Headless Thompson Gunner said:
This is so far removed from reality that I don't know where to start. Let's see...
I truly believe in my heart of hearts that regime change in Iraq is/was important to our own security and best interests.
Really? I can think of all sorts of countries in the world where changing the regime might be a good thing too. When do we start on the rest?
There was no need to "cook the books", intentionally or otherwise.
Saddam Hussein attacked Iran (which we liked). He attacked Kuweit (which we didn't like).
So, we didn't like it. Lots of injustices happen in the world that I don't like. The question regards the wisdom of a foreign policy of attacking every nation that perpetrates injustice in the world. This is a formula for perpetual war abroad and certain tyranny at home.
During Gulf War I, he attacked Israel (who was being scrupulously neutral).
And, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we found ourselves at war, not only with the Japanese, but with their
allies too. Israel was our ally and protectorate, and therefor arguably became fair game when we waged war against Iraq.
After Gulf War I, Saddam regularly attacked American forces.
Oh really? So, he sent his fighters to the United States and attacked our forces? Oh, you mean our forces that were flying missions over Iraq's air space?
He's turned his army against his own people.
Yes, he was a harsh tyrant, but that's not our problem. The world is full of harsh tyrants. Shall we slay them all? Is that the Federal Government's Constitutional mandate, to go about the globe seeking dragons to slay?
He's turned his police and civil forces against his own people.
Same response.
He's used his covert agents to attack an American President.
You'll have to pardon my ignorance here. Please provide the documentation for this.
He's paid off third parties who attacked civilians he didn't like.
And were they American civilians?
About the only thing you can count on from Saddam Hussein is murder, aggression, and death. (And rape, and torture, and bribery, and intimidation, and...)
Yes, and how does that justify committing our nation to war against his nation. Traditionally, republics are involved in wars only when attacked. It is only empires that wage war for the purpose of regime change. Those damned Carthaginians were breathing down the necks of Rome, so they found a nice excuse for a regime change in Sicily. Something, as I recall, to do with political instability is Sicily, a Punic possession, which Rome felt the need to stabilize using its military. Sound familiar?
Nukes over American cities? We know that Saddam persued nuclear weapons.
And this distinguishes them from us how?
We know that he favored mass murder of civillians (especially by means of WMD).
Ever hear of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, General Sherman's total war policy against Southern secession, the Indian wars?
We know that he was willing to deploy his covert operatives in the U.S.
That's shameful. We would never stoop to planting covert operatives within someone else's country, now would we?
We know he has a strong penchant for bloodshed.
No. That's terrible. None of our leaders has ever had one of those, I guess.
We know he hates the U.S. with a passion.
That's a mighty large club he belonged to, and its membership is growing by leaps and bounds every day, it seems.
Is it really that hard to believe that nukes in U.S. cities were a definite possibilty?
All kinds of things are a definite possibility.
Before 9-11, nobody could have imagined thousands of Americans being murdered at work one day, yet it still happened.
Those responsible for that act of war were properly responded to in Afghanistan. Don't tell me that you believe Sadam was behind that.
Even now, it's equally hard to imagine a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. But again, that doesn't mean that it can't/won't happen.
Ok, so let's start a policy of regime change in all nations with nuclear weapons who are not our allies.
In your heart of hearts, do you really think this was an acceptible risk to take?
In a world where most advanced nations feel the need to arm themselves against attacks by super powers, we really have no choice but to accept the risk that this entails. The only alternative is total world war, or war against them all, one at a time. I prefer peace, unless attacked. That usually works pretty well. The alternative is perpetual war and tyranny.
To me, insanity is believing we shouldn't protect ourselves from these threats.
To protect themselves, peaceful nations maintain the ability to wage war if attacked.
