U.S., Russia: Iraq had no WMDs

What gives any of us the right to tell anyone else how to live or to threaten them with consequences if they don't do things our way? Justice, security, freedom, and liberty all require - demand - that we do this. This is why, in our own country, we exercise control of one another while carefully guarding and preserving as much individual freedom as is possible. When some among us misbehave in a manner so as to impede justice, threaten security, trample on freedom of others, or disrupt the order that fosters liberty we react to them with whatever force of law - including deadly force - as is required. Internationally, it is fundamentally the same. We don't demand that all nations do exactly as we do. We don't demand they all have the same type government as we do. We don't even demand that all people have the same freedom. We do, however, demand that they not misbehave in a manner so at to harm or threaten to harm our own. History has taught that this is necessary both among neighbors and among nations. It is a consequence of the sinful nature of mankind. We will always have enemies and we will always struggle with giving them room among us or countering them as needed to maintain a balance between needs.

 

What does justice, security, freedom, and liberty have to do with any of this? The neocons only speak of these things in front of the cameras. Behind the cameras and in their writtings they spell out their goals quite well, world military and economic domination. What is liberty? Webster (1928) defines it as freedom from government coercion, is that what we have today?

Individual freedom? Isn't that as much and outdated idea as our constitution and bill of rights? How does the so called Patriot Act(s) preserve liberty by eroding it? We're no longer individuals we're part of the international collective...collectivism is the new "freedom". There is no room or need for individual liberties in the new international order. Read the "sacred ideals" in the Earth Charter. That's the document we're really defending now, not the U.S. Constitution...so sayeth George Bush Sr., but nobody really listened when he said it.

Is that why we will not hold our own government accountable? Oh, we'll toss a few of the lesser criminals in the pokey for show but the real crooks never do any time, they get medals and promotions.

That's right, it's only the countries that have some natural resources "we" want or "need" to control for "national security" and the good of mankind.

Then look the other way and obstruct our own law enforcement's investigations when "they" carry out attacks against us.

History has taught that rulers have always used fear and the threat of the unknown to control populations. Guess maybe people who have been conditioned to following orders without question from these rulers have a hard time admitting that part of history. Be a good soldier/citizen and never question authority. Your "security" depends on it!

The question is...who's needs are "we" balancing now? The Iraqis? The American peoples, or Govcorp's? My definition of Govcorp is the same as Mussolinis' definition of corporatism...the merging of government and business. Other wise known as fascism.

I thought fascism was a bad thing, but now I see so many people defending it that it must be a good thing? Well, except for that evil "Islamofascism" that nobody seems to be able to define.

 

Sadam used nerve gas on his own Kurds, and they are WMD. Since when did Russia's word mean anything?

 

The worst "solution" of all is to require more of America's finest to die simply because others of America's finest have already died.

Even if we pulled our troops out today the sacrifices of those who have already died would not be thrown away. I totally reject such language. America's finest removed Saddam Hussein from power and handed the Iraqis a representative form of government on a silver platter.

 

Yes, and that was way back in the 1980s. There is no proof that Iraq still had WMDs in March 2003 nor that it had WMDs and had moved them out of the country. The idea that Iraq had WMDs and had moved them is nothing more than a neo-"conservative" fairy tale.

 

My prediction has come true. There's that "GovCorp" word!

 

I just re-read this. terrific post. thanks

 

Exactly right.

Now it's their turn.

We can't baby sit them and hold their hands forever.

 

They've been working at "their turn" and steadily improving. They've lost a lot more people they we have. They put their lives on the line every day to hold on to the new freedom they have. They're not perfect and they're not always the way we'd like them to be. Neither are we, for that matter, and we've disappointed ourselves. There are setbacks at times but there are also many successes. They are trying but there's still work to be done to help them complete the job.

We're working together to fight a very stubborn and determined enemy who plays by no "law of warfare" to which we subscribe. This enemy uses terrorism to break the will of everyone on all sides and when you live in it and next to it every day it might be just a bit more difficult to stand up to it than it is for us. This is the same enemy that thought nothing of killing 3,000 people right here in the USA for no good reason at all. If you support the new government you or your family might just end up dead. Even with what we faced on 9/11 we're still very insulated from that daily reality.

It's very easy to be critical of a young nation struggling for survival that's use to violence, corruption, feudalism, and profit taking. It's difficult for people to have confidence in the future and in real justice. We take so much of that as a given not realizing what it took to get it or what it takes to keep it. It takes much courage just to take a stand in such desperation.

You're correct that we can't "hold their hands forever" but I don't that that will be necessary if we'll just hold to our present resolve. We need to make good on what we started else our credibility it zero and, the next time, will be even more difficult. There will be a next time either way and it's in our national interest to make sure this time it ends up like it should.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'" - George W. Bush

 

I don't care for it either. I prefer to use our military for defensive war fighting but in an offensive mode, temporary occupation to restore order and return to properly constituted civilian control, and training of friendly military and secuirty forces. I prefer that civilian resources be used for intrastructure repair and rebuilding.