EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Haditha
Jun 5, 2006 10:15:05 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jun 5, 2006 10:15:05 GMT -5
When decrying our going to war in Iraq, how about looking at what Iraq was before we invaded. Despite the killings taking place now it's still small compared to what came before. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198171,00.html
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 5, 2006 10:53:25 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 5, 2006 10:53:25 GMT -5
Then why don't US soldiers just indiscriminately blow up entire villages while they're there. "It's still better than what Saddam did."
Pol Pot was a real humanitarian - he didn't kill as many people as Hitler or Stalin, right? A real sweetheart...
If these are ethical yard-sticks, I'm an angel - compared to Charles Manson...
Iraqis should not be "thanking" American soldiers for torture and war crimes, because the scale may be smaller than what happened under Saddam.
Some facts: Saddam's mass killings largely happened between 1983 and 1991, e.g. Chemical Ali wasn't active after 1991. That's 12 years that passed before the invasion. So much for the humanitarian angle. About 300,000 people are estimated to have been killed by Saddam. UN sanctions imposed after the Gulf War are estimated to have killed between 500,000 and 1.2 million people, mainly women and children. The lowest figure EVERYONE agrees on is 350,000. That's well more than Saddam, esp if you figure in the highest estimate. Iraq Body Count has tracked that 40,000 civilians have been killed since the US invaded Iraq. The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, issued an article in October 2004 (a year and a half ago!!!) estimating that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed since the beginning of the invasion. (Conveniently, the US fails to count civilian casualties - they're just collateral damage right?) Looking at these figures, the West has many more Iraqi civilian lives on our hands as does Saddam (300,000 vs. 390,000-1.3 million). At the rate civilians are dying at the moment, with signs that casualties are picking up in pace, there is no end in sight either.
Unfortunately, the tragedy of our system is that only the one that lost the war is being tried for his atrocities, while the Western politicians and diplomats responsible for more murders than Saddam are winning elections, medals of freedom, and God knows how much money, prestige, titles, etc.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Haditha
Jun 5, 2006 13:08:39 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jun 5, 2006 13:08:39 GMT -5
We're are in a war. People seem to forget that for some reason. Regardless of what you think about the validity of the war, you must admit that the enemy is totally and entirely ruthless. They willingly strap explosives to themselves and even their children in suicide missions. They care nothing about innocent bystanders and in fact often target as many as possible. Are there civilian casualties? Absolutely. Are at least some of them our fault? Certainly. But I know that we are working as hard as humanly possible to minimize them. We take as many precautions as humanly possible to ensure that the targets are legitimate. I praise our brave men and women for the brutally tough job that are doing and I am confident that they are doing a remarkably good job. Unfortuantely there are unpeasantries in any war. I am not dismissing the improprieties of incidents like Abu Graib, but I am commending our brave soldiers, the vast majority of which are doing a tremendous job. HiFi - I agree with you that the majority of our soldiers are brave and in most cases behave valorously under tough circumstances. I do not agree that the good behavior of the many can justify the misbehavior of the few. I also agree with ed's point that there is a specific fact finding and courts martial process that needs to take place. This brings me to my next point. HiFi, like it or not we are a nation of laws and not a nation of men and women - no American is above the law or gets a pass simply because they are in an armed combat situation. An important set of international and domestic implementing legislation regarding the law of armed combat applies to these soldiers as imbodied in the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, customary international law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Alien Torts Claim Act, and other statute. I am personally a positivist (and a constructivist) and believe that these laws were created by the community of states in order to regulate their behavior and the behavior of all other international persons. That is the legal side of things. On the moral side of things - I am surprised that someone like yourself who has outspoken views on divinity and its applicaiton to every day life does not seem to adopt the natural law position on morality and the jus in bello. I am not a natural law proponent but believe in the slighlty less strict principle of just war theory. Just War Theory states that the actions of these soldiers were governed by several principles of morality in armed conflict - chivalry (or the duty to not wound unnecessarily or heanously), necessity, proportionality, and non-combatant immunity. Soldiers have put themselves in the condition of armed conflict and have ascented to it through their participation in combat exercises - persons who are not participating in armed conflict have a right to be unharmed by it. These people have not given up their innocense like the soldiers and resistance fighters who carry weapons, organize attacks, and enter a combat zone with the intent to cause bodily harm to one another. in addition, the principle of chivalry states that soldiers should not wound unnecessarily - if these soldiers did, in fact, wound these Iraqis they did so unnecessarily. Shooting innocents with lethal intent is immoral in any circumstance. Finally, if the facts are born out as they are presented in the link, these soldiers took many times more lives than those that were lost on the American side. If one believes from a moral position that every life has equal meaning and worth then the indiscriminate taking of life is surely immoral. Your position, HiFi, seems to be similar to General Sherman's comment that "war is hell". Unfortunately, this position makes war a black box into which morality and law cannot penetrate - this is simply not the case - International War Crimes Tribunals, the International Criminal Court, 100+ years of treaty law, the statements of sovereign states in the United Nations, the rules of engagement written for US forces, and the fact that the morality of war has been a topic of scholastic and academic discussion for nearly 2 millenia back this fact up. I think I confused you a bit. I didn't intend to dismiss any wrong doings as "outweighed" by the actions of our far more common "good" slodiers. And when I pointed out that we were at war and that there would certainly be casualties I didn't mean to be connecting the two thoughts. Thought one is simply that there will be casualties and that regardless of how hard we try to avoid civilian casualties a certain percentage will be inevitable. That being said, whenever apparently avoidable tragedies/war crimes like these are uncovered/discovered/or merely "covered" by the media there is often an underlying presumption that it is just the tip of the iceberg, and that occurrences like these are the norm rather than an exception. It is that ideology which I have a problem with. The media is quick to cover any and all bad news from the war in Iraq. Make with that what you want. One side could simply say that "routine day to day affairs are not news." In other words they don't sell papers or hold people's attention. Fair enough to a degree. But I would contend that there is more to it than that. I would suggest that the vast majority of the mainstream media will jump at the opportunity to cover any and all bad news while resisting coverage of the positive stories which are coming from Iraq. If you go solely by what the NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS etc... cover daily, you would not know about the many schools opening and operating