[Jesus Christ]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Yes - it's irrational to oppose a war against people who are the first ones since the soviets with a goal of destroying western civilization. It's hard to sing kumbayah when someone is slitting your throat - it in fact becomes a suicidal hymn.

Prior to our invasion, these people had no power to do these things whatsoever. Under Saddam Hussein, these people never would have acted in such a manner. We entered Iraq in an overly hasty manner with little planning in regards of what to do after we won because we assumed a priori that the Iraqis would be greeting us with rose petals and open arms, and would love us forever and ever. Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had what--three foreign terrorist attacks against US soil/military assets in a decade? Two of which did less damage together than a single domestic terrorist managed? Then we attacked a target that had no relationship whatsoever to the terrorists of 9/11 on grounds that were quite dubious at best when first introduced, and shown to be quite blatantly fabricated after the fact. Can you understand why the oppossition to the war is legitimate?

1. Iraq had no relationship to the espoused enemies of the state
2. Iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical capabilities. This was known by the administrations of both the US and Great Britain at the time, as well as a good portion of the people living there.
3. The country that was attacked had shown no aggression towards the US or any ally in recent times.

There was no causus belli. None. Subsequent to the invasion, the CPA made several grave mistakes almost immediately. Disbanding the Iraqi Army instantly caused large numbers of people to lose their jobs, and in a country that had a decade of economic sanctions imposed against it, there was little opportunity to recover from that. This single act gave any potential insurgency tens of thousands of recruits trained and ready to fight against the US, but on terms that were far more favorable to the insurgents rather than the US: in cities, in a guerrilla campaign. This caused an increase in civilian casualties, both from insurgents killing political enemies as well as from collateral damage from coalition military operations. Ethnic violence sprang up, and today we have Iraqi military and police forces carrying out extrajudicial killings. All this from engaging a country that posed no credible threat to the US or its allies.

The mere desire for harm to pass upon the US is not a legitimate reason to invade, let alone a reason that cries for urgent invasion. Were that to be the case, we'd most certainly have to invade several other countries right now, such as Iran and North Korea, both of which are in far greater position to attack the US directly or indirectly than Iraq has ever been. The populace of Saudi Arabia bears us greater malice than the Iraqi government did, as is the case with Pakistan. Were it to be legitimate to invade a country that simply has the desire to cause us harm, even though it definately lacks the means, then it is equally legitimate for any liberal to arrange someone to beat you to a pulp, based upon many of your postings here. Such an action is in no way, shape, or form legitimate, and rescaling makes no difference upon the legitmacy and morality of the action.