----WARNING: LONG AS A MOTHERFUCKER-----
Advancing a staunch right-wing vantagepoint on a *music forum*. Geez, I'm asking for it.
Much of this is taken from things I've already written, so please excuse anything that doesn't "transition" well. Also excuse the use of "we" in terms of America; try and insert that this comes from the American POV.
There are several planks of any decent pro-war stance. They are...
1. Disarmament.
In order to justify a war to disarm a government, one must be certain that said government is building arms and will in turn use them to attack yourself or an ally. Although the preemptive strike would result in deaths on both sides, it would prevent a full-scale war which would kill vastly more. This is especially true today, where precise bombs can be used rather than massive armies, and where two fully armed armies fighting each other can leave enormous devastation to the environment and to civilian populations. I disagree quite strongly with claims that 500,000 Iraqi civilians will die.
The historical context of preemption is that if France, the UK and other nations used force rather than diplomacy to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, World War II would have been on a much smaller scale and both the holocaust AND much of the Cold War could have been averted.
In terms of proving that Hussein is attempting to arm, there isn't enough space for me to quote all the stuff listed in the bazillions of different sources ranging from the White House to the media to pundits, but let's just say that I think the burden of proof has been met. You don't agree, okay, I really am not qualified to debate the logistics of YOUR personal burden of proof.
In terms of proof that Saddam, once armed to his liking, will use the what he has... get ready...
In 1957, a young Saddam joined the Baath revolutionary party. In 1963 he became an important officer, specializing in torture. He was so skilled at it that soon he gained respect for the passion of his work, and by 1968 he was the #2 man when the Baathists seized power. Over the next eleven years he used his power to crush dissent and take over national industries, including numerous oil fields. In 1979 the head of the party resigned, and Saddam became the ruler. Shortly after he had nearly 500 people of stature in the nation killed because he didn't have enough control over them.
In 1980 he began a war with Iran. Because of America's conflicts with Iran (re: hostages), we supported Saddam. This lasted 8 years, and both sides traded some of the worst biological and chemical weapon attacks ever. Millions died. The Kurds, a northern Iraq minority who didn't support the Baath party, were brutally oppressed and often gassed for any attempts to overthrow Saddam.
With the war on Iran over, and still having an assortment of arms, Saddam decided that Kuwait (and its oil) ought to be a part of Iraq. In the summer of 1990 he invaded, leading to the Gulf War in early 1991. Although he had at the time the 4th largest military in the world, his forces were routed by a full showing of the arms of the free world. His million man army surrendered by the hundreds of thousands rather than rush into pointless slaughter; many of these deserters had their families killed by Saddam's personal agents. During the Gulf War, Iraq launched missiles against Israel in an attempt to incite a more widespread war in the region and thus deflect some of the attention on his invasion; though it was not a successful tactic, this has often been left out of recountings of the war.
Hussein isn't right in the head. It goes deeper than just him being a generic "evil dictator"; he has done torture himself and continues to do so. His life is *defined* by violence and conquest. His next target could be almost anyone, though I don't believe he would try to fight a direct war against the US or Europe.
2. Human rights; the liberation of Iraq.
Iraq would be better off without Hussein and his cronies in power. The ability to better use and distrubute oil revenues and foreign aid would allow the nation to be lifted from dire poverty. Hussein's atrocities are well-documented, no need to go over them for the zillionth time.
Here's the tricky part.
Will Iraq transition from dictatorship to democracy (relatively) peacefully, as happened in most of Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union (again, most of it) on its own... no. Why? Because we're dealing with a Muslim nation, and there simply is no historical track record of Muslim rulers either being dethroned in a sudden coup or simply walking away. There is either generations of brutal oppression, or violent civil war *followed* by generations of brutal oppression.
The Ba'ath party will not give up its hold on the lucritive oil fields willingly. The Iraqi populace can't mount an effective civil war, and even if it did there would be a much higher death toll and a much more protracted battle than if the US and its allies were to sweep Hussein out of power. Even then there wouldn't even be a sembalance of a guarantee of democracy and basic human rights.
The most efficient way towards Iraq's liberation is, sadly, through war.
3. The support of terrorists.
Many on the right go out of their way to try and make ties to Al Queda and Iraq. I think there might be a few, but it's not nearly as concrete as funding and support of *other* terrorist groups. Hussein has been shown to be an unapologetic terror funder, and even if that isn't damning enough for you, then the prospect of him having more advanced arms to funnel to terrorists should be.
4. International law.
Simple. If Hussein's *only* consequence for violating the terms of the ceasefire is to have his weapons discovered and destroyed, then it sets a predident that there is no punishment to be had in the following set of events:
-Invade a nation without provocation
-Sign a ceasefire treaty to prevent a forced regime change
-Violate that ceasefire repeatedly by re-arming
The instant Hussein violated the ceasefire he gave up any sembalance of a right to remain as the leader of his nation, just like through the Gulf War he gave up his right to anything but a defensive army.
