First if all I would like to say that WMD are ubiquitous in the world to day and if we wish to eliminate them we will have to put sanctions / war with every country. Additionally, given the prevelance of these weapons in the region, I don't beleive that any iraqi leader could provide for his countries security with out them. In a way Sadam had a moral imperative to aquire WMD to protect his country. Twisted aint it? This leads me to believe that WMD themselves are not the issue but rather was sadam going to use WMD against us or not? That is, the question is not means, but motive. Honestly my question is who gives a f$%* about WMD? We have them they have them everybody has them. And nobody uses them. Well Sadam did use them against IRAN at our request and agianst his own people at times.
Now, It appears that the assumption of some people is that Sadam was a credible threat to the United States and that if he had WMD he would certianly use them agianst us. However, if you get past the red herring of WMD: does he have them or not? And look at the quesiotn of motivation... Then you will see that we are actually assuming the conclusion. And I havent seen anyone address why we are so certian that sadam would have used WMD against us.
And I know there is a big difference between being justified, and being moral. And there is a big difference between being justified and being wise. Some one wrote in here well its as simple as the UN said do this and then he did that,now we do this. Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. We have options old man. I think the bigger quesiton is one of timing. Even if we were, justified, why did we act now? Why now? What was wrong with waiting? Wasn't waiting actually the best option. I mean its the UN's rules after all and they wanted to wait. Wasn't there wisdom in waiting? We killed 100,000 Iraquis at least thats blood on our hands. Why were we in such a hurry to go in there? Why didnt we go in there 5 years ago if he was sucha threat? Why not as soon as bush was elected? I think it owuld have been wiser to wait. We waited 12 years, whats a few more? I mean why kill the innocents today when you can put the war off till tomorrow? Don't we owe humanity that?
Also I am very worried baout getting involved in Iraq, not the war, which was relitively painless, from our perspective, at least, but the occupation and rebuilding. This is exactly the kind of thing that never works. I am sure the Iraquis are glad we didnt kill any more than we had to in liberating them. Its ok, the thouusands of innocents we killed in the war, they died for Iraqui freedom. But its a differnet situation now, ok Sadam is gone, the threat is over, we are done. Mission accomplished. Lets hand the rebuilding over to the UN. Its theri job, They asked for and I mean we have usurped their authority enough for one day don't you think? But what do we do? No we are so staying. And why? You guessed it, for the money. We take the sucker role. And make no misttakes the people who stay for the money are suckers. And you know why we are suckers? Because every Iraqi we kill form now on he didn't die for freedom, and he didnt die for breakign the peace or for being a violent protester, or whatever, because we arent peace keepers anymore, we are there to broker an oil deal. The ones we kill now died becasue we are there, and we are there because we want the oil. Its pure greed. I think we are setting ourselves up for a moajor internaitonal incident, worse than the shah of Iran. I don't think this gov't, nor the american people (with our expectations), nor the Iraqis can come to some kind of solution that will satisfy everyone. I don't think sadam was a real threat, I don't thnk he would have used WMD agianst the US if he had them, why would he? If anythign he would go after kuwait agian, or Israel or something. Ok for get about justification, we have the opportunity to get out of iraq now. Honestly I hope we go after Syria, anythign to get out of Iraq.
War is the failure of civilization to win out over the animial side in man. It is the failure or communication and diplomacy to reach a mututally agreeable solution. At best war is a necessary evil. I really don't think this war was necessary, so its just evil.
In the end I think it all comes down to how a person views the world, whether they think we were justified or not, wether the war was necessary or not. Some people may think the workd is a vicous place filled with wertched and thick headed people and that if we dont actively hold them in place then they will certainly causeus trouble. Sadam, UBL, etc... I belive differently. I like to think that we don't have enemies in the world only adversaries. I think that most arguemetns result from misunderstandings. I grew up listenign to ronald regan talk about leading the free world to... feedom and posrosperity or some thing like that. Progress is the word I am looking for. I think that our role as a leading country should be leading the world toward progress, something good for everyone. I mean GW basicly said that its Good vs. Evil = Us vs. Them = America vs. ??The World??. How exactly are we leading the world with rhetoric like that? I think from the way this war on terror is playing out that we have strayed from that path to greatness and wantered on to the path to empire. /me Shudders
) 
Facebook
Twitter