The war in Iraq could be worth it.

[Update: To all those who think I am in favor of the war, please get a clue. Obviously I would rather see the progress we need to have without the war. All I am saying is that maybe something good can come out of Bush's disaster. But I am not saying I'm glad it happened, and anyone who thinks this is simply wrong.]
------

I've been thinking, maybe this insane war will be worth all the pain, if we can finally make progress on the following critical issues:

1. A sane, sustainable energy policy

2. A precedent for putting warmongers on trial

Maybe it was necessary. But that sounds horrible. It is horrible. I would like to think the war wasn't necessary. Maybe we could have achieved those two goals without it. But I suspect it was necessary, because people don't make major changes unless they have been forced to, and both of these will be major changes.

Can we achieve those two goals? We must.

ENERGY
The energy policy we have now is literally insane. We are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate where we can now easily see the earth becoming substantially less habitable. We can easily see the prospect of famines which will, if we continue on this path, kill millions of people.

As horrendous as the Iraq war has been for humanity, it will be mild by comparison to a world where the sun's energy cannot escape. We are literally creating our own hell. The science is clear. We cannot continue on this path.

JUSTICE
This war is the biggest crime ever committed in recent memory, and justice needs to be served to the criminals. A relatively small handful of people hijacked the output of our intelligence agencies, and deliberately lied us into a war. Worse yet, these same hijackers are in charge of another endless "war" which they are using to commit further crimes. These people brainwashed a majority of the country into believing that Iraq attacked them. And technology allows these warmongers to direct the awesome power of our military at targets on the other side of the globe, thus creating more hatred for the US, and pouring gas on the fire.

As horrendous as the war has been for the Iraqis (and our own people to a much lesser degree) it will be mild by comparison to a world where warmongers can deceive their nations into going to war and get away with it. Without investigations and trials for all who caused this mess, we are creating a precedent for war without consequence for the warmongers. The logic is clear. We cannot continue on this path.

IS THERE A SOLUTION?
The Iraq war has everyone's attention. They see that something is VERY wrong. So how do we get them to see the silver lining? That is a great question for another diary, but let's start by saying we demand sanity and justice.

If this horrible war can be used to get us to quit killing the planet and hold our leaders accountable, maybe it will be worth it.

Have your say below, and thanks for reading this diary.

•  tip jar

  All mojo will be used to purchase a ticket to the Bush tribunal.

  by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:53:01 AM PDT

  •  your frame is off

    it's never going to be worth it...could there be a silver lining?  Maybe.

    by RallyPoint on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:35:48 PM PDT

•  Yeah, I'm sure going to war with

  Venezuela or Syria or Lebanon or Iran would be "worth it" to you if it was good for our economy.

  "Worth it?" Have you lost your fucking mind?

  Was it worth it to the 500,000 dead brown people?

  by Plastic Breakfast on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:56:52 AM PDT

  •  Hey

    reading not your bag?

    I'm not saying it was a good idea.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:18:10 AM PDT

    •  You're saying killing 500,000 people

      was worth it to you.

      That's fine, it just means you're an inhuman monster that doesn't deserve a voice here.

      And you certainly deserve us pointing out that your simpleton's "opinion" is a load of horsecrap that should be dumped in the garbage where it belongs.

      by Plastic Breakfast on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:23:01 AM PDT

      •  Get a grip

        I can tell you're really angry, but I didn't start this fucking war. I tried to stop it. And now I am working hard to prevent a much worse problem, namely the probable extinction of a large portion of the life remaining on this planet.

        But if it makes you feel better to call me a monster for pointing out that a billion is more than 500,000, then go for it.

        by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:39:02 AM PDT

        •  And now I'm calling you a monster for your b.s.

          talking point that this war is going to save billions of people.

          OK, then I guess Hitler and the Nazis were worth it because they changed history, and made us realize some of the evils of becoming an empire bent on conquering everyone.

          Bullcrap. And bullcrap on your argument that the Iraq War will save billions of lives. You don't believe that. You're just trying to win an argument. And you should be ashamed of it.

          It's a lie. And it's propaganda.
          
          I'm angry yes; I'm angry because rather than admitting you're WRONG, that this diary is WRONG, that this Iraq War was NOT WORTH IT, you try to make lame connections about saving lives in order to defend it.

