and if Iraq continued to refuse to co-operate for another year then we could go in and attack with UN approval
I'm not sure it would've taken a year, at all. The US/UK went in because he ostensibly posed a threat to the security of the region and the world. If they knew he didn't, which I contend was the case, then they went in for other reasons. Meaning they lied to their people. This might have what Hari describes as 'beneficial externalities'. And few people are sorry to see the end of Saddam. But don't you believe that lying to the country about the reasons for war is highly immoral, perhaps even treasonable?
It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq.
I certainly don't begrudge you that the American military did have some effect on Saddam. But even before the troop build-up, he'd started cooperating again. To me, there would not have been a problem if they went in if Saddam was played games with the inspectors. Thing is, he went out of his way to comply. They could've made it very clear that they'd go in only if the inspectors reported something fishy.
After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
They're spending a lot more money right now on rebuilding infrastructure they've just bombed.
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good.
Ah, here we come to what I believe is the central reason for our disagreements. It is a variant- perhaps a less black and white one, but still a variant- of the old question: Which is worse, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right ones? While the outcome certainly does matter to everyone involved, I think it is very important that a state (or indeed person) acts with the right intentions. I can see the positives to have risen America's invasion of Iraq. However, I feel the duplicitous manner in which said invasion was carried out makes several of them hollow.
They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war.
In my books, you don't go to war without being pretty damn sure of what you're doing. Which brings us back to the did-they-lie-to-the-public question. Which in turns leads back to my previous point on intentions vs. outcomes. And while I still strongly defend my point of view, I also believe that good people can disagree on this matter.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Iraq
Date: 2004-02-04 01:15 am (UTC)I'm not sure it would've taken a year, at all. The US/UK went in because he ostensibly posed a threat to the security of the region and the world. If they knew he didn't, which I contend was the case, then they went in for other reasons. Meaning they lied to their people. This might have what Hari describes as 'beneficial externalities'. And few people are sorry to see the end of Saddam. But don't you believe that lying to the country about the reasons for war is highly immoral, perhaps even treasonable?
It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq.
I certainly don't begrudge you that the American military did have some effect on Saddam. But even before the troop build-up, he'd started cooperating again. To me, there would not have been a problem if they went in if Saddam was played games with the inspectors. Thing is, he went out of his way to comply. They could've made it very clear that they'd go in only if the inspectors reported something fishy.
After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
They're spending a lot more money right now on rebuilding infrastructure they've just bombed.
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good.
Ah, here we come to what I believe is the central reason for our disagreements. It is a variant- perhaps a less black and white one, but still a variant- of the old question: Which is worse, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the wrong thing for the right ones? While the outcome certainly does matter to everyone involved, I think it is very important that a state (or indeed person) acts with the right intentions. I can see the positives to have risen America's invasion of Iraq. However, I feel the duplicitous manner in which said invasion was carried out makes several of them hollow.
They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war.
In my books, you don't go to war without being pretty damn sure of what you're doing. Which brings us back to the did-they-lie-to-the-public question. Which in turns leads back to my previous point on intentions vs. outcomes. And while I still strongly defend my point of view, I also believe that good people can disagree on this matter.