Post by JonathanPost by David JohnstonOn Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by JonathanPost by David JohnstonIf you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
Actually, what is more likely is that they did, they just want their own
thingy now...
You know, Jonathan. As weird as I may be, I've gotta question you
here. You don't think that they have always wanted their own thingy ??
Or is it just that you wanted them to have your own thingy ?? And that
you wanted them to want to have your own thingy ??
Post by Jonathanand we should let them work it out.
Ahhh, going back to square one, now.
Post by JonathanPost by David JohnstonPost by JonathanThis was not the case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal
tyrant, this also was not the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he
would need to be killing innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
I no longer believe that.
Sure, there were mass graves, but who was in those graves again? Mostly
Shia... and from what I have seen, I think Saddam was acting in a way
consistent with that region.
Well, I guess Bush never painstakingly took the time to try and find
out. He just rushed in willy-nilly in the GOP's usual damn-the-facts
style.
Post by JonathanPost by David JohnstonPost by JonathanPost by David JohnstonBear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
If Kerry is allowed to change his mind every 10 minutes or so, I can change
it once.
Speaking of the devil, why mention Kerry so quickly when Bush is
already putting Saddam loyalists back in power ??
Are you sure you don't need your head examined ??
Post by JonathanHowever, I will confess that I never believed the WMD claims,
You shouldn't say that, either. Then the chickenhawk party could
whine: "But Clinton said that Saddam had WMD".
Post by Jonathanand I didn't believe Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda in any way.
With as many non-seculars as Saddam was deep-sixing, how could anyone
with at least one working brain cell conclude otherwise ??
Post by JonathanMy only basis for supporting this was to remain morally consistent with my
position on Rwanda... It would make no sense to want military intervention
to save the Tutsies, and oppose an intervention to save the Shia and Kurds.
The only way you can maintain consistancy here would be to support
world-wide invasion to establish democracy.
Post by JonathanHowever, it has become clear to me now that you cannot compare the two...
While Saddam was a brutal dickhead, he did not come close to the actions of
the Hutus...
Was this at once not clear to you ?? I'm sure you had to at least have
understood that there was an extreme difference here prior to March
2003.
Post by JonathanWhich begs the question, at what magic number of slaughtered do we warrant
an intervention... and my response would be complicated... It depends how
many you have killed and at what rate.
Not religiously motivated, the rate was very quick and shocking in
Rwanda. Many claim that the instigator resulted in being Belgium.
Would intervention have seen Belgian forces in accompanyment ??
Therefore would doing nothing have been better ??
On the other hand, a single well-financed dictator in Iraq kept
killing religiously motivated opposition members and afterwards,
publicly shaking-hands with the two-time US Secretary of Defense who
hates jointness.
Post by JonathanIdeally, I would love to go in and kick ass with one killed, but that isn't
feasible... So, let's say, 50,000 or more in a month...
I wouldn't say. Too many variables are still needed.
Post by JonathanI am having difficulty weighing my two moral imperatives... The US should
never start a war (we should respond to every attack decisively and
extremely violently, but we shouldn't invade before the attack)... and the
US should ensure the safety of the planet's persecuted minority populations.
And the two can't always be done, at that.
Post by JonathanI think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)... Organize the DoD for a purely
defensive mission (including NMD).
Come down a thousand with the abbreviations, this isn't an Efficiency
Report.
Post by JonathanBecause 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Post by Jonathanand another 3,466 are wounded (some 1,395 have RTDed)... and no argument can > be made that a humanitarian mission in Iraq is worth one tenth that.
I want these guys and gals back home and safe.
Maybe it comes down to having such a desire actually before the fact,
not afterwards.
Post by JonathanA good 80% of this is survivor guilt... The Army Reserve unit I was in in
August of 2002, shipped to Kuwait in October of that year, 3 months after I
was discharged... They are still in Baghdad... The good news is that no one
from that unit has been killed or seriously wounded (one guy took some
shrapnel to his arms, but is ok)... However, some friends from my active
duty days weren't so lucky... One was killed in Mosul a few months back (RPG
attack), and two others have lost limbs they were fond of.
Hmmm. I've never quite heard it put that way before. Anyway, sorry to
hear that.
Post by JonathanAnd if I had joined the Army two months later than I did in 1991, I would be
in Baghdad now.
Do you think your world view would have changed any by now ?