I am finding my politics shifting somewhat regarding how I see intervention by the US and other western nations from once being a staunch anti interventionist to now questioning the moral and geo political impact of such a stance.
A few things have started to alter my opinions on the issue, most of them having to do with how the classical and post modern left have resorted to outright lying for what they see as the greater good on so many small details it is not making me question everything about the reasoning behind the anti interventionist stance.
A great example is the repeated claims that Iraq under Sadam was a secular and nationalistdictatorship, this can be easily dismissed;
Sadam added Allah Akhbar or as it is known Takbir to the Iraqi flag, he initiated the massive drive to build thousands and thousands of mosques, one being the biggest in the world.
He also had the Quran dictated in his own blood to be placed in that mosque.
He stopped supporting the PLO and other quasi secular Palestinian movements and instead funded Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
He also offered money and houses to those of Iraqi born suicide bombers, increased his jihadist rhetoric and often praised islamic terrorist atrocities.
Another major issue is that of his genocide of the Kurds, his breaking the main rules of international law which dictate one must be removed from power and lose sovereignty on at least three or four counts, those being:
- Wars of repeated aggression against neighbouring states
- breaking the non proliferation treaty
- Harbouring international terrorists
None of the anti war crowd ever even address these points, yet they would support the overthrow of a white fascist power under the same circumstances.
Yet here are my misgivings about the pro war, traditionally but by no means always right wing and conservative crowd many of whom are seemingly also biased.
An example being that we sold Sadam the weapons he used to gas Kurds, we sold him arms, we supported his strong arm takeover and consolidation of power. We supported him when he was running a horrific fascist state that was so thick with fear you could eat it.
How can we claim to be so against dictatorship and genocide during and post invasion but before that we could do business with the same regime?
One of my main misgivings with any war is the danger out soldiers could be being used by people in wars that are essentially being launched so people can profit. For example there were 100% legit reasons to remove sadam, but I can't just ignore the fact that for example Cheney was the chairman of Haliburton, becomes vice president, is part of the leadership that launches a war on a former supported dictator and then hands the company he worked for billions in the way of no bid contracts.
I would support every war by the U.S to topple dictatorships and theocracies, but I have a real fear that we don't go to war for those reasons, instead I see the possibility we go to war for private profit against the interests of the military who go to fight them underpaid, under equipped and under supported and against the interests of the tax payer who is stuck with the bill.
I am interested to hear some opinions, mainly from the people who supported the war on their view on it, something I admit I never took much heed of, being initially so against it. I am always willing to change my mind on an issue and this one I really need to do more studying on from both sides.