Subject:
|
Re: THIS is why this whole war is a waste of time.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:02:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
594 times
|
| |
|
|
Check this out:
"This war was not worth a child's finger"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,934346,00.html
I think what I like about the article is the documenting of the arguments
and techniques to justify the war. As many breathe a sigh of relief they
instantly forget the slippery slope we are now on -- the one that says we
may NOW justify any act of aggression based upon the flimsiest pretexts.
Our best intelligence about WMD is proving completely lame. In the now more
or less U.S. controlled Iraq it would be all too easy to fabricate the evidence.
Check this out:
"The hunt is on for the missing weapons"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,12900,932506,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent hoped that when the fighting was over, those inspections
would be carried out by the right people - Hans Blix and his team. Its
reasons were twofold. "Given the record of allegation, hyperbole and
straight lies that surrounds the question of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, any finds must be verified by qualified inspectors under the
auspices of the UN," said the paper. "This is the only way that they will
carry conviction and demonstrate the legitimacy of the war beyond doubt."
The ranks of the doubters were swelled by Marianne Hanson, who reminded
readers of the Brisbane Courier Mail that the coalition's architects -
George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard - were no closer to proving that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction than they were a month ago. "This is
very embarrassing for the prosecutors of the war," said Hanson, "but it
seems likely they are willing to gloss over this irritation ... [Mr Bush] is
speaking more and more about liberation of the Iraqi people and less and
less about weapons of mass destruction. The problem with this is that any
legal grounds for war against Iraq, if they existed at all, rested on the
WMD issue, and not on the nature of the Iraqi regime."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Focus -- it's so important.
The U.N. was focused on the WMD and would have moved to keep the peace had
anything of significance been found. Seriously, this is what that limping
institution was designed to handle (however badly, and we can argue about
that later).
But "regime change" was the primary interest of the U.S. and something no
multi-nation organization was prepared to condone. "Regime change" didn't
occur in the Gulf War because keeping the peace was the only agenda that
could be justified -- then as now. The U.S., with two allies in tow, has
basically committed an act of unjustifiable aggression that it is now quick
to justify as having been done to "liberate" the Iraqi people. But this
isn't "Short Attention Span Theater" (I hope!) -- we cannot justify this
atrocity by skipping from one excuse to another.
Nukes? No.
WMD (which are actually supposed to be just Nukes, but let's allow this slip
into lesser offending weapons)? No.
Regime change? Yes -- but before you answer the "why?" consider the
slippery slope.
Motive? Unknown/Speculative -- although I think there is plenty of grist
for the mill on the left.
A pretty sad day it is too.
My personal conflict is that I WANT to be very proud to be a U.S. citizen --
and in terms of this country's foundational principles, I am. You will not
likely find a stauncher defender of the goals of the U.S. experiment in
government. Some of you have seen it in this forum. Some might even see me
as somewhat fanatically gung ho about subjects like the founding fathers,
the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. As stated, I want to be
proud -- but I am not.
The combination of our pyscho approach to foreign policy, devastatingly
imbecilic legislation like Patriot Acts I & II, and acts of feverish
aggression like the war in Iraq embarrass me. Too often, it is as if we had
no idea what the point of this country is supposed to be. I am pretty sure
that agenda doesn't ideally have much to do with acting the bully, savagely
curtailing individual freedoms or rights, or even engaging in significant
military conflicts in foreign lands. But hey -- I guess that's just me
thinking these things.
YMMV.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
