If you want to continue with me, you’ll need to retract the name calling, and insulting insinuations that have to date been the large majority of your contribution to this thread.
And I agree, this is an interesting point. Indeed, if the UN had gotten behind the war, I would have had a much harder time objecting to it. I probably would have objected to it on the Massive Civilian Casualties theory, true, but round about now I would’ve been starting to admit I was wrong. (There still may be massive civilian casualties, so my admission wouldn’t be complete).
I am a bit bothered by what appears to be an “ends justifies the means” approach to war. While the ends of replacing Hussein’s government with one signicantly friendlier to human rights is certainly a noble end, I have big fat problems with accepting that we should use sleazy, deceitful, bullying means to achieve those ends, especially since:
- These same means, if legitimized, can be used for ignoble ends; and
- These means are going to have a lot of unintended ends – increased isolation of the US from other countries, increased hatred of the US in the Middle East, etc.
I will probably in the end applaud Hussein’s ouster from power, even as I work my butt off to get Bush and Blair out of office.
I’d behave the same for the detective who beat the hell out of innocent people in order to catch a serial killer. I’d applaud the killer’s capture, and then I’d throw the detective in jail.
Milossarian, I apologize that I can barely find the points in your post to respond to. I’ll pick one thing out to answer, though:
To me, this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding both of Chirac’s position and of the way international diplomacy works in general.
Chirac threatened a veto of a “show us your chemical weapons by March 17 or we’ll attack you!” resolution. The US came back with a, “We’ll attack you by March 17 if you don’t show us your weapons of mass destruction!” resolution. France threatened a veto, so the US came back with a, “If you don’t want to be invaded, show us your chemical weapons by April 12!” resolution, and France said, “Non, non, non! We do not want to play this game! We’ll veto any resolution that gives them a deadline to show us chemical weapons or else we’ll attack! Quit just rephrasing your proposals and expecting to slip them by us!” That’s a perfectly legitimate response to the US’s absurdly clumsy attempt at slipping one past the Security Council.
In general, however, cooperating with international diplomacy means sometimes the US doesn’t get its way. All too often I hear arguments that say, “Obviously international diplomacy wasn’t working, since the rest of the world wouldn’t let us do exactly what we wanted to do.” Those arguments are non-starters. When I say we should work within international bodies, I mean we should recognize that we’ll sometimes have to do things differently from how we’d do them on our own.
Finally, when you say that the UN-lovers are US-position haters, surely you can see that this obviously false point is disproven by the author of the OP.
Daniel
This is not a reasonable argument against trying to do better
(btw. haven’t you pronunce me not worth talking to?)
Dan:
Without agreeing with you, I see no logical problem with your stance. You do not appear to have argued to preserve a status quo unacceptable to your standards.
(sigh) And you were doing so well, too. Alas.
That was me, of course, not burundi.
Daniel
In furtherance of Dan’ls response to Milo:
The US wildly inflated Resolution 1441 as legitimizing military action, like a dirigible full of farts. We claim that it is a unanimous sanction of approval for America to act on its own discretion, when, of course, it was no such thing.
In order to obtain R. 1441, we explicity denied any such implication. Our allies, and most especially France, had worried that we might attach some interpretation of “automaticity” to the resolution, that we might determine on our own that a breach had occured, and devolve upon ourselves the right to take such action as we, and we alone, deemed fit.
Our Ambassador, Mr. Negroponte, explicity denied any such intention on our part, as demonstrated in this quote:
“There is not ‘automaticity,’ and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.” (emphasis added)
We even went so far as to seek the second resolution implicitly demanded by this promise. Failing in that endeavor, we mendaciously claimed that R. 1441 said what we promised it didn’t, and blamed France for our diplomatic failings. This, of course, after Fearless Misleader swore up and down he would bring the issue to a vote, in order to “see thier cards”.
Lies. Bald-faced lies. Why should anyone believe a word we say, ever again?
“preserving Saddam’s regime” is not the goal of the peace protesters. It is a side effect. As ecological devastation has been a side effect of open markets and well-armed criminals has been a side effect of an acknowledged right to bear arms.
This is not a difficult point to understand, scylla. You are singling out a single consequence of someone’s position and presenting it as the sole issue of concern. Essentially, your point is, “nothing else matters because no reason can possibly justify not removing Saddam Hussein from power by military action right now.”
I disagree. And it does not require a “disconnect” for me to do so.
