| Spanky |
10-03-2005 03:41 PM |
Give Peace a Chance
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I also don't think peaceniks are against all forms of violence. Today, most of them are aginst the Iraq War - something many law and order types even agree is unnecessary violence for no good reason.
|
The Law and Order types that are against the war don't bother me. It is the people that say it was immoral for us to invade Iraq.
When people say that, it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and the intentions were OK, but we were just going to make things worse and it was a waste of resources and manpower. I call this the Naive argument. It was Naive for the the US to make it better. Although I don't agree with that argument I can respect it.
I also respect the strategic argument. People that believe US foreign policy should be solely based on US interests (and it was not in our strategic interest to invade Iraq). I don't agree with it but I can understand the logic of that argument.
The arguments that seem inherintly flawed and irrational are the ones about the immorality of taking Saddam Hussein out (the war monger theory). The outrage at attacking Iraq. Like somehow taking out a man that killed 300,000 of his own people directly and million in a war with Iran is somehow an immoral act.
Also the focus on Bush "lying" to get us into the war. Either the war was the right move or not. What Bush used to whip up public opinion to support the war is irrelevent. It has nothing to do with whether or not the war was the right move.
|