successfully. You wouldn't ever hear about the high turnouts for the first real elections that many of the people have ever seen. You would not know about a growing governing body comprised of those from different sects, which knew nothing but the way of the sword a very short time ago. Are we/they out of the wood yet? Of course not. But there is a tremendous amount of positive news. There are good things happening along with the bad. But the bad takes up all the main headlines. Again, take from that what you will. Is it an agenda or just typical reporting or maybe a blend of both? Now, all that being said, I think the constant focusing on the negative stuff has a secondary effect. As Buff mentioned, some of our men and women are doubtlessly begining to question their place. My anecdotal evidence is different than his, but I don't doubt what he says. I try to make it a point to talk to soldiers when I see them. I too thank them for all that they do. I also try to get their own honest opinions if they have recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. I have discovered a wide range of emotions. One described an rpg attack from a group and then just not knowing who pulled the trigger ... not knowing who was "with them" and who was "with the enemy." Another soldier pointed out the worst part was the uncertainty. He said that many villages are openly and obviously happy to see them arrive but others are apathetic or worse. He did say that seeing mothers and children cheering their arrival sometimes told him that it was all worth it. The closest thing to negativity with regard to the mission itself has come from friends of mine who are parents of soldiers stationed over there. As far as the soldiers themselves, the biggest "complaint" if you will, is simply that they are ready to come back, but when I have heard that it has always been more a matter of fatigue and general emotions, not from a disagreement as to the mission itself. I am sure that there are some with such a view, I am just saying that I haven't met any of them yet. I get at least a message a week from a good friend of mine whose National Guard unit was called up and is in Afghanistan. He is not on the front line as he is a mechanic but he still faces danger in everyday tasks. Another friend of mine is a computer expert and he is in Baghdad. Incidentally, his mom is one of the most vocal about being ready for them to come home. Can you blame here? I can't. In any case, I got a bit off subject. My connecting point is that when we focus on just the negative stuff it does a disservice to the man and women who have accomplished so much. And when we give so much coverage to apparent atoricites like Haditha, then it too does a disservice to our men and women. Even a hint of suggestion that these tragedies are the "norm" rather than an aberration makes my blood boil for this reason. Lastly, not to equate one with the other, but our opponents in the war on terror are willing to strap explosives to their own children's bodies and then intentioanally attack innocent civilians. Haditha notwithstanding, I am confident that our brave men and women are doing all that they possibly can to AVOID these types of civilian casualties, though some are unfortunately inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 6, 2006 1:42:07 GMT -5
HiFi - I agree with you that the majority of our soldiers are brave and in most cases behave valorously under tough circumstances. I do not agree that the good behavior of the many can justify the misbehavior of the few. I also agree with ed's point that there is a specific fact finding and courts martial process that needs to take place. This brings me to my next point. HiFi, like it or not we are a nation of laws and not a nation of men and women - no American is above the law or gets a pass simply because they are in an armed combat situation. An important set of international and domestic implementing legislation regarding the law of armed combat applies to these soldiers as imbodied in the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, customary international law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Alien Torts Claim Act, and other statute. I am personally a positivist (and a constructivist) and believe that these laws were created by the community of states in order to regulate their behavior and the behavior of all other international persons. That is the legal side of things. On the moral side of things - I am surprised that someone like yourself who has outspoken views on divinity and its applicaiton to every day life does not seem to adopt the natural law position on morality and the jus in bello. I am not a natural law proponent but believe in the slighlty less strict principle of just war theory. Just War Theory states that the actions of these soldiers were governed by several principles of morality in armed conflict - chivalry (or the duty to not wound unnecessarily or heanously), necessity, proportionality, and non-combatant immunity. Soldiers have put themselves in the condition of armed conflict and have ascented to it through their participation in combat exercises - persons who are not participating in armed conflict have a right to be unharmed by it. These people have not given up their innocense like the soldiers and resistance fighters who carry weapons, organize attacks, and enter a combat zone with the intent to cause bodily harm to one another. in addition, the principle of chivalry states that soldiers should not wound unnecessarily - if these soldiers did, in fact, wound these Iraqis they did so unnecessarily. Shooting innocents with lethal intent is immoral in any circumstance. Finally, if the facts are born out as they are presented in the link, these soldiers took many times more lives than those that were lost on the American side. If one believes from a moral position that every life has equal meaning and worth then the indiscriminate taking of life is surely immoral. Your position, HiFi, seems to be similar to General Sherman's comment that "war is hell". Unfortunately, this position makes war a black box into which morality and law cannot penetrate - this is simply not the case - International War Crimes Tribunals, the International Criminal Court, 100+ years of treaty law, the statements of sovereign states in the United Nations, the rules of engagement written for US forces, and the fact that the morality of war has been a topic of scholastic and academic discussion for nearly 2 millenia back this fact up. I think I confused you a bit. I didn't intend to dismiss any wrong doings as "outweighed" by the actions of our far more common "good" slodiers. And when I pointed out that we were at war and that there would certainly be casualties I didn't mean to be connecting the two thoughts. Thought one is simply that there will be casualties and that regardless of how hard we try to avoid civilian casualties a certain percentage will be inevitable. That being said, whenever apparently avoidable tragedies/war crimes like these are uncovered/discovered/or merely "covered" by the media there is often an underlying presumption that it is just the tip of the iceberg, and that occurrences like these are the norm rather than an exception. It is that ideology which I have a problem with. The media is quick to cover any and all bad news from the war in Iraq. Make with that what you want. One side could simply say that "routine day to day affairs are not news." In other words they don't sell papers or hold people's attention. Fair enough to a degree. But I would contend that there is more to it than that. I would suggest that the vast majority of the mainstream media will jump at the opportunity to cover any and all bad news while resisting coverage of the positive stories which are coming from Iraq. If you go solely by what the NY Times, ABC, NBC, CBS etc... cover daily, you would not know about the many schools opening and operating successfully. You wouldn't ever hear about the high turnouts for the first real elections that many of the people have ever seen. You would not know about a growing governing body comprised of those from different sects, which knew nothing but the way of the sword a very short time ago. Are we/they out of the wood yet? Of course not. But there is