In reference to those that continue to demean our war efforts:
Saddam Hussein murdered upwards of 1,000,000 of his OWN people.
Either a) he stayed in power and continued killing people or b) he was removed from power and -- in the course of fighting -- there was a risk that Iraqis would be accidentally (and, yes, unfortunately) killed.
Either way, Iraqis were going to die. There is no grand solution.
This is not a perfect world. But SOMETHING had to be done.
After Hussein ignored the U.N. SEVENTEEN times, why would we go back to the U.N.? Where is the logic there? If you tell your child 'no' seventeen times, and he doesn't respond, do you keep saying 'no' or do you do something else that will get his attention?
Consider Hussein spanked.
While Hussein is gone, if we are to give in to the insurgents that are fighting U.S. forces, one of them will undoubtedly rise up and start killing innocent Iraqis all over again.
In my opinion, the WMD excuse was kind of a weak/moot reason to attack Iraq. ANYTIME would've been fine, to me, to invade and remove him based on his track record.
If we look at it mathematically, Hussein (1,000,000 killed +/-) was roughly 1/6 "as bad" as Hitler (6,000,000 killed +/-)...which still means that he was a genocidal sociopath.
Iraq would never have prospered had he stayed. And they may not now. But they have a better chance of prospering now than they would have had Hussein stayed.
And the countries that are still mad at us for invading? Well, they were making money from Mr. Hussein. And if they were making scads of money from a mass murderer, why should we care about what they have to say about us anyway?
I don't.
Posted by colrus at August 21, 2004 05:44 PM | TrackBackBill, I enjoy reading your blog. The entries seem to be well thought out, including this one, and I respect that.
Here are my beliefs and thoughts on the subject.
In reference to those that continue to demean our war efforts: Saddam Hussein murdered upwards of 1,000,000 of his OWN people.
It’s interesting that you made “own” stand out. I believe we’re all each other’s people, so it’s just as evil for Hussein to have killed 1,000,000 Iraqis as it is for him to have killed 1,000,000 Americans, Britains, etc.
Either a) he stayed in power and continued killing people or b) he was removed from power and -- in the course of fighting -- there was a risk that Iraqis would be accidentally (and, yes, unfortunately) killed. Either way, Iraqis were going to die. There is no grand solution.
I don’t believe that these were the only two solutions that existed, and I don’t believe Hussein’s murders were a reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
Rumsfield has said time and again how accurate and precise our weapons are in combat. If that’s the case, there should be no excuse for the 11,000+ innocent Iraqis "accidentally" killed. I put accidentally in quotes because I think carelessly would be a much better word to use.
This is not a perfect world. But SOMETHING had to be done. After Hussein ignored the U.N. SEVENTEEN times, why would we go back to the U.N.? Where is the logic there? If you tell your child 'no' seventeen times, and he doesn't respond, do you keep saying 'no' or do you do something else that will get his attention? Consider Hussein spanked.
Why did something have to be done at that instant? The US was not up against a deadline. I just think a better solution could have been found.
Let me give you another analogy.
You tell someone else’s child ‘no’ seventeen times, and he doesn’t respond. You go to his parents and tell them about the incident, they discipline the child in their own way, yet the child does not seem to respond. You don’t agree with how they’re disciplining their child, so you spank him to get his attention.
Is that right?
While Hussein is gone, if we are to give in to the insurgents that are fighting U.S. forces, one of them will undoubtedly rise up and start killing innocent Iraqis all over again.
So the US will continue to kill innocent Iraqis in the meantime? Because that’s what’s going on as we speak. There’s no way the US can prevent an evil ruler from taking over Iraq unless the US is in Iraq until the end of time.
In my opinion, the WMD excuse was kind of a weak/moot reason to attack Iraq. ANYTIME would've been fine, to me, to invade and remove him based on his track record. If we look at it mathematically, Hussein (1,000,000 killed +/-) was roughly 1/6 "as bad" as Hitler (6,000,000 killed +/-)...which still means that he was a genocidal sociopath. Iraq would never have prospered had he stayed. And they may not now. But they have a better chance of prospering now than they would have had Hussein stayed.
I agree that Hussein should not have been in power, but I don’t think the way the US went about removing him was right.
And the countries that are still mad at us for invading? Well, they were making money from Mr. Hussein. And if they were making scads of money from a mass murderer, why should we care about what they have to say about us anyway? I don't.
Not every country that opposed the war made money off Iraq, and all the reasons for not going to war given by the countries that were making money from Iraq were valid arguments. No one was saying, "Don’t invade Iraq because we make money from it."
I believe the war was imperfect and unneeded because evil and never defeat evil.
Posted by: Rex at August 21, 2004 07:18 PMIn response to your points:
>It’s interesting that you made “own” stand out. I believe we’re all each other’s people, so it’s just as evil for Hussein to have killed 1,000,000 Iraqis as it is for him to have killed 1,000,000 Americans, Britains, etc.
