Scrat wrote:ebp - Is your argument that there is never a "greater good" to be had through the sacrifices made in war?
Fair question.
The answer of course, is yes. Here are several examples:
WWII was clearly a response to a threat to national security. First, we were directly attacked by Japan. Second, Germany proved itself a real threat who had conquered much of Europe and was threatening England (who, by the way invited us in). Don't even try to compare the unchecked threat posed by Germany to Iraq.
The Civil war was clearly a threat to the national security. The South were threatening the Union. I would also put the abolition of slavery as a "greater good" (although many historians question slavery as a reason for the war.
The Revolutionary war. Here the greater good was clear. Our liberty and freedom from the British crown.
In these three wars there are things in common:
- There was a real threat to national security shown by a direct act of aggression against us.
- In each case the "people" we were liberating actually *wanted* to be liberated.
- We did not initiate the agression.
The other wars we were involved in aren't as clear. The so-called "domino effect" that they used to sell the American public on the Vietnam conflect turned out to be exaggerated. Vietnam fell but the world didn't fall into the grips of the evil empire.
The first Iraq war could be argued as a response to an act of aggression.
But Bush's current war does not have any justification. There was no act of aggression. There was no real threat that could not be addressed with diplomacy. The Iraqi's did not want to be liberated, and the world didn't want the "salvation" we offered.
This was a pre-emptive war address a nebulous future threat. This does not justify the very real death and destruction rained on the Iraqi people.
There are just wars. This clearly isn't one of them.
