meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aneirin quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice We can all agree that Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. He was a brutal tyrant, he surely hankered for WMD (whether or not he possessed them), he invaded Kuwait, and so forth. But that's not why we went to war against him. We invaded Iraq because, we were told, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, so grave that the "smoking gun" could be a "mushroom cloud." Four years, later we remain at war in Iraq. So I'm wondering not about what Joe Wilson thought or who outed Valerie Plame but about the key, core question: Was Saddam Hussein truly a threat to the U.S.? If so, what form might that threat have taken? How imminent was it? What do you think and why? Every military regime needs a Bogeyman, Hussein was a bogeyman for the time. What you have to ask, is who is going to be the next bogeyman, the reason to wage war wherever. But what is war really about, stopping someone from living or for commerce ? No, only ideological states need a bogeyman. Read the American constitution, that is American ideology and that is why America has always had a bogeyman. That is why Americans can be accused of being unAmerican, a concept which I don't think any other democracy has. Other ideological states have been the USSR, NAZI Germany, Revolutionary France and Napoleonic France, Franco's Spain, not a very edifying list but all required enemies, either internal, external or both. The ideology defines the bogeymen as other, with different values and not a true believer. That is why the US can justify fighting wars for peace, freedom and civilized values
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/12/2008 12:39:58 AM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|