Would you have supported the war in Iraq if...

[skypilot]

...the Bush administration had sold it to us as a humanitarian mission and if we'd gotten UN support? I'm asking because Al Franken and Lila Lipscomb were just discussing that and saying that they'd have supported the war under those conditions. I'm a bit ambivalent. I think things probably would have gone better in Iraq under those conditions but I still think that the mission would have been a diversion from the war on international terrorism. Selling the war as a humanitarian mission and getting UN support would still not have changed the fact the Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Your thoughts?

[Jack_Dawson]

1. I would have felt better about not being lied to

[Kanary]

2. WAR as "humanitarian mission"

Orewellian doublespeak.........

I give up.......

Kanary

[ThirdWheelLegend]

22. my thoughts exactly

TWL

[russian33]

3. Only with support of UN.

They can talk the humanitarian talk as much as they want, but the fact remains that there are other dictators out there. But if they used that as a reason, and UN gave their OK...well, fine. But you can't switch horses half way, and you can't pick the 'good' dictators vs 'bad' dictators.

[TrustingDog]

4. humanitarian war is an oxymoron.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

5. In time, yes, the support would have been there... but NOT

... when our resolve and effort should have been on al-Qaeda and governments that WERE supporting them.

Turn the question around, in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq, if he'd suggested going to war with Iraq then (for humanitarian as well as threatening ex-prez GB), what do you think the reaction would have been from the public, especially that of the emerging neo-con establishments?

[wuushew]

19. Going to war other than for defensive reasons is illegal

Kosovo was illegal and the many African situations that needed urgent international attention during the Clinton era would also have been illegal. If there is truly is a broad consensus on what constitutes "human rights" then it should be relatively easy to amend international law to allow violation of sovereignty in cases of genocide. The only way this would not work is if the majority of U.N. member nations and or the security counsel members are in fact brutal repressive regimes.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

26. I agree philosophically.....

.. but sometimes reality bites us when we least expect it.

However, no matter how strong of an opinion I personally may have FOR humanitarian 'wars', I'd welcome your stance & opinion to keep a true perspective on the matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. I think that specifically for genocide it would be allowed already

Article 8 of the convention on Genocide:

"Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3."

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html#Article%208

which would mean the Security Council - if they declared a situation to be genocide, and agreed that force was needed to stop it, I think that would fit into the United Nations charter.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. No

You don't kill 1000s of people for humanitarian reasons. There was no ethnic cleansing going on. So no, it was not a just war under any circumstances.

[Just Me]

7. No, because I knew of PNAC (which has nothing to do with,...

,...humanitarian motivations but rather everything to do with imperialist endeavors).

[niyad]

8. still would not have supported it, since we know that, whatever

justification they used, the real reason remains oil and a new american imperialism.

[Warpy]

9. No, wars are generally bad ideas unless they're defensive.

After all, just look at Hussein. That old boy isn't long for this world. Likely the Iraqis themselves would have revolted had he died and Uday or Qusay tried to take power. At that point, it would have been a humanitarian issue, and the UN would have had a clear mission.

Wars are expensive, messy, kill too many good people before their time, and generally set up resentments which will cause the next war to occur. Undoubtedly the US will be paying for this one in many unexpected ways for many decades.

The few places I might support armed UN intervention seem to be places which are very low priority in the world Rwanda would have been one. The Sudan is another.

Hussein was scum, but by most criteria, Iraq shouldn't hae been on anybody's radar.

[GreenArrow]

10. no

trumped up bullshit in every particular.

[denverbill]

11. I've said so all along.

The US does not have the moral authority to decide which govts in the world are good and which are bad enough to be forcibly changed.

If the US had gotten the Security Council, or even an overwhelming majority of the world's major democracies, to embrace his decision that Saddam needed to be deposed because he was evil, then I'm all for it.

Lacking that moral authority, in the eyes of most of the world, and Iraqis in particular, we are little better than occupiers supporting a US puppet govt.

[Kanary]

12. It's obvious from the support for war for "the right reasons"

being spoken here today, that we are now in for generation after generation of war.

I hope you're ready to sacrifice your children, and your grandchildren.

I'm sick.

