Opposing war = passive support?

expatbrit

Before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, I tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up. Simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.

The bottom line is that by opposing the only feasible method of removing Hussein's regime, the anti-war crowd are passively supporting the continued torture and murder of children.

2) Maintain the status quo. Give the inspectors more time. Continue to apply more sanctions. This is the option favoured by the anti-war faction by default. We’ll return to this one.

3) Use military action to remove the regime, thus ending the necessity of sanctions and allowing international aid to enter the country. The oil-for-food programme can be restarted without the proceeds being wasted on new palaces, rebuilding Babylon etc.

amac

According to your logic, then we are also passively supporting every other dictator and human rights criminal by not policing the world. To take it even further, you are passively supporting Hussein since you are not over their helping fight this war. To old to enlist you say? Well why not go buy a gun and jump in your car? Just because you vocally agree with a war does not mean you are providing support for it, therefore you are passively supporting Hussein. And by the way, moral support doesn't count as the soldiers aren't in a position to receive moral support until their return. They don't even know what's going on in other parts of the war in Iraq, let alone the US and UK.

Trauma_Hound

The bottom line is that by opposing the only feasible method of removing Hussein's regime, the anti-war crowd are passively supporting the continued torture and murder of children.

Why don't you go see how our depleted uranium use, is torturing and murdering children.

gsx1138

I've heard this type of argument before. This belief that the anti-war crowd is somehow supporting Saddam is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard and shows just how uneducated some people are on what is going down. Saddam is not picking up his newspaper in the morning and thinking how great it is that people oppose a war in his country. He's got bigger things to worry about and it is obvious that Bushitler is going to do whatever he wants despite what others may think. I would go so far to say that anyone who wants people to stop protesting are no better than fascist communists themselves. Perhaps all you warmongers should start calling each other "comrade" since you seem to want to silence any opinion that is not your own.

TheOldHippie

I just love it, how the Cowboy Nation of the world with the world's Chief Cowboy as its Chief Marshall has taken it upon itself to be the world's Policeman, the world's Great Liberator.

This is, though, an interesting debate to watch for me as a European, because it tells me that in fact most of the posters here are in tune with the European mindset, way of thinking, and that there is but a small minority who is actually supporting the blood-thirsty Cowboy. In news programs here, when the so-called average US citizen on the street is interviewed, a massive support of the Unjust War is given. But obviously, you mean old dangerous apostates here are far more European-minded, and therefore civilized, than the Cowboy's supporters.

Iraq's Minster of Defence has given the Unjust War's most precious statement in my eyes, when he said, after the Cowboy claimed he was defending his nation, "They are defending themselves - on our grounds, in our country!"

Simon

If we are supporting Saddam by *not* wanting a war then how guilty is the USA for FUNDING the regimes (such as Saddam and others) that do these things?

Your argument makes a number of assumptions:

a. That the "war" option will work ... the American administration seemed to have a real hollywood inspired view of things - they would just need to turn up with 60,000 troops, set-off a few explosions and all the Iraqi soldiers would surrender. As it is, they have 250,000 troops and need more and now admit it could be weeks or months or longer before they succeed. Whether they can do a surgical removal of Saddam without it turning into a botched hack-n-slash operation that causes even more damage we'll have to wait and see.

b. That there are no other options than keeping things as they were. We could have stopped many thousands of children dying while allowing food and medicine to go through. Cobblers to that "food for oil" programme: Put it another way, we are witholding food and aid unless we get oil ... doesn't sound quite as 'nice' does it?

Sanctions could be done a lot better ... his assets could have been frozen (only done now?!). Companies should not have been allowed to have dealings with Iraq for anything other than humanitarian reasons. Of course. when it comes down to it, we may deny food for some oil but most western countries cant resist the lure of the funds of black gold and allow trade for other things.

c. That the Iraqi people will trust the western powers. Why should they? We've screwed them over several times before so any notion that we'll turn up and they will open their arms cheering is a bit naive. They will not rebel until they are confident that the USA is going to win ... that they are in the cities, in control. But they will not find it at all easy to get into the cities and be in control without this internal revolt. A lot seemed to depend on this and assume it was going to happen but it does not seem to have been based on real intelligence, more "wishful thinking".

Now, I do not advocate the "do nothing" option but even that has to be considered ... yes, it is an evil regime BUT doing nothing may, in the end, do the least harm to the least people.

Also, there is no mention of all the other Arab states and the pressure that should be put on them over Iraq and also for their own human rights abuses. Surely we shoudl be attacking Saudi Arabia as well?

Sam Beli

Expatbrit, some of us agree with you that in this case war seems justified. President Bush is "sticking his neck out" politically in a way that few presidents have had the courage to do.

Regards,

Sam

Opposing war = passive support?

Share this