Wednesday, February 05, 2003

(Welcome, USS Clueless visitors. For some reason, the post you're looking for isn't showing up in the archives. (I blame blogspot, naturally. Try going to the main page and scroll down to the February 7 post.)

Anti-Iraq Arguments Part I(b) - More Loser Arguments

(Ok, a little more of this, then I will get back to some more desperate attempts to get people reading this blog . . .)

Yesterday, I closed by saying that I would address the specific versions of the "Attacking Iraq Is Hypocritical" argument. Here goes . . .

7.(a) North Korea/Pakistan/Israel/The US Has Weapons of Mass Destruction, Why Not Attack Them? Because none of them agreed to disarm as a condition of a cease-fire in a war endorsed by the UN. Because Saddam is clearly trying to get WMD specifically so that he can engage in the kind of blackmail that the other nuclear powers (in particular, North Korea and China) do. Because if Saddam gets enough nukes and enough missiles, we will lose our best chance to improve the lives of Iraqis. Because it took us a long time to get to this point with Iraq, and we should finish this job before we start on the others. Because, with the exception of North Korea and maybe Pakistan, the other countries are being reasonably responsible with their nukes. Because the US nukes aren't comparable at all, you doofus - they are partially responsible for containing the Soviet plan to subject the world to communist dictatorship, and they are managed by a country governed by a secular, non-expansive dictatorship.

7.(b) But the US Created/Supported Saddam Hussein. First, we didn't create him. He crawled out from his rock to seize power just like every other fascist dictator. Yes, we supported him somewhat against Iran. It's important to remember that, at that time, the US saw the Iranian revolution as a significant threat to world security. Also, the US was still sufficiently traumatized by Vietnam that it believed that it was no longer capable of fighting its own wars. There weren't crazy beliefs - Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both believed them (Carter more than Reagan on the latter). As a result, we got the Mujahadeen, Saddam, and the Contras.

In any event, if we created him and inflicted him on the Iraqi people, then why isn't it our responsibility to free the Iraqi people? When some of the founding fathers freed their slaves in their wills, one could justifiably ask "doesn't that mean it was wrong to keep slaves during your life?" However, it doesn't follow that because Washington and Jefferson owned slaves during their lifetimes, it would be wrong to free them. If anything, it was wrong not to free them earlier, and if we are really "responsible" for Hussein, then it was wrong not to get rid of him earlier.