If we will not punish Saddam Hussein for his actions, there is no reason to believe that other men of a similar mindset won't attempt to use the cowardice of the world as a tool of conquest.
------------------------------------------
Now for a reason not many people present, because it doesn't paint the Cold War policies in a positive light.
5. The US has an obligation to disarm Saddam Hussein, as does any nation who provided him arms in his fight with Iran. Further, since we did not push forward and end his regime during the Gulf War, we owe it to the people of Iraq who heeded George Bush's call and fought Saddam only to wind up being slaughtered. The United States of America has made grave errors in how it has handled Saddam Hussein, and for that reason it is even more important that the US be at the forefront of any fight.
Mistakes were made. They must be remedied.
------------------------------------------
And now to address a number of concerns raised by those who oppose the war.
-The root of terror is poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth.
I'll ignore the knee-jerk "oh nos you stupid commie lol" style of rebutting this, because that seems to be the token response on the 'net (and because it's wrong).
The average Muslim lived in poverty five centuries ago by today's standard, as did the average African, the average Asian, the average European, and the average (insert group here). Today, the average Muslim (and many others) live in poverty, while the average American and European does not.
The prosperity of the wealthy is not the cause of poverty. Rather, factors such as overpopulation, a lack of basic rights and the domination of national resources are more to blame.
Bin Ladin is a wealthy man. Hussein is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They care nothing of poverty, and are driven by a mix of egotism and religious fanaticism. Without wealthy patrons and the support of willing governments and religious leaders there would be no terrorism.
Men like Hussein are the root of both terrorism AND poverty. Such men must be removed from power.
-Bombing Iraq into the stone age won't help it
One only need look at what happened to the civilian populations of Germany and Japan towards the end of World War II to see the damage that even a justified war can do.
This isn't 1945. It isn't 1975. It's 2003. There is no firebombing or nuclear warhead in battle plans, nor is there Agent Orange. Systematic, fast, precise assaults on military targets are able to minimize death and destruction.
Further, Iraq would benefit immensely from a reduction of poverty (no more sanctions and lots o' aid) and a healthy injection of fundamental rights. The war might be hell, but the living conditions now aren't much worse. A necessary evil.
-It'll be another Vietnam
The Vietnam quagmire was caused by a number of factors, but the most basic are: 1. An unwillingness to move to offense and push the communists back to China. 2. The densely wooded terrain. 3. China's steady stream of military aid down the Ho Chi Minh trail.
None of those factors are present today, as evidenced by the squash that was the Gulf War.
-We need the UN
Conflict with the UN has more to do with a pissing contest between the US and France than it does with a US attempt to skirt the UN.
Let's try this. Either a war to enact regime change in Iraq is necessary and justified, or it isn't. At what point does the UN enter in to that equation?
-What about North Korea?
North Korea has armed itself; it's too late. This is exactly why Hussein must be dealt with before we lose track of what he's capable of.
-What about the economy?
Yes, wars cost money. Is the implication that all moralistic considerations bow down before the almighty dollar (euro)? Once again, war is either justified or it isn't; a 'cost-efficient' war will probably be one in which Iraqi citizens pay the heaviest price of all.
-This is the United States' "war on terror", my nation didn't sign on.
Fine, just get out of the way
-Let the inspections work!
With what goal? We already know the evidence, and that not everything has been found. Even if Saddam is disarmed (a BIG fucking 'if'), will we keep an inspection team running around Iraq indefinitely? And if it takes inspectors to find all the weapons rather than voluntary admissions, what consequence will that bring to Hussein for stonewalling? Will he still be cooperative without over 300,000 US troops and a hell-bent Dubya banging on the door?
-Must wait for imminent threat.
This assumes that the world will know when that happens. History shows that sneak attacks are the deadliest.
-Bush is evil/America is imperialist/it's all about oil
These are distractions, but I suppose the need to be addressed to satisfy some.
Bush's "motivations" are largely manufactured. If it was about oil, we'd get it most efficiently from Saddam. If it was about revenge, the war would already be over. If the US had an empire, you'd be able to list all the land that has been conquered or subjugated in the last, oh, century (and have there BE SOMETHING ON THE LIST).
-It will encourage terror!
Then it's impossible to seek to wipe out the terror network. The terrorists and their supporters must be dealt with
More importantly, the assumption is that there are terror groups currently waiting to spring into action, and people who will go to arms to protect Saddam. Well, Bin Ladin is a much bigger figure in the world of terror. Assaulting his men and the government which supported him didn't lead to anything more complex than a couple car bombs, which AGAIN assumes that things like Bali wouldn't have happened anyway.
-No war, ever!
Then what's your solution, and how is it preferable to what is backed by the Bush/Blair team?