a tremendous amount of positive news. There are good things happening along with the bad. But the bad takes up all the main headlines. Again, take from that what you will. Is it an agenda or just typical reporting or maybe a blend of both? Now, all that being said, I think the constant focusing on the negative stuff has a secondary effect. As Buff mentioned, some of our men and women are doubtlessly begining to question their place. My anecdotal evidence is different than his, but I don't doubt what he says. I try to make it a point to talk to soldiers when I see them. I too thank them for all that they do. I also try to get their own honest opinions if they have recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. I have discovered a wide range of emotions. One described an rpg attack from a group and then just not knowing who pulled the trigger ... not knowing who was "with them" and who was "with the enemy." Another soldier pointed out the worst part was the uncertainty. He said that many villages are openly and obviously happy to see them arrive but others are apathetic or worse. He did say that seeing mothers and children cheering their arrival sometimes told him that it was all worth it. The closest thing to negativity with regard to the mission itself has come from friends of mine who are parents of soldiers stationed over there. As far as the soldiers themselves, the biggest "complaint" if you will, is simply that they are ready to come back, but when I have heard that it has always been more a matter of fatigue and general emotions, not from a disagreement as to the mission itself. I am sure that there are some with such a view, I am just saying that I haven't met any of them yet. I get at least a message a week from a good friend of mine whose National Guard unit was called up and is in Afghanistan. He is not on the front line as he is a mechanic but he still faces danger in everyday tasks. Another friend of mine is a computer expert and he is in Baghdad. Incidentally, his mom is one of the most vocal about being ready for them to come home. Can you blame here? I can't. In any case, I got a bit off subject. My connecting point is that when we focus on just the negative stuff it does a disservice to the man and women who have accomplished so much. And when we give so much coverage to apparent atoricites like Haditha, then it too does a disservice to our men and women. Even a hint of suggestion that these tragedies are the "norm" rather than an aberration makes my blood boil for this reason. Lastly, not to equate one with the other, but our opponents in the war on terror are willing to strap explosives to their own children's bodies and then intentioanally attack innocent civilians. Haditha notwithstanding, I am confident that our brave men and women are doing all that they possibly can to AVOID these types of civilian casualties, though some are unfortunately inevitable. A. No you didn't confuse me - I have a degree from Georgetown University for studying the legality and morality of armed conflict. B. I believe you missed my underlying logic that: 1. The vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq to paraphrase Sen. Biden on Meet the Press last Sunday serve in extrme conditions that are likely deteriorating and do so valorously the majority of the time. 2. The fact that killing is a part of war does not excuse it under a generalized "war is hell" argument made most famously by General Sherman. 3. A war crime is a war crime is a war crime regardless of the context in which it was committed or how it was reported. Augustine would read you last post and say that the incidents do not change the substance here - no matter who reports that a war crime is committed whether it be CNN, the Washington Times, or an NGO - if it is borne out by subsequent investigation it does not matter who reported it. C. Your argument about "focusing on the negative stuff" leads down a slippery slope to stand point epistemology and stand point morality. This is exactly why no one in their right mind would adopt it as an objective framework for examining the morality of actions taken in the course of armed conflict or the jus in bello. For example, we call the men who stormed Normandy the greatest generation and you will find no argument here about that. However, some of those same men on that same day shot German soldiers who were attempting to surrender. Certianly not an action that would comport with the standards of necessity and chivalry outlined above. This does not detract from the actions of their peers nor is it an implication that it was a systematic war crime (you need to de-link those concepts by the way - I did not say that an accusation of war crimes leads to something more or that its the tip of the iceberg - thats a conept association that you are making that is spurious). In addition, the same company of Soviet soldiers who broke the Nazi blockade around St. Petersburg let scores of innocent civilians die in house to house fighitng between Polish resistance fighters and Nazis while the waited outside Warsaw's city gates. Does their meritous conduct peior to this give them a moral or legal pass? No. IMO it only shows the good and evil that humans are capable of. I could go on lisitng other war crimes committed and violations of the Just War principle that can be seen as dependent on one's point of view. D. If the facts are borne out as they have been reported in Time and several other sources recently, this issue is not one of how American media cover the war it is simply about morality. I would argue that at the point that we accept the premise that every innocent life has moral worth and should be protected from the scourges of a war that they do not wilfully participate in it most definitely outweighs what some editor thinks about how the story should be written. E. The immoral actions of an opponent do not require a great power like the United States to behave in a similar way. If it were the case that the prior actions of another state gave another state the right to behave in a similar manner then certainly you would agree to the following points: 1. Iraq has the ability to unilaterally invade the United States for its threats and use of force against Iraq. 2. All states threatened by the United States' poessession of nuclear weapons have the right to threaten the United Staes with the possession of nuclear weapons. 3. Japan can nuke 2 cities of its chosing in the US. 4. Mexico can at any time sieze up to 1/4 of the US' territory. 5. The United States can burn the British Parlaiment in retaliation for the War of 1812. 6. Spain can invade Hawaii and take it for no apparent reason. 7. Panama can sieze up to 1/3 of the US and dig a canal somewhere in it. I can go on with these examples but those were just some that made me chuckle. Morality and legalilty do not work on a "he did it first" basis. Just because someone behaves treacherously and immorally towards you does not then give you some sort of license to act immorally. F. To quote Billy Madison regarding your post - "At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul. "
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Haditha
Jun 6, 2006 11:21:31 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 6, 2006 11:21:31 GMT -5
When decrying our going to war in Iraq, how about looking at what Iraq was before we invaded. Despite the killings taking place now it's still small compared to what came before. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198171,00.html Easy Ed, while the war in Iraq will hopefully have some long term humanitarian benefits (I say hopefully because a vacuum of power can and likely will be worse than even Saddam), I cannot think even you think that was even a minor reason for the invasion of Iraq. Peruse the list of dictators, civil wars and general humanitarian tragedies the world round. Now tell me where the current administration has made ANY intervention, much less occupation.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Haditha
Jun 6, 2006 12:18:20 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jun 6, 2006 12:18:20 GMT -5
SF I agree that getting rid of a despot was not the first reason for going to war in Iraq, WMDs were. But getting rid of Saddam was the second or third reason.
