Wednesday, May 02, 2007

I on Iraq

The ubiquitous clash of the parties happening so visibly lately has really made me start to think about Iraq. Not that I hadn't before - it's always there below the surface, pulsing away like an infected wound that just won't heal. But I'm at the point where I actually want to verbalize.

We shouldn't have started the war in the first place. Certainly not under false intelligence. At the time I didn't agree with what we were doing even if the intelligence was good. If Saddam had intended to use the illusory WMDs against the US, he would have done so before 2003. True, he wasn't following the agreement he'd made with the UN by not submitting to required inspections, and that was a problem that should have been dealt with. But it wasn't a threat that justified a war.

But we went in. We shredded the country to bits. And yes, ding dong, the dictator's dead. We drew in terrorists that want to kill Americans and don't seem to have a problem with taking a few Iraqis along for the ride. I'm convinced that the real reason we're still there is so that Islamic terrorists have some Americans to target without having to set foot on our own soil. Bush will never admit publicly to that, because that's not supporting the troops, and he's not a Democrat.

Now if it were just the American military at risk, I frankly wouldn't have a problem with this. That's not an easy thing to admit to, but it's pragmatic. People who go into the armed service are expected to protect our country, and risking their lives is a clear part of that arrangement. And we are at war with a significant portion of the Islamic world, which was the case well before Dubya was elected. Maybe if the Repubs would have been more concerned about that and less interested in where Clinton was putting his dick, we could have focused on that and saved some lives. Alas, I digress.

But it's not just our troops lives that we're risking here. It's Iraqi people too - policemen and teachers and doctors and mothers and children. And I can't stand behind that.

The spousal unit argues that he doesn't pay his government to be ethical. I understand where he's coming from, but I just can't stomach that position.

So, I say let's get the heck outa Dodge. Honestly, I believe most of the bombings that are so common now will taper off when we're gone. And if they don't, well, we can go back. I think that the Iraqi infrastructure still needs triage and will for some time, but that doesn't have to be handled entirely by the US Military.


PrettyRandomThoughts said...

I like your theory on why we are still there and having thought about that, I think you are right! Dubya is an enigma to me. I don't agree with a lot of shit he does but at the same time I don't hate him with the intensity that most do. I find him interesting and stubborn.

Tanya Espanya said...

I am loving your new template!

(sorry, I know this has nothing to do with your post.)


justacoolcat said...

For a second I thought I was at the wrong blog. Very pink.

Tanya Espanya said...

See, Cat, weren't you saying the other day you had a hard time with the polka dots? Now if you don't like the pink, let's see what Slave will come up with next.

Slave to the dogs said...

PRT - he is an enigma. And a bad president. But like you, I don't suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Tanya - thanks, I love it too. Pink is awesome.

Cat - you picked an ample handle, you finicky bastard. I bet if you were called "Just a Cool Dog" you wouldn't be complaining. And yes, you did prompt the template change!

Malnurtured Snay said...

You on YouRaq?

I don't hate Dubya; I don't like him and think he's an awful president who got elected for his name. But I think he believes what he's doing is right, even though I think he doesn't have a fucking clue.

justacoolcat said...

I am notorious for being a finicky bastard and Tanya is correct don't change again. I fear comingback and having lasers burn my eyes or something. If I were Just a Cool Dog I'd never leave the house and I think you all know what I mean.