And I'm spent.
Advancing a staunch right-wing vantagepoint on a *music forum*. Geez, I'm asking for it.
Much of this is taken from things I've already written, so please excuse anything that doesn't "transition" well. Also excuse the use of "we" in terms of America; try and insert that this comes from the American POV.
There are several planks of any decent pro-war stance. They are...
1. Disarmament.
In order to justify a war to disarm a government, one must be certain that said government is building arms and will in turn use them to attack yourself or an ally. Although the preemptive strike would result in deaths on both sides, it would prevent a full-scale war which would kill vastly more. This is especially true today, where precise bombs can be used rather than massive armies, and where two fully armed armies fighting each other can leave enormous devastation to the environment and to civilian populations. I disagree quite strongly with claims that 500,000 Iraqi civilians will die.
The historical context of preemption is that if France, the UK and other nations used force rather than diplomacy to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, World War II would have been on a much smaller scale and both the holocaust AND much of the Cold War could have been averted.
In terms of proving that Hussein is attempting to arm, there isn't enough space for me to quote all the stuff listed in the bazillions of different sources ranging from the White House to the media to pundits, but let's just say that I think the burden of proof has been met. You don't agree, okay, I really am not qualified to debate the logistics of YOUR personal burden of proof.
In terms of proof that Saddam, once armed to his liking, will use the what he has... get ready...
In 1957, a young Saddam joined the Baath revolutionary party. In 1963 he became an important officer, specializing in torture. He was so skilled at it that soon he gained respect for the passion of his work, and by 1968 he was the #2 man when the Baathists seized power. Over the next eleven years he used his power to crush dissent and take over national industries, including numerous oil fields. In 1979 the head of the party resigned, and Saddam became the ruler. Shortly after he had nearly 500 people of stature in the nation killed because he didn't have enough control over them.
In 1980 he began a war with Iran. Because of America's conflicts with Iran (re: hostages), we supported Saddam. This lasted 8 years, and both sides traded some of the worst biological and chemical weapon attacks ever. Millions died. The Kurds, a northern Iraq minority who didn't support the Baath party, were brutally oppressed and often gassed for any attempts to overthrow Saddam.
With the war on Iran over, and still having an assortment of arms, Saddam decided that Kuwait (and its oil) ought to be a part of Iraq. In the summer of 1990 he invaded, leading to the Gulf War in early 1991. Although he had at the time the 4th largest military in the world, his forces were routed by a full showing of the arms of the free world. His million man army surrendered by the hundreds of thousands rather than rush into pointless slaughter; many of these deserters had their families killed by Saddam's personal agents. During the Gulf War, Iraq launched missiles against Israel in an attempt to incite a more widespread war in the region and thus deflect some of the attention on his invasion; though it was not a successful tactic, this has often been left out of recountings of the war.
Hussein isn't right in the head. It goes deeper than just him being a generic "evil dictator"; he has done torture himself and continues to do so. His life is *defined* by violence and conquest. His next target could be almost anyone, though I don't believe he would try to fight a direct war against the US or Europe.
2. Human rights; the liberation of Iraq.
Iraq would be better off without Hussein and his cronies in power. The ability to better use and distrubute oil revenues and foreign aid would allow the nation to be lifted from dire poverty. Hussein's atrocities are well-documented, no need to go over them for the zillionth time.
Here's the tricky part.
Will Iraq transition from dictatorship to democracy (relatively) peacefully, as happened in most of Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union (again, most of it) on its own... no. Why? Because we're dealing with a Muslim nation, and there simply is no historical track record of Muslim rulers either being dethroned in a sudden coup or simply walking away. There is either generations of brutal oppression, or violent civil war *followed* by generations of brutal oppression.
The Ba'ath party will not give up its hold on the lucritive oil fields willingly. The Iraqi populace can't mount an effective civil war, and even if it did there would be a much higher death toll and a much more protracted battle than if the US and its allies were to sweep Hussein out of power. Even then there wouldn't even be a sembalance of a guarantee of democracy and basic human rights.
The most efficient way towards Iraq's liberation is, sadly, through war.
3. The support of terrorists.
Many on the right go out of their way to try and make ties to Al Queda and Iraq. I think there might be a few, but it's not nearly as concrete as funding and support of *other* terrorist groups. Hussein has been shown to be an unapologetic terror funder, and even if that isn't damning enough for you, then the prospect of him having more advanced arms to funnel to terrorists should be.
4. International law.
Simple. If Hussein's *only* consequence for violating the terms of the ceasefire is to have his weapons discovered and destroyed, then it sets a predident that there is no punishment to be had in the following set of events:
-Invade a nation without provocation
-Sign a ceasefire treaty to prevent a forced regime change
-Violate that ceasefire repeatedly by re-arming
The instant Hussein violated the ceasefire he gave up any sembalance of a right to remain as the leader of his nation, just like through the Gulf War he gave up his right to anything but a defensive army.