If any will re-read my prior posts I have said that (1) everyone is innocent until proven guilty and (2) if anyone is found to have committed crimes they should be punished to the full extent of the law. Please remember this in reading my other comments.
RB - my comment on your grieving for these poor children who died as a result of whatever happened, your grieving sounds real and I applaud you. But anyone who grieves at that sight and who does not comment on the other Iraqis rounded up and killed by Shiites or Sunnis, well, it sounds to me like selective grief. Those people, children and others, are just as dead so let's condemn all who kill, not just those whose alledged actions happen to fit into someone's pre-conceived agenda.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Haditha
Jun 6, 2006 12:21:14 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jun 6, 2006 12:21:14 GMT -5
St.Pete, I will give this one more shot. First off, tone doesn't always come through in text as it does in verbal face to face. I didn't intend any condescension when I said I must have confused you and the fact that you have your degree is admirable. My point was that you said this:
HiFi - I agree with you that the majority of our soldiers are brave and in most cases behave valorously under tough circumstances. I do not agree that the good behavior of the many can justify the misbehavior of the few.[/]
At no point did I intend to "excuse" wrong doings. You don't need to "agree" with me on a point I never had nor made.
I also agree with ed's point that there is a specific fact finding and courts martial process that needs to take place. This brings me to my next point. HiFi, like it or not we are a nation of laws and not a nation of men and women - no American is above the law or gets a pass simply because they are in an armed combat situation. An important set of international and domestic implementing legislation regarding the law of armed combat applies to these soldiers as imbodied in the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, customary international law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Alien Torts Claim Act, and other statute. I am personally a positivist (and a constructivist) and believe that these laws were created by the community of states in order to regulate their behavior and the behavior of all other international persons.
Once again I never opposed notions such as these. Yes, I too think that this and all incidents of the sort muct be investigated and punishment as justified should be levied.
That is the legal side of things. On the moral side of things - I am surprised that someone like yourself who has outspoken views on divinity and its applicaiton to every day life does not seem to adopt the natural law position on morality and the jus in bello.
You must be confusing me with another. I certainly have my own beliefs but I make it a point to try to avoid discussion of divinity. Religion is a personal issue and especially in impersonal venues of this sort, not very conducive to effective debate.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 7, 2006 2:12:38 GMT -5
That is the legal side of things. On the moral side of things - I am surprised that someone like yourself who has outspoken views on divinity and its applicaiton to every day life does not seem to adopt the natural law position on morality and the jus in bello. You must be confusing me with another. I certainly have my own beliefs but I make it a point to try to avoid discussion of divinity. Religion is a personal issue and especially in impersonal venues of this sort, not very conducive to effective debate. I assumed that because of your views on creationism due to the fact that most people who believe in creationism believe that there is a divine force behind that creation - in addition many of them believe that this divinity is a source of natural or moral law.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 7, 2006 15:30:56 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 7, 2006 15:30:56 GMT -5
Interesting to see the response of the White House and DoD on Haditha, Abu Ghraib, etc. From the LA Times: WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards. The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged. For more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing its policies on detainees, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation, which, along with accompanying directives, represents core instructions to U.S. soldiers worldwide. The process has been beset by debate and controversy, and the decision to omit Geneva protections from a principal directive comes at a time of growing worldwide criticism of U.S. detention practices and the conduct of American forces in Iraq. www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-torture5jun05,1,390159.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true I'm sure that will prevent repeats of the events of the last few years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would love to see White House reaction if Ahmadi-Nejad or 1Mugabe or someone like that issued such a decree: there'd be lots of grand-standing about human rights and democracy. Not here apparently.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Haditha
Jun 7, 2006 16:04:40 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jun 7, 2006 16:04:40 GMT -5
That is the legal side of things. On the moral side of things - I am surprised that someone like yourself who has outspoken views on divinity and its applicaiton to every day life does not seem to adopt the natural law position on morality and the jus in bello. You must be confusing me with another. I certainly have my own beliefs but I make it a point to try to avoid discussion of divinity. Religion is a personal issue and especially in impersonal venues of this sort, not very conducive to effective debate. I assumed that because of your views on creationism due to the fact that most people who believe in creationism believe that there is a divine force behind that creation - in addition many of them believe that this divinity is a source of natural or moral law. Fair enough and that would be a reasonable assumption ... had I promoted Creationism. I did not. All I said was that there is an underlying premise that evolution is now fact on the macro scale. All I did was point out issues which have yet to be answered and suggested that belief in evolution on the macro scale and as the original source of all life takes a great amount of faith and I suggest a similar amount of faith as belief in Intelligent Design. Enough on that ... we have covered that topic enough before.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 8, 2006 22:46:39 GMT -5
Post by Frank Black on Jun 8, 2006 22:46:39 GMT -5
I suppose I should have realized that the post would generate emotion. A few points:
--These troops, whatever pressures were put upon them, went on a mass murdering spree. Small children were included in the indiscriminate killing. I posted these photos in an effort to show that war is horror. It is misery piled upon misery. It turns good men, perhaps even heroic and extraordinary men, into savages.
--My post was intended to show that no matter how wicked our enemy, and the enemy is incontrovertably wicked, we as Americans must rise above our base sentiments and remember that Iraqi is populated by mostly good people who deserve better than this.
