| Ah, Leauki, yes, people who support losing causes that cost Americans more then what they gain are easily classified in my head as being mindless - perhaps misguided is a more appropriate term, since surely smart people such as yourself realize that the humanitarian mission in Iraq is simply the latest rationalization for Americans occupying their country. Was it the first reason that sprang to mind when talk of invading Iraq was in the air? |
I'm afraid the cause that is currently losing is the cause of supporting fascists for the sake of stability and deaths for the sake of avoiding war. "Mindless" is probably the appropriate word to describe those who support such causes, although I often try to refrain from using such terms
I grew up in a country that was once a fascist dictatorshop and was liberated by American and British forces. I know that such a cause is not a lost one. And I am grateful. And I utterly despise people who, before World War II, would have argued in favour of peace and stability; because I know what it cost the world. Peace and stability in that sense are fancy terms for genocide and tyranny, and they are easily used in the west, where both are seemingly extinct as local phenomena.
My first reaction when the US talked of invading Iraq was "thank G-d, somebody is going to do something about it". But that was because I had an idea of what was going on in Iraq even though the media didn't report it (as they would later admitt). When after the war I saw the pictures of the mass graves and of Iraqis finally able to at least try and find the graves of their loved ones, murdered by Saddam's thugs, I felt reminded of the pictures in the book "Der Gelbe Stern", a documentary of the holocaust in my own country of birth.
I was before the invasion, during the imvasion, and I remain fully convinced that fascist dictators MUST be stopped, as early as possible, and preferably BEFORE they are a threat to anybody and PARTICULARLY, and I cannot stress this enough, BEFORE they are a threat to the US.
If we ever reach the moment, in this day and age and with the weapons we have available now, where a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein is actually a threat to the US, we have lost. After that conflict, we won't be discussing the rights or wrongs of invading the dictator's country.
I cannot believe how anybody who has seen the pictures, who has an idea of just how many people Saddam's regime has killed and was still killing, who realises that the weapons Saddam used against the Kurds just vanished without a trace, and who has seen the changes in the middle east since the invasion, could in honesty be against the invasion and its results.
And so far it seems that all those who speak up against the invasion simply have no idea. They haven't seen the pictures, they didn't and don't know about the number of Saddam's victims, and they have an awfully relaxed attitude towards chemical weapons that seemingly vanished. Have you seen the pictures? Do you have any idea of what Saddam's regime was like? And if you do know, how can you HONESTLY be against the invasion which ultimately caused the number of deaths to drop dramatically?
If you are in America, you can be relaxed, of course. If Saddam's poison gas had resurfaced after the inspections it would have been Kurds, Israel, and Shi'ite Arabs who would have been affected at first. Not you. Others. And I do hope that in that case you would at least not be proud of what the selective peace movement (because when have they ever demonstrated against wars that were not targeted at opressive regimes) had once again done for the world.
| Leauki, I encourage you to re-evaluate your position regarding Iraq and middle-eastern policy in general. |
I look at history books and I see Jews and Kurds regularly attacked and slaughtered by Arab nationalists whenever they have the opportunity. I see countries like Iraq and Syria attacking their neighbours and groups like the PLO refusing to disarm terrorists who have vowed to destroy an established country.
I believe we have now come towards the end of the re-evaluation phase. Too many people have died. We cannot afford another re-evaluation. Something had to be done, and something had to be done before the fascists became a threat again.
Too many people have died.
And if you have a single argument for why it would have been BETTER for Saddam to continue slaughtering his population than for the US to attack, I ask you to tell me now.
But unless that argument also explains why I could have been completely secure in believing that Saddam's WMDs really didn't exist any more, that Iraq would not attack its neighbours again, and that the fate of the Iraqi people really didn't matter; then I'm afraid you won't convince me.
Too many people have died for a continuation of the "leave them in power, stability is good" experiment to make sense.
Just too many.
