|
After reading the pro-war letter of July 14, I am reminded that the Iraq war debate would be better served by following some basic rules.
1. Do not make use of justifications that are more than one degree of separation from the threat. For example: IF Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and IF Saddam had allied itself with terrorists and passed on those theoretical weapons, then there would have been a threat to America. Some might argue that even one IF is too much, since IF is not the dire and immediate threat that we were warned of.
2. Do not compare the attack and invasion of Iraq to World War II. We did not attack Iraq in self-defense and Iraq, unlike Nazi Germany, was not in the midst of trying to conquer the civilized world. To compare Iraq of 2003 and Germany of 1939 is to manipulate the pride and patriotism many feel for the noble task of defeating Hitler.
3. Do not link Iraq to Islamic terrorist groups. No sustained link has been made, despite the best efforts of those spending a great deal of their time in justifying the "war". To continuously slip in the link to Al Quad is misleading, as America tries to uncover the truth.
4. Do not mention weapons of mass destruction. They did not exist at the time we decided to invade, and if some hint did exist, then they were certainly not a direct and urgent threat. The only fact we can now be sure of is that Iraq might have possessed the ability to create a program to build weapons. Again, too many degrees of separation.
5. Do not suggest that part of our reason for invading was to safeguard Iran. Remember, Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil", and is one of our likely targets in this War on Terror. So American lives and billions of American tax dollars should not be our gift to the third member of the Axis.
6. When outlining the "reasons for justifying the invasion of Iraq", the following figures should always be included (listed in no particular order).
- the cost in dollars for the invasion, destruction and rebuilding of Iraq (which recently passed $120 billion);
- the number of American soldiers lost;
- the number of limbs/vital organs/senses lost by American soldiers;
- the number of innocent Iraqi's who died
- the number of limbs/vital organs/senses lost by innocent Iraqi's
When I decide to embark on a really expensive, life-changing project, no matter how beneficial or noble, I also like to know the costs. Knowing the costs helps to balance and make the right decision at the right time.
Following these basic rules should allow for more reasoned discourse on this very emotional and extremely important topic. Of course, by eliminating the points above there are not many reasons left for justifying the invasion. The only legitimate reason seems to be as an act of charity to wards Iraqi's, who suffered for years under a brutal dictator. Surely that was reason enough, some might say, and I won't disagree. But was it worth the financial burden, the lives lost, the futures destroyed, and the staggering loss of integrity that America now suffers? That should be the real focus of the debate.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(34 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
