02-28-2004, 06:46 AM
Blindness is also following vague conspiracy theories. While I dont support the war, some of the suggestions being thrown around are ridiculous, likening GWB to a scheming cartoonish megavillain trying to build a magnet to evaporate the world's leaders.
Any probable political intent for the war is more domestic than the oversimplified reason "oil." We have good relations with OPEC right now, and the presend administration is more interested in tapping into the untouched oil reserves northwest than importing more foreign oil.
The war extends from a number of reasons:
1) A preexisting desire to remove Saddam Hussein.
2) Genuine assumptions of evidence made from vague intelligence.
The rest, no matter how likely, are only theories. The Bay of Tonka fallacy was exposed over a decade after the Vietnam war. Whatever truth remains will be exposed in time, but only in time.
Another thing to recall is that the war is, or at least was a popular one. At its start there was a 70% favor to it, and congress approved with an even higher percentage. And even though that has dropped in the following months, to back out of Iraq now would be a bigger sin than starting the war. What's done has been done, and the only option now is to stay in Iraq, ensure that the new government is stable and slowly back out.
As for humanitarian issues, yes, it's sad. But I can't blame the military, they've fought a textbook war avoiding civilian casuaties as best as humanly possible. Given a clear situation, it has not been the army's objective to kill civilians as a display of power, in fact, not to kill civilians at all.
Think of the situation this way. A child stumbles upon his father's gun and kills himself. To one side of the spectrum, while terrible, it was unintentional. Therefore the fault lies in coincidence, and is unavoidable. This is how accidents happen but it is not the parent's fault for owning the gun. After all, the odds were completely against it, and if the parents did something to aggrevate the situation, such as leave the safety lock off, only then does it become their fault.
On the other side you have people who say that the mere ownership of the gun made the accident possible.
And here you have the political divide of ethics of war. Civilians die in wars, you can't throw artillery around without it happening. But depending on who you are, you see it as the direct consequence of the decision to go to war or as a terrible accident. The current administration sees it one way. You may or may not see it the other. This does not make the bad people, but in my perspectve it makes them bad leaders, which I settle with my vote, not with extremely negative accusations.
Any probable political intent for the war is more domestic than the oversimplified reason "oil." We have good relations with OPEC right now, and the presend administration is more interested in tapping into the untouched oil reserves northwest than importing more foreign oil.
The war extends from a number of reasons:
1) A preexisting desire to remove Saddam Hussein.
2) Genuine assumptions of evidence made from vague intelligence.
The rest, no matter how likely, are only theories. The Bay of Tonka fallacy was exposed over a decade after the Vietnam war. Whatever truth remains will be exposed in time, but only in time.
Another thing to recall is that the war is, or at least was a popular one. At its start there was a 70% favor to it, and congress approved with an even higher percentage. And even though that has dropped in the following months, to back out of Iraq now would be a bigger sin than starting the war. What's done has been done, and the only option now is to stay in Iraq, ensure that the new government is stable and slowly back out.
As for humanitarian issues, yes, it's sad. But I can't blame the military, they've fought a textbook war avoiding civilian casuaties as best as humanly possible. Given a clear situation, it has not been the army's objective to kill civilians as a display of power, in fact, not to kill civilians at all.
Think of the situation this way. A child stumbles upon his father's gun and kills himself. To one side of the spectrum, while terrible, it was unintentional. Therefore the fault lies in coincidence, and is unavoidable. This is how accidents happen but it is not the parent's fault for owning the gun. After all, the odds were completely against it, and if the parents did something to aggrevate the situation, such as leave the safety lock off, only then does it become their fault.
On the other side you have people who say that the mere ownership of the gun made the accident possible.
And here you have the political divide of ethics of war. Civilians die in wars, you can't throw artillery around without it happening. But depending on who you are, you see it as the direct consequence of the decision to go to war or as a terrible accident. The current administration sees it one way. You may or may not see it the other. This does not make the bad people, but in my perspectve it makes them bad leaders, which I settle with my vote, not with extremely negative accusations.
i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry