Hi,
I've had little use for raghead terrorists for a good long time.
Yeah, me too. Since the French Algerian problems as a matter of fact. BTW, would you have supported the invasion of France to stop the actions of the OAS? They weren't all that much nicer than Saddam's secret police, IIRC.
No news here, I hope, but there have been folks who don't like the US for a lot longer than GWB has been in office, and they speak Arabic, Pharsi, and other languages.
Including American English, or are we to ignore Oklahoma City? So, shall we "invade" the Rocky Mountain states to root out the terrorists? And how many American civilian casualties are we willing to accept as collateral damage?
If not, what was the justification for invading Iraq?
The legal justifications are the ceasefire agreement breaches, so the real question is 'why now?' That question is still a good one. The partner to that is 'why not?' Doing nothing has improved nothing.
Sorry, that argument will not wash. The parties to that agreement were the UN based coalition and Iraq. The USA was only involved as a UN member (OK, this is all theoretical, since we both know who the spine and the balls of the UN has been all along, but that is another issue. We're talking legality, not reality). Thus, when the UN did not choose to enforce their own agreement, the USA did not have the
right to do so. Our actions were not those of a cop enforcing an external authority but those of a vigilante enforcing his own prejudices.
Yes, Saddam was a bastard and maybe Iraq will be better off without him (although I think a change of
attitude is more necessary there than a change of *government*). However, many (indeed most) nations are being ruled by bastards. And some of those are putative democracies. Again, if the power to act gives both the responsibility to act and the right to act, where do we draw the line?
I draw the line at "clear and present danger". Iraq with WMD and a delivery system would have been a clear and present danger. Which is why I reluctantly supported the administration after Collin Powell's presentation to the UN. In retrospect, all the evidence seem to indicate that that presentation was a fabric of lies and exaggerations. Those that generated those lies are enemies of my country, for in a democracy the right of the people to know the truth is paramount. And security considerations do not apply. Security might (and does) require that information not be given. It may require that certain individuals be lied to in some circumstances. It never requires that the population at large be lied to.
Those that accepted those lies are unfit to rule our nation. When the issue is as serious as starting a war and risking the lives of many, independent sources must be developed and used to confirm intelligence so that no one group can become the "ruler" through the power of knowledge.
Yes, the situation in the Middle East is complex. There may have been no better solution, although without the WMD, I don't see what the need for unilateral and precipitate action was. The war was based on the end (protecting the world from a madman) justifying the means (an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country). Turns out the end was a lie, and so could not justify the means. So, now, the post hoc argument is "might is right" -- we won, thus we were correct. Trial by combat fell out of favor centuries ago when logic replaced superstition, knowledge replaced ignorance. Looks like our society slipped a bit in the last two years. Must be that solid education the American public is getting.
--Pete
EDIT, replaced [ and ] by < and > Should use preview
