"Might Does Not Make Right"
Recent polls show that the majority of Americans now think we should never have gone to war with Iraq. It's nice that people have finally woken up and realized just what a quagmire we've gotten into over there, but here's my question for my fellow Americans-how did we ever morally justify attacking Iraq in the first place?
I can hear all the conservatives gearing up to label me a liberal-peacenik, but hears the news I'm not. I am very liberal on most issues, but I do believe some wars are necessary evils. (World War II for example) I also come from a military family, my grandfather served in World War I, and my Dad and Uncle both served in Vietnam (my Dad retired after 20 yrs. in the Army). I served my country as well, joining the Army during the first Gulf War.
So you see I'm as patriotic as anyone, but I also was taught right from wrong and America was just plain wrong to attack a country that had never attacked us. Many Americans are still under the false impression that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attack. There is not now, nor has there ever been one iota of proof of this. Even President Bush admitted there was no proof of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (albeit, after we were already occupying Iraq).
I think the reason most Americans supported President Bush in his decision to invade was because they were convinced (by some very inept intelligence reports, and some really stellar political propaganda) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. At the time I was convinced they had them too. I wasn't convinced however that, that was a justifiable reason to start Americas' first preemptive war. If you subscribe to the logic of preemptively attacking another country, out of fear that they might/could hit us, then you could just as easily argue that if China (or whoever) got it into there head that, "hey the U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, and I think they might attack us some day", they would be justified in invading America to protect themselves. You may roll your eyes at the very idea, but in point of fact it would be exactly the same thing the U.S. did to Iraq. It would have been different if there had been an imminent threat, but not only did they not have the weapons of mass destruction they also didn't have missles that could reach our shores.
Of course there's always the "Saddam was a very bad man" argument for invading, but that one isn't any more justifiable because by that token any country who decided another countrys leader was bad/evil could invade said land to "save its people" from bad leadership. (I personally think this would definitely open America up to an invasion-lol).
Honestly, I'm ashamed of the U.S. government for it's immoral, illogical choice in starting this war. I'm also a bit frightened by the fact that not more Americans have stood up and questioned our governments justifications for a preemptive war. "Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives."
- Abba Eban (1915-2002)
I can hear all the conservatives gearing up to label me a liberal-peacenik, but hears the news I'm not. I am very liberal on most issues, but I do believe some wars are necessary evils. (World War II for example) I also come from a military family, my grandfather served in World War I, and my Dad and Uncle both served in Vietnam (my Dad retired after 20 yrs. in the Army). I served my country as well, joining the Army during the first Gulf War.
So you see I'm as patriotic as anyone, but I also was taught right from wrong and America was just plain wrong to attack a country that had never attacked us. Many Americans are still under the false impression that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attack. There is not now, nor has there ever been one iota of proof of this. Even President Bush admitted there was no proof of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (albeit, after we were already occupying Iraq).
I think the reason most Americans supported President Bush in his decision to invade was because they were convinced (by some very inept intelligence reports, and some really stellar political propaganda) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. At the time I was convinced they had them too. I wasn't convinced however that, that was a justifiable reason to start Americas' first preemptive war. If you subscribe to the logic of preemptively attacking another country, out of fear that they might/could hit us, then you could just as easily argue that if China (or whoever) got it into there head that, "hey the U.S. has weapons of mass destruction, and I think they might attack us some day", they would be justified in invading America to protect themselves. You may roll your eyes at the very idea, but in point of fact it would be exactly the same thing the U.S. did to Iraq. It would have been different if there had been an imminent threat, but not only did they not have the weapons of mass destruction they also didn't have missles that could reach our shores.
Of course there's always the "Saddam was a very bad man" argument for invading, but that one isn't any more justifiable because by that token any country who decided another countrys leader was bad/evil could invade said land to "save its people" from bad leadership. (I personally think this would definitely open America up to an invasion-lol).
Honestly, I'm ashamed of the U.S. government for it's immoral, illogical choice in starting this war. I'm also a bit frightened by the fact that not more Americans have stood up and questioned our governments justifications for a preemptive war. "Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives."
- Abba Eban (1915-2002)
posted by Leo at 3:49 AM
3 Comments:
I _am_ a peacenik, and yet I understood the purpose of invading Afghanistan. It was all we could do, or many other groups would be thinking they could get away with the same thing. We did have a definite target there, and knew that the Taleban were supporting al Queda (sp) and there was a plan for how to stop that (though I personally am ignorant of further details). I really didn't like that we'd have to go kill people; I don't like hurting even "bad guys" who attacked us first. Heck, my peacenik side says that we actually provoked the 9/11 attacks due to our meddling in the Middle East. And yet I understood the sad necessity of our actions in Afghanistan.
I understand why we attacked Afghanistan too. I was happy to see us go after the terrorist organization who attacked us on 9/11, and the then government (the Taliban) of Afghanistan was harboring the scumbags, so I have no sympathy for them. Iraq was a completely different situation however. Thanks for your comment!
You seem like at fair minded person. I like you to view my blog and make a few comments. I like “level” headedness with this post. . But to be fair about the whole WMD issues, every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had them and was a threat. (Russian, Jordanian, British, Saudi, CIA…) Now of course "Intelligence" is never 100%, that’s the nature of intelligence. How do you know he did not move them? Remember he did use them before. It after 9/11 and all this is in front of you, I mean you’re the president with what do you do? Was that a good reason to go into Iraq? Can’t say yes to that. Who knows what I would have done in his shoes. I hope this work out though. But who knows is might have been terrible decision. There is no doubt he went in with no plan after he fall of Saddam….very bad.
Please visit my Blog. I'd to be honored to hear what you have to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home