February 12, 2003

Blog Iraq Debate: The Questions

this is still in process. i'll remove this note when it's completed.

Intro Questions

To begin with this is not about Iraq. It is about Osama Bin Laden. The fucker is still out there and his organization, not Saddam's is the primary source of our affliction.

It may be the fact that Mr. Saddam is in bed with Bin Laden and his cohorts. It may be the fact that the state of Iraq is in material collusion with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It would not surprise me at all to see this. In fact, I believe it is the case. None of this changes the issue as it relates to our primary enemy. Al Qaeda is not a local phenomena. Iraq is. In spite of all the evidence that can and will be shown about Saddam's culpability and intentions the primary goal is defeating Al Qaeda.

If the primary goal is not Al Qaeda then we open ourselves to the logical conclusion that we must follow the Bush Doctrine to its T and we must fight and destroy all terrorists everywhere and all states everywhere which support them. This is not reasonable nor efficient and by choosing this path we further endanger the nation.

Many have said that Bush reaches for what is only attainable by stretching, perhaps even becoming a better more moral nation as a result. They say this is about liberating the Iraqi people. Bush, and his brood, maintain that by taming Iraq we will be one step closer to taking down Al Qaeda. These people are fools. Bush doesn't care about liberating the Iraqis.

Liberating the Iraqis is a good tactic. But it is not a motivation. Anyone who says so is silly.

Bush is playing right into Al Quaeda's hands. Destroying Iraq will both take out Saddam and ignite Islamist sentiment in some portion of the population in most every country around the world. This can only be to the benefit of the Al Qaeda organization.

1) If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration?

2) Is there any circumstance that you can conceive of where the United States would be justified in using military force without the support of the UN Security Council --- or does the UN always have a veto against US military action for whatever reason?

3) American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein's direct rule. Do you agree that the no-fly zones have been beneficial to Northern Iraq --- and if so, why should this concept not be extended to remove Hussein's regime entirely and spread those freedoms to all Iraqis?

4) Do you believe an inspection and sanctions regime is sufficient and capable of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Hussein regime --- and should this be a goal of U.S. policy? In what way is an inspection/containment/sanctions regime preferable to invasion? Civilian casualties? Expense? Geopolitical outcome?

5) What, in your opinion, is the source of national sovereignty? If you believe it to be the consent of the governed, should liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime be U.S. policy? If so, how do you propose to accomplish this goal absent military action? (And if in your view the sovereignty of a state does not derive from the consent of the governed, then what is the source of sovereignty?)

Posted by filchyboy at February 12, 2003 12:00 AM | TrackBack

Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

how this works