Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe in some cases that war is necessary.
The current war in Iraq and the upcoming war/wars, I find unnecessary and judge them to be simply invasion and murder for the gain of power and money.
While I respect B H's opinion, I don't subscribe to that judgement of the current war.
I feel that when Saddam surrendered in 1991, he agreed to the coalitions terms of surrender, which included regular arms inspections. In the
surrender terms he signed, he agreed that refusing inspections would return his nation to a state fo war versus the coalition.
If we hadn't
gone in, we'd have disemboweled the UN and NATO. No dictator would ever
abide by his cease-fire terms, ever again.
Napoleon pulled the same stuff in 1815 that Saddam did in 1998, and the Germans did in 1933. Each instance, repudiating the original surrender
In 1815, the world went to war to crush Napoleon, and did it quickly and decisively. France joined the community of nations.
In 1933-38, the world pretended hitler didn't exist. But eventually he forced them to act. As bloody as invading Iraq has been, it will have kept a
dictator from repudiating his surrender/armistice terms with the world.
A war is just as long as it can be expected to alleviate future inevitable
Which shows that the US should
have gone to war for Hungary in 1956. We failed that nation then, and 10's of thousands died. And the USSR
lived on for another 40 years.
We failed the people of former Yugoslavia, by allowing Serbia to try its hand at genocide. Was anything gained by procrastinating? Only that
Slobodan had time to rachet up the body count before we intervened.
I know that the left truly believes that the Iraq war is for profit. But it hasn't helped the world oil market, and wasn't expected to.
Any way. that's my thoughts.