It seems that many on the left are confused about the implications of the Iraq war, but I do want to clear up one major misconception some protestors have.
It's very clear that if you believe we were wrong to go into Iraq, you are arguing that it would be better to have Saddam Hussein in power. If we assume that the *only* way to depose Saddam Hussein was a military intervention, the logical formula goes: event B (removal of Saddam) occurs if and only if event A (foreign invasion) occurs. The contrapositive is: with no invasion, there is no regime change.
The logic could not be more clear. Now, not wanting the war is certainly a legitimate view to have. Saying that we should not have sent our forces does not mean that you enjoy Saddam Hussein. He was unquestionably in control of a sovereign nation and it is fine to hold the view that we should not interfere with the government of a sovereign nation. I certainly agree that pro-war people have the burden of proving that this action was justified, but no matter how mentally impaired the anti-war crowd is, they did support the continued rule of a tyrant over the democratic process taking place now. And they will certainly be on the wrong side of history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment