Gautam Mukunda > > So yes, I acknowledge that you've spoken to lots of > soldiers have suffered. Have you spoken to Iraqis > who, say, saw their children raped and tortured in > front of them as a routine method of interrogation? > How about ones whose hands, ears, or tongues were > chopped off for opposing the regime? All of these > are > things that would be happening _right now_ if the > war > had not happened. They're also powerful and > emotional. Why don't they matter? If they do, why > shouldn't that at least be part of the calculation > when we decide what to do? >
So Gautam, are you saying that the US invaded Iraq out of a deeply felt need to save the Iraqi people? Not cos of WMD risks, not cos of issues over oil? Now, I know you are not, it was for a lot of complex intertwined reasons. So please leave a little of the high moral ground for others to stand on. Call me a cynic, but I just can't see GWB weeping at night in bed over the plight of Iraqi children. I am not saying he is a bastard, but just that I doubt it was top of his list. And it certainly was not the thrust of the argument put to justify the war. Also, your statement that peoples hands etc would still be being chopped off if the war had not happened. How can you say that? How do you know? There were other alternatives. That's one of the points that we lefty extremists keep making and that keeps falling on deaf ears. How about a UN sanctioned multinational force, that planned it properly and put in some thought about dealing with the peace. That did it with the full agreement of the only body that can be seen as bi-partisan enough to actually be doing it for moral reasons i.e. the terribly flawed, but at least globally based UN. Sure it was hard, those damn frenchies.... so much easier just to send in the Marines and shoot all the stupid ragheads... but at least it would have been a consensus. Perhaps than you would have an Iraqi where 60 bodies turning up floating in some canal is not page three news. Well, I guess they all had their hands and tongues. And it's interesting; the main driver for US foreign policy is caring for cute little Iraqi kids unlike those greedy French and Germans etc, whose only interests are oil and power. Please, climb down from your high horse and discuss this rationally. We were all there, we know what we were told, and it was precious bloody little about Iraqi children. At least that part of the drivel we were fed was honest. You nor I have any idea what other outcomes were possible, because GWB rushed into a war that he did not have to, on a timing driven by his electoral interests. Not, and I repeat, not, cos he was losing sleep over the fate of Iraqi children. I am sorry, but you have already suggested that cos of my misgivings about the war that had a secret crush on Saddam Hussien, to now suggest that I/we actually wanted to see the tongues torn out of Iraqi children is too much. Nick never suggested you did not care about American soldiers, and if you found it a 'little offensive' when you misread what he wrote, than why did you shoot it right back at him, suggesting he does not care about Iraqi children. Anyway, I am sorry for getting emotive. I actually wanted to debate some things: 1) Why did the war have to start when it did, what was the cost of waiting and planning better (and perhaps getting a broader level of support)? 2) What kind of precedent has been set for future invasions of countries that the US government takes a dislike to? 3) Are the acts of 9/11 now morally justified, as OBL did not like the US government and acted to release the children of America from what he perceives as a terrible godless tyranny that is tearing out their souls? 4) How many Iraqi people are dying each day now as compared to before the war, and does this matter? I will stop there.... as its getting emotional again. There are many sides to this debate, and none are all right, nor all wrong. That, I hope, we can all agree on. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
