My fault, huh? Little ole' me?
You are correct in your description of a "meatgrinder."
Regarding Iraq supporting terrorists in Israel, it's my understanding--and I believe I'm correct--that Iraq presented 25K to any Palestinian family that suffered a family death from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no matter how that death happened (offensive or defensive). This, of course, popularly got twisted into propaganda that Saddam supported Palestinian terrorists by doling out the 25 grand.
A kind of propagands sorta similar to what Lieberman used even today: "Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors." How often did we hear Bush and Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Ari Fleisher (where is he?) and others make the same claim? The fact is Saddam didn't "kick out" the UN weapons inspectors. The fact is that Clinton pulled them out before bombing Iraq in the midst of the GOPwinger-led Monika Lewinsky scandal.
Laz, maybe I've missed something, but what specific other ways has Iraq supported Palestinian terrorists beyond what most Arab nations have contributed? Please enlighten me--thanks.
Regarding what to do? Ideally, I'd impeach Bush-Cheney for lying and misleading the American public into an unnecessary war. Then, with a new administration, America could initiate a fresh and unprejudiced, certainly more sensitive, approach to resolving Iraq's present problems. Failing this, I guess we'll simply have to make the status quo as best as can be until the Bush-Cheney Administration gets defeated in the next election--but even this requires a greater UN role!
It's my view that the greatest mistake post-9/11 was the failure of America's leadership to ask and deal with the most important question of all: What makes a terrorist? Government-sponsored forums should have been internationally organized, with front-burner status, in order to address and deal with this very important question. But this never happened because the Bush Administration perceived that the politics of war were to its advantage. Thus, a war was declared and, sadly, it's become a war serving only to breed and sow more seeds for terrorism; not less.
Regarding Iraq, one thing is certain and that is Muslim nations need to take the meaningful lead in helping to rebuild that country. This can only happen with full and impartial participation and support of the United Nations. Clearly the unilateralist U.S. approach, replete with its 'fake' coalition, ain't workin' and won't work at all.
I'm still confused on what the Bush Administration was thinking re: democracy in Iraq. Given the demographics of the country, were the Iraqi majority truly to rule it would be a Shi'ite majority which, more likely than not, would vote for an Iranian-styled religious government in Iraq. Would this be democracy?
Is this what Bush-Cheney, et. al., envisioned? I don't think so.
Thus, brings the question: Has the intent all along been to create a fractured Iraqi society whereby some kind of a U.S.-supported entity would evolve in order to manage and ultimately control what happens with Iraq's future oil resources--whether to put those resources into the market or to keep those resources out of the market and for whose advantage when? Ah, the power of oil!!!
Certainly getting rid of a dictator like Saddam is a noble and worthy venture. But is this the whole story? Somehow I don't think so. Otherwise, dictators everywhere would be on the outs. The Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War required the lies and misrepresentations we so readily saw. Otherwise, how could pre-congressional election approval for such a doctrine ever have happened?
The fact is America never really was on a march to rid societies of evil dictators. And even if it were, would this be just cause for a preemptive war doctrine? Probably not. |
