"Our invasion and occupation of Iraq were and are naked acts of aggression"

i haven't visited arthur for a while, something i am determined to remedy... here he, once again, in his level-headed and articulate way, spells it out for us...

The worst criticism to be offered about the catastrophe in Iraq by most members of the political establishment is that it was handled "incompetently." They are unable to say that our invasion of Iraq was immoral at the core, because they refuse to surrender the belief that we act for the "right reasons" and on behalf of history's "ultimate solution," which only we have. We may execute the plan remarkably poorly, but it can never be doubted that we had "good intentions."

This is the foundational point, one that is almost never acknowledged in our public debates. Iraq constituted no threat to us, and our leaders knew it. Therefore, our invasion and occupation of Iraq were and are naked acts of aggression. To fall back on the defense of "good intentions" is to confess that your actions have caused nothing but disaster and death -- but that you "meant well." None of the Iraqis who have suffered so grievously or who are now dead, and none of the Americans and others who have been horribly wounded or killed, gives a damn about anyone's intentions, good or otherwise. Neither should any decent and compassionate human being. When we contemplate the endless number of broken and bleeding bodies, it is morally repugnant to be asked to weigh, oh so carefully, the various elements in the war proponents' souls, simply to spare the extraordinary delicacy of the feelings of those who make certain they themselves never come anywhere near a battlefield.

maybe it was arthur and maybe it was someone else who said that it is like debating how the basketball team could have pulled out a win when what we should really be talking about is why the hell we played the game in the first place...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet