|
Contributor: dsteve3
Date: 2003-01-24 11:07:31
There is a huge difference between Hitler and Hussein. Its the difference between '30's Germany and '90's Iraq.
The people of Iraq have sufferred enough. Hussein deserves to be removed, granted, but twelve years of withering embargo, combined with regular bombings (you are niave if you think we have only bombed 'military targets' - look into what happenned in Yugoslavia).
The bottom line is there is no process we can trust. We have not done a thorough job in Afghanistan - the warlords are as much a menace today as they were years ago. Iraq is in far worse condition. Ethnic rivalry will shred the nation, Turkey is feeling very threatened by the Kurdish population, and the infrastructure of the nation is in as bad condition, considering the importance of their oil reserves.
In '91, we kicked one dictator out of Kuwait to be replaced by another, the emir. The propaganda employed (lies about throwing babies out of incubators) convinced us we were 'just'. Considering the profits Halliburton made through Cheney's connections, its obvious that we cannot control conflict of interest.
Given these facts, war is not an option. What is? This is extremely important, but it does not validate war.
Yet if we can intimidate Hussein to the extent we have (the war posturing by Pres. Bush has been a great motivator), how far can this be taken. It would be just as expensive to occupy Iraq as it would be to intimidate them into allowing opposition, freedom of the press, and open, monitored elections.
The really difficult part is monitoring our own actions. We failed the Serbian people in a dismal display of economic manipulation. We can't trust ourselves! How do we cast judgement, no matter how obvious or cruel, when we can't even control our own rampaging greed?
Reply to this message
|
