Due to the formatting of your post - I missed this stuff the first time around:
Do you agree with the expression "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette"?
Yes. Why shouldn't I?
Stop talking about Saddam's terror regime as an excuse, they were victim of their own government, no need to come and pound THEM with bombs to supposedly liberate them.
I don't require instructions from you as to what aspects of Saddam's terror regime justified the war - though I consider the internal and external aggressiveness of his regime to be of a piece. In my opinion there were multiple sufficient justifications for making war on Saddam's regime - including its support for terrorists and its non-compliance with disarmament and
other Gulf War ceasefire/UN agreements. As for the larger moral issue, the Iraqi government stayed in power as a result of the international system and specific conditions that we and our allies put in place and supported. We owed it to the Iraqi people - of whom 1 million (conservatively) were
killed by Saddam during his reign - to get rid of that government, and we did ourselves a favor, too.
They are not liberated, they are destroyed, they don't even have a government anymore.
They were liberated. They were not destroyed, or anywhere close to it. They now have a chance to have a real government rather than a criminal gang running their country.
You cannot possibly believe that, suddenly, it was a war for liberation as much as it was a war against WMD and Terrorism and what not.
As I said, I believe that WMD, support for terrorism, and state police terror were all of a piece in Saddam's Iraq. Liberating Iraq serves Iraq's interests as well as ours, and also happens to be our best chance to push the larger Arab world toward reform as well - with extremely positive effects on terrorism, social justice, and a number of other ills.
Do you know where this is taking us? This means we're going to Syria next, to NK, to Columbia, to Iran, to Africa. Wow, it sure starts to look like a crusade, doesn't it?
You're panicking. Next you'll be tallying up the millions of casualties - and psychological victims, too - that these imaginary wars will cause.
The proper policy is to listen to your allies, ALL OF THEM and not go against the UN.
"Listening" is not a policy - it is a behavior that accompanies general passivity. Something had to be done about Iraq: Something
was being done that wasn't working, and that kept the Iraqis living in poverty and worse, helped keep the Middle East boiling, and left Saddam and his regime in position to resume their historical pattern as soon as the rest of the world relaxed its attention.
The proper policy is to listen to one's true allies, but, in any event, to do what one considers right. As for the UN, it has been exposed - not for the first time, but now rather definitively - as corrupt, impotent, and worse. It is
not a world government, would not qualify as a democracy if it were a government, and has very little claim to legitimacy otherwise. It's effectively a terrorist-supporting regime - despite our best efforts to make it something better: If it were more important, we'd probably have to get rid of it.
Majority opponents are there for a reason, and they are right, up to now.
They were there for their own reasons, but not because they were right.
Don't put 9/11 on the table. Has nothing to do with it, until proven otherwise. Empty arguments is all i see, fabricated correlations between unrelated events.
Again, your opinion. Whether or not Saddam played any direct role in 9/11, it remains relevant for a number of reasons, and his support for terrorists more generally and his role in the larger Islamic-fascist project cannot be doubted.
Economic consequences are far more complex than you would imagine with your $60 a gallon. Think along the lines of "lost opportunities" and cost of war and rebuilding and cost of diplomatic failures and future costs of diplomatic failures.
$60/barrel referred to an alarmist prediction played up in Germany about the supposed effects of the war in Iraq. Please read more carefully.
The "lost opportunities" and "diplomatic failures" don't amount to much compared to the likely effects of ceding the field to the Saddam and Chirac.
Well nothing to answer to that argument because the argument is we went in there to bring stability to the Iraqi people. WOW! That's gotta be your top argument of the post. The USA spent 20Billions to bring stability to the Iraqi people. I was wondering all this time why they did, but now you've cleared it up quite nicely. I think you can also tell Israel to keep bombing Palestine because "fostering destabilization of a dangerous, unjust situation can be a good thing." Brilliant!
You seem either to be deliberately misunderstanding me, or to be very confused.
My statement regarding de-stabilzation addressed a very simple concept. It stated no absolute rules. It merely responded to your own fetishization of political stability as an end in itself.
It seems self-evident to me that there are many conditions in human life, including international relations, whose stability would not be worth preserving. The attempt to transfer the term to a new context, regarding war aims (as stated by whom?) and the fate of the Iraqi people, is sophistry. In short, the phraseology that you appear to find so pathetically stupid is one that you made up yourself.
If you can't understand what I wrote on this subject, or are merely determined to score some illusory debating point, then I'm not sure there's any point in arguing any further with you.
