Unistate
04-04-2005, 04:19
It's about this whole 'War in Iraq' thing. I'll try to be as calm and rational as possible in this thread, so don't worry, I won't bite your head off. (Yet. xD)
Now, obviously, a lot of people disagree with it. That's fair enough; war is not and should not be a light undertaking, and it should be subject to scrutiny and review. However, one of the most typical back-and-forths one sees is something along these lines;
"The US/UK claim they went to Iraq to get rid of the WMDs, yet there were none. Does this not appear to show that the war's justification was flimsy, at best?"
"Well, it's possible he shipped them out before we found them, and you try finding something the size of a suitcase in all of Ohio. That notwithstanding, let's assume Hussein had no WMDs; he was still a brutal tyrant, and we were right to oust him. Yes, we supported him in the past, but that was against a much greater threat of the time, the Soviet Union."
"Ah, but if Saddam is so terrible, why doesn't the coalition do something about North Korea/Zimbabwe/Saudi Arabia/Iran, among others?"
This is the point I rarely see addressed further. So I'd like to make two main points myself and ask for your reactions to them.
Firstly, we have to accept that the coalition does not have infinite resources and manpower. Yes, the US Armed Forces are very powerful, and the UK though not as glorious as she once was remains a potent military power. But remember, we're not just fighting wars here, we're trying to fix up the places where we've fought the wars. (Our motivations for doing so notwithstanding; I'll never convince someone it's not for oil or money if they believe that, but the fact remains that we are there and we are trying to improve things.) We, as the West, have troops throughout the entire world. Africa, both Western and Eastern Europe, South Korea, and the Middle East (Most notably Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.). Probably more besides, I don't know about our military presence in South America for instance. At any rate, we can't be everywhere at once - it simply isn't feasable. Troops are on rotation, they tend not to be stationed in a troublespot like Iraq for long times, but rather circulate in and out for a few months. Morover the US couldn't pull troops out of South Korea without leaving a risk open to invasion or at least some military action from the North. There simply are not enough men or machines to go and fight wars - for whatever purpose - in ten different countries at once.
Secondly, I would point out that war is a last resort. You might not like to believe it, but that is generally the fact of the matter (We do have the technology and resources to bomb the crap out of most of the planet if we so desire.). It was quite plain from his actions towards Kuwait, the Kurds, and Iran, as well as various foreign powers and the UN, that Saddam Hussein wasn't likely to ever be peacably outed, and neither was he likely to be mollified and subjugated. However, if we look to Libya, we see Colonel Gadaffi was persuaded to take various measures to show his WMD program was no longer a threat, and has entered into new relations with the West. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe is an old man (Though he doesn't look a day over 50, he's actually something like 84) - it might be more prudent to hope he dies naturally quite soon, rather than sending troops into yet another unwilling and dangerous country. North Korea is in multilateral talks to disarm and if China puts the right pressures on, it isn't beyond the wildest realms of possibility that we might see some movement there. Admittedly it's a long shot, but it is better to try and bring a peaceful resolution to this, especially seeing as North Korea isn't the same ramshackle kind of affair Iraq was; it would be a much tougher fight.
So, with those combined, I would ask you fellow forumgoers, especially those who oppose the war in Iraq, if you would concede that whilst very unpleasant, and whilst questions should be asked, it was not one of our more astute moves to remove Hussein from the world stage?
Now, obviously, a lot of people disagree with it. That's fair enough; war is not and should not be a light undertaking, and it should be subject to scrutiny and review. However, one of the most typical back-and-forths one sees is something along these lines;
"The US/UK claim they went to Iraq to get rid of the WMDs, yet there were none. Does this not appear to show that the war's justification was flimsy, at best?"
"Well, it's possible he shipped them out before we found them, and you try finding something the size of a suitcase in all of Ohio. That notwithstanding, let's assume Hussein had no WMDs; he was still a brutal tyrant, and we were right to oust him. Yes, we supported him in the past, but that was against a much greater threat of the time, the Soviet Union."
"Ah, but if Saddam is so terrible, why doesn't the coalition do something about North Korea/Zimbabwe/Saudi Arabia/Iran, among others?"
This is the point I rarely see addressed further. So I'd like to make two main points myself and ask for your reactions to them.
Firstly, we have to accept that the coalition does not have infinite resources and manpower. Yes, the US Armed Forces are very powerful, and the UK though not as glorious as she once was remains a potent military power. But remember, we're not just fighting wars here, we're trying to fix up the places where we've fought the wars. (Our motivations for doing so notwithstanding; I'll never convince someone it's not for oil or money if they believe that, but the fact remains that we are there and we are trying to improve things.) We, as the West, have troops throughout the entire world. Africa, both Western and Eastern Europe, South Korea, and the Middle East (Most notably Iraq and Afghanistan, of course.). Probably more besides, I don't know about our military presence in South America for instance. At any rate, we can't be everywhere at once - it simply isn't feasable. Troops are on rotation, they tend not to be stationed in a troublespot like Iraq for long times, but rather circulate in and out for a few months. Morover the US couldn't pull troops out of South Korea without leaving a risk open to invasion or at least some military action from the North. There simply are not enough men or machines to go and fight wars - for whatever purpose - in ten different countries at once.
Secondly, I would point out that war is a last resort. You might not like to believe it, but that is generally the fact of the matter (We do have the technology and resources to bomb the crap out of most of the planet if we so desire.). It was quite plain from his actions towards Kuwait, the Kurds, and Iran, as well as various foreign powers and the UN, that Saddam Hussein wasn't likely to ever be peacably outed, and neither was he likely to be mollified and subjugated. However, if we look to Libya, we see Colonel Gadaffi was persuaded to take various measures to show his WMD program was no longer a threat, and has entered into new relations with the West. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe is an old man (Though he doesn't look a day over 50, he's actually something like 84) - it might be more prudent to hope he dies naturally quite soon, rather than sending troops into yet another unwilling and dangerous country. North Korea is in multilateral talks to disarm and if China puts the right pressures on, it isn't beyond the wildest realms of possibility that we might see some movement there. Admittedly it's a long shot, but it is better to try and bring a peaceful resolution to this, especially seeing as North Korea isn't the same ramshackle kind of affair Iraq was; it would be a much tougher fight.
So, with those combined, I would ask you fellow forumgoers, especially those who oppose the war in Iraq, if you would concede that whilst very unpleasant, and whilst questions should be asked, it was not one of our more astute moves to remove Hussein from the world stage?