This sounds more and more like a co-opt of the agenda of the left to get the left to shut up about protesting the war.
"Hey, lookie here, the GOP did the following out of the goodness of our hearts:
Freed an oppressed people from tyanny;
Fought to advance human rights; and now
Have opended the door to restoring the environment."
They keep trotting out all of these beneficial side effects as an afterthought in an attempt to buttress the pro-war arguments that were not presented to justify the war in the first place (and if they were, it was definitely not the centerpiece). It’s a joke.
It’s so damn frustrating to hear all of the pro-war rhetoric, the flimsy evidence presented by the GOP to justify the war, the pathetic “Coalition of the Willing”, and the sorry state of affairs brewing between the US and its allies, and Bush’s inability to form and/or articulate intelligent arguments, yet I can’t really say that I’m anti-war.
I think I’m feeling that the ends justified the means in this case, but the sales pitch put forth by the Bush Administration was terrible. I’m still torn.
If we can truly live up to the nation-building goals, help give the Iraqi people order, a peaceful functioning government they want, and prosperity, then Iraq and the world will be a better place for it, and a good thing has been done… and I don’t think that’s the White Man’s Burden because, from what I understand, we would be giving Iraqis what THEY want, not imposing what WE THINK they would want.
-Bearflag70
(moderate democrat)
PS: I don’t intend to debate any of this. I’ve steered clear of GD threads about the war. I’m just venting in the Pit to express my opinion since I’ve never expressed my opinion about the war to anybody. Thanks.
ADDENDUM: I’ve lurked in the GD war threads plenty, but did not post there, so I’ve read the arguments on both sides already.
This BS about the environment is the straw that pushed me to chime in.
The GOP cares about Mesopotamian wetland restoration…
OH… and drilling for oil in the arctic wildlife refuge, and opposing environmetal laws as anti-business and an undue invasion of private property rights, and voting to support the issuance of a California Coastal Commission permit to stick a single-family housing development is California’s Bolsa Chica Wetlands…
Big deal. Al Gore had a dry river bed flooded for a photo op, killing many animals, including a pair of black-footed ferrets which were on the endangered species list.
Yeah, I bet if he’d come out and said right off “We’re fighting this war so that we can restore swamps in the desert,” that would have squelched all opposition.
Jeez, it’s a frickin’ waste of time to preserve “wetlands” here, why would I want people to die thousands of miles away to save their swamps?
Wasn’t there a Norton who was Nixon’s Secretary of the Interior during the beginnings of the environmentalist era with the NEPA in 1970? Are they related?
I’m wondering (though doubtful) whether december has a response to offer to Enginerd’s thoughtful and substantive post. It answers the topic of the OP directly, and seems to suggest that it’s not as simple as “opening a door.”
Would that apply here, though? It’s my understanding that the ma’dan do (did, I guess) use the land in the way that the wetland environment would be maintained. The damage to these marshes didn’t occur incidentally, through land management practices by the inhabitants that had a side effect of destroying the ecosystem, but deliberately by the government, who drained the marshes on purpose.
Well I for one am COMPLETELY CONVINCED by this argument. Clearly, the Middle East–nay, the world–owes President Bush a debt of gratitude for the environmental benefits which the invasion has brought about. And it’s not just water; has no one noticed that drilling for oil, and digging countless holes while searching for WMD’s, also aerates the soil, in the manner of the noble earthworm? Then too, much of the contents of the Baghdad Museum and National Library have been liberated into the environment, where they will be free to reenter the carbon cycle, perhaps producing a rich loam as they decay.
How strangely appropriate that this president should have the green and leafy name of “Bush,” given his tireless labors to heal the global ecosystem. He’s…he’s like a god of nature!
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you so much.
Okay, what’s next on the “Why we need(ed) to invade” checklist? So far, I think we’ve gone through:
Saddam is a dire threat to the United States X
Saddam is concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction X
We must liberate the Iraqi people X
We must save Iraq’s wetlands!*
Have I missed any, or would anyone else like to offer suggestions for other keen justifications for invasion that the Administration can use? Try it, it’s fun!
My answer is what Captain Amazing said. If these wetlands can be restored (a big if) the first key to preserving them would be to stop draining and poisoning them.
I disagree with the logic of those who want to deny credit to Bush. We all agree that Saddam was evil. That’s one reason Bush said he sought the overthrow. Destroying this wetland was one of Saddam’s evil deeds, which hopefully can now be fixed.
I don’t really care if it was an original part of Bush or anybody else’s original agenda. Saddam and his cohorts committed a human and ecological atrocity.
I bet that if Bush took a bag full of automatic weapons and shot up a school, december would be in here the next day saying “Let’s say thank you to President Bush for doing his part to alleviate classroom overcrowding!”
That wasn’t about politics. It was about december and his blind prejudice. Have you read any of his posts before? He spins so much I’m surprised he hasn’t drilled himself into the earth. Everything the Republicans do is right and noble, and everything the Dems do is wrong and despicable.
And I don’t hate Bush. I’m not a fan, it’s true, and I wouldn’t vote for him absent a gun to my head, but I don’t hate him. I’ve even defended him on occasion when I thought he did the right thing.
But to say that he deserves thanks for this, a completely unintentional side-effect of the invasion, which unquestionably never entered into his calculations, is kinda pushing it, IMO.
Well, Ferrous, I’m glad to hear you’re open minded. I had not taken into account who’s saying what, I was just responding to the words. I share with you an annoyance of both extremes: those who say the man can do no wrong, and those who say he can do no right.
On the issue, whether the Marsh Arabs were on anyone’s agenda or not, I am very glad that there is a possibility that the devastation might be addressed. Even if one disagreed with everything GWB stands for, IMHO one can be grateful for this opportunity. It’s part of the big picture of evil that SH represented.