Yes–you like to think that your predictions based upon past experiences are undeniable while everybody else’s are hypothetical. You also like to reduce the number of alternatives to 2, though more than one person has told you that they do not view this issue as a dichotomy.
That does not make this a good argument. It only means that there is little chance your position will ever shift.
Here’s one: leverage international support in a way that has not been managed since the ealy days post Gulf War I. You speak of 12 years of sanctions as if those sanctions had actually been thoroughly imposed by all members of the international community. They weren’t.
Here’s another, allow the reneewed inspection efforts to continue for long enough that to convince countries that do not share our assessment of the situation to come around (with additionl diplomatic efforts, no doubt) to our side. That way an eventual war could be prosecuted with less severe disruptive effects on teh region and a new government could be installed whch would not suffer from a perceived lack of international legitimacy, as appears increasingly likely with the Bush administration arguing for minimal or no UN involvement in establishing the new regime.
Here’s another, while allowing more time for the international diplomatic effort we might have concentrated a major push for establishing our case with the other nations in the region. We also could have used that time to begin propoganda efforts within Iraq itself, laying the groundwork for a popular response which it is obvious that our planners had hoped for but which never materialized. (I think the odds of this would have remained low, but the effort would prove valuable for post war reconstruction, too.)
It seems pretty safe to me that without a credible alternative an open market philosophy has the net effect of encouraging ecological damage to third world countries. That does not mean I have made a good argument if a charge open market economists with ecological devastation as the sole rlevant effect of their position.
First, because the regime is not currently engaging in a genocide, despite your use of figures skewed from the post Gulf War I period in which the United States encouaged an armed revolt in Iraq and then allowed the regime to crush it mercilessly.
Second, because removing someone from power a decade later does not bring anyone back to life. Arguing that this action balances against 500,000 deaths is mixing future expectations with past results. Any good investment counselor can tel you that’s a quick way to go wrong.
Third, because th econclusion “ameliorating” requires that the new regime be better for the Iraqi people than the current regime. While I think that that result is likely, I do not feel it is assured.
Fourth, because I fear what I see is a real risk of destabiliation in an already unstable region, which means that any improvement of the conditions for the Iraqi people may be mor than balanced by violence and upheavals elsewhere in the Middle East.
Fifth, becasue aside from the regional stability concerns on the macro scale, on the micro scale this action is inflaming more people in the region with vehement anti-American sentiments, thus providing a fertile recruitment ground for terrorist organizations of many stripes. Those organizations are both capable and willing to add a bit of human suffering to our hypothetical tally.
As I pointed out elsewhere, your expected benefits are hypothetical, too, no matter how convinced you are that, “we couldn’t do worse”.
On you second point, that is indeed a viable position. Another viable position is noting that my support for the war would be conditional on having the efforts to minimalize the danger be taken. Since they have demonstrably not been taken, I cannot support this war. My evaluation of the likely long-term effects do not jibe with what I see as a very simplistic analysis on your part. I believe that we could indeed “do worse”, for Iraq, for the region, and for our national interests.
It can be. Please tell me exactly what genocidal campaign Saddam Hussein was engaged in during the period in which the United States began mobilizing to invae Iraq.
I disagree.
I cannot speak for the protesters that you encountered, but I can speak for myself and for other folks that I have encountered who oppose this war, and I have encountered a far more layered complex of objections.
And, as I note above, even on humanitarian grounds it is possible to oppose this action simply by focusing analysis on a different historical period than your “500,000 man genocide” and extending the extrapolations beyond “Saddam is gone so everything must be better.”
I disagree, though I think that we are coming very close…
Because I do not stop my analysis the instant Saddam Hussein is removed from power, and I do not pretend that armed conflict in Iraq occurs in a bubble without consequences for other nations, and I do not remove the political consequences for both the regioin and the United States from my considerations.
You misunderstand my point. You asked the question, “how can someone fell . . .” Thinking that this was an honest attempt at understanding (and not now implying that it was not) I offered you similar situations in which people, perhaps even people you understood, had been against military action to stop genocidal regimes.
I was not saying, “we shouldn’t go to war now because we didn’t then.” I was saying, “well, if you can’t understand how such a position can be reached, maybe it would help if you considered similar situations in which similar decisions had been reached.”
The Milosevic example was, of course, offered in exatly teh same vein.
Of course. And it has a greater likelihood of occuing that it would necessarily have because of the manner in which this war has been initiated. Thus, it is one of the reasons why I oppose this war.