Kanary

[skypilot]

17. Who are you talking about?

Most of the posters on this thread say NO, they would NOT support the war.

[Kanary]

21. "only with support of UN" "in time, yes", others.....

that this is even debated is amazing......

[redqueen]

27. Do you really think it's amazing?

I'm not surprised one bit. As some neocon said, 'we are a warlike people', 'we love war'

War is the only answer, don't you see? It's much much easier than preventive measures, because... well... oh hell why not just be honest -- because war is good for the economy!

:puke:

[Toucano]

13. Hell, no!

The humanitarian crisis was caused by the sanctions, not Saddam.

Saddam would have let the inspectors in if we turned off the UN sanctions (before UN Res. 1441). That should have been the deal.

When they finally got there, Blix said they were cooperating adequately. Let the inspectors work (they'd have found no evidence of WMD's) and let the people get the food and medicine they needed.

[TrustingDog]

25. could have had 130,000 inspectors there right now...

and for how long before the Bush war-chest billions ran out - with no dead soldiers and iraqi's.

I feel like puking, again.

Guess the only way this could have happened is if Halliburton and the rest got a sweet $ cut on the deal. Raytheon gets paid millions to Not use their inventory of deathmakers, etc....

Seems so freakin hopeless sometimes, really depressing.

[Toucano]

72. You're so right.

It's beyond sickening the way this "crisis" was handled.

[Cat Atomic]

14. Absolutely not. I would've supported the lifting of sanctions, though.

If it weren't for the sanctions, Hussein might've been deposed by internal forces. Strife leads the public to cling to their leaders for safety... as Bush well knows.

[Terran]

15. You answer your own question

The fact that they had to "sell it" as *anything* means that there's an underlying reason that they're not willing to admit to--control of oil, PNAC agenda, whatever. So, HELL no I would not have supported it under those conditions because I know what a bunch of lying bastards these people are. I knew it then and I know it now, and events have only served to prove that they are what I've said they are.

And frankly I'm surprised that Franken would be so naive as to say he would support such a thing under those 'conditions'.

[skypilot]

23. Al Franken and Lila Lipscomb are...

...the main reason I started this thread. I was also suprised to hear them say they'd have supported the war. I never supported it either but at the same time I was happy that the Iraqis no longer had to suffer under Saddam and I think they'd be suffering a lot less NOW if things had been done different.

[Commendatori]

16. UN support would have not done a thing for me.

I'm against it the war in either case, and I don't believe in interfering with another country's sovereignity just for humanitarian causes.

I'll be honest, I think the UN is a joke (the idea behind it is good, but its current form is laughable), so they wouldn't sway me anyway, but the only way I'd approve of this war would have been evidence of Iraq being involved in 9/11. In that case, I'd approve of it whether the UN did or not.

Under no other circumstances would I approve of this war, especially the current ones.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. Destroy the village in order to save it?

No, I couldn't get behind anything like that.

[patricia92243]

20. "Humanitarian" wars would NEVER,EVER stop. Who next? China? They have...

slave labor, Korea, they suppress their people - etc. etc. it just cannot be done. War needs to be to protect ouselves - period. I just wish we would get back to war on the people who attacked us.

I guess it will take another president to do that.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

28. It's good being the King......

... good thing we never worry that France is going to go to war with US because of our stance on the death penalty!

[Wind Dancer]

24. Absolutely not!

There is no justification for invading Iraq, none. The UN would never have approved it.

[redqueen]

30. They didn't approve of Kosovo either

but that was acceptable to most on this board.

[left is right]

40. In Kosovo there was clear evidence of genocide.

The world made a solemn promise to itself at the end of WWII "never again" Never again would it sit quietly by and let the horrors of genocide happen again. (Yes, we broke that promise in Rwanda and now again in the Sudan.) NATO had sanctioned armed pressure on Kosovo even if the UN had not. So, there was a true coalition to invade.
And besides, I never once believed that Clinton had ulterior motives that had more to do with making Haliburton and the Carlyle group rich than a flimsy humanitarian excuse that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

[wuushew]

44. Why didn't we give diplomacy with Serbia more time?

Did we exhaust all options with Serbia's ally Russia? Did we offer to put peacekeeping troops in Kosovo the same as we did in Macedonia before we started dropping bombs? Did we push the Kosovars to seek recognition of independence through international bodies?