If we will not punish Saddam Hussein for his actions, there is no reason to believe that other men of a similar mindset won't attempt to use the cowardice of the world as a tool of conquest.
------------------------------------------
Now for a reason not many people present, because it doesn't paint the Cold War policies in a positive light.
5. The US has an obligation to disarm Saddam Hussein, as does any nation who provided him arms in his fight with Iran. Further, since we did not push forward and end his regime during the Gulf War, we owe it to the people of Iraq who heeded George Bush's call and fought Saddam only to wind up being slaughtered. The United States of America has made grave errors in how it has handled Saddam Hussein, and for that reason it is even more important that the US be at the forefront of any fight.
Mistakes were made. They must be remedied.
------------------------------------------
And now to address a number of concerns raised by those who oppose the war.
-The root of terror is poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth.
I'll ignore the knee-jerk "oh nos you stupid commie lol" style of rebutting this, because that seems to be the token response on the 'net (and because it's wrong).
The average Muslim lived in poverty five centuries ago by today's standard, as did the average African, the average Asian, the average European, and the average (insert group here). Today, the average Muslim (and many others) live in poverty, while the average American and European does not.
The prosperity of the wealthy is not the cause of poverty. Rather, factors such as overpopulation, a lack of basic rights and the domination of national resources are more to blame.
Bin Ladin is a wealthy man. Hussein is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They care nothing of poverty, and are driven by a mix of egotism and religious fanaticism. Without wealthy patrons and the support of willing governments and religious leaders there would be no terrorism.
Men like Hussein are the root of both terrorism AND poverty. Such men must be removed from power.
-Bombing Iraq into the stone age won't help it
One only need look at what happened to the civilian populations of Germany and Japan towards the end of World War II to see the damage that even a justified war can do.
This isn't 1945. It isn't 1975. It's 2003. There is no firebombing or nuclear warhead in battle plans, nor is there Agent Orange. Systematic, fast, precise assaults on military targets are able to minimize death and destruction.
Further, Iraq would benefit immensely from a reduction of poverty (no more sanctions and lots o' aid) and a healthy injection of fundamental rights. The war might be hell, but the living conditions now aren't much worse. A necessary evil.
-It'll be another Vietnam
The Vietnam quagmire was caused by a number of factors, but the most basic are: 1. An unwillingness to move to offense and push the communists back to China. 2. The densely wooded terrain. 3. China's steady stream of military aid down the Ho Chi Minh trail.
None of those factors are present today, as evidenced by the squash that was the Gulf War.
-We need the UN
Conflict with the UN has more to do with a pissing contest between the US and France than it does with a US attempt to skirt the UN.
Let's try this. Either a war to enact regime change in Iraq is necessary and justified, or it isn't. At what point does the UN enter in to that equation?
-What about North Korea?
North Korea has armed itself; it's too late. This is exactly why Hussein must be dealt with before we lose track of what he's capable of.
-What about the economy?
Yes, wars cost money. Is the implication that all moralistic considerations bow down before the almighty dollar (euro)? Once again, war is either justified or it isn't; a 'cost-efficient' war will probably be one in which Iraqi citizens pay the heaviest price of all.
-This is the United States' "war on terror", my nation didn't sign on.
Fine, just get out of the way
-Let the inspections work!
With what goal? We already know the evidence, and that not everything has been found. Even if Saddam is disarmed (a BIG fucking 'if'), will we keep an inspection team running around Iraq indefinitely? And if it takes inspectors to find all the weapons rather than voluntary admissions, what consequence will that bring to Hussein for stonewalling? Will he still be cooperative without over 300,000 US troops and a hell-bent Dubya banging on the door?
-Must wait for imminent threat.
This assumes that the world will know when that happens. History shows that sneak attacks are the deadliest.
-Bush is evil/America is imperialist/it's all about oil
These are distractions, but I suppose the need to be addressed to satisfy some.
Bush's "motivations" are largely manufactured. If it was about oil, we'd get it most efficiently from Saddam. If it was about revenge, the war would already be over. If the US had an empire, you'd be able to list all the land that has been conquered or subjugated in the last, oh, century (and have there BE SOMETHING ON THE LIST).
-It will encourage terror!
Then it's impossible to seek to wipe out the terror network. The terrorists and their supporters must be dealt with
More importantly, the assumption is that there are terror groups currently waiting to spring into action, and people who will go to arms to protect Saddam. Well, Bin Ladin is a much bigger figure in the world of terror. Assaulting his men and the government which supported him didn't lead to anything more complex than a couple car bombs, which AGAIN assumes that things like Bali wouldn't have happened anyway.
-No war, ever!
Then what's your solution, and how is it preferable to what is backed by the Bush/Blair team?
And I'm spent.
