Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
Ace, I'm reading your posts and it sounds as if you are trying to demonstrate that the use of force can sometimes be justified. Rest assured that you don't have to make that point - most of those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq are not pacifists.
What willravel is getting at is the question of Iraq in particular and not self-defense or self-interest in general. Here he explains why the war was unjustified based on the criteria that you yourself laid out.
Quote:
None of those were met in the case of Iraq. Not by a mile, even.
1) As I've stated, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way shape or form.
2) No reasonable person could look at all the information available in 2003 (and I can post it if you'd like) and come to the conclusion that the US was in any danger.
3) We were the instigator.
4) Excessive? 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and many still don't have water and power 5 years later.
|
You keep saying that you are comfortable with people acting as they see fit so long as they are willing to be held accountable, and that is a completely fair point. But holding the administration accountable is precisely what will is doing now. How else would you like him to do it, if not by speaking out as he and others do? Will criticizes the way the decision to go to war was made and you shrug it off by saying that the administration can do what it likes and 'ask questions later'. Well, when is 'later', exactly? |
In the items 1 through 4 there is disagreement.
Items 1 and 2 - The UN, Congress, and other nations saw Saddam as a threat. Former President Clinton saw him as a threat. Credible people like Colin Powell saw him as a threat and many others in the military, CIA, and members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I think reasonable people can disagree on how big of a threat he was and what would have been the appropriate course of action. Parsing the language regarding him being a threat but not a threat to the US because he could not deliver a nuclear bomb is problematic to me. Also, I believe real economic sanctions target innocent civilians more than it targets those in political power and the military. Also in my view real economic sanctions, being enforced using force if needed, is defacto - a declaration of war. I would not have supported economic sanctions. To me military force was the only real option to deal with the Saddam threat.
Item 3 - I live in an area where we have hornets, In my view saying we were the instigator is like saying I am the instigator in removing a hornets nest from my back porch so my family won't be at risk. Certainly preemptive, but also the right thing to do.
Item 4 - Our initial primary military objective was to remove Saddam from power, the force used was not excessive to accomplish that mission. Our second military objective, to bring stability to the country for political progress was impeded by insurgents. I would argue that the insurgents were primarily responsible for the Iraqi deaths.
So, again we come to the basic question was Saddam a threat. Those who don't think he was will think any action taken was inappropriate. Those who think he was a threat to others but not to the US, will think our actions were excessive. Nothing at this point can be said to change those views, just as there is nothing that can be said to change my view, because we will never know what might have been.
The data has been reviewed and investigated, if we acted inappropriate now is the time to address the issue. Those who have the power to address the issue either agreed with Bush or all their rhetoric was b.s.