--No matter how grisly and barbaric the actions of these troops, we equally cannot forget where Iraq was in 2003. Nitro, your comparison of Iraqi dead under Saddam before and after sanctions is worthless. You contend that your own country killed about 5% of the Iraqi population during sanctions, implying that Saddam's actions in the same time period, stonewalling inspectors and hording medical supplies to maximize damage upon his own people, bear no responsibility for the deaths (of which 5% is certainly an overstatement).
--Is there a moral difference between killing people on purpose, as Saddam did repeatedly throughout his 24 year rule, and people dying in the course of war? Emphatically yes. I cannot understand precisely why the left insists upon comparing US actions to those of our adversaries. Nitro et al, please understand that you can still criticize US policies without becoming a Michael Moore-style America hater.
--I also have difficulty with the smug self-congratulation of those on the left who "knew" that the Iraq War would fail and was "illegal". What was your policy in 2003? Nitro took sanctions off the table, which would have led to a nuclear armed Iraq (if you don't believe me, for what do you imagine Saddam would have used his newfound international liberation and swollen treasury?) What then? Does it matter if Saddam seizes Kuwait and the Saudi oil fields? I encourage anyone who thinks leaving Saddam be would have been a pain-free alternative to the current morass to read "Republic of Fear". You will be disabused of the notion. And for those who insist that sanctions were working, how do you explain away the fact that sanctions were hemmoraging and the will to maintain them fading in Europe (France, Russia), Asia (China) and the Arab world (Syria)? Don't believe me? Read "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack. What happens next? Please someone tell me the alternative policy. We can agree that the Bush administration and Pentagon ideologues made an utter, complete, borderline criminal mess of the invasion by ignoring the postwar planning completely and putting an embarrassing number of troops on the ground. But spare me your self-satisfaction. Had we not gone to war, Saddam Hussein would probably be a couple of years away from nuclear arms right now. Then it would be the right's turn to be smug and self-satisfied.
--I have thought long and hard about this given my vocal support for war in 2003 and the subsequent total misery of the campaign. The war was a mistake. The billions that we have spent on it could have been spent on a hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure to ween us completely from our inexcusable oil addiction. A Marshall Plan for the United States. Why should the most powerful country in the world prostrate itself before medieval Islamic clerics and ask to sip from its poisoned oil chalice? Energy independence would give us our independence back and make the Middle East the geostrategic equivalent of Africa. Then, when Saddam gets his nuclear weapons, we can say so be it. Make no mistake, we should always promote peace and reconciliation. But Israel or Saudi Arabia or Jordan are not worth the bones of one Nebraskan grenadier.
--This is what my new view comes down to, a new unwillingness to see young American men and women die in the service of another nation. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil perhaps makes ghastly wars such as these necessary, which is why the answer is to free ourselves from the economic crack cocaine that is oil. I've seen enough Americans die.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Haditha
Jun 9, 2006 15:10:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2006 15:10:17 GMT -5
--This is what my new view comes down to, a new unwillingness to see young American men and women die in the service of another nation. Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil perhaps makes ghastly wars such as these necessary, which is why the answer is to free ourselves from the economic crack cocaine that is oil. I've seen enough Americans die. I love it, Frank. Love it. You're venturing dangerously close to my "the environment is more important than anything else" wheelhouse. The world would be a much different place if we were as focused on energy independence as much as a "lesser" country like Brazil... who only needed two decades to achieve 100% energy independence.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 9, 2006 19:48:07 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 9, 2006 19:48:07 GMT -5
I'm not an America-hater. I hate imperial self-serving policies, and the US is engaging in them at will at the moment. I feel the same way about the Soviet Union, 3rd Reich, and the European colonial powers. You may not term the policies imperial, I do. America-hater I'm not.
The sanctions are not what caused a lack of weapons, but the weapons-inspections. Unfortunately, Rummy and co denigrated Blix's and his predecessors' work that people started buying that their reports were nonsense. Blix stated unequivocally in his final report that Saddam was clean. Sanctions targeting the civilian population had little to do with Saddam staying disarmed. Saddam used every loophole in the oil-for-food program to fund his illicit activities anyway. My policy in 2003 was to continue the weapons inspections regime on an on-going basis. Meanwhile, develop civil society programs to reach out to the Iraqi population (radio, academic collaborations, and grass-roots engagement where possible). Also, change the US's policy on Palestine/Israel, which is the core grievance of al-Qaeda recruits and anti-Americanism in the region. Furthermore, beef up development aid to the 0.7% level promised by all OECD nations ages ago. Use that aid UNCONDITIONALLY to help impoverished people in the Middle East. That is what would have caused Saddam to implode from within.
The war is illegal. Saddam's actions were illegal. The war is unjust and fought for unjust purposes (Saddam helped cause 9/11, and has weapons to use on the US). Saddam's actions are unjust. All killed in both instances were killed unjustly.
I agree completely on the energy independence prerogative as energy policy.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Haditha
Jun 10, 2006 12:27:40 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jun 10, 2006 12:27:40 GMT -5
nitro wrote:
The sanctions are not what caused a lack of weapons, but the weapons-inspections. Unfortunately, Rummy and co denigrated Blix's and his predecessors' work that people started buying that their reports were nonsense. Blix stated unequivocally in his final report that Saddam was clean. Sanctions targeting the civilian population had little to do with Saddam staying disarmed. Saddam used every loophole in the oil-for-food program to fund his illicit activities anyway. My policy in 2003 was to continue the weapons inspections regime on an on-going basis. Meanwhile, develop civil society programs to reach out to the Iraqi population (radio, academic collaborations, and grass-roots engagement where possible). Also, change the US's policy on Palestine/Israel, which is the core grievance of al-Qaeda recruits and anti-Americanism in the region. Furthermore, beef up development aid to the 0.7% level promised by all OECD nations ages ago. Use that aid UNCONDITIONALLY to help impoverished people in the Middle East. That is what would have caused Saddam to implode from within.
