edgarblythe wrote:In the first place, Finn, people of your ilk always accuse me of saying war is never justified, although there is no post of mine on the whole of a2k stating this. Then you bring up Hitler like a grown up threatening a small child with the boogeyman. Next you link bin Laden with crushing Hussein as if the Hitler thing still carries. Finally, you make the mistake of thinking we can't contain this tiny nation after we spent so many years succesfully containing the USSR, as if it has more power than they had. All self justifying scare tactics.
So when do you think war is justified?
I don't know why you feel threatened by the mention of Hitler. If you feel that the war against Hitler was justified, why not simply state as much? To the degree that I've been trying to somehow corner you with the use of Hitler (which I've not been) such a statement would shut me down.
It would also help me understand when you think war is actually justified.
People of my ilk probably tend to assume you are against all war because you make so many sanctimonious comments about innocents lives being lost. Since innocent lives are lost in all wars, it's a fair assumption that you are against all loss of innocent lives and therefore against all wars.
Since I don't know what the "Hitler thing" is, I really have no idea of what you mean by:
"Next you link bin Laden with crushing Hussein as if the Hitler thing still carries."
Comparing containment of the USSR with containment of Iraq is comparing apples and oranges.
First of all, we
contained the USSR only in the sense that we kept them from invading our allies and our own nation. We hardly contained them from developing satellite states like Vietnam, and we certainly didn't contain them from invading non-allies like Afghanistan.
Secondly, we were dealing with a tyrannical bureaucracy with the USSR, not a tyrant. Once Stalin died, the USSR was no longer led by a megalomanic
dictator. The USSR continued to be ruled by tyrants but not insane ones. Their actions were predictable, they responded rationally to external stimuli.
With Saddam there was no such reliability. This is a man who invited invasion because he refused to admit that he had disarmed as the world had demanded. If this wasn't a sign of insanity, I don't know what is. Why did he disarm if not to fend off invasion? Having disarmed to fend off invasion, why didn't he admit to it to serve its purpose? The answer is that even at the end, when it meant his destruction, he was compelled to try and demonstrate his power; even a power he didn't actually possess. People like this cannot be
contained.
Finally, the Cold War is long over. There is no longer a clash of empires. Even if Saddam remained sane enough not to once again attack one of neighbors there is absolutely no reason to believe that he would not try and strike at the US through a surrogate: terrorists. The argument that he would never do so for fear of having it traced back to him just doesn't hold water. This is not a man who acknowledged he could be wrong or beaten.
Saddam could never be
contained, only beaten. That was the way he thought and lived. Liberal policy wonks in DC would never have changed that.
Go figure... you may accept the democratic party ytrying to wash their equally bloodstained hands of this war... I dont... I hold them equally responsible...
