On what conditions would you have accepted any attack on Iraq? -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Fri 2003-06-06 20:04:03
Author: Redeye
Subject: On what conditions would you have accepted any attack on Iraq?

If Iraq had had WMD, I would've accepted an attack provided that it was a special-ops operation involving the assassination of Saddam, maybe along with a few other important officials like his sons; more importantly, the attack also would've needed safeguards to ensure that the new regime wouldn't use the WMD, which probably meant that the USA would've had to install a stable, democratic regime. This would've been the safest way to both end the threat of WMD and liberate Iraq, with liberate meaning truly democratize rather than Bush-speak for "invade and conquer."

Given that Iraq almost certainly had no WMD, I think that a slow process of democratization could've worked best, with Saddam being removed only when it was certain that the new regime would be a) more popular, and b) more democratic. In any case, I fail to see any reason to bomb people into liberation, even as a last resort. A war of liberation is fought for the good of the people of the other country, but that contradicts the idea of bombing/attacking/invading it.

What do you think?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: On what conditions would you have accepted any attack on Iraq? -- thatnorthernbloke, Sat 2003-06-07 08:16:55
- WMD and Napoleon -- Redeye, Sat 2003-06-07 09:48:48
My view is somewhat different.... -- Robert, Sun 2003-06-08 15:09:51
Re: On what conditions would you have accepted any attack on Iraq? -- Occam, Wed 2003-07-30 00:16:19