Again, the “it can’t get worse” future that you invision for Iraq is also a hypothetical. That you are unabel to imagine a worse outcome does not guarantee that a worse outcome will not happen.
Elective surgery is a very bad analogy for armed invasion of a country, don’t you think.
Who is the “you” in your analogy? The United States? Then what is reasonble about going across town, knocking someone out, and performing elective surgery upon them in front of their neighbors because we are pretty certain that they will feel better afterward?
I agree. But a goal being compelling and desireable does not justify removing all other factors from consideration when deciding to invade another country.
We have already failed to do this thing right. This administration has certainly failed to demonstrate that it is “very smart” with respect to the regional diplomatic concerns. And I prefer not to support a war based upon the hope that we will be very lucky.
Agreed. I even think that it is likely, in the early post war period, that we will see a fair amount of good will from many Iraqis.
It is very rare for any effect to have a single cause, especially when looking at geopolitics. That fact, by itself, does not justify taking action with no concern with the potential consequences.
And do you imagine that Saddam Hussein is the only possible Iraqi leader that could commit attrocities? I imagine not. Thus, your “it can’t get worse” conclusion is simply another hypothetical.
Possibly, though it is certainly not the worst in recent history.
There is no guarantee that a stable representative government will be the result.
Second, reasonable to expect is the language of hypothetical. I point this out again only because you have resisted any acknowledgment that other people might be justified in basing their positions on expectations that are not guaranteed.
“Making it better” is not what is being protested.
You get much slack for the many folks you are simultaneously conversing with. I found your initial response to be dismissivly minimal, so I pointed that out with what I thought was scylla-like humor. I did read your other replies for overlap, but did not see my specific concerns addressed.
I am not offended. Nor do I intend to offend, though I find your argument in this thread to be ill-conceived.
I should like to add an important point that Spiritus has overlooked. I should also like to be J-Lo’s boy-toy, which is about equally likely.
burundi:
**
Well, at least you’ve given me the courtesy of not ignoring me.
I’ll make my points really, really short, to see if it helps.
-
Saddam Hussein has not come close to complying with any U.N. Security Council resolutions.
-
1441 said comply or face “serious consequences.” Saddam didn’t comply. France, Germany and Russia are now pretending they didn’t know what “serious consequences” were.
-
The U.S. and U.K. have supplied facts, data and evidence to support their positions. Their opponents on this issue have not. (In the U.N. or here.) Instead they say things that can demonstrably be proven false. Chief among these are:
- diplomacy has not been exhausted
- weapons inspections were working
- weapons inspections will completely achieve the desired goal, if only more inspectors are brought in, and techniques are tweaked. (As if the onus is not on Saddam Hussein, but the inspectors and/or U.N.)
-
Bush’s stated primary reason for the military action in Iraq is a potential national security threat from Saddam’s WMD. Any U.S. president who let a “world body” make a decision on a U.S. national security threat would be guilty of deriliction of duty.
-
Some have misguidedly taken the importance of diplomacy and dialogue with other nations on international affairs and mutated it into “all international actions require U.N. sanction.” This is unprecedented, wasn’t done as recently as the Clinton era, and is wrong, in my opinion. For exactly the reasons that have been pointed out in this particular instance.
Under this logic, any one country, for any reason, perhaps completely immoral, could stop a just endeavor. Even if you don’t think that is what’s occurred here, can you not see the potential for it occurring?
Re: Chirac’s position:
**
Which can be problematic when the U.S. happens to be right and the nations that oppose it aren’t; when the U.S. has evidence to support its position and the nations who oppose it don’t. When a large number of nations support the American position, and a few do not - but through a bureaucratic quirk, a relic of their past prominence, what they say goes.
Particularly when the stakes involved in the “debate” are America’s national security.
I reckon that’s about as concise as I can make it.
I can only hope, Milo, that when you refer to “facts and evidence” you are not relying on the half-truths, forgeries, and outright lies thus far presented, and have some other evidence as yet not offered.
Scylla:
Let me see if I can take a shot at this. If I understand your OP correctly, you are arguing that there exists a fundamental moral contradiction in the position taken by those who oppose the US war on Iraq. On the one hand, “peace protestors…wish to promote basic human rights and decency.” In your words:
*If we stop and reflect upon this point briefly, then, it seems clear – completely natural, in fact – that people who have such a value system would oppose war, in general, and this war in particular. After all, an unprovoked war launched by the world’s preeminent military power against a near-defenseless third-world nation can scarcely be anything other than a textbook example of “aggression and violence, and coercion,” can it?