          Either your ego is so pathetically puny, that you simply can't admit you blew it, that this diary is some crap argument you dreamt up in order to propose something controversial that people would bother reading; or yes, you're a monster if you actually believe the things you're writing.

          by Plastic Breakfast on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:58:44 AM PDT

          •  Listen

            First off, you say you know what I believe, which is obviously not true.

            Second, I'm not saying it will save lives, I'm saying it might.

            If you think America would change its energy policy dramatically without the shock of this horrible war, within the few years remaining, please make the case for that. But you can't, because we're still increasing our fossil fuel usage even now.

            I can't say if this will be enough of a shock to actually get people to change, but maybe it will. And if it does, then maybe there will be a silver lining to an otherwise horrible black cloud.

            But the words are being lost here, you think I want this war, despite my words. You're so pissed you're not listening at all.

            by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:09:11 PM PDT

            •  Sorry, I think that's pretty sick.

              And it's a pretty outlandish "maybe" you're using to back up your opinion that the war could be worth 500,000 deaths. Sounds to me like you're just looking for a reason to back up what you've already said at this point, because you didn't think through the costs of the war well enough to begin with.

              by Plastic Breakfast on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 02:37:39 PM PDT

              •  Again

                you must do just a little math and see how your 500,000 number compares to the projected human cost of climate change. It's not even close.

                You're still clinging to the idea that I am somehow in favor of the war, rather than looking for a positive outcome that can be salvaged from it.

                by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:25:08 PM PDT

                •  Again, your conviction that

                  the Iraq War is going to be the reason we save billions of people is FEEBLE.

                  And, unless you're now capitulating, you've changed from it was "worth it," to "salvaging something from it."

                  Two totally different things, and damning proof of how wrongheaded your diary was to begin with.

                  by Plastic Breakfast on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:37:49 PM PDT

                  •  You're just a fucking moron aren't you?

                    If what is salvaged is more than what it cost, then you might say it's worth it.

                    But you're a moron, so that doesn't compute.

                    good bye, dumbass.

                    by racerx on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 12:47:18 PM PDT

      •  "Simpleton" and "inhuman monster"

        are not exactly constructive opinions.  Jesus Christ, are you seriously flaming this guy for looking for a silver lining in the cloud?

        by niremetal on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:41:15 PM PDT

    •  Your own comment

      If this horrible war can be used to get us to quit killing the planet and hold our leaders accountable, maybe it will be worth it.

      Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever held what used to be your best friends head in your arms, only the body you are holding does not have a head? No war is worth it!

      by tazz on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:29:54 AM PDT

      •  No, I haven't

        And I haven't lived on a dying planet before either.

        You can decide which is worse.

        by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:41:39 AM PDT

  •  I think the diarist

    is just trying to say that something good might come out of the Iraq war, even if most of what is coming out of it is very bad.

    But that could be said about any war if you look hard enough. I would suggest that the diarist use better words than 'worth it'. Even if we learn some good lessons from this war I don't think it was worth the cost.

    by Warren Terrer on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:06:44 PM PDT

    •  WT has it right here I think.

      by melvin on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:41:51 PM PDT

•  Of course, this calculus fails the Murtha test.

  It's "total crap," in that we should have had both of those things without the war.

  by Kagro X on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:57:10 AM PDT

  •  calculus?

    this shit is on one hand!

    by borkitekt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:03:25 AM PDT

    •  More like one finger n/t

      by ChapiNation386 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

  •  of course

    of course it would be better to have justice and sanity without having to go through a war to get it.

    And that was just about to happen, I'm sure.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:27:35 AM PDT

    •  Oh, don't worry.

      Lots of people support total crap.

      by Kagro X on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:30:02 AM PDT

•  you know

  this is one of the rationales that greens used to support Ralph Nader in his 2000 bid for President. To wit, 4 years of Bush would wake the country up to a saner environmental policy.

