Quote from stockoptionist:
But since I teach philosophy, I don't want to exchange emotional insults and am committed to using arguments instead to make my case.
Bush waged this war in the name of basically two things:
(1) eliminating a threat from Iraq with their so-called arsenal of WMD
(2) liberating Iraqi people from a dictator.
For (1), we still haven't found that supposed arsenal of WMD, and Iraq never posed a "clear and present danger" to the U. S., which is necessary for any justification of a war--unlike Nazi Germany or Japan during WWII, which did pose a "clear and present danger" to the U. S. To wage war on some surmised threat is a very lame justification. If that is the case, India has more reason to level Pakistan to the ground because Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal poses far greater threat to it than Iraq to the U. S. Or vice versa.
(2) is also a lame justification for war on its own. We don't live in the 19th century colonialist world. We cannot justify bombing our enemy into submission and then give them our so-called freedoms. By "liberating" Iraq, the U. S. is reliving 19th century colonialism--economic colonialism if not political colonialism. Don't tell me that the U. S. doesn't care about Iraq's oil. Go to msnbc. There is a coverage on the so-called secret war--the war on oil. In international politics, national interests count more than noble moral ideals, which are only presented as public relations ploys. If the U. S. is so keen on liberating people from oppression, why not go to Africa? There are so many countries over there with dictators. The truth of the matter is: there are no markets and no oil to exploit over there for the U. S.
Respectfully disagree on a number of points. First of all, to say Iraq did not pose a "clear and present" danger is, IMHO, to ignore some very obvious facts:
1) Saddam was clearly trying to build a nuke. The Israelis didn't bomb the Osirak reactor in '81 because they thought he was cooking pancakes. Former Iraqi scientists who defected, records from the several years when inspectors actually were there, intelligence tracking of shipments and imports - all of these point to that inescapable fact. And let us not forget that he had the means to finance his nuclear ambitions with the oil revenue he diverted from his people.....
2) The man is (was?) a nutcase. This is a guy who executes the messenger of bad news. This is a guy who has attacked three of his regional neighbors. This is a guy who routinely tortured, imprisoned without trial, and executed his own people in the thousands.
Combine all the above with an "I am Saladin" messianic complex and you have the frightening potential situation involving nuclear weapons in the hands of a megalomaniacal psychopath who really, really, REALLY doesn't like us.
If that doesn't qualify as a Clear and Present Danger to the US, I don't know what does. Are you one of those who believes we are not entitled to defend ourselves until we have been dealt a massive blow first? If so, I must ask - what was 9/11? If that wasn't enough, what is?
Furthermore, you cannot compare the India/Pakistan situation to Iraq/US because the former two are kept in check with the concept of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). To appreciate that concept, you have to be rational and sincerely worry about the future of your country and your people.
Saddam didn't care one lick about his people. They weren't humans to him, they were props. Chess pieces to be moved around at his whim while he lived out his fantasies. Why would he worry about his country being destroyed? He didn't give a shit about his nation, only about himself. If he did give a shit about his people he would have gone into exile.
Regarding Your Oil Argument: This war is only about oil in the sense of ensuring the stability of the global oil supply and trade. To suggest it is because the US lusts after the oil and intends to steal it somehow flies in the face of history and common sense.
Why not go to Africa? Lots of dictators, but no markets and no oil you say. Hmmm, last time I checked Libya was part of Africa, and there is some oil there, isn't there? We may yet pay Qaddafi another visit, yessiree.....and come to think of it, there's also a tidy amount of oil in Nigeria, Algeria, and to a lesser extent, Angola and the Sudan, too. But let's excuse your geographical faux pas for the time being....
Lots of dictators, oh yes. HOWEVER, are/do those dictators A) Flush with money, B) In the WMD production business, C) Have visions of regional conquest and a grip on the world's economy, D) Hate the US with a passion? You may find some dictators who possess C & D, but - other than possibly Qaddafi - none with both A & B nor all 4.
The point is that no, they do NOT present a Clear and Present Danger to the U.S. And for you to suggest that the US should clear up every dictator on the face of the earth, well, we have neither the resources nor the need, really. Besides, were we even to attempt to do so, we would only incur massive worldwide (and domestic) condemnation for being so blatantly IMPERIALISTIC.
By necessity we have to pick and choose our fights, and we have chosen to pick those fights that first and foremost must be waged in order to protect our homeland.
This war was NOT fought solely for one reason, but a combination. They were all just. That the US cannot be everything to all people doesn't make our effort over there any less noble.