You hit the nail on the head there. That is the core grievance. But so what? You essentially justified all the terrorist attacks right there. It is our fault and if only we correct our problems then the world would be peaceful. First off, we have the right view. It is a section of the arab population that has the problem. Their solution is eradication of the jews. What they want is rapid expansion of their version of Islam. Anything that stands in the way of that directive is their enemy. Yes, support of the nation of Israel is a key reason why they hate us. But understand that arabs and jews have been at war with each other for thousands of years. They each lay claim to much of the same land. Regardless of which side we take one side will not like us. Understand this much: the radicals do not want peace. They understand one way and one way only and that is the way of the sword. There is no fundamental way to reason with these people. If for instance the entire west bank were turned over to Palestiinians they would not be happy. For that matter if Israle ceased to exist that would still not appease them. Now granted they would be dancing in the streets shooting guns in the air ... but that would only be temporary. Six months from now ... a year from now ... two years from now we would be fighting over parts of Greece and Italy. Then it would be Germany etc... The people we are at war with only want one thing and that is to rapidly expand their view of Islam, and anything that hinders that is their enemy.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Haditha
Jun 11, 2006 13:01:43 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jun 11, 2006 13:01:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 21, 2006 11:34:42 GMT -5
Post by husaria1683 on Jun 21, 2006 11:34:42 GMT -5
Contrast this to the destruction of whole cities through bombing in Germany and Japan during WWII. Or the complete destruction of whole regions of the South during the Civil War. Did we hold the President or the Secretary of War or Navy accountable for those things? Much less the soldiers? Did we say that Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Lincoln were guilty of taking this country to war for no real reason (e.g. Germany was no threat to us; we provoked Japan into attacking us; why should we go to war with the South, why not let them secede)? To put matters in perspective, we have lost about 2500 soldiers in a war to overthrow what everyone agrees was a vicious dictator who slaughtered his own people wholesale, although there is disagreement over whether he also posed a threat to other countries including the United States. In contrast, Woodrow Wilson got us into someone else's war-- a mess caused entirely by incompetent European diplomacy on all sides-- in which close to 120,000 Americans were killed. Furthermore, Wilson knew full well that our men would be fighting battle-hardened German veterans in a modern and well-run army, not Iraqis who could be half-expected to run away or drop their weapons at the first sight of an American flag. If Bush is evil, incompetent, or whatever, what does this make Wilson? The American Civil War, which killed more than half a million Americans, could probably have been avoided by intelligent statesmanship, noting that the underlying economic cause (an industrialized segment of the country prospering at the expense of an agrarian segment) was similar to the one that caused the War of Independence. The South was in fact right about these economic injustices even if it was wrong about slavery. As for bombing German cities, it must be remembered that the Nazis initiated this proud tradition themselves. Warsaw was bombed in 1939, and then Coventry was attacked in the Battle of Britain. While the self-righteous Left (what there was of it in those days) was singing Kumbaya over the firebombing of Dresden, Nazi ballistic missiles were slamming into London on an almost-daily basis. We must recognize the difference between the one who starts a fight and the one who finishes it.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 28, 2006 20:50:25 GMT -5
Post by Frank Black on Jun 28, 2006 20:50:25 GMT -5
I'm not an America-hater. I hate imperial self-serving policies, and the US is engaging in them at will at the moment. I feel the same way about the Soviet Union, 3rd Reich, and the European colonial powers. You may not term the policies imperial, I do. America-hater I'm not. I don't know if this is a semantic difference or not, but when I think of "imperialism" I think of one country intending to assume the sovereignty of another country for itself. Do you believe that we want to permanently run Iraq? The sanctions are not what caused a lack of weapons, but the weapons-inspections. Unfortunately, Rummy and co denigrated Blix's and his predecessors' work that people started buying that their reports were nonsense. Blix stated unequivocally in his final report that Saddam was clean. Sanctions targeting the civilian population had little to do with Saddam staying disarmed. Saddam used every loophole in the oil-for-food program to fund his illicit activities anyway. My policy in 2003 was to continue the weapons inspections regime on an on-going basis. I don't understand. If Blix said that Saddam was clean, what basis was there to maintain the inspections? Also, what leverage does the international community have after sanctions have been lifted? With no threat of war, wouldn't Saddam be free to rebuild his weapons programs? I'm sure you would agree that he once used WMD and had in place a program that in 1990 would have brought him a usable nuclear weapon within 2 to 5 years. Do you think he had a change of heart and was no longer interested in pursuing such technology? Assuming the answer is no, what do you imagine might have dissuaded him after sanctions were lifted? Meanwhile, develop civil society programs to reach out to the Iraqi population (radio, academic collaborations, and grass-roots engagement where possible).How exactly? This was one of the two or three worst dictatorships in the world. Do you believe he would have voluntarily allowed "civil society programs" to nurture a democratic apparatus that would replace his own regime? If not, how do you force him to allow them? Remember, you've taken both war and sanctions off the table. Also, change the US's policy on Palestine/Israel, which is the core grievance of al-Qaeda recruits and anti-Americanism in the region. Fine by me. But this has nothing to do with the issue of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, beef up development aid to the 0.7% level promised by all OECD nations ages ago. Use that aid UNCONDITIONALLY to help impoverished people in the Middle East. That is what would have caused Saddam to implode from within.I'm not sure I understand what this means. What kind of "development aid" would we funnel to Iraq (which is what we're talking about)? How would we get it past Saddam? Remember, we're dealing with a police state. Also, whatever we provide will be dwarfed by a regime that, with its oil money, can hammer into dust any nascent independent power source that develops. I think you need to explain how 1) we can end poverty in the Middle East via foreign aid and 2) this has anything to do with Iraq. The war is illegal. Saddam's actions were illegal. The war is unjust and fought for unjust purposes (Saddam helped cause 9/11, and has weapons to use on the US). Saddam's actions are unjust. All killed in both instances were killed unjustly.It was fought based on part on assumptions that proved to be wrong, this is not the same as saying the purposes were unjust. In fact, the war itself was a stunning act of benevolence that was botched from the get go by an administration that didn't spend any time at all trying to analyze the key issue at hand: How do we transform a society beaten down by 25 years of merciless dictatorship and ethnic divisions and war and sanctions? I dare say neither have you.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 4:44:37 GMT -5
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 30, 2006 4:44:37 GMT -5
I don't think a message-board suffices to eradicate the bridge between our opinions Frank, and I'm not sure whether you're willing to change your mind on this, and thus whether there is any point. Anyway, here goes:
Basically, imperialism is NOT just about assuming someone else's sovereignty out-right. There are numerous definitions for imperialism, and there are many different types of empire. Most historians and international relations scholars classify the Warsaw Pact as imperial with the Soviet Union's satellite structure. Many European colonies retained most of their sovereignty, and the British were experts at running colonies with only a few thousand civil servants and a minimum of armed forces. So, yes the US is classified as an empire by many theorists at this point (try Michael W. Cox, Michael Mann, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevich, Dominic Lieven, Niall Ferguson, Charles Krauthammer and many others for starters: theorists from across the ideological spectrum are increasingly on agreement on this). Political power, and all power in fact, is not just about imposing your will out right. Power can also be about manipulating someone else so that they do your will without them knowing (Steven Lukes' 3rd dimension of power). Most analysts agree that the US uses its soft power (culture, corporations) to do exactly this (not applicable to Iraq - just an extension of the definition of empire). You may not like it, but the US is an empire.