  As for this argument, I don't buy it, nor do I think that Bush et al will ever be held accountable for this debacle.

  by zenbowl on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 10:58:35 AM PDT

  •  dream vs. nightmare

    This war only serves religious revolutionaries, who displace the kind of revolutionaries who want representative government.   It's only very very sad, very very stupid, not only unnecessary but counter-democracy, both here and there.  

    by anna shane on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

•  I reject the causality

  The war was a detour from a sane energy policy, not an impetus. Yes, dubya would probably have found some other way to delay doing what needs doing on energy if he didn't have the invasion to take up all the headlines. Yes, we'll probably have to wait for a new President to make any real progress there anyhow - I mean, would you really want these incompetents setting our energy policy for the next couple of decades?

  As for putting warmongers on trial... my money's on it never happening. The best I hope for is prosecution of the torturers in spite of dubya's forthcoming pardons of them. I hope we can do that; it will be important the next time a president tells Americans to break the law and he can protect them.

  p.s.: There will be no famines due to global warming. You have my word on it.

  by Brain Donor on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:01:29 AM PDT

•  The mistake in the analysis is the caluculus of

  justifying the war with the possible outcome/s.

  The ends you cite are very worthwhile.

  No one would go to war to achieve them indirectly however.

  With respect, one should decouple the war our energy policy or changes in our justice system.

  You end up weighing the lives lost with the benefits and, this is key, the end is not even remotely associated with the justification of the attack on Iraq.

  The correct way to frame the argument, and it is not altogether a bad one, is that the war might create these beneficial outcomes regardless of the net downside.

  by 7November on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:01:48 AM PDT

  •  that's it

    that's all I was saying.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:19:29 AM PDT

•  This is another permutation of the old

  logic from some on the left that the worse things get, the better they will get. Pushed to its extreme, this means that the best thing that could possibly happen to us would be a brutal out-and-out fascist dictatorship, as it would awaken the masses, etc.

  I do not concur.

  by melvin on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:08:02 AM PDT

•  sure. & if i lose an arm & a leg

  doing some stupid johnny knoxville stunt, it'll be worth it if scarlett johansson visits me in the hospital.

  by rasbobbo on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:10:08 AM PDT

  •  I would do that

    If during the course of her visit there were some relations involved from that point forward.

    by ChapiNation386 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:29:42 AM PDT

    •  what, like rubbing baby oil on your stump?

      by rasbobbo on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:24:03 PM PDT

      •  It depends on which stump

        And where that stump goes afterwards.

        *this post and last one are snark

        by ChapiNation386 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:01:04 PM PDT

•  Cheer up, Brian. You know what they say.

  For life is quite absurd
  And death's the final word
  You must always face the curtain with a bow
  Forget about your sin
  Give the audience a grin
  Enjoy it, it's your last chance of the hour

    So, always look on the bright side of death
    Just before you draw your terminal breath

  by Mike S on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:10:09 AM PDT

•  Murder people for your...

  ...environmental religion?

  Please tell me you're not as insane as Bush.

  by dov12348 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:10:46 AM PDT

  •  unbelievable

    How few people can actually read.

    I'm not advocating the war, I'm saying it may have been necessary.

    But you, and a lot of other people here, are unable to realize that there's a difference between advocating something and trying to make the best of a bad situation.

    What would be insane would be to miss this opportunity to use the public outcry over Iraq to help avert the climate disaster which is coming.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:18:40 PM PDT

    •  Been there, done that with the disaster thing.

      I was one of those Y2K paranoids.  

      In any case, there are scientists all over the map on the climate thing, and I haven't had the time to study it in sufficient depth, so I have no opinion on it as of yet.

      by dov12348 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:27:15 PM PDT

      •  well

        Being wrong about one non-disaster doesn't make you right about the next potential problem, does it?

        BTW, there was plenty of people who prepared back in 99, at various levels, some of which were prudent, others more paranoid (in retrospect).

        Read up on issues before you make judgements. The science is not all over the map, unless you count the guys Exxon pays.

        Even Shell Oil has finally agreed that the debate is over.

        by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:37:41 PM PDT

        •  Thousands of scientists all over the world...

          ...dispute global warming in diferent ways.   And I'm interested in too many other things to do a deep study of something that is so controversial in the scientiic community.

          by dov12348 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:18:52 PM PDT

          •  interesting

            you don't study it, but you say "thousands of scientists all over the world dispute global warming".

            Do a little homework, you'll see how "controversial" global warming is.

            It's not.

            by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 03:35:59 PM PDT

    •  A human sacrifice?