The problem was that armed Albanian men coming out of mountains were causing problems in quite a few areas. The Serb response unfortunately involved mistreating the local and innocent civilian population. However can you honestly tell me that the United States exhausted all possible avenues of resolution in this matter? If anything Clinton's action gave a false leg of support for W's brand of cowboy diplomacy.

[redqueen]

49. Interesting details here

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm

[wuushew]

51. Thanks for the link

Definitely a good read.

I think in our zeal to defend Clinton we overlook some very questionable aspects of his foreign policy. NATO needs to be disbanded post haste.

[redqueen]

54. My pleasure

I wish more knew the details of the Rambouillet agreement, and what we were up to with the KLA. Not much different than arming the Mujahideen. Possibly (certainly?) worse, actually.

[RebelOne]

29. No, I would not have supported the war

under any conditions. Even if he had sold it as a humanitarian mission, I would have still known he was lying.

[Jim Warren]

31. No to war

The best way we can export democracy is to have a working model here first.

[Seabiscuit]

32. No way!

It would still be a violation of the U.N. Charter as a war of aggression rather than a war of defense.

The U.N. inspectors were prevented by Bush from completing their job, because they found nothing, and Bush didn't like hearing that.

The fact is Iraq posed absolutely no threat to anyone, and had been contained by the U.N. sanctions and the no-fly zones for many years.

The question is premised on an absurd assumption. If the U.N. sanctioned such a war I would opposed it as a violation of the U.N. Charter - and with Kofi Annan there, I can't possibly imagine such a scenario as the one proposed.

As for "humanitarian" wars, what about those million people starving/dying in Africa? The U.N. could do something about that, if Dubya supported it, but he never would as it's not part of the PNAC agenda, so the U.S. would undoubtedly exercise its veto power on the Security Council if such a resolution came before it at the U.N.

The "humanitarian" war claim re: Iraq is nothing more than a sick excuse to attempt to justify after-the-fact an illegal and immoral imperialist war of aggression for oil profits based on a pack of vile lies.

[IrateCitizen]

33. No, because it wasn't a viable humanitarian mission

As Jimmy Carter said, "War is a necessary evil. That means that at some times it is necessary, but we must not fool ourselves into believing that it is not evil, because it always is."

I fully realize that Saddam was a horrible tyrant, but I don't in any way think that he warranted unleashing the brute force of war, with all its inhumanity and uncertainties, on the people of Iraq and the young men and women of America's armed forces.

I've always liked Al Franken, but I also see this kind of statement as proof that he's really more of a slightly left-of-center Democrat, and isn't too much of a progressive -- not that there's anything wrong with that in and of itself, it's just an observation.

[TWiley]

34. I would have said YES under President Clinton

But HELL NO to gwb. The problem with shrub head is that if his lips are moving ......... then the a-hole is lying.

I would have assumed he was only out to steal the oil, and the rest was lies.

[TankLV]

35. NO

nt

[Jokinomx]

36. Nope..... I wouldn't have supported an invasion.....

If the U.N. authorized the need of force to quell genocide... such is happening in Sudan.... I may go along with that.... we sat with our thumbs up our asses while the Rwandan government hacked to death thousands upon thousands of men, women and children during the Clinton years. Clinton even admitted that a group of 5000 soldiers could have saved 500,000 people.

The ONLY reason we are in Iraq is for oil... and the fact that they couldn't fight back. We don't attack countries that may actually be able to defend themselves such as N. Korea.... just countries like... Granada... Panama and Iraq....

[Zorra]

37. I wouldn't buy it, and neither would the UN.

The UN knows full well about the PNAC, too. Regardless of WMD, the outcome in Iraq would be the same no matter what reason given for invading Iraq. So, even if the UN knew that there was no WMD, they could have supported the war for "humanitarian" reasons alone, and sanctioned it because the war would still have the same "humanitarian" result.

No one in their right mind would ever believe that George W. Bu$h and the neocons would go to war for "humanitarian" reasons. Follow the money. It leaves a bloody trail.

