About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are a couple of (somewhat patronizing) variances of voting "no" in the poll. I'd like to know about some reasons for voting "yes".
(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 3/30, 10:58pm)


Post 1

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 3:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree Jeremy.

Despite the fact that I am supposedly a "Saddamite" (a label which I still reject), I actually voted "Yes, but...", as I'm figuring this is the option that most closely resembles my own position.

MH


Post 2

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 2:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>>  I'd like to know about some reasons for voting "yes".

I can think of a million.  Or is it a million and a half?  Estimates vary.


Post 3

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Had to go with "Yes, but..."  The word "justified" in itself means "did we have a right to do X," in this case, liberating the people.  If the poll asked if we *should* have gone and done this (and then handed the American people the bill), I would've put down, "Hell No!"

Post 4

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 1:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd love to know about your reasons, Jonathan (and anyone else).  Don't actually wish to debate them; that's been done to death and back.  But since the "no" answers were given qualifiers I think it's fair that the "yes" option(s) be equally represented.  I'll understand if people don't wish to give reasons, or feel the event doesn't require qualification.

Post 5

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 5:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted "Yes, Absolutely..." as I hold firmly that a nation that possesses some vestiges of freedom has "The Right of Intervention" (to use Dustin Hawkins' frase), in any country that is ruled by a dictatorial or statist regime. At the onset of the war, I had written a poem which represented my outlook at that time and to whose tone and message I still adhere.

                      To Saddam Hussein
     
Upon the Inception of the War of Iraqi Liberation
                          G. Stolyarov II

You, despot, have in apathy long basked,
Faced with a world that never asked
For causes of your country’s blight
And your negating every right
Within the sacred realm of man.

The world was blind to your oppression,
Of brave dissenters your suppression,
Of guiltless women theft and rape,
Modernity’s primeval ape,
Hitler reborn mixed with the Taliban.

Conceding and equivocating,
The councils all manipulating,
You were on nuclear possession’s brink,
To terrorism a crucial link,
Yet pragmatists your dangers have ignored.

Afraid of destabilization,
The decadents had let you keep your station,
Your throne on skulls and entrails standing,
Your presence base subservience demanding,
Your rule to power’s heights by them restored.

Sanctions self-sparked, and children starving,
Death’s elite guards brutally carving
Their way into the Kurdish realm with blood,
What once had breathed now choked by mud,
Those were the hallmarks of your reign.

But, dictator, your time has ended,
And fiery streams have from the skies descended,
And titans wage their quest by land,
Purging all traces from the wind-worn sand
Of that monstrosity, Saddam Hussein.
 


Post 6

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 6:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
>>  I'd love to know about your reasons, Jonathan (and anyone else). 

I've given you them, Jeremy, above.  The murder of between 1 and 1.5 million people, and the enslavement of the rest of the population, over a period of around 20 years.  The beheadings, the torture, the shootings, the lack of democracy etc etc etc.

Please note that my reasons have nothing to do with WMD or terrorism or Al Qaeda or anything  else.  The above points are more than sufficient in my view, regardless of what the ostensible reasons given by the US and others for going to war were.  The "we were duped about WMD etc" argument is to me a side issue at best.  Maybe we were, but we sure as hell weren't duped about the points in my first paragraph.  This fact seems often to be overlooked in the rush to condemn the US and argue that the war was "unnecessary".

>>  Don't actually wish to debate them; that's been done to death and back.

Agreed.


Post 7

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great.  Anymore?

Post 8

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 2:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeremy,

I'll expand on my earlier comment. The question asks whether the war was justified. From my position, a great deal depends on how the word "justified" is interpreted. Rand's essential principle, as I understand it, is that any (relatively) free country has "the right, but not the duty" to invade dictatorships. Considering the full context of the situation in 2003 I did not think (and still don't) that an invasion was the best option, which view I have defended elsewhere on the forums. That said, I do accept that the west had the *right* to invade, and thus I voted "Yes, but".

MH


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I viewed Iraq as a battle in a larger war. Thus, securing Iraq before moving on to the next step is but a military detail – not an end in itself. The real enemy is an ideological movement – a religious movement: Islam. It is a pure religion - undiluted with reason and reality. It is a totalitarian political religion that seeks world domination. Iraq was an expedient – not a moral obligation. It was a detail of military strategy – prudent in my opinion; but I respect some of the other alternatives.

