Even if Iraq was for Humanitarian purposes, it was still wrong.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

I was on vacation, and I got in an argument with my Aunt, that is very liberal, but doesn't stay up on the news, and doesn't know much about politics. She started talking about the war, and how it was about humanitarian issues, and she justified it for that reason. I acknowledged that it did liberate Iraqi's from a dictator, and it could improve their living conditions.

Then I told her why it was wrong even in spite of the humanitarian issues, and it was not about that. I explained to her that children were getting the tits cut off, and penis's burnt in the congo and sudan, and in Uwanda(sp), and their is such a terrible problem their, that if we were worried about humanitarian problems, why aren't we their helping them. Then I went on to counter the argument, that we have to start somewhere, with the fact that it is no coincidence that we started in a country ripe with oil, and that we were more worried about troops burning oilfeilds, than the welfare of Iraqi people.

Although we did help out Iraqi's, in some manner, it was only thorugh our vanity, and greed. It was just a coincidence that killing Sadam and taking the oilfeilds could help the Iraqi's. It seems that throughout all Americans history, I can only think of a few instances, none major where we actually helped a population for the sake of it.

[lcordero]

1. Humanitarianism, just like charity, starts at home

I'm not going to buy into the humanitarian garbage that the Repukes are spewing.
Humanitarianism, compassion and charity start at home.
How can it be humanitarian to have to make seniors have to decide in between medication and food.
How can it be humanitarian to cut off support for disabled veterans.
How can it be humanitarian to force parents to turn in their children to the state simply because they can't afford their healthcare.

How can it be humanitarian to do business with Uzbekistan(part of the coalition of the willing) and look the other way when they abuse women and boil dissenters in water.
Anybody that says that this is a humanitarian campaign is either uninformed or hopelessly stupid.

[sandnsea]

2. Like the Michigan militia "liberating" Detroit

Or something. The militia decides the problems in Detroit are from corrupt leadership. They decide somebody's got to do something and decide to militarily take over Detroit. Maybe they would run Detroit better, who knows. But does that give them the right to do it? Would the citizens welcome them? I don't see Iraq much different then this. Not to mention these little military "liberation" schemes of ours never seem to work out well anyway.

[Brian Sweat]

3. It is not so much wrong as it is, Ill-advised.

The logic behind waging a war for humanitarian purposes may sound a little bizaar, but it is not. The lives lost in waging the war could pale in contrast to the lives lost as a result of inaction, but there has to be some promise that the war will end the suffering caused by a despotic government. The problem is that we, as a country, do not have the will to end the suffering in Iraq. To do so would require the Balkanization of Iraq. The northern area would become an autonomous region controlled by the Kurds. The south would be controlled by the Shi'a Muslims. The middle would be left to the Sunni. We have absolutely no desire to create another Iran in the south of Iraq.

We cannot allow the Kurds to have a completely autonomous regio, because of fears that this would distablize the entire region. There are Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and several of the former Soviet Republics. All of these kurds want to be autonomous. They want to be part of one large Kurdish country. Once an autonomous Kurdish country exists, the Kurdish regions in all of these other countries will want to join it.

So instead, we will have to setup another tin-horned Sunni dictator to keep the Kurds and the Sha'i in line. They will resent the dictator and he will have to use abusive tactics to keep them in line.