So I have to ask the question.
How are the actions of the United States in crushing Iraq (ostensibly to destroy the threat of an attack on the US homeland with WOMD) any different than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (to destroy the threat posed to the growing Japanese Empire by the US Pacific Fleet) or Hitler's attack on Poland (ostensibly to retaliate against attacks on German border posts)?
All were self-aggrandizing. Arguably, the actions of the Japanese are the most defensible. How does that make us feel? History will, at this early juncture, most likely judge the Bush administration very harshly for its either failure of intelligence assessment or its culpability in ignoring its own
intelligence estimates in order to further the misguided policy of regime change in Iraq.
The latest data seems to show that the US was wholly unjustified in portraying Sadaam as an imminent threat to the US and, if this is true, how are we any different from any other agressor in history? Because our hearts are pure?
I'm sure that's what Hitler's stormtroopers thought when they ran rough-shod over Poland.
I just woke up pissed off over these young men dying at an ever-increasing rate in Iraq and we still haven't killed or captured Osaama. We're spending our energies in the wrong place, pissing off the entire Muslim world and helping Al-Qaeda recruiting, and embroiling ourself in this quagmire of trying to "rebuild" a country we just laid waste to for a people who are coming to hate us.
What's the sense in this?
Posted by artandscience at January 29, 2004 09:14 AMWatch out - you don't want to be labeled Anti-American, do ya? ;-)
I hope you're right (and think you are) on the note that history will remember Mr. Bush as an irrational man. The problem is that right now, about 50% of the population thinks he is doing fine.
People don't seem to want to take a step back and think about history or the big picture. They label Bush as a force of "Good" and Saddam as a force of "Evil" - all based on his rhetoric.
Posted by: Michael Gorsuch at January 29, 2004 09:35 AMJust to add a little more - DailyKOS has an article over the same subject. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/29/17733/6012
Posted by: Michael Gorsuch at January 29, 2004 09:50 AMThanks for the pointer to the dailykos story. Quite illuminating.
Here are a couple of more articles that I've found on the whole topic of "preemptive war":
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7458
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/washington_lawyer/january_2003/war.cfm
http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper2.htm
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_bush-war-doctrine.htm
I find it interesting, and not a little perturbing, that the mainstream press (radio and news) still hasn't questioned this whole idea that we can just destroy a country because we suspect that it might be a threat to us. While in some circumstances I think this might be justified have we not violated international law by our actions and why would the President and his cabinet not be liable in the Hague? (Other than the US is the sole remaining superpower and can flaut international law at will).
Posted by: stefan fielding-isaacs at January 29, 2004 03:58 PMThank you for this analysis. I think it abhorrent that the US has destroyed Iraq as part of a pre-emptive stike strategy. Since Iraq has never attacked the US, it is immoral to attack them.
Posted by: Six Foot Pole at April 27, 2004 03:55 PM