|
The reason I don't believe your scenario, onetime, is because I do not agree with the premise: that nations believed that the US would remain idle while they supported attacks against the population.
I look at things like the fact that we have secured a springboard on one side of Iraq and are currently working to secure one on the other side. That one springboard is literally on an incredible resevoir of oil, and that our current military depends on oil to operate, leads me to recognize the long-term, stategic import of our actions.
However, I disagree that our current reliance on military aggression was the only, or even the best, method of securing safety for our citizens.
I find most disturbing (and this is the issue I am most upset about in regards to being opposed to the war) that the plans as laid out for the military planning were not described to the people. Not only could the citizens decide, on an informed basis, whether they wanted to support those plans, the issue is not even part of the official canon.
So when people like roachboy or myself raise them, we look like loons screaming in the wilderness. Some conservatives have agree with this mini-analysis, but argue that the safety of the public hinges upon some secrecy in government.
I don't agree with that. That is when this boils down to ideology for me. The other issues, if allowed to be discussed in public discourse (as of yet, they are not due to our own government's obfuscation of the underpinnings) are discussable rationally.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|