Post-war liberal guilt

[Evil_One]

I’m too tired from all the right-wing lockstep marching to think, Simon. Please tell me what you mean.

[Giraffe]

Evil One, you don’t seem to understand why people are upset/concerned about the Iraq war. Condeming this action does not equate to dismissing past good actions of the U.S. or dismissing the entire nation as a bunch of evil assholes. I think most people are worrying that a good nation is going down the wrong path.

I absolutely adore this country. But that doesn’t mean I can’t think we have made major mistakes in our foreign policy, and that we’re currently making things worse rather than better. We are on a dangerous course, fueled by citizens who desperately want to believe we can only do good, no matter what.

You remind me of a parent who believes their child can do no wrong, and will come up with any excuse to believe the best. “My little Billy wouldn’t shoplift – you just hate kids”, “If Billy threw rocks at your son, he probably had a good reason”, etc.

[Evil_One]

Giraffe, I appreciate your sentiment and your politeness. It’s nearly impossible not to respond in kind when people get negative with you. As far as our foreign policy goes, we are making people mad who would love to kill us anyway…and have done so. All we can do in the interest of self-protection is to remove the threat. We are responding, not initiating.

[musicguy]

*Originally posted by Evil One *
** As far as our foreign policy goes, we are making people mad who would love to kill us anyway…and have done so. **

We are also making a lot of people mad who are neither Iraqis or Islamic fundamentalists in general. There are more than a few nations that don’t agree with our actions, who don’t want to kill us and haven’t. The fact that we had very little support for this war should be enough proof.

The isolationist attitude of this new administration is one of the things that bothers me the most. How much simpler would this all have been if we had built a respectable amount of international support before going to war? Bush didn’t seem to see the importance of that though, choosing the “you are with us or against us” policy instead. Is it really any wonder that other nations aren’t pleased with that policy?

[Charlie_Tan]

I’m going to play the cite game with you. From reading all of this thread, I realize you don’t want to play that game. Just throwing opinions around is fine in the Pit. But you try to justify them with facts. So either play along, or I’m going to call you racist.

First, my question:

And, can you give me any reason why it’s morally more justified for you to, in your own words, “beat Islamic Fundamentalism”, than it would be for anyone else to “beat Christian Fundamentalism,” as found in the U.S.?

And the reply:

*Originally posted by Evil One *
It is more morally justified because Islamic Fundamentalists have made killing Americans part of thier religion. “Kill infidels in the name of Allah and you will be rewarded in heaven.”

All Islamic fundamentalists? Some? Which? I think you are aware that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a very religious country, as compared to its neighbours. What is an Islamic Fundamentalist, by the way? If you can’t provide a some facts or a cite, then at least expand your opinion.

They have been killing us dozens at a time for twenty years.

So, excluding WTC, that makes it a couple of hundred? With your reasoning, that could just be collateral dammage, no? At least from an Iraqi POV? Was it really Iraqis? What proof do you have? Was Saddam Hussein the mastermind behind all these attacks? Are you saying that the war was retribution? I thought your OP was concern for those ‘Islamic Fundamentalists’ that are now free, or did I mis-read it?

Then they went too far. Now they are being hunted down and killed before they can do another “mission for Allah” like 9/11 was.

So, it was all about revenge and pre-emptive strikes.
I’m glad we got that cleared up, and that you proved to us that you’re a hypocrite.

From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

my bolding

[Giraffe]

*Originally posted by Evil One *
**As far as our foreign policy goes, we are making people mad who would love to kill us anyway…and have done so. All we can do in the interest of self-protection is to remove the threat. We are responding, not initiating. **

I understand what you are saying, but your statements contain several very dangerously incorrect assumptions:

1. Iraq could not have less to do with the Sept 11th attacks. Saying “[they] have done so” lumps all Middle Eastern people into a single category of radical terrorists. Very bad idea, especially when you consider my next point.

2. A fight against terrorism will never be won militarily, it will be won by careful police work and massive international popular support. As such, diplomacy and the support of as many countries as possible could not be more critical. Even if this war was within the letter of international law (which it wasn’t), the fact that it was so incredibly unpopular throughout the world, especially the Arab world, will severely damage our ability to discourage anti-U.S. terrorism.

Al Qaeda are the ones we should be fighting. They will be very difficult to stop, because we have to get them one person at a time. How we fight them is critical in preventing future terrorism. They aren’t a government, or a country, or a region. The more we retaliate against an entire population for the crimes of a few of its members, the more we militarize the rest of it. Just look at Israel and Palestine. Before this stupid war we had unprecedented levels of international support in fighting al Qaeda, now it’s all gone. For nothing.