Continue the inspections. I didn't say stop them. Blix only stopped because Bush told him he was invading. The inspections were working 100%. No reason to change.
Saddam was one of the worst dictatorships??? Smacks a little of US-centric propaganda. You might want to check out Burma, half of Africa, China (the US has no problems with them...), the Middle East (including prized US allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia). Saddam's worst atrocities were committed before the first Gulf War. If the US feels post-hoc invasions 15 years down the line are just, then there's a lot of invading to do. Most polls of Iraqis show that a majority feel they had it better under Saddam... The Kurds - Saddam's main target - basically had a quasi-independent region after 1991, and Saddam did little to bother them. In general, most of your arguments about Iraq seem to be those used in 1990; I have little objections to the first Gulf War. 2003 was NOT 1990. Don't confuse the 2 Iraqs; there are significant differences. That's what a war and an outrageous sanctions regime will do to you.
I thought the invasion was supposed to be about the "war on terror" right? Well, Israel/Palestine is the no.1 grievance and recruiting tool for fundamentalist Islamist extremists. THAT, and not mindless cowboy accusations and invasions, should be the prime focus of ANY anti-terror strategy.
There are plenty of things you can do even when dealing with a police state. Radio/TV, academic exchanges, trade relations, etc. What do you think the US's rationale is for dealing with China, despite its atrocious human rights record? Check out the Clinton and Bush administrations' reasoning on engagement over confrontation when it came down to granting MFN status and entry into the WTO.
I hate to say this, but your arguments are lacking in historical and global focus overall. I don't want to sound like an ass, but you seem to be rather easily buying into all the arguments put forward by the administration without having read the arguments of the majority of academics and analysts who disagreed with the administration FUNDAMENTALLY. Don't listen to me - there is PLENTY that was written pre- and post-war denouncing every single argument you put forward, and proposing the policies I enumerated and many more: from across the ideological spectrum by the way.
This will go down in history as yet another imperial campaign waged by the US for self-serving reasons, just like Korea, Vietnam, the Central and South American interventions, assassinations and death squads, etc.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 10:22:00 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jun 30, 2006 10:22:00 GMT -5
"This will go down in history as yet another imperial campaign waged by the US for self-serving reasons, just like Korea, Vietnam, the Central and South American interventions, assassinations and death squads, etc."
Nitro - this and other things you have said makes me absolutely sure you haven't a clue. You say you are not an America-hater but you are certainly under the influence of very left-leaning, Blame America First, professors. It's all well and good to lay out theoretical arguments espoused by "academics and analysts" but it bears no resemblance to the real world.
The real world is that the United States was in real danger of being destroyed by communism. In a very short time frame the Soviet Union and China expanded their control over Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, North Korea, North Vietnam, Tibet and many other formerly independent countries. Communism was also being spread to other countries in Latin America and Asia, among others. This was being spread by the Soviet Union and China. The Soviet Union had intercontinental ballistic missiles operational, targeting the US.
Our "self-serving reasons" for going to war in Korea and Vietnam were to halt the spread of communism to prevent its spreading throughout the world. I remind you it was the UN that went to war in Korea. I know, I served in that war. Yes, these were self-serving: our survival. As history has proven we had no imperial intentions in either place, just as we had no imperial intentions in liberating Eastern Europe from Soviet control. I don't see any American-controlled governments in any of these places.
To you this is all an academic exercise. To me it was real life. I saw missiles aimed at Washington and New York. I saw communism spread rapidly to half the world. I saw Kruschchev take off his shoe at the UN and yell "we will bury you". I saw him installing offensive missiles in Cuba. I could project his doing the same in Central and South America. What were we to do, talk nicer?
I think it's time you took your head out of the sand or the book and took a look at the real world. The real world as it was and as it is. The real world today is that the US is facing two very dangerous external forces: radical Islam and China. In your lifetime the US will have to face up to doing something about both. Being so naive as to believe we can reason with them is the recipe for catastrophe. Iraq is a step in that process through encouragement of some sort of democracy. That may be naive also but much progress has been made, among the bombings, though you don't see much of this reported in the news. It certainly shows more promise than massive aid, like the oil for food program.
|
|
|
Haditha
Jun 30, 2006 18:32:25 GMT -5
Post by Frank Black on Jun 30, 2006 18:32:25 GMT -5
I don't think a message-board suffices to eradicate the bridge between our opinions Frank, and I'm not sure whether you're willing to change your mind on this, and thus whether there is any point. Anyway, here goes:
There is usually a point to discussions like this. Its important for both of us (all of us) to keep an open mind.