Yes. And because he was killing his own people, who was going to stop him. His own people? Which ones? The ones he was killing, or the ones that were afraid of him, or the ones that supported him? None stopped him, and none was going to stop him. The power of a dictator is immense. That's how he gets to be a dictator. The power that comes from fear, murder, and blind support.
>I don’t believe that these were the only two solutions that existed, and I don’t believe Hussein’s murders were a reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq.
Ok. Give me another solution. And DON'T say, "But the U.N. could've..." They had 17 chances and didn't act. I really don't care why Bush invaded Iraq, it needed to be done no matter who was President. His FATHER should've finished the job. Think of the thousand that would've lived had he done that. What Bush SHOULD have said is, "Look, we are going to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He is a mass murderer, and for him to stay in power lowers the chances of peace in that region."
The WMD excuse was weak and unneccessary in my eyes. Hussein once had WMD's. He used them on his own people. Damage done. He doesn't need to have them AGAIN, in my eyes, for us to remove him. Perhaps that was the only way that Bush could sell it to us, and perhaps we'll find WMD's. Perhaps we won't. If they are there, however, they won't be in nice, neat crates labeled WMD's. What we'll probably find are separate components that go into making them. But even those have probably been destoyed. Were they there when we first invaded? Probably. Are they there now? Probably not. It's been several months.
Why do you think he wanted to invade Iraq, then? Oil? Nope. Hasn't touched a drop of it. I think he wanted to invade Iraq as a first step in bringing peace to the entire Middle East, and, if that's the case, we won't be leaving anytime soon. If ever.
>Why did something have to be done at that instant?
Because it should have been done years ago.
>The US was not up against a deadline. I just think a better solution could have been found.
Where is this "better" solution? Seriously? The only way to remove Hussein would've been through force, a "war" if you will, and people die in wars. People have died in every war ever fought to build, protect, and free this country, and people will (unfortunately) have to die to fight for the freedom of other countries. The reason WE have to fight for the other country is because they can't. But they HAVE to be free. And they still aren't. You can't turn around decades of fear and evil in a few months. It takes time. I can guarantee you this: If Hussein had stayed in power, more innocent Iraqi's would've died than have died in this current war. And if we had waited around for him to die, even MORE people would've been killed and who knows what the climate in Iraq would've been when the next punk took over. Do I LIKE any of this? No. Do I LIKE the fact that people have to die for things like freedom? No. Am I grateful that they do? Yes.
>Rumsfield has said time and again how accurate and precise our weapons are in combat. If that’s the case, there should be no excuse for the 11,000+ innocent Iraqis "accidentally" killed. I put accidentally in quotes because I think carelessly would be a much better word to use.
That's a moot point. Faulty weaponry and Rumsfeld's rhetoric doesn't change the fact that Hussein is a genocidal sociopath that needed to be removed. We need to fix our weapons and win the war. Period.
>Let me give you another analogy.
>You tell someone else’s child ‘no’ seventeen times, and he doesn’t respond. You go to his parents and tell them about the incident, they discipline the child in their own way, yet the child does not seem to respond. You don’t agree with how they’re disciplining their child, so you spank him to get his attention.
>Is that right?
That's not the same thing. My analogy was too friendly. It's more direct than "someone else's child" and not a parent/child relationship, more a parole officer/parolee realtionship. Hussein was supposed to abide by terms put forth by the U.N. or he would be attacked. He didn't obey. 17 times. The U.N. didn't respond. 17 times. What else was going to be done? It was a vicious cycle.
>So the US will continue to kill innocent Iraqis in the meantime? Because that’s what’s going on as we speak. There’s no way the US can prevent an evil ruler from taking over Iraq unless the US is in Iraq until the end of time.
As long as some people in Iraq threaten the freedom of the rest of the Iraqi people, we will have to stay there. And, yes, innocent people will die. Again, this not a perfect world. There is not a magical "all perfect" pill that we can take
to produce an outcome agreeable to all. Some people's chosen outcome is chaos. And they have to be stopped.
>I agree that Hussein should not have been in power, but I don’t think the way the US went about removing him was right.
You've alluded to this three times now, but haven't offered a practical alternative. It would be nice if there was one, but there isn't.
>Not every country that opposed the war made money off Iraq, and all the reasons for not going to war given by the countries that were making money from Iraq were valid arguments. No one was saying, "Don’t invade Iraq because we make money from it."
No, but many did. And, of course they're not going to say that. Do you honestly think they'd want to publicly--in front of the whole world--put their fiscal well-being over a people's freedom from a MASS MURDERER.
>I believe the war was imperfect and unneeded because evil and never defeat evil.
No wars are perfect.
