Originally posted by g2tegls
I think the question should really be "why wage a war" rather than "why not wage a war?" I haven't seen any real solid reason for war yet. I mean, at least in the past we would stage an attack on our ships as an excuse to counterattack. Now we're just concerned that something *might* happen (to somebody else) so we level their country. :eh:
:werd:
If you attack someone unprovoked, you are a criminal. Even if the person who you attack is evil, even if they have murdered before. You can rant and rave all day long about how evil your victim is, and rationalize all kinds of manufactured justifications. But none of that changes the fact that you made an unprovoked attack, and that you are the criminal in this case. You are the problem; you are morally and legally wrong.
Just because it's scaled up to the national level doesn't change the basic moral and legal imperative. Just because the US is big and powerful doesn't make us automatically right. In fact our size and power being used against a country that had no hope of a fair fight makes us the bully. A "98 lb. weakling" simply isn't a valid threat to a pro wrestler, as Iraq simply wasn't a valid threat to the US.
For those who use the terrorism excuse, have we wiped out all terrorism for good? Of course not. If we are to wipe out terrorism through violence alone, then our job is not done until we have wiped out the whole world. Only then will there be no chance of dissent. And if we do try to take over the whole world to assuage our fears, are we any better than the other regimes that have tried the same thing in the past? Precisely what makes George Bush different from Hitler, Stalin or Ghengis Khan?