Name me one war since World War II, excepting possibly Afghanistan, that was not pre-emptive. This is nothing new.
Grenada might qualify, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. "We's gonna kill 'im 'cause we think he'll try to kill us later" isn't a
legitimate basis for the initiation of force, on any level. Does legitimacy matter in the world nowadays? The American public doesn't seem to think so. But I do.
There is significant evidence that Iraq was the state sponsor of the first WTC bombing
Yet, that was never used as a justification for action
now. I agree that Hussein was a bad guy, and I think he should have been taken out of power. I just think it should have been a Kurd or a Shiite with a scoped '50 cal that should have done it, rather than 3d ID. The former have clear cause to take him out. We don't, and we're still trying to justify the action.
Hussein is an animal whose sole purpose in life is/was to hurt the US in the most destructive way possible.
I'd say that Hussein is a thug whose sole purpose was to increase his (and his family's) personal power. Al lof his actions seem based on increasing his personal standing, including calling himself an ally of the US back when Iran was higher on our list of enemies.
OBL -- you may be closer. But I haven't seen Hussein's actions as anti-US so much as pro-Hussein.
Since Gulf War I he has lived for nothing else...
I understand that you believe that, but
belief doesn't equal
justification to start a war; at least, not since the early part of the last century.
He was on the verge of aquiring the means.
That's the claim we've been hearing, and I have 2 issues with it:
- It's hypocritical for the US to take the stand that development of technology that we and our allies possess (and have no intention of eliminating) is justification for us to invade and assume control of another nation.
- Our leaders were "100% sure" he had these weapons, and we were assured they knew exactly where they were. Now, it's a stretch to come up with any convincing collaborating evidence. I think the credibility of those claims is in question.
To justify Hussein's WMD programs because we have them is what I'd have to call more than a little superficial.
Let me try a different justification:
- Many believe that man's future lies in space -- that until we get off this particular planet and begin to colonize others, out potential as a race will remain unrealized.
- Chemical fuels like we've been using up until this point aren't effective for such colonization efforts. They don't have enough energy per unit weight.
- Nuclear power is the most powerful, compact energy source we have. We can use it reliably for power generation, but its use as a propulsion system is as yet theoretical.
- If nuclear propulsion is ever going to become a reality, research will need to be done on it. The US and its allies have shown no interest in such research, which means that someone else is going to have to do it. This can be a private corporation, or another nation, or (most likely) someone like China who has a less-than-favorable view of our nation.
- Limiting research of nuclear technology is going to keep us "grounded," as it were, and strikes me as similar to the feudal Japanese approach of outlawing firearms in order to keep Samurai the top ranking class in society. That policy didn't work out so well in the long run, either.
And that's avoiding the basic ethical issue: are nuclear/bio/chemical weapons so powerful and destabilizing that they must be outlawed on a global scale? If so, we have no right to maintain our stockpiles; if not, then we have no right to limit the access to them to other nations. Research into nukes means less money dumped into economic development, so it's a trade-off few would make...
Trying to justify your sitting by and doing nothing while someone cocks the hammer on the pistol pointed at your head is more to the point.
If it's as simple as looking over your shoulder and seeing a gun aimed in your direction, then that's correct. In this case, however all we have is the
assertion of our administration that such a gun exists, and that it
might be aimed in our direction. To date, they've refused to support this assertion with any objective, provable
facts.
They're running out of excuses for providing proof, so some of us are assuming there's some
other reason for going to war. Seems to be a reasonable assumption, if you're at all cynical about government based on our past experiences.
Hussein tried to assasinate an American President. Why is this laughed off? Yes, it was GW's father. So what? He was still a president of this nation, and that is an act of war, last time I checked.
Actually, he was a civilian consultant at the time, but that doesn't matter much. Bush would have (more of) my support if he stepped up to the mike and said "I ain't gonna tolerate that sort of behavior -- first off, it was my daddy, and second, it creates friction in leaders by exposing them to unfair risks for doing their jobs. I will see to it that
any state that supports assassination is toppled, whether the rest of the world agrees with me or not."
No problem there, dude. But two problems surrounding it: this
wasn't used as justification for the war effort, and taking such a stand would put the government of Israel in our crosshairs.
Lord knows we
can't drop our support of Israel, even when our support of them, Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Shah in Iran, and others is what's caused such intense hatred of us in the middle east in the first place...
We were fully justified in our correct and proper action. It is a good thing on so many levels it is almost impossible to understand how the war has the opposition it does.
Believe me when I say some of us feel we're being lied to, and that there's a whole lot going on behind the scenes. This implies that what's going on is something we wouldn't agree with and support, hence the secrecy.
About the rest of your list, Derek, try replacing 'or' with 'and' and see how it sits.
It still doesn't add up to enough in my book. Sorry.
