Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, but they also still support the war, don't they? Which raises a question in my mind that I've been meaning to ask you, Ty and the like. We've been debating this stuff for weeks, and I'm wondering if you are now of the opinion that the war was wrong. That is, if you knew then what you know now, would you have supported the war?
|
I supported the war at the time, and the news hasn't changed that because I think that, on a macro level -- Hussein needed to go -- and (although this sound callous coming from a noncombatant observer) the price in lives (Iraqi and coalition) is in my view worth it to eliminate a truly evil, despotic and destabilizing regime.
I would disagree with those who argued to continue containment, because containment and sanctions disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable segments of Iraqi society, while not truly harming Hussein or his regime (except insofar as preventing them fom threatening their neighbors -- which it did do effectively-- is "harm"). Also, in my view the sanctions regime would have been lifted long before it forced compliance. France and Russia wanted it gone already -- and the sanctions would never have forced Hussein to comply-- it also was a festering wound on our image in the Arab world.
So -- in my view the war needed to happen. Unfortunately, we didn't do the pre-war diplomacy too well (telling everyone else thet their opinion didn't matter was moronic and for domestic political consumption), and we f-d up the immediate aftermath of reconstruction. I hope that all straightens out ( I think it can) and we'll have a stable, democratic and non-hostile Iraq. In that case, the benefits will exceed the cost.
However -- I desparately want Bush out next year (for domestic policy reasons) -- so the trouble in Iraq short-term presents the possibility of my best case scenario: Bush takes bold action to do what needs doing, it all works out, and he still takes it in the neck.
S_A_M
Threaded Mode