Edited by Jeff Lebow
This month's hot topic:
The U.S.-led war in Iraq
NumberSix
Bush wanted this war from the start, and now he has it. The entire U.N.
episode was an attempt for legitimacy. But clearly war was in the minds
of Bush's cabinet all along. One can make a case against France's stalling,
but France was not alone in this. Furthermore, the results of the U.N.
inspections were not cut and dried enough to excuse a military buildup
while they were still being done and now the start of a well planned
war executed too quickly after the inspectors have left.
shorinji
The truth of the matter is this: Bush is our President NOW, and he's
going to do the right thing, regardless of what the leftist/liberals
say. Let the bombing begin...and show the rest of the world that if
you support terrorism and what happened on 9-11 there will be consequences.
Mr. Fielding
The current outrage has to do with how international problems will get
solved not only now, but in the future. In the past 50 years, the world
has 'tried' to rely on the UN when indecision has existed in nasty global
situations. Now, the answer coming from the White House is: 'We will
lead, and you will follow or get out of the way!"
Sherman
Here we are attacking Iraq now for UN violations but we financially
and militarily support Israel's UN violation. Your tax dollars and mine
support these crimes against humanity.
BenEller
There is both honor and glory in being able to demolish the palaces
and cellars of a murdering dictatorship, inflicting so few incidental
casualties (and taking such obvious care to minimize them) that the
propaganda of Saddam's goons can produce almost no genuine victims to
gloat over. I feel disgust for those who blame this week's deaths on
the intervention and not on its sole target: Saddam Hussein.
Satyagraha
I have been trying to work out the response of Americans such as yourself,
and I think the feeling is betrayal. You simply cannot fathom the depth
of opposition to US interventionism, its disregard for the wishes of
other people and its double-standards. You feel that the US makes mistakes,
but is generally a force for good, much as the British used to feel
when they were colonizing the world. You also feel linked to the government
and its foreign policy in a way that I find very difficult to understand,
which is why any criticism of Bush and his cohorts is taken so personally.
Moose
This is a major shift in international policy for the US and sends an
alarming signal to other nations. It discredits the UN (partly) and
is considered by some an illegal war. The whole idea of regime change
is unfeasible and just decoration because any sane person knows that
the US is not really after regime change or out to save the Iraqi people....This
being said, Saddam Hussein is of course a dictator and he has a lot
of blood on his hands. Like ANY other dictator, he should leave power.
This is in an absolute of course. In reality, western nations back certain
dictatorial regimes when it suits them. In the case of Iraq it is not
the case anymore.
Named User
It is true that the US position has been obstinate, single-minded and
heavy-handed, but that of France has been pigheaded and noncommittal
to the point of the absurd. It's one thing to oppose the war, but quite
another to fritter around signing meaningless resolutions that provide
no credible alternative. The UN is indeed threatened by irrelevancy...It
is clear that Bush didn't want to go through the UN, and Powell is generally
credited with talking them into that route. But Powell was consistently
undermined by his own administration, which said things like, "If
you're not with us, you are for the terrorists." It's hard to find
a single statement more utterly opposed to the very idea of diplomatic
debate.
gabo
About Iraqis greeting their liberators with enthusiasm: It's sort of
like the Korean proverb of inflicting a disease and then providing a
cure. Providing a cure is admirable, sure, but the poor fellow wouldn't
have been sick in the first place if we didn't cause it...The Iraqi
people have never favored Saddam and will be glad to get rid of him.
But a regime change accompanied by foreign occupation is hardly a palatable
alternative.
RaoulDuke
What, in your opinion, would be the most 'palatable alternative?' Perhaps
maintaining fruitless economic sanctions until Hussein: A.) became desperate
or well-armed enough to pose another threat to the region, or B.) died
in his bed twenty years from now, leaving a bloody and destabilizing
power struggle in his wake. Either 'alternative' results in the loss
of more life and offers a greater chance for increased regional chaos
than the current course of action.
Bansonger
I don't think that because we made mistakes in the past by aligning
ourselves with a nasty country, that we can't later go to war with them.
In fact, we probably have a greater moral obligation to right our wrong.
Silent Bob
This is the problem I have for many of the protestors. They speak of
how they want Saddam out of power without a war, yet are unable to offer
any reasonable solutions...The same goes for North Korea. Why is it
that we never see these large demonstrations demanding the freedom for
North Koreans?
KimInha
After all, the absolute real goal of this campaign (if we give Bush
et. al. the benefit of the doubt) was just the WMD (be it US has changed
a few times and added more reasons later on). If we have to change every
regime in the world that has an un-elected dictatorship and which is
cruel to its own population, we'll be busy for the next decade.
What do you think?
Sound off at pusanweb.com
or write to [email protected]