“Legitimacy” is a mere notion – and an ever-changing one at that. This is one of those problems where approach seems to matter most. One person’s rational objectivity is another’s jingoistic bias.I learned that Iraq isn't a legitimate country, it's Saddam's Regime of Terror.
Don’t tell me you honestly believe that Saddam Hussein is a man who deserves to remain in power. At best, your argument revolves around (A) the fear that Bush will copy the preemption of Iraq elsewhere in the world (and in regions where he does all the calculations regardless of your personal opinion) or (B) the abject concern that our war to “liberate” the Iraqi people from one dictator (Hussein) will put them under another – and at tremendous human cost.
Both arguments are flawed. Legitimacy ends with the ability to provide for ones own defense. Iraq can no longer do so. From the realist’s point of view, Saddam Hussein’s regimé is no longer sustainable in any sense of the word. I could make a similar argument – much less brusquely – on wishy-washy legal grounds. Assuming I don’t call him out for his invasion of Kuwait, Hussein’s constant violations of United Nations mandates, systematic repression of his own people, and obvious efforts to perpetuate a brutalistic dictatorship have provided all the evidence necessary for a change of government. Again, your argument is probably centered on mistrust of the United States. You’d have preferred that this was taken care of either globally or not at all. You seem to forget that from President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair’s points of view, Hussein represents a clear, present, and eminent danger to both his own people and the immediate neighborhood of the Persian Gulf. A wrong calculation or poor move on his part – already evidenced during the Gulf War and before – could force us into war on much less favorable terms than we have even now. At least at this point in time we are prosecuting invasion at a fairly leisurely pace. Hell, the Coalition eschewed much of their “Shock & Awe” campaign as unnecessarily dangerous and wasteful. We hit Baghdad, but the damn power stations are still running at full tilt!
You seem to fear what is happening right now. It’s too expensive from your point of view. Why not let Hussein run his course, contained as he was by weapons inspectors? Because there was always the danger he might have passed weapons, information, and materials into the wrong hands -–those of Palestinian militants whose sole objective is the destruction of the State of Israel. An attack on Tel Aviv or any other point in the Holy Land could indiscriminately kill thousands or more – Arab and Jew. And then what would happen? After we traced the terrorism to its source in Baghdad a global coalition assembles only to spend up to two months trying to build up while Hussein lobbed missiles into Kuwait? We go into an Iraq fully prepared for hostilities and aware of its complete isolation from the outside world? No thank you, sir. I’ll take my bets that we killed a dictator albeit harmless. Better safe than sorry.
Now you’re going to say that’s both arrogant and ignorant. Who am I to make those sorts of determinations? You’re half right. It is arrogant. It is ignorant. But George W. Bush is legally sworn to defend the United States of America – against all enemies; foreign, and domestic. We have to take the chance that in knocking out this dictator, we do more good than harm. It’s a fair (no, excellent) bet, too. Certainly many thousands of Iraqis will fall casualty on the road to effective demolition of the current regimé. But in the end, that’s far fewer than Saddam would have annually killed. It’s far fewer than would suffer if we were forced by circumstance to enter Iraq after Israel too was burning – and that’s assuming that Sharon held out against the hardliners and didn’t launch an attack of his own in response.
That’s a load of bullshit and you know it. Like it or not, we’re solving a huge problem for the Iraqi people. I’ll go so far as to say that even an American dictator – which I’m convinced would never be installed anyway – were to come into power, it would still be better as far as the Iraqi people are concerned than life under Hussein and his spawn.I learned that the only Tradegies that occur in this country - sorry, this Corrupt Regime - befall American soldiers.
Why would you feel bitter over their characterization as henchmen? You’re trying to make my president out as some kind of fascist totalitarian.I learned that Saddam doesn't have co-workers, he has henchmen.
It is when that family has slaughtered hundreds – no, tens of thousands – of Iraqis and must be watched carefully as a result of near-total control over the Ba’ath Party apparatus.I learned that the habits of a dictator's family is a very relevant topic when discussing a war.
That’s bullshit and you know it. We aren’t attacking them because they’re Muslim. Now you’re just grandstanding and trying to wax philosophic for the benefit of your readers.I learned that a sudden crippling attack upon a country is easily justified - just check to see if the population wears towels on their heads.
If we can do so much and are bound by so little, why the effort to go through the United Nations? Why the agonizing months spent watching U.N. weapons inspectors deny their original mandate in order to go about and try to handle disarmament all on their own? The United States apparently tolerates quite a lot and acts distinctly out-of-character for a brutal, dictatorial regimé.The world has the right to be afraid. We now know, once again, what a superpower can do, when it controls everything and has all the cards. As any sovereign nation, let's not forget that annexation and subjugation are just a rhetorical slogan away.
It’s why we brushed the North Koreans away and fired missiles at Paris, right?If the US wants to do something, they can just reach out and squash anyone in the way.
And you think any other government throughout the world is particularly interested in the safety of America outside fears that a blow to us is a blow to them by financial extension? Some cried over September 11th. Some wept. Some smiled bitterly. Not always was it out of pity, sympathy, or sadness.The US doesn't, as a whole, care about the rest of the world. The life of an American is worth more than a thousand civilians from any other country. Europe, to the US, is a monolithic entity that has a single opinion on all matters.
We care about the rest of the world. It’s why we’ve increased foreign aid and maintained our ties to Afghanistan even now that the Taliban is gone. It’s why we keep the power on in Baghdad despite the fact that it helps Hussein’s men pose a larger threat. It’s why we tried so hard in Somalia despite the fact that they dragged the men who fed them through the streets, dead and disrobed. We might not have listened to global opinion this one particular time, but that’s because we felt global opinion hadn’t taken into account very private fears that were in this case all our own.
Attacking a country isn’t a crime. It’s upsetting and unfortunate but hardly criminal no matter what giant debating societies such as the United Nations manage to say. This is especially true when you’re dealing with a man who runs a crackpot dictatorship that daily puts millions of people – his and yours both – on the brink of disaster. Supplying terrorists is bad. But so was militant Communism. At the time in which we dealt with Hussein, he was the lesser of so many other evils. At first it seemed as if he was doing things right, too. Schooling for women. Infrastructure and wealth in Iraq. Healthy doses of intellectual freedom all around. We didn’t make such a bad choice, it seemed, until 1991 or so. Then things became a bit different and we settled into a new role. But who is worse? The one who gave the push and later tried to stop it, or the one who let the ball keep rolling? Concentration camps are abominations. But I don’t see people being gassed or shot to death in the United States or Europe. Do you? Again, grandstanding for the sake of appearances.Attacking another country is the worst crime imaginable - unless you happen to think said country is starting to entertain thoughts of building weapons equal to your own. Supplying terrorists is bad, unless it happened a few years ago. Concentration camps are abominations, and never happened in the US.
That reminds me of a story, too. A Cuban was seen in Havana during a protest outside Guantanamo Bay not so long ago. His sign? “Yankee Go Home … And Take Me With You!” We’re not so bad after all. In Iraq, thousands die to get out. In Europe and the United States, we hear almost weekly of how people have literally died attempting to get in.And all that it reminds me of is a story a friend of mine told me some weeks ago. A swedish guy encounters a really obnoxious guy from the US while on a visit to Japan. They end up verbally assaulting each other, and finally the American, dazed and desperate for any victory, blurts out his compelling argument. "Hey, didn't we beat you guys in World War Two!?"
