![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 14th, 2003 10:35 amI received my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary yesterday. It is a magnifical program!
I think I'll review my problems with the war.
First off, if Iraq made a direct attack against us first, I would support retaliation.
First, no one will dispute that Saddam is a monster based on our moral beliefs. But there is also merit in the notion that countries are sovereign. They have a legitamate right to exist regardless of their method of running their country. I cherish my American values. If the rest of the world thought that we were immoral infidels, I would not want to see countries attack us based on that and the fact that we have weapons of destruction, despite not having used them on anyone.
To say that we must wage war on Saddam because he is building weapons of destruction is not sufficient. We have weapons of mass destruction. No one is making us disarm. Israel has weapons of mass destruction. No one is making us disarm. A country must be able to defend itself. As soon as he tries to use them against us, that's when we have an unimpeachable right to defend ourselves. Not before.
If you think attacking Saddam now is justifiable because he's a bad, bad man, and because he is building weapons of mass destruction, then I should have the right to beat the shit out of any asshole I see who owns a bunch of firearms. He hasn't done anything to me yet, but he might, so he's got to go.
Our capacity to rebuild Iraq on our own, without UN support, is rather vague. Another reason why I don't support this war is that I don't think we should start a conflict we cannot properly finish. To take over Iraq and then drop the ball would be rather ruthless.
If this war was in a vacuum, and no other after effects would occur, I'd be less against it. Part of me wants to wipe out Saddam for what he's doing to his people. However, we are not in a vacuum. There is cause and effect. The U.S. right now is risking alliances, breaking down the U.N. with no guarantee of the world being a better place. Just Saddam being gone doesn't magically solve our problems, and risks creating more. Without a clear case of self defense, we appear as aggressors, and brutish ones at that, since we are threatening to disregard the U.N.
As usual, money talks, bullshit walks. There seem to be a number of indications that financial issues are at stake. We are Iraq's number 1 buyer of their oil. Apparently, we don't have the automotive fortitude to rebuke oil and reduce our dependency on Saddam's oil. Apparently, we'll do business with a morally repugnant man. Our plans for the subsequent humanitarian effort are vague, and some say that whatever the U.S. has for humanitarian aid is not sufficient. However, U.S. reconstruction businesses are putting in bids for helping rebuild Iraq (Including Hallburton, Cheney's old company).
I think I'll review my problems with the war.
First off, if Iraq made a direct attack against us first, I would support retaliation.
First, no one will dispute that Saddam is a monster based on our moral beliefs. But there is also merit in the notion that countries are sovereign. They have a legitamate right to exist regardless of their method of running their country. I cherish my American values. If the rest of the world thought that we were immoral infidels, I would not want to see countries attack us based on that and the fact that we have weapons of destruction, despite not having used them on anyone.
To say that we must wage war on Saddam because he is building weapons of destruction is not sufficient. We have weapons of mass destruction. No one is making us disarm. Israel has weapons of mass destruction. No one is making us disarm. A country must be able to defend itself. As soon as he tries to use them against us, that's when we have an unimpeachable right to defend ourselves. Not before.
If you think attacking Saddam now is justifiable because he's a bad, bad man, and because he is building weapons of mass destruction, then I should have the right to beat the shit out of any asshole I see who owns a bunch of firearms. He hasn't done anything to me yet, but he might, so he's got to go.
Our capacity to rebuild Iraq on our own, without UN support, is rather vague. Another reason why I don't support this war is that I don't think we should start a conflict we cannot properly finish. To take over Iraq and then drop the ball would be rather ruthless.
If this war was in a vacuum, and no other after effects would occur, I'd be less against it. Part of me wants to wipe out Saddam for what he's doing to his people. However, we are not in a vacuum. There is cause and effect. The U.S. right now is risking alliances, breaking down the U.N. with no guarantee of the world being a better place. Just Saddam being gone doesn't magically solve our problems, and risks creating more. Without a clear case of self defense, we appear as aggressors, and brutish ones at that, since we are threatening to disregard the U.N.
As usual, money talks, bullshit walks. There seem to be a number of indications that financial issues are at stake. We are Iraq's number 1 buyer of their oil. Apparently, we don't have the automotive fortitude to rebuke oil and reduce our dependency on Saddam's oil. Apparently, we'll do business with a morally repugnant man. Our plans for the subsequent humanitarian effort are vague, and some say that whatever the U.S. has for humanitarian aid is not sufficient. However, U.S. reconstruction businesses are putting in bids for helping rebuild Iraq (Including Hallburton, Cheney's old company).
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}