Here are some (warning)graphic images of mutilated and dead people resulting from Bu$h's "humanitarian" mission.

http://www.thefourreasons.org/victimsofwar.htm

An Army Of One (Flash)

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html


Financial Cost Of War: US

http://costofwar.com/

The Change (Flash)

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/change.html

Occupation of Iraq (Flash)

http://www.bushflash.com/year.html

Bloody Hands (Flash)

http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html

DK on Depleted Uranium (Flash)

http://www.kucinich.us/dkdu.html

DK: Obviously Oil

http://www.alternet.org/story/15359

[mvd]

39. No - Bush would still be lying

And I think the UN would just be another thing bullied by Bush. Also, we have no right to invade countries just because we don't like how they govern themselves. Since WMDs weren't a problem, that would be the only reason left the misadministration could give without exposing themselves.

[merh]

41. No, I do not support war.

Is that simple enough. Giving a "just cause" to it does not give it credibility nor does it justify it.

[The Magistrate]

42. In The Abstract, Mr. Pilot

An invasion of Iraq aimed at destroying the Ba'athist regime, and reconstructing the country into a democratuic state would have had some appeal. It would probably not have enjoyed my support, because success in the latter aim, particularly, is almost certainly unachievable by the available methods, and given the circumstances of that nation and society, any rule expressing the will of the majority of the people would hardly be a more wholesome one than the Ba'athist's rule, either from the standpoint of a good result for the United States, or from the standpoint of the various minority religious and ethnic populations within that country.

In the actual situation, it was criminal folly. Its chief purpose was to distort the political process of our own country, in ways the "Mayberry Machiavellis" thought would benefit them, though their calculations seem to have been misguided in light of events. It was certainly counter-productive in the extreme, in the context of a national aim of braking the power of Islamic fundamentalist radicals.

[indigobusiness]

43. Military 'Adventure' is ALWAYS Wrong

War should be ONLY a last resort. Preemptive war is always suspect... and who can be sure of the actual motives in this one?

"War is a racket."---name the quoted and win a prize

[IrateCitizen]

48. Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC

Two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and outspoken opponent of imperialism following his retiring from the Marine Corps.

Now, what's my prize?

[indigobusiness]

52. You win--

enjoy--

http://www.rense.com/general10/warw.htm

[Toot]

45. No, because if that was the criteria we should have invaded a couple...

of areas in Africa by now.

[Kanary]

46. Are those of you who are "ambivalent", or would have supported with UN

or "under Clinton", able to walk in the shoes of another?

Look now at how much the rest of the world is standing against the US. (For damned good reason, I might add.)

Suppose, now, one of those countries, or a "coalition" of countries, would invade the US, "for humanitarian reasons", because we *desperately* need to be "straightened out", and "shown the light". Particularly since we have the military might, we are capable of wreaking beeeeg havoc on the rest of the world, if not totally destroying it.

So, they would have good, solid reasons for invading, and conquering, and "occupying" until we got our collective act together here in the good ole' US of A.

You think that would be a good idea?

If you don't, why not?

After all, they *DO* have solid reasons for doing so.

Shoe on other foot?

Kanary

[skypilot]

50. I think you need to calm down.

Most of the people on this thread have said that they would NOT support the war in Iraq. The ambivalence on my part is there simply because a terrible dictator was taken off the world stage. I don't necessarily think that justifies things but I like to think that at least ONE good thing was accomplished.

[Kanary]

55. you just need to answer the question

Haven't you yet figured out that telling people to "calm down" doesn't accomplish your aims?

Now, on to the question..... would you welcome an invasion of this country?

Kanary

[skypilot]

56. My aims???

What "aims" do you think I have. Do you think I'm trying to justify the war in Iraq. I expressed a bit of ambivalence. That happens with us mere humans sometimes. And no, I would not welcome an invasion of this country.

[Kanary]

59. You were "aiming" to get me to be quiet, weren't you?

Being the bad parent, and telling me to "calm down", doesn't accomplish that very well. Again, if you put yourself in the shoes of others, you'll probably remember times that someone said that to you, and you didn't appreciate it too much.

