I am noticing a common thread among the answers from the "Right Wing".
The problem is that people answered you at all. Your question, following your favorite tactic, was a pure strawman. The very question assumes the answer you want and so any attempt to answer the question is doomed from the start.
Now you get to go through these answers, claim the moral high ground and ridicule people at the same time.
Nice work if you can get it.
My question to you is what have you accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished by simply asserting your position in a straightforward declarative sentence?
My position, FWIW, is that the idea of a 'moral war' is an intellectual conceit created by people who never have to make the level of decision. It is a red herring.
The strategic issues, broadly understood, are the only considerations. The reason why the US is at war with Iraq is that Iraq's neighbors sit on a massive supply of oil AND Iraq keeps developing WMD AND Iraq with WMD could easily control all that oil AND Iraq might provide those weapons to our terrorist enemies.
The goals are:
- secure the supply of oil from the middle east; and,
- cut off a source of funding and weapons to our enemies; and,
- provide enough military and economic threat to have leverage in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
All other objectives, removing a tyrant, installing democracy, transforming the region, etc... are derived from one of those two goals.
There is no moral case because war is not a moral issue. It is a strategic issue and the decisions are ruthless. The swelling music and waving flags help divert our attention from this hard truth.
Paul |
