Posted by Phoebus Apollo on 4/1/2003, 6:14 am, in reply to "Re: Threat of Iraq" I'm not going to rant all day, so I'll sum up pretty much everything I've got left to say. I think I've seriously called into question the following points: 1) That Iraq and Germany are valid comparisons. They both differ in military stance, land posturing, proven effectiveness in military aims, and dominance over civilians (you wouldn't think that an Iraqi National Congress would exist to unite various opposition forces if it wasn't for heavy domestic resistance - such an entity would NOT have existed in Nazi Germany). You claimed that the German army developed from nothing into a massive war engine, which, while true, probably had more to do with it experiencing a low point after World War I moreso than armies having the ability to spontaneously constitute themselves. There is no sign that Iraq will meet the weapons development curve of other nations surrounding it, like Israel, Palestine, India, and the idea of it growing past Russia or China or Egypt is a joke. Iraq's power struggles are modest compared to Nazi ones. 2) That because Iraq is a "percieved" threat that it's any more our responsibility to respond to it than it is for others for whom it is a "real" threat. I abide by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which declare it's the right and responsibility for those oppressed to defend their own rights. Sure the plea exists to "save" the Iraqis. I don't see a compelling reason to believe it should be us doing the saving. Let resistance groups and neighboring nations who actually have to deal with Iraqi armed invasions worry about that, since it's their right and responsibility to deal with it, not ours. 3) That the United Nations ruling sanctions or mitigating treaties is somehow a justification for this war. 4) That in light of not even shutting down our last target, Al Qaeda, that this war is a good idea, considering it's likeliness of in increasing terrorism while spending more tax dollars than our economy can afford to have spent. 5) That Saddam is capable of any serious and imminent harm to the U.S., thus justifying a pre-emptive strike. You countered this argument by saying that we should not "sit back idly and wait". I don't see a good justification for that. On the same token, why don't we expand all military aims towards being pro-active by assaulting every nation in the world that is anti-democratic and anti-American and downright mean? No direct harm was shown, besides that of a failed attempt at an assassination, which was not only shut down but was responded to by bombings and our own assassination attempt on Saddam. In my personal opinion, we really to have a responsibility to ourselves to respect the fact that it's not our duty to be the world's police. 5) That our superpower status is somehow thrown into question if we didn't attack Iraq. I favored the war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, one that I consider partially unfinished, considering our objectives of taking out Osama Bin Laden and the higher ups have not been fully completed or confirmed. That was the result of a serious terrorist attack that actually DID something. Unlike every major claim of Iraqi-linked terrorism, which typically are even questionably traced back to Iraq. Now that we were stupid enough to go to war with them over Kuwait, of course we can expect the threat from Iraq to be inflated. But it's inflated artificially from our bad decision to go into the Gulf War 12 years ago, and inflated even more artificially by the fact that we were even more stupid by not finishing the job when we went to war the first time. That's what happens when you have stupid Commander-in-Chief running things, I guess. All in all, it's just going to get people killed while pissing away our money by empowering terrorist causes and restructuring a desert for what cannot possibly be real returns in oil or other international interests. I hope that we don't make the same mistake of the Gulf War, and we finish the job quickly and decisively. Then this will no longer be an issue, and we can at least claim to have done some sort of amicable good by ousting Saddam. However, whether we can make this claim or not, there is no clearcut legitimate justification for this war that I will recognize, short a liberal and literal terrorist attack funded by the Iraqi government (while some events will be claimed, it's hard to get any proof, and wars should not be started without a little proof here or there). We busted Iraqis for the Bush assasination attempt, and reprised when we used cruise missles to strike IIS offices and officials. As for planes being shot at during the No-Fly Zone issuance, well, considering the No-Fly Zone didn't do much to further U.S. military aims at that point, I don't quite understand why we enforced a U.N. No-Fly Zone for the near sole purpose of protecting the Kurds and Shi'a and punishing Iraqis for sucking at war. And that Iraqis suck at war is something I'm sure we can agree on. I turned on the tv and saw men with white flags marching down the street, and I thought we had invaded the French. Pitiful.
12.231.181.132
(continued, your board doesn't let posts be too long)
Message Thread:
« Back to thread