Tuesday, March 20, 2007

A Worthy Mission- Mark Daily: Why I Joined

In my last post I linked to Mark Daily's MySpace page through the words "worthy mission." I think this fallen soldier's writings eloquently state the reasons we should all support our troops and their mission in Iraq. Here is the full transcript:

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

22 comments:

Democracy Lover said...

First, I think we all should thank Mr. Daily for his service and grieve with his family. I don't think we should necessarily agree with his assessment.

He is correct that the people of Iraq and many other nations are suffering under oppressive regimes and unable to enjoy the blessings of freedom. Where he goes wrong is in assuming that the U.S. has a primary responsibility to solve these problems unilaterally. (He is also wrong in assuming that this motivation had anything whatever to do with the Iraq war, but that's another discussion.)

Human beings do have a responsibility to each other, but when confronted with criminal behavior, it's not up to the strongest human to intervene. We need an international rule of law and international institutions to take on these responsibilities. As the most powerful nation, we have a responsibility to build and defend such institutions, to abide by the rule of international law, and to work within those institutions to deal with the many humanitarian crises that face us.

Cameron said...

DL,

International rule of law? You mean the United Nations. The same United Nations which sanctioned military action against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait and killed thousands of people. The same United Nations that only stopped military action against Iraq based on certain conditions that Saddam Hussein's government had to meet. These conditions were, of course, never met. Not only were they never met, but they were passed over and over again for over a decade. Saddam Hussein had no intention of ever allowing the United Nations to change his behavior- behavior that included the rape and murder of countless people. This is the same United Nations which passed resolutions threatening dire consequences if Saddam Hussein did not fully and completely comply with his obligations to the world community and to his own citizens. He of, course, did not.

What exactly did the United Nations do to Iraq to try and stop the suffering of its citizens? They imposed sanctions. Which, of course, Saddam was able to avoid as he amassed mansions and suitcases full of US currency. His people, however, were not so fortunate. They starved. Their economy crumbled. And they were still raped and murdered.

What, exactly, did the "international rule of law" accomplish from 1991 to 2003? Were the Iraqi citizens saved from their suffering? Was there any chance whatsoever that the United Nations was going to help them?

Here, again, are Mark Daily's words:

"And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are."

Democracy Lover said...

The same United Nations whose Charter the U.S. violated by invading Iraq. The same United Nations whose inspectors had certified that there were no WMD in Iraq (correctly). The same United Nations that had successfully contained Iraq within its own borders for over 10 years.

The United Nations did not set out to overthrow Saddam and impose another government on Iraq. That is a job for the Iraqi people. While Saddam was certainly an oppressive and evil dictator, he was certainly not the only one in the world. The United States did not overthrow Saddam because he oppressed his people, or amassed mansions or tried to game the Oil for Food program. That is pretty clear now after 4 years when the Iraqi people still live under military rule by an occupying foreign power, the mansions of Saddam are occupied by American military and contractors, and the entire treasury of Iraq is missing due to American incompetence or theft.

Sure, the UN is imperfect, but the US has done nothing to improve it and much to undermine it over the last several decades. Our effort would have been better spent there than trying to assert hegemony over the Middle East by military force.

Cameron said...

A job for the Iraqi people? I thought it was a job for the "international rule of law".

So which is it, DL? Were the Iraqi people supposed to be saved from the rape and murdering Saddam Hussein by the UN? But then you write that the UN never set out to get rid of Saddam.

Or perhaps the Iraqi people were supposed to overthrow Saddam by themselves. You know, the same people whose bodies we are finding in mass graves in the Iraqi deserts. The same people who Saddam dropped chemical weapons on, killing entire towns. The same people that actually did try to overthrow him after the Gulf War, but were murdered for their efforts.

Which is it Democracy Lover?

The UN, which according to you never wanted to help the Iraqi people?

Or the people themselves, who had been terrorized for decades and are only now discovering the fate of some of their family members?

Shane Egan said...

From An Alternate Standpoint on the Mormon Side:

Prefix: I do not in anyway feel the soldiers earnest effort is in vain in this war and I would never join a protest against the war because I feel it sends a stronger message against those who are fighting instead of the principles, however here are a few of my feelings about why we should pull out of Iraq but first my statement:

I am glad we entered Iraq to stop the leaders from preying on their own, I am glad that we have found Saddam but it would be best to withdraw from Iraq gradually until our presence is minimal. We should have gone in, but we shouldn’t have stayed.



“Satan would have us doing so many good things to stop us from doing that which is necessary” The United States presence in Iraq is doing much good, that is without question, however, are we doing enough good in a timely manner that it is necessary for us to be there and that it can reasonably achieve the desired end, are there other places we could be concentrating our efforts that would be more willing to accept democracy “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.” Now, I understand this scripture refers to missionary work but the principle being taught is “When teaching a higher law and the people don’t want to live it, don’t waist your time, there are others who need you.”