Post 10

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted Yes Aboslute.

The reasons were like this for me.  First Saddam was a dictator who for the past 20 years thumbed his nose at the world and murdered thousands of people who opposed him and anyone else who got in the way.  Second this is a war on terror not just a war on Al-Qaeda.  I have no idea what the hell the bush admin was thinking or what evidence they had linking Saddam with the good old  A-Q  but its not important to me.  A war on terror means a war on terrorism in all its forms.  Tyrany of Rule is just as much terrorism as blowing up buildings.

Sadly though I think we have an administration that is stuck between wanting to make a principled stand against terrorism but do so without upsetting any particular demographic.  They are too political to have a spine enough to offer proper justifications for the war.  This can be seen in the bumbling foolishness they pull with the 9/11 commision. 

Eric.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, April 1, 2004 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I voted “Yes, but  …” because although Bush’s strategy re terror is shot through with contradictions, the appeasement of primitivism has gone on long enough and any military action against any part of the terror network is far better than none at this point. Also, an article in The Intellectual Activist titled “America’s WMD Illusions” has persuaded me that there was in fact reason to see Iraq as an imminent threat. (Anyone who disagrees, please read the article and respond to it here; I will consider your answer and change my mind if need be.)

But the taking down of Iraq will eventually prove useless if Bush does not follow through, and I am very sure he will not. If Bush knew anything about principles, he would have started making war on any of a number of other countries, and not stopped until the entire terror network was broken up.

An attack on American soil made possible by and initiated by foreign political entities should have led to an immediate declaration of total war. Not a “War on Terror,” a metaphor at best (terror is a method, not an agent), but a literal war—on countries.


Post 12

Friday, April 2, 2004 - 5:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I voted: "No. Absolutely and categorically, no."

Freeing the Iraqi people is just nonsense. All we did is remove the latest Muslim despot and provide aid to our enemies. What the Iraqi people need to be made free from is Islam, and only they can do that.

The invasion of Iraq was not only not justified, it was stupid, wasteful, and ultimately, long term, will be just another empowering of our avowed enemies.

See David MacGregor's post: Link.

Regi

 


Post 13

Saturday, April 3, 2004 - 2:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry, Reginald, I'm confused by your reference to Saddam Hussein as a 'Muslim despot'.

I understood that Saddam's regime was a secular one and that he in fact persecuted Muslims (amongst others!).

Can you please clarify this for me.

Thanks


Post 14

Saturday, April 3, 2004 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan,
 
Your question is interesting because a lot of people do not understand the relationship between the Sunni Muslim aspects of Saddams Baath Socialist party. The regime was supposedly "secular," but the power was derived from the Islamic superstition of the people.
 
From a Historical Overview of Mesopotamia:
 
In July 1979 President Bakr was succeeded by General Saddam Hussein at-takriti, a Sunni Muslim and fellow member of the Arab Baath Socialist Party.

History - Hussein, Saddam
Saddam Hussein
Born in 1937. After Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq in 1979, he proved to be one of the most brutal and warlike of late-20th-century political figures. In 1980 he launched his country into an eight-year war with neighboring Iran that neither nation could win. In 1991 his armies invaded and annexed Kuwait. This aggression caused a massive United Nations coalition (composed mainly of the United States armed forces) to attack Hussein's forces in January 1991 in an effort to protect Saudi oil with the reinstatement of Kuwait as a conveniently used cover-up. Hussein also used his armed might against his own people, especially the minority Kurds in the north.
Hussein was born to a peasant family in the village of Tikrit on April 28, 1937. Orphaned early in life, he was raised for a time by an uncle. In his youth he became an ardent nationalist, determined to rid Iraq of foreign influences. Soon after moving to Baghdad in 1955 he joined the Bath Socialist party. In 1958 he took part in the coup that overthrew the monarchy and made Abdul Karim Kassem prime minister. After trying to kill Kassem, Hussein fled Iraq for Syria, then to Egypt. There he studied law and came under the powerful influence of Gamel Abdel Nasser. When Kassem was overthrown in 1963 he returned to Baghdad and joined the Bath Party's new government, which lasted only a few months. He spent two years in prison. By 1966 he was free and a party leader.
In 1968 Saddam was called upon to help bring the Bath party back into power. Iraq's new president was Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, but Hussein quickly became the most powerful individual in government. He became chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and worked relentlessly to get rid of opponents and put his friends and family in positions of authority. His first goal was revitalizing the economy in order to build up his military power. He had gained enough control by 1979 to push Bakr aside and become president. His next goal was to make Iraq the leader of the Arab World regardless of the consequences to the Iraqi people.