Basically, imperialism is NOT just about assuming someone else's sovereignty out-right. There are numerous definitions for imperialism, and there are many different types of empire. Most historians and international relations scholars classify the Warsaw Pact as imperial with the Soviet Union's satellite structure. Many European colonies retained most of their sovereignty, and the British were experts at running colonies with only a few thousand civil servants and a minimum of armed forces. So, yes the US is classified as an empire by many theorists at this point (try Michael W. Cox, Michael Mann, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevich, Dominic Lieven, Niall Ferguson, Charles Krauthammer and many others for starters: theorists from across the ideological spectrum are increasingly on agreement on this). Political power, and all power in fact, is not just about imposing your will out right. Power can also be about manipulating someone else so that they do your will without them knowing (Steven Lukes' 3rd dimension of power). Most analysts agree that the US uses its soft power (culture, corporations) to do exactly this (not applicable to Iraq - just an extension of the definition of empire). You may not like it, but the US is an empire.
In this sort of strange, academic sense I guess we are an empire. But I think you've so denuded the term of meaning that it doesn't tell us very much about what kind of country we are. It sounds like any country with a big economy is an empire. So what? Anyway, this doesn't engage the topic of Iraq so let's move on.
Continue the inspections. I didn't say stop them. Blix only stopped because Bush told him he was invading. The inspections were working 100%. No reason to change.
Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998 and did not let them back in until the US was threatening him with imminent invasion. So after the threat passes, is it your contention that he would have let the inspectors stay? I don't think it is possible to base such a contention on anything other than blind idealism.
Saddam was one of the worst dictatorships??? Smacks a little of US-centric propaganda. You might want to check out Burma, half of Africa, China (the US has no problems with them...), the Middle East (including prized US allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia).
My contention is based on reading Kanin Makiya's "Republic of Fear" (amongst other books and articles on Iraq). Quite aside from the Anfal campaign, which was near-genocidal, the nature of the Saddamist state was overtly totalitarian. I don't know enough about Burma, but I know enough about the other countries to say with confidence that there is no comparison. They are wretched regimes all, but none of them were marked by the same level of soul-killing evil as Baathist Iraq. And please don't accuse me of getting my arguments from the Bush administration, it should be clear based on my history of posting (including the initial post of this thread) that I am no Bush lackey.
Saddam's worst atrocities were committed before the first Gulf War. If the US feels post-hoc invasions 15 years down the line are just, then there's a lot of invading to do. Most polls of Iraqis show that a majority feel they had it better under Saddam...
Of your three points above: 1) The fact that Saddam hasn't committed a genocide in over 15 years (for the sake of argument I will stipulate that the destruction of the marshes following Gulf War I doesn't count) is a strange way to argue that a regime is comparatively benign. 2) I've never found this argument particularly intriguing. Because evil exists in lots of places means we don't confront it in any place? In any event, a miserable human rights record is not the only reason we invaded Saddam. You can't take on the pro-invasion arguments one by one and think you've accomplished something, you have to take them cumulatively. 3) I don't think you will find the Shi'a (who are after all 60% of the population) in favor of going back to Saddam's time. And if the Kurds preferred things in 2003, it wasn't because they liked Saddam.
The Kurds - Saddam's main target - basically had a quasi-independent region after 1991, and Saddam did little to bother them. In general, most of your arguments about Iraq seem to be those used in 1990; I have little objections to the first Gulf War. 2003 was NOT 1990. Don't confuse the 2 Iraqs; there are significant differences. That's what a war and an outrageous sanctions regime will do to you.
Since you brought it up, how do you envision maintaining the quasi-independent Kurdish state following the end of sanctions? Do we indefinitely maintain the no-fly zone? If so, for how long? Ten years? Twenty years? As for most of my arguments relating to pre-1990 Iraq, nothing changed in Iraq to alter the essential totalitarian nature of the regime. The security services were omnipresent and Saddam's power absolute. He murdered in the thousands instead of the hundreds of thousands. This is not a great leap forward.
I thought the invasion was supposed to be about the "war on terror" right? Well, Israel/Palestine is the no.1 grievance and recruiting tool for fundamentalist Islamist extremists. THAT, and not mindless cowboy accusations and invasions, should be the prime focus of ANY anti-terror strategy.
Please address above argument to George W. Bush, it has nothing to do with me.
There are plenty of things you can do even when dealing with a police state. Radio/TV, academic exchanges, trade relations, etc. What do you think the US's rationale is for dealing with China, despite its atrocious human rights record? Check out the Clinton and Bush administrations' reasoning on engagement over confrontation when it came down to granting MFN status and entry into the WTO.
China does not begin to resemble Iraq. As bad as China is, and it is bad, the Saddam regime demonstrated that it could not be dealt with in the manner you describe. Trade relations? Iraq sold oil and used the money to pay its omnipresent security apparatus. If anything, trade would deepen its dictatorship. Academic exchanges? This suggests there was something resembling an independent academic community in Iraq. As for Radio Free Iraq, this would not have been able to begin to compete with an Iraqi Security Ministry awash in oil money. Your arguments are not serious. Saddam's oil gave him staying power.
I hate to say this, but your arguments are lacking in historical and global focus overall. I don't want to sound like an ass, but you seem to be rather easily buying into all the arguments put forward by the administration without having read the arguments of the majority of academics and analysts who disagreed with the administration FUNDAMENTALLY. Don't listen to me - there is PLENTY that was written pre- and post-war denouncing every single argument you put forward, and proposing the policies I enumerated and many more: from across the ideological spectrum by the way.
But I want to listen to you. I want to hear the argument that will make me understand why war was not just the wrong decision, but self-evidently the wrong decision. Please don't tell me that "lots of people make good arguments", indulge my ignorance by actually telling me what those arguments are.
I don't get my arguments from the Bush administration, as I said. I want to hear those who were anti-war in 2003 to propose an alternative policy. You have in my estimation failed to do so.
This will go down in history as yet another imperial campaign waged by the US for self-serving reasons, just like Korea, Vietnam, the Central and South American interventions, assassinations and death squads, etc.
I think easyed did a better job than I could at explaining what is wrong with this paragraph.
|
|