Moroni never asked Zerahemnah to join his way of thinking, he only asked for the attacks to stop. I believe Moroni understood than when an enemy is so unwilling to be converted to any other ideology the next best choice is to leave them with a covenant of tolerance, or at least of no more blood shed. When they did not enter into a covenet they were killed (hence with Saddam) and when they did they were set free. Saddam is gone, may I ask, is there still a red alert threat on American soil if we leave the people be? I’m sure Moroni knew that even if he let Zerahemnah go with a promise there was still chance of return, but the point is that bloodshed and war should only come after the broken promise and only in defense of our country. Are we still defending our country or are we perhaps standing in front of a blood thirsty man like Zerahemnah and trying to teach the discussions rather than being realistic and settling with a promise to leave us alone?

In conclusion: When your two children fight it is more effective to tell them, “stop it or else…” instead of “Let me tell you why you should love your sister..” If children can learn not to hit then, when they are ready, they will learn to love. In other words, Iraq is not ready for democracy, they need the law of Moses. Let’s tell them to “stop hitting or else” and when they disobey let’s not try to throw principles in their face, instead let’s see if they learn to stop hitting, then, when they are ready, we’ll teach them love.

Democracy Lover said...

Yes, the same Iraqi people who were promised support by the Bush I administration to overthrow Saddam then abandoned. The same Iraqi people who were gassed by US-provided WMD and whose survivors got to see Donald Rumsfled shake hands afterwards with their murderer and assure him of continued US support.

There are two things of which we can be absolutely sure:

1. The United States invasion of Iraq has not resulted in a better life for the Iraqi people, unless you suppose the half million dead are enjoying a better life with Allah.

2. The United States did not invade Iraq in order to rid the Iraqi people of a despot, or to bring democracy to Iraq.

By their fruits shall you know them, and the fruits of the US invasion and occupation are a destroyed nation, millions dead, a civil war, and a worldwide increase in terrorism.

Democracy Lover said...

Cameron,

Let me also say a few more words about the UN.

The UN does not have a mandate to do regime change. It does not have a military force or a mandate to employ force to intervene to solve problems by force. Why not? Because that's how the great powers set it up. Is that working now? No. We need to re-invigorate and re-design the UN to cope with the 21st century.

What should be done about oppressive regimes like Saddam's Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe, or North Korea? What should be done about genocides like those in Darfur or Congo? Obviously the world community needs to be able to intervene to protect human rights and human lives. However, we cannot have single-nation vigilantism because every nation has its own national interests and its own history and no nation can be trusted to act apart from those interests.

The world needs a police force, but the United States cannot be that force. Rather than attempt to portray pursuit of our "national interests" as a humanitarian venture for spreading freedom and democracy, we need to be honest about our nation's motivations. Then perhaps we can work with other nations to solve the world's problems instead of causing them.

Anonymous said...

Democracy Lover......what do you mean when you say, the entire treasury of Iraq is missing due to American incompetence or theft.

Cameron said...

Once again, DL, you have avoided the question.

You have changed your argument time and again, and when pressed you simply change the subject.

I will take your avoidance as acknowledgement that neither the UN nor the Iraqi people were capable of deposing Saddam Hussein.

I also note your assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

I once again echo Mark Daily's words,

"maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein."

Your philosophising about an international police force does nothing to stop Saddam Hussein. The UN is impotent militarily because absolutely zero countries in this world are willing to give the UN that power.

Your hope that the US would work with other countries to depose Saddam is valid. So valid, in fact, that that is exactly what the US did. That "working with other countries" went on for over a decade. Meanwhile Iraqis continued to be raped and murdered.

Cameron said...

Shane,

You make a couple of points and I'll try to address each of them.

"But when they persecute you in this city..."

I agree that this verse specifically refers to missionary work, but I understand where you are going with this. However, there are many instances in the scriptures that demonstrate the need to preach even to those that reject you. Paul was soundly rejected in many places, yet continued to preach. Alma was rejected but was told by an angel to return. Ammon and his brothers set out to preach to the previously unconvertable Lamanites, a people that often killed Ammon's people on sight. All of these examples demonstrate the responsibility to preach regardless of rejection.

However, the Iraqi people are not rejecting democracy. They have a higher voter turnout than we do, despite the need for armed guards at the polls.

The people fighting against democracy are those that want power. There are examples of this in the scriptures as well, along with efforts to confront them so that democratic government could survive.

There are examples of this throughout history. Governments have fallen under the control of murderers that threatened their own people and the rest of the world. Many times these rulers have been confronted and their nations have been better off for it. When they were not confronted, or when they were only half heartedly confronted, that nation's citizens suffered.

