SF Chronicle Editorial: Will the end justify the means?

SF Chronicle ^ | 4-17-03

[Oldeconomybuyer]

AS THE PENTAGON touts the welcome accomplishments of its war against Iraq -- the fall of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the arrest of terrorist Abul Abbas -- the question arises: What constitutes victory?

The fact that Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, and the world would be better off without him, was never a point of debate between supporters and opponents of the war. Nothing that has happened in the monthlong fighting, including the scenes of celebrating Iraqis and the unveiling of the extent of the Iraqi regime's pillaging of the nation's wealth, underscores Hussein's barbarity. Good riddance.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The left continues to misunderestimate President Bush and the desire of the American people to make the world a safer place. If you wait for a smoking gun, it's too late.

[gunnedah]

The liberal left owns and controls 95% of all communication in this country and they know have control of the Democrat Party.
The liberal media like CNN feed us lies and distortions and they cannot be believed. Freedom of the press is getting to the point where we need freedom from them. Instead of truth and impartiality from the press, they along with our local schools and institutions of higher learning are brainwashing and promoting their own agenda.
Folks it is high time Amercia awaken.

[Bluntpoint]

The SF Chronicle:
Tommorrow's editorial:

"Too many heterosexuals in today's army?"

[Banjoguy]

The writer does not see this military action as part of an evolutionary process where there is no 'end' or something termed a 'victory'. It is an attempt to influence history; to nudge human political events so that they evolve more to our liking over the long run. It is also a learned response to the perceived growth of dictatorial power which in the past has been acted on after the fact, if you will, with destructive and costly consequences,

[MissBaby]

But it's important to remember that the Bush administration did not push for a pre-emptive war merely because of Hussein's inhumanity to his countrymen.

Wow, how blind can they be? They write the news everyday and can not see the danger Saddam represented. Anyone that would treat people the way we have now found out he was treating them is a very real threat.

That we should have gone in is now without question to any rational thinking person.

[The Other Harry]

Nothing that has happened in the monthlong fighting... underscores Hussein's barbarity.

Hunh?

I'm not sure the reporter wrote what he intended to write there.

[JustPiper]

I think this constitutes victory

When even a camel thanx our soldiers for freedom!!!

[Pharlap]

"Will the end justify the means?" The whole credo of those on the left is, and always has been, that the end justifies the means. Now the left is trying to characterize the war in Iraq in just that terminology. There is no end in most aspects of life, only particular snap shots that do little to define the reality of what is happening. For example, after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, the nonuse of such (and more powerful) weapons has not recurred for 58 years and counting. Does that mean that a nuclear weapon will never to used. No. But, the left has railed against nuclear weapons throughout this time. Now the left is complaining about the "fall out" (pun intended, I guess) from the war in Iraq. The world changed on 9/11, and is still changing. It was not America's desire for 9/11 to happen, but America is now providing the "means" for the changes to go even further. It is far too early to talk about the "end". The end is years away. But, leave it to the left to try and characterize the changing world in their language.

[wretchard]

The only thing that makes war remotely bearable is that it may come to an end. Japan surrendered to the United States 58 years ago, and both nations have since been at peace. And if both Americans and Japanese can visit their respective countries without rancor, it is because the war ended so long ago. The only thing that makes a United Nations "peace" so unbearable is that it preserves the belligerence; continues and then magnifies the hatred indefinitely. The UN refugee camps on the West Bank too, are approaching their Golden Anniversary, and the parties on each side of the conflict have no desire to visit each other. It has been suggested that the world must soon make a choice between killing and war. They are not the same thing.

[Puppage]

did not push for a pre-emptive war

Ok, boys & girls...for the last time....

this was not a pre-emptive war!

Bosnia under X42 WAS pre-emptive.

[ravinson]

The need to strike now, as outlined by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in February, was based on the argument that Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction, posed an imminent threat to the United States. He also hinted at Iraqi links to al Qaeda and, by implication, to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Those contentions have not been borne out by evidence uncovered to date.

If Suddam Hussein's homicidal suicide bombers do not constitute "weapons of mass destruction", then 9-11-01 could not be considered "mass destruction".

[Joe Bonforte]

The fact that Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, and the world would be better off without him, was never a point of debate between supporters and opponents of the war.

Really? How about that human shield that went around shouting at US troops? She was quoted as saying the Iraqis were now worse off with the American military in town than with Saddam running things.

[wayoverontheright]

AS THE PENTAGON touts the welcome accomplishments of its war against Iraq -- the fall of Saddam Hussein and his regime, the arrest of terrorist Abul Abbas -- the question arises: What constitutes victory?

Well, since you asked, in a war in which the goals were regime change and to "strike a blow against terror", accomplishing regime change and striking a blow against terror would constitute....victory.

[wayoverontheright]

The fact that Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, and the world would be better off without him, was never a point of debate between supporters and opponents of the war.

Our problem with the left's posture here is that they didn't want to do anything about Saddam. Anything we wanted to do which would rid the world of Hussein was opposed by the left, I find their concessions worthless.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Where can I subscribe to this fish wrap? I need a cheaper method of batromm variety paper if ya know what I mean?

[AbsoluteJustice]

bathroom that is

[wayoverontheright]

At this point, it's premature for anyone in the Bush administration to declare that this unprecedented projection of American military power was justified.

How can these people see the Iraqi jubilation and hear the reports of what went on there and make this statement. The war feels much more justified from this vantage point than before the war.

The left is giving up the moral high ground here, by this reasoning, NONE of the Clinton interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, etc. were justified.

[DB]

"The fact that Hussein was a ruthless tyrant, and the world would be better off without him, was never a point of debate between supporters and opponents of the war."

That is exactly what is wrong with your side. The fact that he was a murdering tyrant never entered the debate with you liberals. And the "supporters of the war" most certainly did make the case that he was a murdering tyrant. You simply chose not to listen.

[Savage Beast]

"the Bush administration did not push for a pre-emptive war merely because of Hussein's inhumanity to his countrymen"

"The need to strike now...was based on the argument that Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction, posed an imminent threat to the United States."

Yes. That is correct.

"Those contentions have not been borne out by evidence uncovered to date."

Yes, they certainly have. You are wrong.

The Saddam Tikriti Regime was an aggressive supporter of the global terrorist network that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, provided safe harbor for them, and was defended by them. If the U.S. had not removed this regime from power, it was merely a matter of time before these terrorists would have consolidated their power and armed themselves with nuclear weapons.

The covert functioning of this network is a source of its effectiveness, and Iraq was certainly not its only base of operations, but Saddam's Iraq was important--possibly crucial--to its effectiveness, and the removal of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq will probably be the beginning of the destruction of this terrorist network.

The conquest of Iraq was an important battle in the war against terrorism that Bush declared after the September 11 attack on the United States. This war has not been won yet.

The stand that President Bush took was courageous, audacious, and necessary.

If he continues true to the form he has so far displayed, he will not stop until this terrorist network is defeated and rendered ineffective.

The course of action he has taken is dangerous. He has carefully calculated the risks and the probability of success.

However there was no other choice. There was no other reasonable course of action.

In taking the stand that he took, he could have precipitated World War III. In fact, President Bush has probably prevented World War III.

Only time will tell. But President Bush deserves the support of all people of good will--and this means, among other things, that those who disagree with him must express their opinions.

The world is dangerous. Its survival depends upon the wisdom, courage, truthfulness, and good will of all of us.

"What constitutes victory?"

The security of the United States and the Free World.

[lawnguy]

Hey, is that Joe Camel? Did he also have asylum in Iraq?