Honestly, it is the 'changing it' part that has me most uncomfortable.
For instance, it is OK to invade and occupy Iraq to replace the government there with one that is more 'friendly' towards us. A pretty sizable portion of the U.S. population seems to agree with this statement.
But when it comes to the "Why is it OK?" part, you get some odd (to me anyway) answers. I'll quote some stuff from Wotan here to try to make a point.
"Getting rid of XXXXX wont stop terrorists from attacking us but it will prevent XXXXX from the possibility of supplying wmd to them. But imho more importantly what getting rid XXXXX will do is show the rest of those governments who have supported terror that the US wont sit back and wait to be hit. "
"XXXXX is an easy target and in the perfect position to be made an example of. We know hes a bad guy, a threat to his people and to his neighbors and has used wmd on YYYYY and his own people. "
"
A medium estimate is 500,000 deaths over 10 years if we keep the satus quo. Again the Humanitarian thing to do is get rid of XXXXX. This isnt the "reason" the US will get rid rid of him but it should be enough to answer the pacifists hippy "give peace a chance" degenerates.
"
"Dont believe the folks who claim "war is bad" or inhumane. The humane thing to do would have been to get rid of XXXXX a lot sooner. The UN has numbers that predict the % of deaths caused by its own sanctions. The majority of these deaths are women and children. XXXXX isnt using the money he earns from the oil for food program to feed his people. The UN knows this. The numbers of deaths every year caused by the sanctions excedes what is predicted to occur in the current invasion and far excedes the deaths from gulf war 1. "
You can replace the XXXXX with just about any names. Castro in Cuba for instance, why aren't we invading Cuba and replacing it with a 'democracy' that is more friendly to the U.S.?
Or possibly more to the point, why aren't we putting China to task over their CONSTANT 'human rights abuses"- I believe they are every bit as bad as Iraq personally. North Korea, same story. Why are we putting up with their roadkill? We know at there are a half million Koreans in labour camps in North Korea... who knows how many have died there.
Why Iraq? Will America only bully toejampot little Third World countries with no big friends? Or, on a more frightening note, will Bush decide that North Korea and China need "regime changes" too?
I can understand the rationale behind trying to link Iraq with terrorism. It just doesn't have the 'ring of truth' to it for me. Iraq is a SECULAR state.... the terrorists we are after are fundamentalist- the two mix like oil and water. Was Saddam sad when he heard of 9-11? Of course not, that would be stupid- but was he involved with it at all? I, personally, don't think so.
And that, to me, means the only reason we are invading Iraq is to replace the government because it happens not to like us. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. One day not to far down the road, France, Germany, and Russia may be sitting in the U.N. Security council debating Resolution 85462345, and whether or not they are willing to go to war with the United States to force them to "disarm".
