I tried starting a GD thread with this, but it didn’t really work out. I think that my need to put up debate-worthy questions got carried away. I’d normally not go here with something like this, but frankly, the closer we get to war, the more scared I get, and I’d like to vent that fear.
I know it’s the government’s job to play a sort of God over the lives of their citizens (one of the reasons, I suppose, why libertarians exist, probably the ONLY reason I sympathize with their cause). They, at least, have access to information the general public doesn’t, not to mention to some of the best minds in the country. I can usually give them a certain amount of leeway on this Iraq thing.
Then I read this thread, and I really began wondering where all the rosy views of the future post-war are coming from.
Do war advocates really think Turkey will let the Kurds alone? Is this all really worth wasting all the potential cooperation we could’ve had catching terrorists? What did the Bush Administration do to the CIA to make them publicly recant their report saying that Saddam was unlikely to help terrorists out without war? Given that, do they really have any reason whatsoever to believe that the war will reduce terrorism in the long term instead of INCREASING IT DRAMATICALLY? Are pro-war people REALLY so confident about this that they’re willing to gamble the existence of the United States and the lives of everyone in it on this war? (I didn’t even mention the lives of the people of Israel and Britain and everyone who agrees with us.) If so, why can’t they seem to convince ANYONE of that?!
It takes a lot for me being willing to face the possibility that I might die in radioactive agony at a terrorist’s hands. Maybe the pro-war people are happy with vague prophecies of peace, and are willing to accept the chance that we’re about to cause a wave of major terrorist attacks to sweep the country, sending us into chaos and anarchy. I’m not. The fact that the Administration is unwilling or unable to give me even a hint of that reassurance is scaring the living shit out of me.
I know a lot of this has been addressed (if not answered) in GD threads, and I apologize for that. I’m just frustrated and scared…
(And I know how ironic it is that I was musing on the destructiveness of panic in that GD thread. See how easy it is to give in? :))
Hmm… well, for starters I think some of the “pro-war” camp still suffer from “it can’t happen to me” type opinions. Sort of an attitude that if they don’t live in NYC or DC the Bad Things won’t happen to them.
And there’s a certain number who for whatever reason (but frequently religious) believe in a manifest destiny or some such. Heck, there are even fundies who look forward to Armageddon, which has always boggled my mind. So… they’re convinced God is on our side and therefore we will win regardless. Doesn’t seem to bother them one bit that the opposition feels exactly the same way.
Total destruction? Not from invading Iraq, no… but things could get extremely messy and uncomfortable. If North Korea starts a nuclear war (or Pakistan and India, for that matter) THEN we could start seriously flirting with the End of Civilization (at least as we know it, and for our lifetimes).
And, I also think there’s a slice of humanity out there who don’t really understand what war actually is. It’s not clean or hygenic - it’s real human beings suffering and dying. Some of those human beings will be the enemy… and some will be us. No way around it.
And there’s the group that sincerely believe Saddam & Company to be a true threat to our nation (and others) and honestly believe this is the best course of action. (A debatable viewpoint, as we all know)
In other words, there’s more than one reason the “pro-war” factions are pro-war.
I guess we ‘pro-war’ people see the situation as exactly the opposite. By leaving Saddam Hussein alone, you greatly increase the chance that over the next year, or five, or ten, horrible weapons will land in the hands of terrorists. Better to take the risk now, when the threats are lower, than to take a risk dealing with Hussein in ten years when he has nuclear weapons.
This point has been repeated over and over again - by themselves, terrorists are threatening but can’t destroy entire cities. Left to themselves, insane dictators may be a threat to their own populations and their neighbors, but not to the world at large.
But it’s the intersection of these rogue regimes and terrorists that presents the real threat. An al-Qaida or Hezbollah armed with the resources of a state behind it is a threat to millions of people. And it’s this threat that cannot be allowed to stand.
The way I look at it is this: The world is becoming increasingly unstable. The increase of technology and ability of states to make increasingly horrible weapons means that one day there will be a nuclear war, or a horrible biological attack, or other calamities. The time to stop it is now. My daughter deserves to live in a world where she doesn’t have to worry about new germ attacks, or a nuke going off in our city. The Iraqi people deserve to be freed of a mad dictator. The people of the middle east at large deserve to live in peace. Pro-active action needs to be taken today, so that that outcome can be achieved tomorrow.
Only a full-scale nuclear attack could cause our total destruction, and outside of our long-time allies, only Russia and China have a sufficient number of warheads to accomplish this. Luckily, neither of those 2 countries are led by psychos…yet.
While our motives may not be what GWB claims they are, Hussein needs to go. It’s just too bad that only a few countries have the guts to get their hands dirty and get the job done.
Wait, is Saddam really that insane/stupid as to give away WMDs that may be used on targets that are against his best interests, or in ways that might give away his involvement and start a war that will be completely backed by the entire world?
What about that CIA report I mention in my OP, which says that Saddam IS NOT likely to let his weapons “land in the hands of terrorists” UNLESS we go to war? Are you saying that our top intelligence agency gave Congress completely incorrect information? If so, why are we depending on their intelligence to fight this war, if they are that greviously wrong about something of so much importance?
Clint: Read that second thread I link to in my OP. That’ll give you an idea of what I meant.
float: Very true, but my big concern is that war is completely counterproductive, and will only end up making things much worse than they need to be. I know the wolves are out there, but I don’t think we should be tossing rocks at them just for the fun of it.
The pro-war camp is not eager to take that risk (except for a few nutcases). The pro-war camp believes that taking down Iraq now is the least risky action. It really is that simple.
Of course, we could then go on to an argument about who is right, but answering your question doesn’t require that.
I think Sam Stone hit it on the head. Basically, if you take your post and reverse all its points, you get to my position.
Look at this way: 12 years of basic inaction against Saddam and other terrorists culminated in the September 11th attacks. It seems to me that given recent history it is phenomenally MORE risky to do nothing, or to continue the policies of the past 12 years, than it is to take decisive action.
Yes we live in a scary world, but wishing it were not so will not make it better. We have tried inaction, it failed spectacularly. And yes, I really do think Saddam is stupid and crazy enough to participate in terrorism in a bold, impossible to disguise manner.
My point worldeater is that I am not entirelty sure that U.S.A and Israel are not lead by psychos. Surely my english is at least good enough to convey that idea