What happened to Germany after WWI? They were punished. It was that very punishment that allowed Hitler to gain power and start WWII.

After WWII we changed tactics. We stuck around. We spent countless amounts of money to build up the nations we defeated in war. Now those countries are among the most stable and successful in the world. We still have a military presence in Germany and Japan.

Bosnia erupted in genocide, and after a time we intervened. That was about a decade ago and we still have a military presence there.

We fought alongside the South Koreans in the fifties, but only half-heartedly. Now, North Korea's citizens live in poverty; a stark contrast to their neighbors in the South.

We did the same thing in Vietnam in the sixties and seventies, but because of political pressure we couldn't even keep the country divided as we did in Korea. We slowly left the country, allowing North Vietnam to defeat the South and go on to murder 2 million people.

The Iraqi people have not rejected democracy, they rejected Saddam Hussein. They need and deserve the chance to make their new government work.

The alternative, as history shows, will be costly.

Democracy Lover said...

It is highly unlikely that Saddam could have been overthrown by the Iraqi people acting alone. However, it goes without saying that the US invasion and continuing occupation has not improved life for the average Iraqi. In many cases, it has ended that life.

At no point since WWII has the United States intervened in another country in order to bring about or protect democracy. In every case, the motivations have been to assert American power and dominance. In many cases, from Vietnam onward, the US has prevented elections or overthrown elected governments and still we show contempt for democracy when it does not further US corporate interests.

If you think for one moment that the US invaded Iraq in order to "free" the Iraqis from their evil dictator, I have a bridge to sell you. What about all the other oppressive dictators and genocidal regimes? Why do you think the US decided to invade Iraq when the Sudanese government was already carrying out a genocide? Why Iraq when the Saudi government is just as oppressive? Why Iraq instead of Congo or Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or Burma?

When Saddam was being his most brutal and oppressive, he was the darling of the US government and the CIA. Suddenly, almost immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, he became a public enemy #1 - why?

Cameron said...

According to the Iraq Survey Group, Saddam Hussein became public enemy number 1 because he miscalculated what the world reaction would be when he invaded Kuwait. But, really, this is just another attempt to change the subject.

The subject we are discussing, besides the fact that you keep changing your story, is what to do with Iraq.

We are in agreement that neither the UN nor the Iraqis could stop the suffering and the threat.

What was your solution? Nothing. You haven't offered any.

Instead, you try to poke holes in the US's actions. You say that the United States' action in Iraq has not improved anything.

I would point out that aside from the obvious positive of Saddam Hussein no longer raping and murdering people, the Iraqi people are now free.

That there are those that still seek to deny Iraqis their newfound freedom is not an argument to leave, or to never have gone in the first place.

Now, you express doubts as to our nation's intentions in Iraq. Again, Mark Daily addressed this concern as well:

Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq...

...When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions...

Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein.

Democracy Lover said...

At this point, more Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and the chaos unleashed as a result of that invasion than died under Saddam. The US hasn't stopped the suffering, it has caused more suffering.

The "freedom" enjoyed by Iraqis is phony. They have a government elected while under military occupation that does not actually rule because the US is the true sovereign. They don't have the freedom to even move safely around their neighborhoods, so any political freedom they may possess is useless.

Again, you keep avoiding the key point here. The United States government did not intervene in Iraq to "free" the Iraqis from Saddam. That excuse was invented long after the invasion when all the original excuses were found to be lies.

Cameron said...

Try nine days.

Nine days after September 11 President Bush used spreading democracy as the United States' strategy for fighting terrorism. He reiterated it the following January in his first State of the Union address after 9/11.

Interestingly, as we discussed this point so many months ago, you didn't dispute that timetable.

Less than a month after Saddam was deposed details of his actions started to become known:

"Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes.

"I was beaten, refrigerated naked and put underground for one year because I was a Shiite and Saddam is a Sunni," said Ali Kaddam Kardom, 37. He said he was arrested in the central city of Karbala on March 10, 2000. He returned to the facility in Baghdad this weekend, he said, to help rescue any Iraqis who still might be imprisoned there."

There are countless sources and examples of the suffering Saddam Hussein caused.

Do you really want to equate the actions of the US military to that of Saddam Hussein?

Is it really even the US that is causing the suffering? If the US were to leave today, would the car bombs stop?

Conversely, if the terrorists were to give up and leave, then would the car bombs stop?

The freedom Iraqis now enjoy under their current government is similar to the freedom West Germany and Japan enjoyed after WWII. We of course directed the establishment of new governments, and our military still remains there. But it is hardly the picture of US imperialism you like to paint. In fact, West Germany stood in stark contrast to East Germany for many years.

Democracy Lover said...

Cameron,

You are so immersed in the right-wing world view that you simply cannot allow any facts to interfere with it.

