- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
- Reaction score
- 31
I'm So Damn Confused. My opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq has consisted, for the most part, upon my concern for the needless, IMO, waste of American lives, the immense expense (enough to have rebuilt a significant portion of the U.S.'s own infrastructure) and the ultimate consequences to America that would ensue from turning Iraq into a unifying force and training ground for a future generation of terrorists (much in the way that the Soviet-Afghan war did for those who attacked us on 9/11) as well as bringing Russia and China further into each other's laps to counter American power. What was largely missing in my personal world view was concern for Iraqis. True, I understood (with the examples of Beirut in the 1980's and Yugoslavia in the 1990's) that in removing Hussein from power we would be opening up a Pandora's box of ethnic and sectarian strife. Still, what about the victims of Hussein? Was their torment to be unanswered? Please understand, though, that I believe that the "humanitarian" aspect used by right-wing apologists to justify this war was and is self-serving and mostly shallow. If Hussein had continued to play ball with us, like Uzbekistan, Turkey and Indonesia and so many other nations with grave human right's violations, he would STILL be our very best friend.
Still, what about the tens of thousands Hussein deliberately murdered and the hundreds of thousands his aggressions killed? We said after 1945 Never Again. Of course, we unfortunately have been very selective in this (note: Black Africa, for the most part, and Bosnia until 1995), but what about Hussein? Should we have removed him as we did but only have done that and not tried to rebuild Iraq in our own image? I'm tied here - before now I would have emphatically said NO on both counts. Now, I am not so certain that my side held all the high moral ground even though I still believe that the idea of turning Iraq, an artificial, Yugoslavian sort of state, into a Jeffersonian Republic was and is a fool's errand that is costing American lives and treasure needlessly. Yet waging agressive (or "preventive" as Bush apologists aver we did, although Nuremburg recognized no such distinction) war requires, IMO, a very high threshold of proof which, propaganda aside, was not met in the months leading up to the Iraq War Resolution of 7-2002, IMO. Thoughts?
Still, what about the tens of thousands Hussein deliberately murdered and the hundreds of thousands his aggressions killed? We said after 1945 Never Again. Of course, we unfortunately have been very selective in this (note: Black Africa, for the most part, and Bosnia until 1995), but what about Hussein? Should we have removed him as we did but only have done that and not tried to rebuild Iraq in our own image? I'm tied here - before now I would have emphatically said NO on both counts. Now, I am not so certain that my side held all the high moral ground even though I still believe that the idea of turning Iraq, an artificial, Yugoslavian sort of state, into a Jeffersonian Republic was and is a fool's errand that is costing American lives and treasure needlessly. Yet waging agressive (or "preventive" as Bush apologists aver we did, although Nuremburg recognized no such distinction) war requires, IMO, a very high threshold of proof which, propaganda aside, was not met in the months leading up to the Iraq War Resolution of 7-2002, IMO. Thoughts?