to all RWers: Do the ends really justify the means???

[neoteric lefty]

First, lets take the most optimistic outcome of this war from today onward. This would include the following: The Iraqi insurgency suddenly disappears. No more U.S. soldiers/innocent civilians die from combat-related violence. Iraq holds peaceful elections and a turns into a modest, fledgling democracy in the Middle-East. If all of those things are true from today forward, would all of the bloodshed, instability, and cost associated with this conflict so far be worth it? Would all the misinformation about WMDs, mass graves, terrorist links, etc. passed onto the American people, whether intentionally or not, be justified? Would the constant fear-mongering and gross distortions of the truth by our leaders in power be forgotten? Would the U.S. be better off today than it was in February, 2003 before the war started?

Even while mustering up all the optimism and hope in my body, I still cannot look at the Iraq War and say it was worth it, even the best-case scenario from today on. Results are not the only thing we are judged upon as human beings. How we got there and why we did what we did seem almost as important, if not as important to me. Just a few thoughts while Iraq tries to get out of the mess we have caused.

[babylonsister]

1. Your first paragraph is a fantasy,

your second para I agree with. Yes, we've caused quite a mess, or one has been caused in our name which infuriates me even more.

[neoteric lefty]

2. thats the point

even with a resolution comprised of a complete fantasy (short of "We find the cure for AIDS in Saddam's severed head") , the Iraq War is not worth the toll we, and others in the world, have paid.

[Warpy]

3. The end never justifies the means and here is why

The end one is aiming for is rarely, if ever, achieved.

Sacrificing everything and putting up with unconscionable, murderous means turns into a way of life, in the meantime.

In other words, the means are how we live. The end is impossible to achieve even if we give up everything trying to achieve them.

[neoteric lefty]

4. Are you saying that the

end is unattainable always or the end (E(x)) that is desired from the set of all ends (lets call it E) is not usually the one achieved?

I.E. the probability P(E(n) == E(x)) approx. = 0 as n => infinity

:) sorry, I am studying from a numerical analysis final right now.

[Warpy]

5. I'm saying that the law of unintended consequences

invariably takes over, preventing the end from ever being achieved.

[Wetzelbill]

6. just from the standpoint of our international standing alone

it wasn't worth it. Besides the casualties, because we know casualties are inevitable in war. In this case, the casualties, of course, make the war not worth it, as they never needed to happen in the first place, however, put that aside for a moment.


No matter what, the war in Iraq hurt our international standing. At the end of the Clinton presidency never had the U.S. been more popular and revered in the world. Part of that is because after the end of the Cold War, Poppy Bush's administration performed stellar in the German reunification and other challenges, and Bill Clinton was a respected international leader as well, taking on both the Arab-Israeli and Balkan conflicts. Sure, they both had their problems and we sure could pick them apart, no doubt, but the point is that when the Cold War ended we grasped our new role in the world and people loved us for it. For the most part. Now when Chimp Junior comes in he so despised Clinton and so wanted to do the opposite of everything his father's presidency stood for, he just went about like a bull in a China shop. Pulling out of Kyoto and the International Criminal Court, alienating other countries etc. People forget, this administration was in the business of alienating and isolating even before the shameful run up to the Iraq war. The war was just icing on the cake. Mmmmmmmm....... cake.. sorry, Homer Simpson moment. :) Ok, then when the rush to war came about, this admin shamed Colin Powell and our country by putting him in front of the UN and allowing him to make possibly the most embarrassing presentation in our history. It starts trickling out over time through Richard Clarke's book and others how this administration exploited 9-11, ignored bin Laden, and, at best, hyped intelligence so they could start a war for little reason. The world became sick of us mighty fast. France is practically rooting for us to fail, and these guys used to be our great friends. We have people who travel to other countries who have to deal with being asked about our president, and treated as if they were in collusion with him. We have had American citizens kidnapped and murdered overseas because of the hatred fomented by this war. Our allies are tacit ones now, at best. Nobody trusts us. Getting over the Bush mystique in international relations may take generations if it can ever be done.

During the Cuban missile crisis, an American diplomat at the request of President Kennedy was sent to seek France's support, as they would be needed at the UN and if a conflict actually broke out. This diplomat, in a meeting with Charles De Gaulle, said that the US needed their help etc, and offered to show him the photos of the missiles in Cuba. De Gaulle waved him away and in effect said that if the US said there were missiles their word was good enough, he would help and didn't need to see the images. We were trusted. An American president was so respected that on word alone our allies were ready to help.

George W. Bush ruined that. Probably forever.

[Oversea Visitor]

7. Amen.

x(

[neoteric lefty]

8. with you but...

Even though we had very good international support following the Clinton years, there were still problems about, namely fundamentalist Islam. Then 9/11 happened. Lets put aside MIHOP, LIHOP, and all other theories and take it at face value for right now. The United States was sucker-punched by a group of terrorists. Even with Bush, in the days and weeks following 9/11 the world was on our side. We had support from nearly every organized government in the world. Even into the Afghanistan conflict, we still had unparalleled support internationally.

Instead of taking all of that support and going after the known terrorists, and I mean really pressuring governments to root out cells, kill all funding, gather intelligence, etc., Bush decided that Iraq was the next place where we needed all of our attention. Yes, Saddam is a crummy little P.O.S. but we had bigger fish to fry at that point in time. The President could have united the world against terrorists groups, but he instead divided the world on Iraq. I keep thinking about what this world would be like if the recount in FL would have kept going on like it should have in Dec, 2000. I'm sad now.

[KharmaTrain]

9. They Can't Vision A World Without Hate

If it's not the A-rabs, then it'll be the Chinese or the Indians (Hindu or "Casino") or the French or the Lilliputians or the Martians.

The glue that holds the right wing together is hate. It's grown to its current corrupt state by uniting all the haters in one "big tent". Take your pick...anti-semites, misogynists, homophobes, racists and a few other nutballs...all manipulated by corporate and political entities that have profited greatly in pandering to their hate and greed.

Just look at the concept of this "war on terror". Iraq is just one part of it. Any nation that looks at us strange is now suspect and surely this war can't be won as long as there remains places where terror against Americans...or the percieved threat...are created and manipulated. Surely if Iraq is "pacified", then we have to look at Syria (where Saddam's weapons are ya know :rofl:) and then settle the score with Iran and then take out North Korea and China and then on to France (Howard Dean yell inserted here).

For those who now sport larger bank accounts, this invasion was well worth it. These are people who are far removed from the human side of this mess. They don't serve in the military. They just see the profits and the "opportunities". It's their money that gets thrown around the beltway and then into the corporate media that tells the sheeple that this invasion is good and just as well.

A year ago, I posted here that I thought this nation was stuck somewhere in 1966...where a small but vocal minority was starting to speak up against a nation that was lulled into a war that was supposed to be all glory. Now we've advanced the calendar almost a year...late 1967 where we attempted to stage sham elections in South Vietnam to "legitimize" their government and people were starting to question the invasion. What came after those South Vietnamese elections? Tet.

2006 looks to be a very, very, very interesting year.