The point is not that Saddam was bad - sure he was. The point is the US did not invade Iraq because it wanted to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, or for any of the other many reasons cooked up by the White House PR office. The situation of Iraq today bears no resemblance whatever to that of Europe after WWII, just as our intervention in Iraq bears no resemblance to WWII, just as no action of the US military establishment since WWII bears any resemblance whatever to WWII.

You have been sold a very appealing lie and you have bought it - hook, line, and sinker.

Cameron said...

The problem with your assertion DL is that you haven't offered any facts.

Good to see you abandon your latest argument so easily though.

Let's review your progression and subsequent abandoment of arguments in relation to US involvement in Iraq.

First, you assert it was the UN's place to deal with and remove Saddam Hussein.

Then, it was the Iraqi citizens themselves who had the responsibility to remove Saddam.

Then, it was back to the UN, but a form of the UN that doesn't really exist at the present.

Then, you abandoned all of those arguments to say that the US never had the intention of getting rid of Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq.

This latest assertion was of course proven incorrect by the facts, just as your others were.

You now fall back on the "Dont Confuse Me With The Facts" argument made famous by Geoffrey.

I would like to add one more point to the discussion. Earlier you paraphrased the biblical saying "by their fruits ye shall know them".

Perhaps I should buy your argument "hook, line and sinker" and realize that in Iraq the US, from the very beginning, may have stated their goal of spreading democracy, but they have not backed their words up by actually removing the dictator and holding democratic elections.

Oh wait.

Democracy Lover said...

Cameron, if you don't understand the difference between stating an intention and actually having that intention - particularly from a politician - then the bridge is still on offer.

Secondly, the Bush speech on 9/20/01 did not mention Iraq except to say that his new so-called "war on terror" was not going to be like his Daddy's war on Iraq. That much was true - it would be much more ill-conceived, much less justifiable, and with much less planning.

Let me clarify. 1) The US did not invade Iraq to bring freedom and democracy. 2) The US did not overthrow Saddam because he was an evil dictator who oppressed his own people. 3) If there had been a justification for an action against Iraq because of the evils of Saddam, the US would not be an appropriate party to intervene. 4) If an intervention was appropriate, it should have been carried out by the United Nations, not by the spurious "coalition of the willing". 5) If the US had any real interest in cleansing the world of oppressive rulers, it would have long ago reconstituted the UN into a force equal to the task. 6) The reason it has not done #5 is that the US wants to reserve its right to impose oppressive rulers on nations that don't bend to the interests of US corporations.

I started where I did because I was responding to you.

Cameron said...

DL,

Not only was the intention stated, but it was actually carried out.

Ironically, it is your policy of leaving Iraq midstream that will result in the end of Iraqi democracy.

Cameron said...

For clarification:

1) Proven by word and deed
2) Ditto
3) If?
4) Back to the UN? But you said, "The United Nations did not set out to overthrow Saddam and impose another government on Iraq. That is a job for the Iraqi people.", and then you said, "The UN does not have a mandate to do regime change."
5) "Reconstitute"? You mean, impose our will on the UN to make it what we want it to be? Hmmm.
6) Right. Cause Iraq's current democratically elected government is just like Saddam Hussein's oppressive dictator.

Democracy Lover said...

The fact that the US invaded Iraq says nothing about its motivation. It certainly does not prove that we invaded for any of the reason put forward by the Bush White House.

To respond to the rational points you make, the UN needs to be re-constituted, but it is not up to the US to determine how it should be done or to impose its ideas on the rest of the world. As the only superpower and self-described bastion of freedom and democracy, the US should initiate a democratic process of reform and work side-by-side with other nations to solve the problems of the UN.

My #6 earlier refers not to the US invasion of Iraq and setup of a puppet regime with democratic trappings, it refers to the reason why we will never support the kind of reform I described in the previous paragraph. If we reform the UN into a democratic organization with teeth, those teeth might take a bite out of US corporate interests somewhere in the world and that cannot be tolerated.

Cameron said...

The fact that the US invaded Iraq says nothing about its motivation.

Correct. But that's not really what I'm saying, is it. Now if the US said they were going there to get rid of Saddam and to establish a democracy and then they went and did just that, well, that just might say something about its motivation.

Democracy Lover said...

They said lots of things about why they were invading that turned out to be lies, bringing democracy to Iraq was only one of many lies.

Holding an election in a nation under military occupation is not considered legitimate under international law. The puppet government does not control the country, has no real sovereignty, and works under agreements engineered by a foreign power. It is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

While it is true that the US said they were going to get rid of Saddam and did so, the reasons our government performed that act are completely different from those that it stated before, during and after the invasion. You might try looking up the Project for a New American Century to get some idea of why these 3000 Americans and half a million Iraqis had to die.