Same as in invading another country. We Merkins need to stop seeing ourselves as something set apart, and think how it would feel to us to have other countries do what we think about so easily.

Empathy.

It's a Good Thing.

Kanary

[skypilot]

62. I was aiming for no such thing.

If I had any aim, it was to get you to acknowledge that this thread is not exactly overrun with people saying that they would have supported the war under different circumstances.

[Kanary]

71. There are enough equivocations to be quite upsetting

Just when I think that this country is finally coming to it's senses, I see all the reasons where people would justify attacking another country. We're so easily led.

It's a huge downer, and makes me realize that we're a far cry from truly changing anything.

What I was trying to get *you* to acknowledge is that all the left-brained thinking often leads us into real trouble, and simply opening our hearts and understanding what our actions do to others makes us more human, and less likely to walk into mind-game traps.

Kanary

[skypilot]

73. I'm quite aware that our actions can lead...

...to terrible consequences but there are times when a lack of action can lead to the same thing. Look at what's happening in Sudan. If there is equivocation in this thread it is probably because people are aware of this dilemma.

[Kanary]

78. danged dupes......

:)

[Kanary]

79. So, we need a war in Sudan, and numerous other places now?

See where it leads?

Where does it end?

Again, can you place yourself in the situation of living in a country where life is crap, and then being invaded by another country out to "fix" it?

Unless/until this country gets beyond the idea that war will fix it all, you better be prepared to sacrifice your kids, your grandkids, and on and on and.......

Unless you believe it will always be someone else's kids.

Kanary

[Zorra]

58. If someone attacked the US, killed and wounded tens of thousands

of people, occupied our country, dictated how we should run our government, pirated our natural resources, etc., but got rid of Bu$h and put him on trial, would you think at least one good thing was accomplished?

Would the ends justify the means?

[skypilot]

60. Let me be clear.

I do not and did not support the war in Iraq but there is that part of my brain that is glad that Saddam is gone. That's all I meant by "ambivalent". I'm sorry if some of you think that I'm trying to justify what's happened in Iraq or that I have some sort of "aims".

[Zorra]

63. Thanks. Saddam Hussein was a real fascist.

I think most everyone would agree on that point.

I have often wondered why a country like the US, with such sophisticated technology, weaponry, and intelligence could not manage to assassinate him without blowing the country to bits and taking so much innocent life and occupying the country.

IMO, it is illogical to believe that this could not have been done fairly easily, relative to invading an entire nation.

I wonder why they did not take this approach?

[skypilot]

66. That's what I thought...

...when I heard about their "Shock and Awe" plans. I mean how many Iraqis did they think they had to shock and awe in order to get this one guy?

[Zorra]

74. Exactly. They didn't. So the humanitarian mission justification is

not a valid argument.

It is illegal to assassinate world leaders. It is also illegal to go to war without justifiable cause.

So I must assume that Bu$h took the latter choice, regardless of the cost in blood and taxpayer money, because the PNAC wishes to establish global military dominance by creating a puppet state out of an oil rich nation.

From the PNAC Statement of Principles:

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula
Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Elliot Abrams: senior member of the National Security Council (pled guilty to the charge of lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra scandal)

Dick Cheney: Vice President of US

Paula Dobriansky: Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.

Aaron Friedberg: Vice President's Deputy National Security Advisor and Vice President's Director of Policy Planning.

Fred C. Ikle: member of the Defense Policy Board.

Zalmay Khalilzad: US Ambassador to Afghanistan

I. Lewis Scooter Libby: Chief of Staff and the Vice President's Assistant for National Security Affairs to Dick Cheney

Henry S. Rowen: member of the Defense Policy Board.

Donald Rumsfeld: US Secretary of Defense

Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy Secretary of Defense and an original signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Some of these titles and positions may have changed, but rest assured, they are still abusing our government in some position or another.

[kentuck]

47. Declare war as a humanitarian mission ???

That's pretty far out! :)

[leftofthedial]

53. I would have supported the invasion of Iraq

only in the event of documented genocide within its borders

or in the event that Iraq first attacked the US.

[indigobusiness]

57. Or if Bush had been its dictator...

no?

