July 30, 2002
4:56 AM   Subscribe

"Just open a map... Afghanistan is in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you want to open a third front in the region? That would truly turn into a war of civilizations." Profound Effect on U.S. Economy Seen in a War on Iraq.
posted by tranquileye (9 comments total)

 
Not that we need another reason not to go to war.

We simply have no right to attack a sovereign nation just because they may pose a threat to America. By that justification, Iraq has every right to attack us. We cannot go down that road.
posted by quirked at 6:12 AM on July 30, 2002


How sad that the main point of contention for invading a country is whether our precious oil prices increase. Wonder if this 'war' will go to a vote in congress. Oh wait, that hasn't happened for decades anyway. Nice how we can do away with the constitution when convienent, and hide behind it when we want to peep in on someone.

Oh, and....

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan divided the cost of the 1991 war with the United States

That is one of the most poorly written sentences I've ever read. Sheesh, how much does an editor at the times make?
posted by Ufez Jones at 6:55 AM on July 30, 2002


quirked:

Let me play devil's advocate here.

Suppose that a guy broke into your house and took a shot at you. You shoot the guy dead. It's a pure case of self-defense, case closed. He's on your property illegally, and was trying to kill you. But what if you intercept the guy before he can get into your house and shoot him there? His intent is still the same (to get inside, steal your stuff, and kill you), but you caught him before he could do it. Are you still in the clear?

Let's go even further. Suppose you find out a day in advance that some lowlife is planning to burglarize your house and shoot you. You tell the cops, but they say they can't do anything because the guy hasn't actually done anything. If you shoot him on the street and explain that you were only doing so in anticipation of his crime the following day, are you still defending yourself? If not, why not?

I agree that pre-emptive attacks on other countries is morally disturbing, but we really don't have the luxury of waiting for someone to attack us before we respond. The 9/11 attacks showed that with crystal clarity. The best way of stopping an attack is breaking it up before it happens.

In an age where nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are pretty easy to come by, I'd say the price of waiting to be attacked is far too high.
posted by mrmanley at 7:03 AM on July 30, 2002


If you shoot him on the street and explain that you were only doing so in anticipation of his crime the following day, are you still defending yourself? If not, why not?

No. IANAL, but I believe you'd get charged with first degree murder. You can't prove his intent, even if there are papers saying what he is going to do.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:07 AM on July 30, 2002


are you still defending yourself?

No. He hasn't actually done anything. All you can do is lie in wait with your gun until he actually does step onto your property. (It also depends what state you are in, in some states it's 'open season' on home invaders)

In an age where nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are pretty easy to come by, I'd say the price of waiting to be attacked is far too high.

By this logic then, we need to invade and occupy the following countries: Britain, France, Russia, Pakistan, China, India, North Korea, Iraq. I'm probably leaving a few out, but you get the idea. Technically, they all could threaten us. Imagine if individuals lived by this policy. Every murderer in the country would claim that the person they killed 'had it in for me!' Now obviously, if someone is pointing a gun, or drawing a gun to point it at you, you probably have justification to defend yourself. I see no evidence pointing to the notion that Saddam is doind the national equivalent of pointing a gun at us and threatening us.

Why in God's name would Saddam attack the U.S. with a weapon of mass destruction? He's hopelessly outgunned. He may be evil, but he's been smart enough to stay in power in Iraq for 20 years. Throwing any kind of WMD at the U.S. would ensure massive retaliation.

Maybe we need to drop our sanctions on Iraq first and see what happens.

This article raises some good questions (asked by Congress, which is supposed to declare war before we undertake it):

How much of a threat does Iraq pose to the United States? How many U.S. soldiers might die? How would other countries respond? Who would replace Saddam? How long would the United States have to keep troops there?

None of these questions can or will be answered satisfactorily. But it won't matter, especially when people start seeing more of this.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:15 AM on July 30, 2002


By "This article", I meant this one.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:20 AM on July 30, 2002


I agree that pre-emptive attacks on other countries is morally disturbing, but we really don't have the luxury of waiting for someone to attack us before we respond. The 9/11 attacks showed that with crystal clarity. The best way of stopping an attack is breaking it up before it happens.

Ah, but is that what we will accomplish by starting a war? I'm all for stopping terrorist groups, but attacking a whole country because of one man is a bit ridiculous. Might we been seen as the aggressor in the Arab world and end up causing more attacks? How has Saddam shown that he is a threat to us anyway? As insomnyuk pointed out, many countries have weapons of mass destruction. Do we attack them all? Do we think the World doesn't notice our ridiculously hypocritical foreign policies?
posted by quirked at 7:51 AM on July 30, 2002


And...

"Everybody's nightmare is Saudi Arabia," said an Energy Department oil analyst. "People are deathly afraid of any military campaign spreading to Saudi Arabia."

...what the heck is going on in Saudi Arabia? [I first saw this at NewsTrolls]
posted by jaronson at 8:46 AM on July 30, 2002


what the heck is going on in Saudi Arabia?

Other than the celebrations of "the Fifteen" you mean?
posted by homunculus at 11:56 AM on July 30, 2002


« Older There is no support for this Israeli position....  |  Dishonesty... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments