From the below articles, I think we can all see several things.
1) The reasons given for starting a war with Iraq were later proven to be false.
2) This war has been one of the costliest wars in America's history, adjusted for inflation.
3) America not only maintained diplomatic ties with Iraq during its genocidal attacks against its own people, but our government actually provided support. This should defeat any claims of our "moral authority" and our concern for the Iraqi people.
4) America was instrumental in Saddam's rise to power in Iraq.
Note that none of these articles is new. I believe the newest one is over a year old. None of these articles come from the "fringe liberal left wing". The sources are the Washington Post, United Press International, CBS, and the United States Senate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Regarding #3 & 4 - does our role in supporting Saddam during that time obligate us in anyway to do something on behalf of the Iraqis who suffered and died under his rule, because we felt that while he was an asshole, he was our asshole?
I think we have an obligation not to support these kinds of people. However, I don't buy into the current line that we went to Iraq to help people. Our past actions show a pattern of unconcern for these people. I think the humanitarian mission is a thin cover story.
Nice insights. My next topic is going to be looking into the legality of the War on Terror. Congress is the only branch of government that can declare war, but Bush seemed to make this up on tv to grant himself martial powers normally reserved for war while ignoring any rules that restrict them. Example, POW (or EPWs) don't have to be charged with a crime, but they do have to be released at the end of the war. Bush declared the end of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq years ago.
Post a Comment