From: I William Wiser (will@wiserlife.com)
Date: Fri Apr 25 2003 - 16:21:48 MDT
Michael Wiik wrote:
> So how 'bout that? It's not like it was a conspiracy: PNAC has a website
> and puts spokesbots on cable TV news. Aggressive war as a show of force.
> Killing folks to show how much better democracy is. Ain't it great?!?!?
>
> Who will we attack next to illustrate the benefits of democracy? Think
> of it -- each JDAM is actually a seed of hope! Children shall eat of its
> fruit!
I'm not arguing for the war in Iraq but be fair...
It's not killing folks to show democracy is better. It's removing
an oppressive dictatorship to give democracy a chance. Killing
people is an sad side effect.
In theory the show of force is a message to people who think in terms of
force. A cynic could view it as a message from Washington to do what
we say or else. But one could also view it as making an example of a
criminal to tell other criminals to clean up there acts or else. I think
other
methods would have worked better but bottom line either Saddam
Hussein's regime had it coming or it did not.
It does trouble me that governments (people) so seldom give their own
reasons for things. Politicians tend to sell you on the features you want
to hear. I can believe that Washington was concerned about WMD
and aggression from Iraq but not seriously concerned. Liberating the
Iraqi people was an easier sell after the fact because so far the costs have
not been high to Americans. That Washington mostly wanted to see a
democracy in Iraqi as an Arab example of a better system does not
bother me. That oil and strategic concerns are a big part of the equation
does not bother me. All in all either the war was predictably likely to be
a net win for the US, the world, and the Iraqi people or it was not.
How much better if Washington had said: Saddam is a son of a bitch
let's go take him out of power as a message to all of the other bastards
in the world. It will be good for the Iraqi people. Our businessmen
can make a profit. Our soldiers can play with their toys. The world will
be better off without him in power. It may help the whole Middle East
situation. Hell, it might even give Americans a moral boost. Any
objections?
As a libertarian I think the war would have been better funded by
voluntary contribution. I think governments initiate force way to often
and are wasteful of resources. Leaving that aside was it a good thing
for some group to remove Saddam Hussein and his government from
power? Would the Iraqi people approve? Will they be better off?
Is it something the US could afford? Were there obviously better
things to work on? I'm not so sure I was for the war but I'm not
sure it was a bad thing either. Time will tell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 25 2003 - 16:30:55 MDT