But – and this is a big but – in this particular instance, the war is being prosecuted against what you claim to be one of the worst, most morally despicable regimes on the face of the planet – a regime that, by all rights, should be removed. And in fact, you argue that if the protesters were actually true to their own moral standards (and if we ignore other considerations), these professed standards would seem to dictate that they support the war effort, rather than oppose it.
Further, you argue that all other considerations of this issue – such as, for example, the practical results of the war, or the actual motivations of those who have successfully advocated this course of action – are irrelevant. If the peace protestors really cared about human rights, justice, democracy, and so forth, then they would be out in the streets celebrating the US attack against Iraq, rather that protesting against it, regardless of the possibility that US decision-makers are motivated by economic/pragmatic reasons, for example, rather than by more noble aspirations. In fact, the failure of the peace protestors to support US actions is, in reality, little more than a tacit acceptance of the Iraqi regime and its foul human rights record – which clearly contradicts the goals and values the protestors claim to stand for. We can only conclude, therefore, that the protests against the war have no moral basis, and that the protestors are either hypocrites or dupes. You therefore argue:*
Is that a fair summary of your argument?
Let me start by saying that, of all the arguments for this war, I have consistently found the “humanitarian” arguments to be the strongest. If the UN Security Council had decided that a military intervention was necessary in Iraq for humanitarian reasons, I would probably have supported that decision, and it grates upon my soul to find myself in a position in which, by opposing US action, I am in some sense arguably prolonging the life of the noxious Baath regime.
But does my position on this issue imply that I am, “in effect,” supporting Saddam Hussein? I argue that it does not; in fact, that entire line of reasoning is a non-starter.
Consider this: North Korea has an atrocious human rights record. Should we invade North Korea? There are many conservatives who argue that we should not. Does that mean that they are tacitly, in effect, supporting the regime in North Korea?
China has an atrocious human rights record. Should we invade China? If you were to say to me, “I abhor China’s human rights record, but I do not think it wise to invade China,” would it be fair of me to conclude that you tacitly, in effect, support China and its repressive domestic policies? The Chinese crack down on the Falun Gong, and I want to invade China. What, you don’t? Clearly, you support the Chinese crackdown on religious freedom – at least, in effect.
Russia is currently destroying Chechnya in a vicious, imperialistic war. Should we invade Russia? If you answer “no,” can I reasonably conclude that, in effect, you support the Russian invasion of Chechnya, and the tactics employed during that invasion?
Spiritus is right. Your argument rests on reducing the protestors motives to one, horribly oversimplified, factor. But in reality this issue involves many factors that must be weighed against each other. It might, in fact, be a morally good act to get rid of Hussein’s government; but there are other considerations which must be balanced in as well. To begin with, we have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Iraq will be a better place after Hussein is gone; it could very easily turn into a chaotic morass. The US might not be able to form a post-war Iraq into a stable democracy – in fact, it might not even try to do so. But even if it tries, what will happen when the mullahs demand that the Americans go home, and issue a fatwa to the people to resist US imperialism? The US may find itself in the position of resisting a fundamentalist movement that is also a popular indigenous revolt against US control, and wind up at war with the people it supposedly came to liberate.
More to the point, in my opinion, is the principle of the issue. I may not like the human rights situation in Rwanda; I’m not so sure that I would support a unilateral US intervention to put things to right there, on the other hand. And when it comes down to it, this is an aggressive war, waged by the world’s last remaining superpower, against a tin-pot dictator who also, just by chance, happens to be sitting on the second-largest reserves of oil in the world. When I see the US supporting regimes that engage in gross violations of human rights, as long as those regimes also kow-tow to US interests, I find the attempt to justify the Iraq war on the basis of human rights suspect – if not downright disingenuous. One cannot simply deploy “human rights” as a justification for action when it suits ones purposes, and ignore human rights violations when they do not.
There are other considerations as well, such as the potential results of a “successful” war on the US foreign policy, but I’ll save those for later. My point is this: if I thought that the US government was sincerely interested in improving the living conditions of the Iraqi population, I might be slightly more supportive of US actions. Since I sincerely believe that US decision-makers don’t really care about the fate of Iraqis, and are more interested in lining their pockets, I find their invocation of human rights as a justification to be nothing less than a very dirty trick.