Form Hussein Putting His Mark On Islamic Faith,  which explains his Sunni Muslim Influence.

 BAGHDAD -- Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God, a divine
revelation received by the prophet Muhammad centuries ago. In Iraq, the
faithful can read those sacred words written in the blood of their
president, Saddam Hussein.

That, at least, is what officials say: that over a period of three years the
president donated 50 pints of blood that was mixed with preservatives and
used to pen the more than 600 pages of the holy book.

"His excellency, when he donated this, he intended to sacrifice himself to
God," said Abdul Razzak Harbi, director of religious teaching in the
Ministry of Religious Affairs. The red lettered text sits in a display case
beneath the grand dome of the Mother of All Battles Mosque just outside this
capital, another of the president's recent religious donations to his
people. Surrounding the dome are eight towering minarets--in Arabic, there
are eight letters in "Saddam Hussein"--four shaped like Scud missiles
sitting on a launch pad and four resembling huge machine-gun barrels.

The blood-inscribed Koran and the military-style mosque demonstrate how the
ironfisted leader of this impoverished and weary country has tried to manage
a deepening sense of devotion that has spread across Iraq after two wars and
10 years of sanctions. While other regimes have sought to suppress or
promote fundamentalism, Hussein has decided to co-opt it.

"When a society is in crisis like we are, with the embargo and all, religion
plays a greater part in soothing the psyche of the people and giving people
greater strength to face the crisis," said Ihssan Hassan, a sociology
professor at Baghdad University who said he meets with Hussein every few
months.

The Iraqi strongman borrowed religious symbolism during the Persian Gulf War
when he decided to inscribe the Iraqi flag with "God is great." Officials
said the script used on the flag is a duplicate of the president's
handwriting.

But the full-scale "Faith Campaign" began in earnest in 1994, when Iraq was
suffering from chronic shortages of food and medicine. Many people were
beginning to pray five times a day, as prescribed in the Koran, and women
were increasingly veiling themselves. This was threatening to a regime that
promoted its leader with religious devotion, plastering the country with his
image in paintings, mosaics, statues, even clocks.

"We are really against this," Hassan said of the increasingly popular
religious practices, such as women wearing head coverings. "It is a backward
thing. If we could ban it, we would. We can't."

Even a ruler like Hussein, who has demonstrated a willingness to use force
to keep his people in line, recognized he could not hold back faith. But the
president, who is a Sunni Muslim, was concerned that majority Shiite Muslims
would be encouraged to rebel by neighboring Iran. Hussein had already
suppressed a revolt led by Shiite groups in the south after the war a decade
ago. The regime also was worried that neighboring Saudi Arabia, which
subscribes to a strict form of Islam known as Wahhabism, would find fertile
ground in Iraq.

"Iraq was very keen to fortify the mentality of the people not to get
involved with these imported ideas," said Harbi, the ministry director of
religious teaching.

To that end, Harbi said, the president single-handedly designed the
religious campaign. It is being waged on many fronts: All schoolchildren are
expected to complete studies of the Koran by the end of secondary school.
Local radio broadcasts an all-Koran channel 18 hours a day. Iraq opened
Saddam College for preparing preachers and imams. Saddam International
Islamic University opened as well, providing religious training to foreign
students.

And of course there is the construction. The Mother of All Battles
Mosque--named after the now-famous description Hussein used for the Gulf
War--a huge complex that on a recent trip was made off limits to reporters,
is the smallest of three mosques being built. One where construction is just
beginning is supposed to be the largest mosque in the world. It will be
called the Saddam Hussein Mosque.

"When you find mosques named after the president, or you see his pictures,
or maybe some preacher says his name during Friday prayer, it is when you
find such a leader . . . has done something good for you, you must reward
him," said Harbi, whose own office and reception area has six pictures of
the president, including a floor-to-ceiling portrait.

Many here say they are happy to adopt their president's version of Islam. In
this once cosmopolitan city, now lined with row after row of rundown,
low-slung concrete buildings, many women walk around with their heads
covered--a relatively rare sight before the war. Hend Tawfik, 19, says she
and her mother began wearing head scarves in 1994, at the start of the
religious campaign.

