December 05, 2003

Iraq Debacle

Well, Wilson and I are picking fights with people over the whole Iraq debacle. I posted this in the comments in response to some rather interesting reasoning posted by a reader who was in turn responding to this post on Wilson's blog (blue is me, italics is a guy named Shrode:

I believe Saddam was a threat. But not for the reasons you mentioned. He was the backbone of an attitude in the region that supported terrorism.

I would really like some justification for this line of reason. Bluster aside, Saddam was a cowed dictator who played silly cat-and-mouse games from within his borders and talked a big fight. How was he more of a backbone than any other leader in the region?

You see supporting terrorism at ANY level must be seen as a threat to us by us. That is why he had to be taken out. To set an example and change the region. Other countries with similar mindsets must learn that even flirting with terrorists is a risk to their very existence. He gave rewards to PLO and Hamas families of suicide bombers. We must destroy all terrorists and all supporters of terrorists.

So on what level do we draw the line? Idealogical? So are we now going to invade North Korea? How about communist China? What about Colombia? Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? By all indications, they have many more citizens who support terrorists on an individual scale than anything Iraq could do? What about Syria and Yemen? I would argue the inaction of these governments in some way indicates a support of terrorism and probably does more harm than Iraq has in the last 10 years.

And it is a just war to do so because it is self defense. Where our government has been inconsistent, and where Bush dissapoints me, is in not giving Israel full support in its war on terrorism. We have also not helped the UK in its fight against the IRA enough. We must wipe out all terrorists everywhere. I kill all scorpions on my property whether they are in my house or not. Because I know that if my child happened to get near one it would get stung. We must hunt down and destroy all terrorists period. And that I believe is a consistent conservative (and Biblical) position.

So now all pre-emptive strikes against prospective terrorists and supporters of terrorists are now justified by self-defense? Who decides what is a terrorist problem and if we get to strike them? And are we still advocating that Bush make unilateral strikes like he has thus far?

As far as UK and IRA goes, this is a non-issue anymore. And as for Israel, is not the Israeli government equally culpable for a war of terror against the Palestinians? Justifying huge collateral damage in the name of "National Security". Wow... that sounds awfully familiar *cough* Ashcroft *cough*... but I digress.

I find your casual assertion that the U.S. should strike out against anyone who
would possibly support terror worldwide to be at least mildly distasteful. On what grounds do we invade sovereign nations? Pre-emptive self defense? Being idealogically anti-American? And I'm really questioning where on earth you're getting a Biblical support for all of this.

Now Playing
Cake - Italian Leather Sofa

Posted by Vengeful Cynic at December 5, 2003 01:16 AM