how killing Saddam will magically make the Middle East into a liberal democratic paradise, and I think the U.S. in particular and the world in general doesn't have it in them to stick around and make it work.

[Jaakko]

Here's a nice quote from http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul52.html

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked – and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States – and who may again attack the United States – and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US – and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharraf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 – including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and – not coincidentally – we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[Az]

Well, Jaakko, these are all reasons why AMERICANS wouldn't like to go to war with Iraq. Why should Europeans, and other nations be against it ?

[Jaakko]

The SOP is that you don't go to war against countries that pose no threat to you. Convince me otherwise and you'll have something.

[Ned]

Ron, Your reasoning is impeccable. Well put.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
BTW, who does top your "must be toppled" list Bugs?

The current regime in Burma.

5 years ago I'd have said Suharto of Indonesia, but there's been big improvements there. China features high up the list, but I fear that's pretty unlikely.

[Jaakko]

Going after Saddam "cuz he's so bad and wants to do bad things" (as offered by Bush in his speech tonight) also poses the realpolitik problem of legitimising "pre-emptive" defence, IOW war of aggression.

Then there's the problem of ignoring the people of the area, who I can guarantee will become even more hostile towards the busybody invading at the drop of a hat. Building up a working democracy would also be hugely expensive with no short term benefits, ensuring that no self-serving politician will do it properly. A real ideologue could do it, but somehow I have trouble seeing that happening with people like Bush & Blair, or with other euro governments for that matter.

[Ned]

Ron, As to your point about liberals and war, Roosevelt was one of the best wartime leaders we will ever see and he was a liberal.

I understand Blair will make the case against Saddam in the SC. Good choice - another liberal.

Now if Schroeder would only calm down a little.

[Drake Tungsten]

Schroeder just needs an issue to rally the support of the German left right now. I'm sure his rhetoric will be toned down after the election.

[Az]

The SOP is that you don't go to war against countries that pose no threat to you. Convince me otherwise and you'll have something.

a case can be made in The US' Involvement in WWII in europe.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Azazel
Well, Jaakko, these are all reasons why AMERICANS wouldn't like to go to war with Iraq. Why should Europeans, and other nations be against it ?

more to the point, why should they be for it?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Azazel


a case can be made in The US' Involvement in WWII in europe.

Did you know the decision of which side to pick was put to a vote in the Congress?
And even then they only joined the war once Hitler declared war on the US.

And a case can also be made that a successful Nazi Germany would have posed a direct threat to the US, much like the USSR actually did.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that my position isn't that the threat has to be direct. You'll need to judge on a case by case basis, and Iraq certainly doesn't qualify for an invasion. Tinhorn dictators are and will be plentiful in the world, and war will not change that.