Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I was opposed to the war before, and I remain opposed now. Why did we attack Iraq? A civilized country does not unilaterally invade other nations without extraordinary justification. We did not have it.
Iraq did not present a significant threat to the United States. Iraq was NOT trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa; this report was proven to be a lie, apparently fabricated by the U.S. or Britain. Iraq has no significant ties to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, and no ties whatsoever to September 11 - another deception. If terrorism were truly Bush's concern, we would have gone after Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or any of a dozen other countries with significant ties to 9/11.
And yet we have found a hidden underground nuclear plant. Yes we haven't been shown definitive proof of terrorist ties, but who are you to say there isn't? Don't u think the DoD knows more than u?
Re. weapons of mass distraction, Iraq may or may not still have chemical or biological weapons, but the allegation raises several questions:
1. Where was the proof? Since when do we invade countries based on hearsay? Why didn't we wait for proof from U.N. inspectors or other forms of intelligence? Why the rush?
We didn't "invade" them, first of all. We aren't there to take their or land. The rush was because Iraq has been in violation of 1441 over a decade and somebody has to enforce it because the talks were getting nowhere. We allegedly already HAD PROOF, this just wasn't made public yet and is still classified.
2. The Iraqi defector who provided most of our intelligence on their chemical and biological weapons also told us that he personally knew that all such weapons were since destroyed (he was the head of their "NBC" program). Why did the Bush administration ignore (and conceal) the part about the destruction while presenting the rest of this defector's information as uncontested "facts"?
Why do you think? Why does Al Jazeera only show anti american news?? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern what is propaganda and what is not
3. Where are these alleged weapons? The war is almost over, we have nominal control of most of the country and their largest cities, yet no WMD's have been used or discovered. We have to begin to question whether this whole WMD story was just another lie by the Bush administration.
You're jumping the gun now. You think we can just magically push a button and be granted access to all of the hidden underground bunkers Saddam has built? We just arrived in Bagdad a couple days ago for Christ's sake!
4. Many countries (including the U.S.) are known to have these weapons; many of these nations are known to supply weapons to terrorist organizations or to countries that are known to provide weapons to terrorists - what made Iraq so special that it justified a unilateral invasion on mere suspicion that it might have weapons and that it might provide them to terrorists? How do we justify this precedent? Can China or Russia legally invade us now because we have WMD's? We are known to provide weapons to groups hostile to those countries.
Once again, there is classified information that Bush acted upon. You are in the dark, so of course it's natural for you to question where/what quantity of WMD's they have. If Bush revealed his source, and it was valid, would immediately change your stance on the war? Apparently Powell's classified presentation was enough to sway NINE OF FIFTEEN UN Security Council members to agree with us. Last I checked, that was a majority. And we all know why the big guns didn't agree, it was purely based on $$$$ and political enmity towards this administration. China and Russia doesn't have the right to invade us because we haven't been in violation of any UN resolution that pertains to nukes, SCUDS, and WMD's. On top of that, we haven't oppressed our people, committed genocide in the past against our people, and tried to CONQUER a country like Kuwait.
It's interesting to note that the missing WMD issue was posed to Rumsfeld yesterday. He dodged the question, instead talking about how we are liberating the Iraqi people. For those with reasonable attention spans, remember that the "liberation" excuse is relatively new. It is only the latest of the many stories Bush has tried to use to justify their attack. If this cause is so just, why all the lies? Why does Bush keep shopping for an angle he can sell?
Obviously, IT TAKES TIME to find WMD's that are hidden. Can you go into a barn and find a needle in a haystack if I told you it was there??? Of course Rumsfeld isn't going to divulge classifed information relating to the location of WMD's in places we haven't secured.
More selfishly, how do we justify the cost of this war? The initital fighting will cost us about 100 Billion dollars. The longer-term occupation and rebuilding will likely cost several hundred billion more. How can the United States afford this cost? More importantly, why was this war so imperative that it justifies burdening our children and grandchildren with our biggest deficit ever?