Scylla are you saying that the end result (removal of Saddam) justifies the means? And in your view, the antiwar protestors are supporting Saddam’s regime? You want alternatives to war but reject the idea of better diplomatic efforts because the ones used so far didn’t work?
Why not use that $75 billion to either bribe Saddam into good behavior or give it to some close personal friend of his to get rid of his boss? Then we could take the all the hair-care money and rebuild Palestine. Because it doesn’t matter how we get there- we should just be interested in the end result, right?
If you are really serious about getting rid of all the evil dictators in the world it’s going to cost a lot of dough. Probably more than America has. We should be advocating for a world socialist government where the earth’s resources are used for the good of all mankind.
My opinion is very close to Scylla’s. I will go even further and say it is likely there will be unpleasant consequences in the ME due to the war. However, I STILL think it is worth it to liberate Iraq. 20 million people have been held hostage too long.
The motive of the US doesn’t concern me as much as the results. But, I guess you could argue that if the US does not sincerely care about the fate of Iraqis, the results will be poorer.
Fearless Misleader did not sell us a war of Iraqi liberation, he sold us the utterly specious notion that a war on Iraq was directly related to the war on terror. This argument was buttressed by hysterical allegations of Iraq’s nuclear program and Saddam’s purportedly cozy relationship with Osama.
As the true facts of the situation emerge, he is pleased to try to sell us the fable of noble America, sacrificing blood and treasure in a valiant crusade to free the Iraqi people.
There isn’t a word of truth in it.
Yes, this debate (at least generally) does reach very deeply into our own national security. Which is why it surprises me that, to preserve it, we’re not only curtailing civil liberties, but taking a course of action that is turning both Middle Eastern and Asian Arabs against us and exponentially increasing the likelihood of terrorist attack against us with no real evidence that it’ll decrease it.
I’m glad that you’re so sure of the war’s rightness that you’re willing to risk your life, and the lives of everyone who live around a prominent, major city, on it, but surely you can understand why others aren’t so eager to go along…?
Scylla
Thanks for your reply. It looks like you’re getting somewhat flooded with replies and many posters here have already intelligibly posited many of the points I was thinking. So I don’t want to take up more of your time, but I did want to address a few points you made in your reply to me.
If by “we” you mean the United States government, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Your government oversaw the entire operation, in combination with UK forces. That bears a strinking similarity to today which gives rise to some doubts amongst people not just in the Middle East, but all over the world who are familiar with what occured back in '53.
The primary differences between Japan and Germany and Iraq is the population and the recent history. Neither Germany or Japan were the cauldron of religious and ethnic animosity that Iraq is today. That is one of the reasons that some folks in the anti war camp do not buy into your suggestion. I agree that Japan wasn’t like Germany and your model worked in both of those places. But another primary difference is the history of the interventionists in the region. Some of the anti war folks put forth the argument that the currrent action, being spearheaded by the two countries most hated in the region, is almost a guarantee that it will fail later. Some feel this could only lead to a short term “uneasy peace” at best. But in the longer term, disaster is almost certain. The U.S. did not have the same history in relation to Japan or Germany.
I completely agree. Both what you are suggesting and what I’m suggesting are hypotheticals. Neither of us can say for sure how life for the ordinary Iraqi will be once the fighting stops. I think ones viewpoint on the whole action determines if your suggestion even holds any validity or not. It’s almost guaranteed that in the short term, things will get better for the average Iraqi. But the anti war protestors don’t like the idea of what can potentially result later down the line (not to mention the very obvious negative effects it is having on ordinary Iraqis today). And many feel that the old adage of “where a silent evolution is not allowed to take place, a violent revolution is sure to take place” is quite appropriate for this case.
Balduran and Scylla,
never imagine that motivation is not important. The US has an atrocious record of political manipulation and in the Middle East, and the history of the situation cannot be ignored.
If the US truly had altruistic motivations in it’s attack on Iraq, surely they would want to demonstrate this motivation by handing over Iraq’s administration to the most appropriate organisation, the UN. But instead we have seen the US carving up the spoils of their anticipated victory.
The world watches with horror.
Scylla,
It is a very hard topic for me to discuss.
You are right that my visceral distrust of George II is a very strong part of my feelings about this war. I doubt everything about him. His associates are even less to my liking, and the general public opinion cohort that most vocally supports him are the most frightening thing I have seen in my country since the days of Richard the Terrible.
But, let me look at your argument.
I think you are right. If the United States eliminates the regime of the Baath party, and institutes a representative democracy to govern Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people, that would be a worthy goal, perhaps a goal even worth the commission of the massive human tragedy that war is.
