and since I'm all about the fairness doctrine...

[katster]

One of the best anti-war statements I've seen. Again, while I'm not totally sure on this war thing (and now that we're there, I just hope we can go in there, do what we need to do with a minimal loss of life on both sides, and get out. I don't like the sounds I'm hearing from Washington about hanging onto Iraq. Iraq should be turned over to the UN ASAP.), I think this is pretty much an accurate summation about why I don't think we should be there.

(yanked from kightp, I just forgot about it until now.)

Comments

[koyote.livejournal.com]

How can we hand Iraq over to the UN? The UN is as much as telling us to deal with our own damned messes or shut up and go home.

We *do* have a really disturbing tendency to use the UN like a slave houseboy. we whip em when we haven't had our cofee, and bend em over when we get an urge. Someday, the world will collectively say "enough".


as for the perennial argument that since we are alreayd there, we just need to be strong and united and take care of business fast so we can go home is.... bunk. we can go home anytime we choose to. saddam is no worse than at least 5 other nations in the region when it comes to human rights. and... ah, well. it's pointless. the messianic leader has been loosed on us.

[zorbathut.livejournal.com]

I'm realizing that one of the issues I've got with a lot of the anti-war statements is that they don't really cover the stated purposes of the war. I've seen a lot of people saying "look over there, the stated purposes aren't the real purposes, it's all for money", but very few people actually confronting the issue of whether getting Saddam out of power is a good idea or not. I haven't heard *anyone* arguing that the US should have just left Saddam in power (well, okay. scratch that. I haven't heard anyone that doesn't sound dangerously optimistic saying so. I *have* heard people saying "I'm sure if we just talked to him we could work something out", and my reaction to that is muffled laughter.)

I suppose my train of thought is something along thes lines of Saddam Bad Guy, therefore Remove Saddam. We've tried a bunch of different things including Ignore Saddam, and ya know, none of them really seem to have worked considering that he's still around.

Of course, this doesn't explain "why now", but I think this is something the article I linked to may have gotten spot on - "wait a sec, we really *are* vulnerable, maybe we should do something about these dictators before New York gets suitcase-nuked."

I'm still not convinced this is the best way to go about it - and I'm very not convinced that people aren't going to try to make a profit out of this - but as bad a solution as this is, I'm having trouble finding a better realistic one :/

[midevil.livejournal.com]

I thought that the Bush administration made it clear that they will be in Iraq controlling the reins until the Iraqis can prove that they can run a 'democracy'? It will be under American control for at least a decade to come, no? (I'm just asking, you know how quickly the government's rhetoric changes!)