SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Murrey Walker who wrote (138235)6/28/2004 10:24:57 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (6) of 281500
 
The presumption in your argument is that (a) the United States had the right to push for removal of Saddam and that (b) We effectively used alternative solutions to invasion of Iraq. Furthermore you are implying Iraq had been incompliant with various UN resolutions.

As someone who has fallowed the Iraq situation very closely for years, I tend to disagree with above presumptions.

Firstly, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified because Iraq had not taken part in attacks upon US, nor was it in a position to deliver a threat to our vital interests. This is not just something that I say; This is what the national security advisor Ms. Rice said before 9/11. And it is also what the 9/11 comission said in its report.

Secondly we did not persue all the alternatives to Saddam, primarily because it was usefull to have a mean nasty boogy man in the Persian Gulf so that every so often we could remind the rest of the Gulf countries what would happen if they stopped being our friends. This is also known as maintaining the regional balance of power. There are ample examples of how US sold out people who had a chance to topple Saddam ranging from allowing him to gun down the Shia rebellion in the south to discrediting Saddam's opposition to lack of funding for anti-Saddam groups.

Finally, in the months and years immediately after the first Gulf war, Iraq was fairly compliant. Yes they were grudgingly compliant and were trying to sneak little things here and there, but it was nothing major. However it became clear that no level of compliance would have lifted the sanctions within any reasonable time frame. Worse, while the UN inspectors were still there, Clinton ordered missile fire on what CIA thought was Saddam's car. Not surprisingly Saddam ordred the removal of CIA inspectors...ehm sorry I meant UN inspectors from Iraq.

Now don't get me wrong. I have no love for Saddam and think of him as close to a monster as a person can get. I am not shedding any tears for him, nor would I have really objected to the war had I believed it to be in the best interest of the American people (not to be confused with Haliburton and Exxon). But anyway I look at it, it was just bad bad bad all around. But I can't allow people who did not send their own kids to the war and got to stuff their pockets with the people's money claim the moral high ground on this and convince the people like yourself that somehow this invasion was the honorable thing to do.

all the best,
ST
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News