posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by JewAgainstZionism
The question is not whether the US war in Iraq was self-defense but whether it was live or die. I only say this to add meat to your argument, not to
necessarily agree with you. If it was live or die then even a bad outcome for everyone can be forgiven. But if it was in self-defense then the
justifications can become fuzzy and less clear to everyone. Offense can be a form of defense. And one person might act in self-defense in one
circumstance where another will not. For example, a person that doesn't know much about snakes might act in self-defense if they see a colorful snake
in their home and might treat it as though it's poisonous. However, a more knowledge person might realize it's harmless so they'll not be so nervous
and will react more calmly. Broadly, all live or die situations are a kind of self-defense, but not all forms of self-defense are live or die.
So the key is to ask whether Saddam Hussein presented an existential threat to us. I'd say no. But he did present a threat to middle eastern
stability, especially to Israel. And he did rule his country in brutal fashion, with small regard to human rights. Since he wasn't an existential
threat to the US then it makes the whole issue much more complicated because you have to start measuring how severe the threat is. Basically, it's not
a threat that's as obvious as an existential one. And this is why I say that it creates more disagreement. It's much harder to unite a country if the
threat isn't existential.
So what you were saying is "Was the Iraq war an act of self-defense?" You implied that it wasn't since Saddam didn't directly attack the US. My only
bone to pick was that the war actually WAS an act of self-defense, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the threat justified a large scale
war. Keeping in mind that large scale war brings with it a lot of death and unknowns.
If you had asked "Was the Iraq war live or die?" If you had asked that you wouldn't have put into question whether it was an act of self-defense -
which I think it clearly was. Rather you would have asked was it worth it? That's harder to answer and requires more thought and explanation.
We can't go back in time and live a different way to see what happens. We can't look at parallel realities to see how it transpired if we made a
different choice. Instead we have limited information. So it's very hard to say who's right and who's wrong. An appeal to authority is the most
practical solution. Otherwise, too many people will disagree and there won't be a common good.
I think we've created conflict in the middle east by trying to stop it. I didn't agree with the Iraq war in 2003. However, I don't KNOW that I'm
right. There's no way to know I'm right for sure.
I make these statements out of respect to the OP.
I don't know what to thnk about his prohpecy. All I know is that prophets of doom are wrong more than they're right. It's the smart ones that have the
great potential for fame.
edit on 1-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)