The thoughts expressed by Stan Coerr in No One Asked Us are rather liberal. But not the “no-blood-for-oil” variety. Liberal in the sense of a person who sees an injustice and wants to correct it.
The analogy is simple. For years, you have watched the same large, violent man come home every night, and you have listened to his yelling and the crying and the screams of children and the noise of breaking glass, and you have always known that he was beating his wife and his children. Everyone on the block has known it. You ask, cajole, threaten and beg him to stop, on behalf of the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing works. After listening to it for 13 years, you finally gather up the biggest, meanest guys you can find, you go over to his house, and you kick the door down. You punch him in the face and drag him away. The house is a mess, the family poor and abused, but now there is hope. You did the right thing.
I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.
None of us had even heard those arguments for going to war until we returned, and we still don’t understand the confusion. To us, it was simple. The world needed to be rid of a man who committed mass murder of an entire people, and our country was the only one that could project that much power that far and with that kind of precision. We don’t make policy decisions: we carry them out. And none of us had the slightest doubt about how right and good our actions were.
This war has many mothers. One of those is the simple desire to free people from a tyrant. I wonder how many people would have supported this war had it been Al Gore championing it?
I can’t speak for all who oppose the war in Iraq, but for myself I am bi-partisan war protestor. I protested when Clinton bombed Serbia and I would have protested if Gore had been elected and bombed Iraq.
In fact, I am convinced that it doesn’t matter a rat’s ass who gets elected President because either of the two leading monkeys in the race will continue and/or escalate the war in Iraq. Kerry is not anti-war at all.
“Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.”
THAT IS ASNINE. Here’s part of Bush’s 2003 State of Union address when he was providing his argument of the invasion of Iraq:
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them — despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them. ”
So when you say “at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction” THAT IS A LIE. We can argue forever about the motives, but the administation CLEARLY claimed a WMD clause ON MANY OCCASIONS. LIAR! NOt one of these weapons have been found and that was very much cited as a primary justification for the invasion of Iraq.
And as far as the human rights argument:
Are you ready to invade the Sudan to oust al Bashir? What about North Korean to ousts Jong Il, who sells nukes to anyone who will put mney on the barrel and starves his country? Or, oh here’s a good one: what about Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev who boils political dissidents alive as a fear tactic, and whose administration happens to be on the Pentagon payroll. And what about doing BUSINESS WITH CHINA? Helloooooooo!
The human rights argument for invading Iraq is SWISS CHEESE.
[Troll scat removed -- Allen]