If you don't enjoy long posts, skip this one.
I'm not going to bother quoting individual posts, but I felt it necessary to offer people an alternative perspective to the ones being given here. While many of you have brought up valid points, you are either ignoring, or discounting a variety of others.
Many rail against the war being "unjustified", but let's be honest. When, or more specifically, for what reason is war really justified? I think each person has to answer that question by themselves, and no pundit on television is going to make you feel better, or sway the base reasons you might support war.
To be perfectly fair, I could have cared less if Saddam had WMD or not. He would have been more likely to use them on Kuwait, Israel, or Iran first, but not in that particular order, and the second he did use them, the United States along with most of Europe would have invaded his nation and turned it into either a glass parking lot, or a series of colonies.
On the opposite end of that spectrum, I believe this war was entirely justified, and quite honestly long overdue. There are entirely too many dictatorships on this planet, where the population of a country isn't considered worth the land under their feet. They are slaughtered, killed, imprisoned, and maimed for no better reasons than the clothes they wear, their political philosophies, or their religions. And yet, we have the audacity to complain about whether a war is justified because of
our safety.
Unfortunately, I think it will be a long time before the people of this planet wake up to the fact that life exists beyond their 30x30 square mile area of existance. Perhaps later, when people begin to think more globally, than we can pressure regimes with mere threats of sanctions to remove dictators and oppressive leaderships, but until that time it will still take military force.
Now as far as the Iran vs. North Korea vs. Iraq thing with regards to being a "threat". I would not agree that Iraq was the least threatening. I will agree that North Korea is more of a threat, but any attempt to remove Kim Jong Il from power would result in not only the entire Korean peninsula going up in nuclear flame, but probably most of Japan as well, due to the inevitable involvement of China (see: Korean War). I suspect that like Russia, that North Korea will collapse under the weight of it's own incompetence and I fully expect to see North and South Korea become one nation within my lifetime. With respect to Iran, while their Theocratic government is somewhat of a concern, it also lends an incredible amount of stability. They would be the least likely in my opinion to go off invading other countries. Iraq on the other hand, had a meglomaniacal leader with questionable sanity, who had basically surrounded himself with yes-men. Sound familiar? Flip through your history text and look for the example of him in history.
One other reason that makes me think Iran getting nuclear weapons isn't unreasonable is history. The reason I believe they want them, is to offset not the United States (which would turn them into a 7-11 parking lot), but to offset the nuclear weapons of Israel. I personally think it's utter bullshit for the United States, or the EU to dictate to Iran that they can't have nuclear weapons, when they refuse to force Israel to disarm their nuclear weapons. Look at India and Pakistan. They both have nuclear weapons now, but does anyone really truly fear they will decimate each other? No. Because if one fires, they all fire and we have considerably less Hindu's and Muslim's in the world. Same reason Iran would never fire their weapons, unless Israel fires hers first. Nobody wants to lay claim to being the last alive Persian or Jew.
Login