[laura888]

61. Bingo! We have a winner.

My thoughts exactly.

[MUSTANG_2004]

64. No way

Getting deeply involved in the Middle East is a big mistake that will cause problems for decades to come.

[IrateCitizen]

67. Getting??? We've been sticking our fingers in there for some time!

I suggest you do a quick internet search on "Mohammed Mossadeq Iran CIA coup" and see what you come up with.

Our direct involvement in destabilizing the Middle East stretches back over 50 years.

[wuushew]

70. Quite unusual for us to cause the death of 1951's man of the year

[MUSTANG_2004]

75. You're quibbling over semantics

I know we've been involved in the M.E. for years. However, I think you could now say we're "deeply" involved to an extent that we have never been.

[IrateCitizen]

80. I agree with this post, but I'd hardly call it "quibbling over semantics"

Your initial post conveyed the message that you thought we had just started really sticking our nose into the Middle East. That's why I responded the way I did.

I'd hardly call helping in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments in favor of tyrants a superficial involvement. But you're correct in stating that the invasion, overthrow, and military occupation that went on in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) are well above and beyond anything we've ever done in the past.

[kayell]

65. I'm pretty resistant to false advertising, so I doubt I would have bought

into war no matter what pretty package the BFEE tried to wrap it in.

[democratreformed]

68. I may not have agreed with the war or "supported it" with UN support,

but it would have made me feel much better about it. In other words, it wouldn't have seemed like such a huge disaster as far as allies and friends and our respect in the world community goes.

[Carolina]

69. NO

What is humanitarian about dropping bombs, about using munitions made of depleted uranium, about causing destruction.

The sanctions were awful enough for many Iraqis and their children.

War was the wrong way to go. And even if that had been the excuse, why a 'humanitarian' war at that time!? Weren't we after the people who caused 9/11?

It's crap, plain and simple. There was/is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for what we have done in Iraq and we will have hell to pay for it.

[tjwash]

76. Maybe if...

...Bushco came out and publicly admitted that his daddy and Reagan installed Saddam Hussein, armed him, funded him, and that they were personally responsible for the years and years of suffering that the Iraqi people went through, under Hussein, and apologized to each and every citizen of Iraq for doing so.

Oh, and if GWB himself went out there and led the first charge personally.

Otherwise they can go cheney themselves with a rusty pickaxe, because they are still lying sacks of dog snot.

[Dying Eagle]

77. No

War is wrong, we could have got this job done without killing children. Nothing is worth killing Children

[KoKo]

81. A humanitarian mission? Invasion and Occupation? Is this what America

should be doing? Invading sovereign countries which haven't attacked us who are being monitored by the United Nations?

If you believe we are Imperial Rome, then I guess you could explain things away by saying it's "humanitarian" to invade a country because we don't get along with their "elected" Leaders.

Maybe we should just pay taxes to invade and occupy every country so that we can claim their natural resources. :eyes:

[leesa]

82. No. War is never a humanitarian effort. That's just double-speak

The war in Afghanistan was also just a giant con job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. I Would Have Supported The War If It Was Fought Under a U N Flag...

Two caveats....


1) I coluld envision where the U S acts unilaterally....


and


2) The support of the U N would have to have been transparent and voluntary; they could not be co opted...

[Solly Mack]

84. Hell no. "selling" being the key word here

Bush wanted a war with Iraq...how he got it didn't matter to him..that he got it was all that mattered to him.

We could have lifted sanctions if we gave a good goddamn about Iraqis. We've had years to offer up humanitarian aid to Iraq...true humanitarian aid.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. No

It would still reek of the "we had to destroy this village to save it" mentality.

I've seen right wingers praise the Iraq invasion by saying that "girls are going to school" and "people have electricity and running water." Well, girls were able to go to school before the war, and people had electricity and running water.

With a few horrible exceptions, like Pol Pot or the Red Guard era in China or the Stalinist purges, your average dictator concentrates on suppressing actual dissidents instead of terrorizing the general population. I wonder how many peole were directly affected by Saddam Hussein's repression (killed, imprisoned) as opposed to the number who have been directly affected by the war and the occupation (killed, imprisoned).