The answer is, we can't afford it. Can any country "AFFORD" any war?? Think about it... Any successful country that has maximized their money to important areas such as medicine, education, and defense will have some type of deficit and will be invested, not just sitting in an account for us to tap into whenever we feel we will need it for war. The truth is, I have been paying for excessive spending by my parents' generation, so how is this different?? That's like arguing for world peace, the deficit will never be eradicated/reach a solution in our lifetime IMO
For all of these reasons, I still believe this war is wrong. The fundamental issue remains that invading another country is an outrageous act that can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances. We are supposed to be a world leader. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and human rights. We are supposed to be a nation that epitomizes the notions of democracy and decency and respect for others. How do we justify ignoring world opinion - breaking world law as it were - and attacking another country without provocation? The fact that we have the military power to do it doesn't make it right. The fact that we're winning doesn't make it right.
The fact that the good outweighs the bad, but that's subjective and you're entitled to your own opinion. The fact that the Iraqi's won't be losing hundreds of thousands of people due to sanctions dictated by the UN. The fact that WMD's will never be used against defenseless people again. The fact that these people will someday get to live a standard of living that YOU, AND I, enjoy at the moment. The fact that we don't know as much as the DoD, and have to have faith that there is in fact a smoking gun, aside from the fact that Iraq has already fired illegal missles against Kuwait and were developing nuclear weapons illegally. The fact that the Iraqi people APPROVE of what we're doing in THEIR country. The fact that support for our nation is growing every day now. I could go on and on.
Having said that, I am delighted that this was has gone as well as it has, and that casualties have been relatively light. I am delighted that Saddam is removed from power and that he may be dead. There is a special circle in hell for brutal thugs like him. I am sure the Iraqi people will eventually benefit from his removal - assuming of course that the U.S. doesn't end up replacing him with a new, friendlier thug (much as we thought of Saddam himself back in the Reagan days). Nonetheless, the end does NOT justify the means. We attacked Iraq because we could, not because we should. The favorable result is little consolation to the thousands of people we've killed and maimed.
That's your opinion that the results will not improve Iraq.
War must be a last resort. Bush used war as a first resort, a happy ruse to distract Americans from his failing war on terrorism (Osama who?), our shattered economy, his administration's ties to financial scandals like Enron and Halliburton, his plans to rape the environment and pay off wealthy supporters with tax cuts and insider deals, Ashcroft's lust to turn this country into a police state, and Bush's general lack of competence. Bush continues to use the war to suppress all criticism of his administration under the smoke screen of patriotism.
War was a last resort, and if you fail to see that, then I can't help you. Seems like you have formed many opinions and have already judged our great nations' administration prior to the war, and that may be clouding your judgement..
In the process, Bush made us an outcast in the world community and has given thousands of new Osamas a single target for their hatred. The war against Iraq was a breeze - the equivalent of a Mike Tyson beating on the crippled kid in the orphanage. I hope it was worth the cost of coming battles with the rest of the world and greater terrorism against Americans. I hope someone will remember to add these costs to the total cost of this war. Most of all, I hope I am wrong.
Your opinion for "a thousand Osamas" is wrong I hope. Even if it is right, I'll trade 1000 suicide bombings from Al Queda to 27 million people who embrace freedom, along with the millions of Americans who are willing to die for our freedom with the same zeal that suicide bombers are willing to kill themselves...
--------------------
So, to answer your question, that's how this opponent "spins" it. And, contrary to your assertion, I haven't been proven wrong about anything. All of my concerns and objections remain valid. Finally, with all due respect, I find your casual disregard for the human beings killed chilling, in a sense as brutal and soulless as Saddam himself. Each and every human life is precious. To dismiss thousands of individual tragedies as good odds is callous at best. Also for the record, be sure to include a large portion of the Iraqi Army casualties in your count of civilian deaths. Many of them, perhaps most of them were conscripts who were forced to fight for Saddam. They are just as much innocent victims as the women and children killed and maimed hiding in their homes.