      Katrina taught us about the value of the marshlands in the southern Gulf; we learned that the Army Corps of Engineers can not be trusted. It taught us vividly that in the end the sea will win. But it would be too blunt to make a 'could be worth it' statement in light of all the human suffering involved.

      So your point is a good one but it needs to be expressed in a way that would not hurt those who have suffered grievously from the Iraq debacle. (besides coalition deaths, estimates of Iraqi population killed ranges from 100,000 to 600,000.)

      by Agathena on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:30:31 PM PDT

      •  I appreciate your comment

        But they will be hurt more if we fail to change course. Their children will pay for this.

        Now is not the time to mince words. Those kids need us to take action.

        by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:40:02 PM PDT

        •  No denying where we are heading

          It is dire.

          But I would NOT justify a man-made disaster for the coming environmental apocalypse. Just how much did the Iraq debacle do to harm the environment? the carbon debt, the increase in global warming, those beautiful ancient rivers. It's unbearable to think about it.

          by Agathena on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:46:28 PM PDT

          •  No justification

            If they had spent all that money on developing renewable energy instead of blowing it on a war for oil, we could have solved the energy problem. But that's not what happened of course.

            I don't want anyone to think I am justifying the war, I am looking at the question of what good can we make of it now that it has happened.

            We need to get out, and then use the issue to drive the larger issues of climate change and governmental accountability. I think it could work (many disagree)

            As bad as the Iraq war is, as messed up as their environment is now, it will be much worse if we fail to get the attention of the American people and get them to turn the ship. This war could convince people that we need to end our dependence on foreign oil, and to fire any and all politicians who don't (like dingbat Dingel). If that happens, we could possibly avoid the worst of the crisis. But we need radical change, and fast.

            by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:16:31 PM PDT

            •  Excellent

              So your working title could be
              "What good can be salvaged from the Iraq debacle?" or something like that.

              by Agathena on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 01:27:45 PM PDT

•  Heh

  I'll be able to carry a litter of kittens to term before we'll see those who created this war on trial for their actions.

  by Jay Elias on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:11:38 AM PDT

  •  that's the spirit

    and what a message we send to the next batch of neocons.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:20:49 PM PDT

•  If I smash my car

  at high speed into a large steel post and total it ,
  I will never have to fix that dang broken clock .

  by indycam on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:13:29 AM PDT

  •  broken clock?

    Yeah, not having a habitable planet is just like having a broken clock.

    Your comparison is bass ackwards. If global warming is not addressed ASAP, the casualties in Iraq will be small by comparison.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:33:54 AM PDT

    •  Better to fix the clock

      then wreck the car .

      and I never said what you think I said .

      by indycam on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:49:52 AM PDT

•  Value judgements

  Deaths in the hundreds of thousands. Causualties and dislocations exceed that by an order of magnitude.

  In order to make any long term change the immorality of the war needs to be addressed at some level by all of us (there was a good diary a few days ago about this). There is plenty of culpability to trickle down.

  We will point fingers at the baddest of apples until someone like Reagan comes along and gets everyone to feel good again, just like he did to assuage the Vietnam malaise.

  I fail to see how the Iraq experience ushers in energy sanity. The rationale based on facts as they were before the war should have been sufficient.

  by crick02478 on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:14:16 AM PDT

  •  plenty of culpability

    yes there is. And if we fail to apply justice, we will have more culpability.

    fail to see how the Iraq experience ushers in energy sanity.

    It may not, I'm not sure. What Iraq provides is a very painful realization, which can lead to a breakthrough. Maybe.

    The rationale based on facts as they were before the war should have been sufficient.

    That would be nice, but it wasn't happening. Much the opposite, actually.

    by racerx on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:59:06 AM PDT

•  If we fight them over there.. then

  why can't they still fight us over here?

  Why is cut always linked to run, why not cut and negotiate?  

  If we don't quit, then exactly why must we then succeed?

  Iraq is a false choice spawning ground.
  Logical and critical thinking are the first casualties of the Iraq war.

  by crystal eyes on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 11:42:31 AM PDT

•  600,000+ dead vs. an energy policy?

  I was going to write something...but my opinion has already been covered by others, MS Albright.

  by VoiceFromTheOuterWorld on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 12:42:32 PM PDT