"The difficult circumstance we face after the embargo has reflected on our
mentality by making us close to religion," said Tawfik, who continues to
wear makeup. "Before, we have faith in our hearts, but we did not implement
it. Now we get closer to Islam."

Regi


Post 15

Monday, April 5, 2004 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Yes, but..." why do they have to solve all of Iraq's problems?

Post 16

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 2:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan:

You queried Regi about his remark that Saddam Hussein was a Muslim leader, and he replied.  I'll add my two cents.

Saddam was a Muslim leader in the same way Stalin was a Russian Orthodox leader.  They used and pandered to the religion of their peoples when it suited their interests, but neither was a religious leader in the ordinary sense of the term.

However, Regi does make some salient points regarding the cultural manipulations of the Baathism, which became a fascist political force in both Syria and Iraq after World War II.  The Baathists played upon Arab ethnic identity, which is entwined with Islam, though not so narrowly as to exclude the Syrian Druze and Iraqi Chaldeans.  Notably, Saddam did not try to Islamicize the Christian Chaldeans though he did try to Arabize the Muslim Kurds.

Therefore, Arab ethnicity and not Islamic faith was foremost in Baathist cultural manipulation.  This set of priorities only made sense for Saddam, because igniting the fires of Islam would have only provoked resistance to his regime from the Shia majority in Iraq.  This type of politics is also consistent with Baathism's roots in the fascist regimes of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy in which a hyper-nationalism was promoted in terms of ethnicity and not religion.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 17

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James:

You ask:
"Yes, but..." why do they have to solve all of Iraq's problems?
We don't, but we'll want to make sure that Iraq is nullified as a threat to us, and if we have to invest a fair amount of resources in that effort, then it probably makes sense to commit to turning Iraq into an asset for us.

The problem with Iraq is its long-term potential as a threat.  The fact is atomic bomb technology is six decades old, and ICBM technology is nearly a half-century old.  It will become increasingly easier for less advanced countries to both produce and deliver atomic weapons on our soil in the coming years.  This genie has been released and will not go back into the bottle.

So we need to eliminate those entities that will pose such a threat to us before they can carry it out.  (Take a look a North Korea, where our options are now limited because they may have the means to lob a nuke at Seoul or Tokyo and incinerate hundreds of thousands of people.)  If you examine the world for those threats, it probably is not going to come from industrializing countries like China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, where functioning states exist that have absolutely no gain in threatening us with nuclear war.  Nor will it come from the destitute regimes of sub-Saharan Africa, at least not in the foreseeable future, with economies simply too primitive to manufacture small arms let alone atomic bombs.

Where it will come from are those Islamist forces that have been declaring war on America since the late '70s, and we have ignored until they killed three thousand of our fellow citizens in a dramatic strike.  Like the radically Islamic Assassins of medieval times, our Islamist enemies cannot be defeated short of destroying them -- and they will continue to contrive attacks against us and our allies until we do.

No sensible person can tolerate the chance that that next attack will be atomic, if we have the means to eliminate it.  We do.  We can directly hunt down the Islamists and kill them.  We can also transform their breeding ground by occupying the geographical center of their nest (i.e., Iraq) and start giving those who live with the Islamists a genuine incentive to control to eliminate the Islamist threat for us.  That incentive can be carrots and sticks.  For the Iraqis, it is the carrot of a free society under the rule of law.  (Let us hope we don't screw that up by making a fetish of democracy before the Iraqis are ready for it.)  For the Syrians and Saudis it may have to be the stick -- i.e., you're next on the hit list.

So a successful nullification of the terrorist threat to us means a long-term commitment to transforming Iraq and the Mideast.  In that context, helping them with their problems will often make sense.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 18

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, you might be right, but couldn't America treat Iraq like Japan after World War II, not allowing them to develope weapons etc. untill they become an industrialised peaceful nation. It would save a lot of money and American lives and no matter how much better America can make Iraq the Arabs will never be satisfied, nor would anyone be, because they have to achieve freedom etc. by themselves, it can't be forced upon them. As long as one of them is the gutter, it will be America's fault.

Post 19

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 5:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James:

You asked: 
Bill, you might be right, but couldn't America treat Iraq like Japan after World War II ...
I agree with you.  We should drop the pretense that we are going to make Iraq a genuinely independent state this summer and openly operate it as a protectorate until WE are satisfied that our security objectives have been met.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.