Re: 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: Wed 2003-07-30 00:16:19
Author: Occam
Subject: Re: On what conditions would you have accepted any attack on Iraq?
In reply to: Redeye 's message, "On what conditions would you have accepted any attack on Iraq?" on Fri 2003-06-06 20:04:03

I'm fascinated by the three generally stated reasons that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq. 1) They were suspected of having WMD, 2) Their government was destructive to their citizens, and 3) They were a threat to the neighboring contries.

Let's say I accept the conclusion that any one of those reasons was enough justification to invade a country. Then aren't there about a dozen nations that have nuclear, nerve gas, and/or biological agent capability? For example, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Japan, N. Korea, the Ukraine and other parts of the former U.S.S.R., India, Pakistan, Italy, Canada - just to name the most obvious.

And, aren't there well over a dozen nations that treat their citizens extremely badly?

And, there are certainly a number of nations such as Iran, Pakistan, N. Korea, Syria, India, Israel, Nigeria, etc. who are a threat to their neighbors.

If we also accept the premise (which I find bizarre) that it is our job, rather than the U.N.'s, to invade, why pick Iraq. Shouldn't we have invaded all of them?

Since the U.S. singled out Iraq, where we now know (and the administration knew before the invasion) had no WMD, it just seems unreasonable that these were the reasons for the invasion.

And of course, Bush's reluctance to send troops to Liberia where the citizens are pleading for us to intervene (however no oil fields) further weakens their argument for invading Iraq.

So under what conditions would I accept an attack?
1) That a really strong argument be made proving that we have the job of being the world's policeman.
2) That the adminstration prove, similarly, that the U.N. is not the proper organization to handle these problems.
3) That we make a list of all the countries above and the rest who are guilty of one of the invasion causes, put them on a roulette wheel and spin it so we choose them by chance.

Occam

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