Can the Iraqi people believe that this is somehow related to the probable outcome of the horror of falling bombs, and smoking skies? I don’t see how. I live half a world away, and I am a citizen of the country of the man running things, and I have grave doubts about it. This country has a lousy record for bringing the blessings of liberty to other nations. And most of them wanted it. I think that George I could have done it, perhaps, when there actually was a coalition, and there really was a large and poised force ready and able to rapidly sweep the country of Baath party muscle.
We had pretty much made the situational promise, if not the public declaration that resistance to Saddam was a good idea. And then we ran away, because George I decided it was not politically profitable for his power base to actually deliver the people of Iraq from this horrible despot. It was certainly as physically possible then as it is now. But we played the public coward, and guaranteed that no one in Iraq could trust us. Where was the noble purpose of the non-anti-war faction then? Either you wanted to free the Iraqi people, or you wanted them to suffer another decade under the thumb of Saddam, right?
And now George II is going to be the great liberator of Iraq? Pardon me if I find that ironic in a sickening sort of way. We, the American People have been shown to be unreliable in supporting our friends. We will sell you out for convenience. We make lots of promises. It isn’t hard for us, since we don’t expect to keep them. No, I don’t think the Iraqi people will buy it. I certainly don’t.
No, I don’t want autocratic governments to kill, and exploit their people. I didn’t want it in Tanzania, and I don’t want it in Myanmar, and I don’t want it Israel, or North Korea, etc. But that has nothing to do whether I have any reason to believe that the Government of the Untied States, my very own government, is even able to do this thing you claim they intend. People who want to resist autocratic governments put democracies in place. A conquering nation cannot do that.
And things much worse than that seems even more likely to me. I have very little assurance that when the new government of Iraq is being selected, the desire for the welfare of all the Iraqi people will be the primary criterion for that selection. Willingness to cooperate with the United States, acceptance of the authority of the United States in matters the United States defines as in its interest, and a strongly demonstrated willingness to eschew associations with factions strongly inimical to the United States seem far more likely to be of interest.
We haven’t even started talking about what are we going to do with the Kurds. It is utter foolishness to believe that Iraqi Kurds are going to be willing to become part of a new and democratic Iraq, where they will again be a minority. They haven’t even been willing to be united with each other during the ten years they have limited self determination since Gulf War I. So, do we impose a Muslim majority rule over the Kurds, as a thank you for their help and forgiveness? Do we allow Iraq to be busted up into three countries? Will we support the Kurds when they want to free their compatriots in Iran? How about Turkey?
I am reluctant to support war. I am unconvinced that this war will accomplish any of the aims, actual, or supposed, that it was fought for. The liberation of people is a fine thing. There has never been a shortage of oppressed people. By your argument, I must immediately support a program of serial invasions by the American Liberation Army, of a dozen or more countries. Yet somehow, I doubt that you will propose that that is a good idea. If this war is, why are those wars not? Either you believe that we should go to war to liberate these people, or you want them to suffer under despotism indefinately, right?
Answers are seldom as simple as either, or. We have an obligation to do some things, as the strongest nation on earth. But I don’t think that fighting wars in foreign lands is a thing to do, unless there is a clear case that it must be done. In this case, none of the reasons for which we have begun have been demonstrated to me to be true. The fact that there are so many reasons makes me doubt them all. Real reasons don’t come in flocks. We seem to me to be fighting this war because we lost the last one and we wanted a rematch. I am afraid someone else is going to suggest best two out of three, if we do win.
And then there is the question of the criteria of victory. How do we decide we have won? At what point to we declare peace? There are easily twenty thousand men in Iraq who must never allow open study of the history of that regime. They are dead men if they do, and have nothing to loose by keeping things stirred up. They have secrets, and weapons, and coconspirators. And then there are the very large group of folks who, for whatever reason will hate us forever, and act on that hatred at every opportunity. When do you leave Iraq? The war crimes trials alone will last decades.
Whenever we finally do, everything bad that happens there for the next two centuries will be our fault.
Tris
“For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” ~ Sun-tzu ~
I suppose then that the reason that Bush will invade Syria and Iran next, and not The Phillippines, Zimbabwe and North Korea is that Haliburton has interests in the former countries and not in the latter ones.
As an investor, I’m, sure glad that Bush is making the world safe for Haliburton, in the name of terrorism to boot. Sound business strategy.