the debate about Iraq

[low_delta]

I've learned something about one of the fundamental differences in opinion about whether we should be in Iraq right now.

Most people who are in favor of war in Iraq believe that there are a lot of reasons that all add up. Many of those who are opposed believe that none of those reasons are good enough alone, and that they do not add up into one good reason.

Comments

[sirreal13.livejournal.com]

I think no one ever has enough reason to take the law into ones' own hands unless:
1) You or your family/country are in imminent danger from the party you are about to attack (no proof of bio/chemical weapons or link to Al-Qaeda attacks)
2) You are not violating international laws or treaties (we violated the UN charter and the Geneva Convention a few times).
3) No innocent people will die, except in the case of true unavoidable accidents (40% of the est 5000 Iraqi deaths were civilans, and most of these deaths should have been avoidable).
4) You can prove you and your friends will not profit from the results of the war (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.).

The Bush defense establishment fails on these counts, in my book. I support our troops and I support the overthrow of Saddam, just not the way it was done.

[seamusd.livejournal.com]

I believe it's nowhere near "over;" in fact, all the reasons I'm against it won't become apparent for maybe years. Even if we find illegal weapons, it was wrong. Even if we find a direct link to al Qieda, it was wrong. Even if the US experiences no more terrorist attacks, it was wrong. Even if Iraq becomes a strong, pro-American democracy, it was wrong. Our leaders have led us down the wrong path and we will be paying a steep price for invading Iraq for many years.