Update (3/13): A great article written by Robert Scheer about the fallacy that is the Iraq war. If you don’t have a subscription to Salon.com, try out the free trial. You’ll be addicted!
Hey everyone! Have I got something for you! One of my old college roommates wrote me a rebuttal to my posting last night. Todd and I have always been at polar opposites when it comes to politics and economic issues. And he invited me to post his e-mail. Here it is! (He’ll be in bold, my notes will be in regular)
Well, based on your webpage, I see you haven’t given up your liberal ways. You better be careful. McCarthy is going to come after you, and based on your webpage, his case would be a lock. Even the color of the webpage strengthens the case against you.
Yea, I got a call from Ari Fleischer just yesterday!
Now, let’s consider your comments. Do you seriously believe there is no link between terrorism and Iraq. I know Democrats are naive, but I didn’t realize how naive.
And where is the evidence that connects Iraq and al Qaida? Where? Don’t you think that if they found credible evidence, they would be parading it around like a drag queen on a runway!? The question we need to ask is who *actually* supports terrorism–or in the case of attacking a sovereign country, who supports *state sponsored* terrorism. Iran is considered (at least by the CIA) to be the most notorious supporter of terrorism with *verified* links to Palestinian terror groups–are we attacking them? Nope. Pakistan, who is our “ally,” supported the Taliban regime that overtly supported al Qaida. In addition to state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, where are the remnants of al Qaida hiding? Pakistan. Oh, AND, Pakistan has nuclear weapons! Are they being attacked? Nope. And let me mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Syria, and Algeria who may not overtly sponsor terrorism and al Qaida, but their citizens do (the hijackers’ nations are in italics). Are we attacking them? Nope because their governments do not overtly sponsor international terrorism, and that’s been Iraq’s position.
But you are correct in saying that is not necessarily a reason for going to war. The reason to go to war is to disarm Iraq. And if you truly believe that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, then once again I am amazed at your naivety.
Once again…where are they? Let me get hypothetical on you. Let’s say he *does* have WMD, then he’s had 11 years to use them…why hasn’t he? Maybe because of something called “containment” and the assured mass destruction of his country? We’ve actually been attacking him the last 11 years by patrolling the no-fly zone…yet he still showed restraint. Oh, and don’t forget the first round of inspectors who *actually* dismantled his nuclear program (and last week’s report by the inspectors supports the assertion that it hasn’t been restarted) and destroyed most of his chem/bio weapons. He didn’t attack the US during that period…why hasn’t he yet? Hmmm…
Now, let me take this opportunity to give you a history lesson. I know you are a history major, but obviously you skipped some parts. After World War One, Germany was completely disarmed, and signed agreements saying they were to remain disarmed. However, they did not stick to those agreements, and began building one of the most powerful armies this world has ever seen. Unfortunately, as Germany built this army, no one had the guts to lead a coalition against them, and force them to adhere to their agreements. As a result, the world was plunged into World War II.
If you knew your history, you would have cited the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. But, I’ll forgive your oversight. But let me break it down for you. Articles 231-235, which forced reparations upon Germany for losing WWI (basically they were forced to pay for the costs of both sides), caused tremendous amounts of inflation because Germany printed tons of money to pay its reparations. Being an economics major, you should understand the consequences of this–mass unemployment, needing a wheel barrow of money to pay for a loaf of bread–that created the environment for which Hitler could rise to power with his notions of conquest, power, and racial purity (this is soooo simplified). As per disarmament, Germany’s destruction of arms (which it actually did during the ’20s) was *suppose* to precede international disarmament (as per the League of Nations Covenant)–but no other nation disarmed. In 1935, Germany officially repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, and began to re-arm. “Well, gosh, we got this big ol’ army–hey Rommel, Goebbels–let’s take it out for a spin!” The building of the German Army wasn’t the cause of WWII, but a delusional leader who took advantage of a humiliated people and promised racial purity, world domination, and prosperity.
Now, the question is, why didn’t we stop him/them when Germany re-armed? Well…aside from international disregard for the League of Nations Covenant (*cough* Bush-U.N. Charter *cough*), France was having massive internal problems, Britain didn’t have the manpower to launch a massive amphibious attack, and oh, we had a little Depression and a small army. So we could not *logistically* stop Hitler. …I’ll fast forward it after you do…
Fast forward sixty years and the world finds themselves in a similar situation. We are dealing with a nation that agreed to disarm, but is clearly not living up to those agreements. So do we again make the same mistake and use the “wait and see” approach. Think about that Casey. I mean really think about that. Don’t just brush it off as Republican bias, because truly, this should not even be a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It’s about doing the right thing. And the fact is, World War II could have been avoided, but nobody had the guts.
Similar situation? I really don’t think so. A) You have a contradiction–if WE attacked Germany first…wouldn’t we’ve been the ones to start WWII? Or would it have been renamed World War One and a Half? You totally contradict yourself. B) Iraq does not have the means for world domination–they don’t have the army (which is a shadow of what it was) nor do they have the intellectual capital that the Germans possessed. If you need a historical precedent, our war with Iraq is akin to the Spanish-American War. C) Actually, “agreed” to disarm is rather generous…they were rightly “forced” to. And in fact, the inspections were containing Saddam until the CIA used the inspections as means to spy on Iraq. Yes, this isn’t a Democrat v. Republican issue. Both have screwed up. At present, it’s Chicken Hawks vs. the Rest of the World. It’s about doing the democratic *and* constitutional thing. PLUS, it’s a matter of weighing the risk of Saddam’s “immanent threat” (very little) versus the number of civilians killed by our weapons, destabilizing the region, increased impetus for terrorism, and finally, American casualties. In my mind, the minds of some Reps. and Dems., and the rest of the world, the risk is too great for war. That’s what I’m thinking about.
Please remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Todd
p.s. if you’ve got the guts, place this response on
your website
In my study of history, repeating history isn’t the problem. In fact, I can tell you with 100% certainty that history doesn’t repeat–at least, I’ve never seen a clock go backwards. So, what’s *the* historical dilemma? It’s failing to recognize the uniqueness of the present and ignoring the processes that created the present which result in poor policy decisions. What applied in Germany in the 1930′s does NOT apply to Iraq in the 21st Century. What NEEDS to be examined is the history of the present situation and what discourses have arisen within all facets of global society that affects the world’s gestalt (i.e. psychological perception) of the situation! Sorry, Todd, I didn’t come to my conclusions on a liberal whim–I’ve put a lot of thought into it, and I challenge you to examine the intellectual integrity of our current administration.