Tread lightly on the things of earth

Browse weblog by category:

Comments

1. “For what?”
   
   The Middle East and the Arab/Islamic world had fallen into a dangerously dysfunctional pattern of greedy, bloodthirsty dictators running countries until such time as there was an uprising, but an uprising rooted in religious fanaticism, led by Jacobin-style mullahs who are at war with the 21st Century. This was eventually going to happen in Iraq, which is a big, powerful and wealthy country. The US and its coalition toppled Saddam, but is now staying on the ground in Iraq, rather than cutting & running, to ensure that a lawful, democratic, constitutional, multiparty, multiethnic form of government can be in place. Only through the existence of such a government can the basic human rights of ALL Iraqis be guaranteed, and ultimately peace in the region depends on this. It’s a difficult challenge, but it had to start somewhere. Bush has never been my cup of tea, but I give him credit for taking this step, instead of following the lead of his predecessors in accomodating our country to brutal dictators. He has finally put the US on the right side of a critical moral, human rights debate.
   
   “For whom?”
   
   For millions of Iraqis whose lives were in constant danger while Hussein ruled over them. For millions of Iraqis who now face sudden, absurd death caused by the so-called ‘insurgents,’ who are, objectively viewed, nothing more than death squads.
   
   Are not the people of Iraq also children of God? And if they are helpless to protect themselves against a war of thug vs. thug, is it not honorable, moral and just that we, as the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth, sacrifice a little to help them?
   
   It is appropriate to grieve and to rage at the 2,000 US military deaths, as well as the many civilian deaths in Iraq. But your tone seems to suggest that the U.S. is at fault for these deaths. You seem intelligent. You must realize that, if the US weren’t there, many many more Iraqi civilian deaths would have taken place by this time as a result of a civil war. Unless you believe that Hussein should have been left in place, in which case certainly by now at least 10,000 additional Iraqis would be dead at the hands of his government. You don’t seem like a “realpolitik” kind of guy who thinks dictators, while dismaying, are good for stability. That would be, of course, an immoral position.
   
   It would be nice to think there was a solution out there to the horrific situation that Iraq has found itself in for the past 30 years that would cost no one anything. But what’s nice to dream about doesn’t often come to us in reality, so choices have to be made between/among terrible options. The choice our government has made is, I believe, the only morally acceptable choice, even though it has had many unwanted, horrific and tragic consequences. If you think you know of a different path the world could have taken with a Iraq that would have left the country a better place, please enlighten us.

   — dzzrtRatt    Friday October 28, 2005    #

2. dzzrtRatt, the “only morally acceptable choice”? No. The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the most brazenly immoral act I have ever witnessed. Not because it’s worse in degree than other bloody debacles like Vietnam, but because it was done with specific malice aforethought, by men drunk on power, arrogance, and greed.
   
   Why defend the indefensible?
   
   Your intellectualizing is rationalization. You have missed discerning right from wrong. You have chosen death over life, violence over peace, arrogance over humility. These choices always lead to grief.
   
   You have also chosen to post anonymously. That choice implies your comment is propaganda in intent as well as, I judge, in content.

   — Mike    Friday October 28, 2005    #