I'm assuming you meant to say "evil will never defeat evil." That's an empty statement, and doesn't apply here. So all the men that fought and died to, say, defeat Nazi Germany were evil? We are not evil. War is Hell, yes. But we are not evil.
Oh, and I'm sure evil has defeated evil before. Somewhere.
Posted by: Bill Colrus at August 21, 2004 11:28 PM
Unfortunately I’m not a diplomat, and I don’t have all the specific events, laws, etc. that would be needed to come up with a resolution. Even if I had all the answers, there would be arguments saying that that solution wouldn’t work because of this and that. We’ll never know if a better solution could have been reached. The US went to war.
You said the UN had 17 chances, but difficult situations call for difficult discussion. The UN is made up of diverse cultures and societies that handle situations differently. I wouldn’t expect the UN to come up with a resolution that worked immediately, and if it took 25 chances to come up with a peaceful resolution, I would prefer that one.
Is this a better analogy? A parole officer tells a parolee no seventeen times and the parolee doesn’t respond. The officials are discussing what should be done to the parolee. The parole officer isn’t happy with the current situation is taking so long to resolve, so, while off the clock, he kidnaps the parolee and locks him up in his own basement. The parole officer goes into work the next day, tells the officials what he did, and expects them to understand.
While oil may not be a reason that Bush pushed for the war, it is known that several companies tied to Bush got contracts for the reconstruction. People are making money from Iraq, and quite a sum of it.
You say Iraq should have been taken care of the in the first Gulf War. That war wasn’t fought because Hussein was a murderer. In fact, the US has helped Iraq in the past, even with knowledge that Hussein was murdering people. The war was fought to protect oil. The US was protecting its monetary interests.
I can understand why you don’t think my “evil will never defeat evil” statement doesn’t apply here. We think differently. I think murder is evil. You think murder is okay as long as the outcome is favorable to the people left. You may not agree that murder applies here, but if we know we’re killing innocent civilians and we continue doing it, that’s murder to me.
Posted by: Rex at August 22, 2004 01:06 PM>You said the UN had 17 chances, but difficult situations call for difficult discussion. The UN is made up of diverse cultures and societies that handle situations differently. I wouldn’t expect the UN to come up with a resolution that worked immediately, and if it took 25 chances to come up with a peaceful resolution, I would prefer that one.
The U.N. TOLD Hussein the conditions, he failed to obey, and the U.N. failed to act on their own conditions.
>Is this a better analogy? A parole officer tells a parolee no seventeen times and the parolee doesn’t respond. The officials are discussing what should be done to the parolee. The parole officer isn’t happy with the current situation is taking so long to resolve, so, while off the clock, he kidnaps the parolee and locks him up in his own basement. The parole officer goes into work the next day, tells the officials what he did, and expects them to understand.
The parolee would've been arrested. In our country, law enforcement acts quicker here than it does in the international community.
>While oil may not be a reason that Bush pushed for the war, it is known that several companies tied to Bush got contracts for the reconstruction. People are making money from Iraq, and quite a sum of it.
Well, lots of people (from lots of countries, by the way) are working to restore/improve Iraq for its people. People who work deserve to be paid for it. Also, there are so mnay companies in the world that could handle the massive job needed to fix Iraq. The fact that companies with direct ties to Bush may have gotten contracts as a result of this war (please list some if you don't mind) doesn't really bother me. If finanical gain was of more importance to him than removing Hussein, then I'd cry foul. I don't see that. Bush is an oil man, and is not making any money of off Iraqi oil, so you'll need to show me something on that. BTW, I didn't vote for Bush.
>You say Iraq should have been taken care of the in the first Gulf War. That war wasn’t fought because Hussein was a murderer. In fact, the US has helped Iraq in the past, even with knowledge that Hussein was murdering people. The war was fought to protect oil. The US was protecting its monetary interests.
Tell me why the first one was fought? What event sparked it, exactly? Do you remember?
>I can understand why you don’t think my “evil will never defeat evil” statement doesn’t apply here. We think differently. I think murder is evil. You think murder is okay as long as the outcome is favorable to the people left. You may not agree that murder applies here, but if we know we’re killing innocent civilians and we continue doing it, that’s murder to me.
If no organized forces ever fight to defend innocent people because there is a risk that some of those same innocent folks may die in the process, evil will never be stopped. We are taking a calculated risk to defend people that, for decades, could not defend themselves. The overly idealistic world you promote and desire does not exist, my friend. Well, actually, it does. It's called Heaven. As long as we live on this earth, evil and chaos will thrive. Some people, like you and I, strive for peace in our daily lives. Others strive for chaos. And that will never change. The best we can do is protect -- at all costs -- the wishes of the people who strive to live peacefully.
Posted by: Bill Colrus at August 22, 2004 08:00 PM