RE: removal of Saddam:
Except that you were against doing it, and you remain against doing it. Support under such circumstances is entirely hypothetical.
I am, and I was against removing Saddam with a military invasion. I was for the military build up and increasing readiness. I was for the continued demand that weapons inspectors be given free and unfettered access. Then I was also for a number of other measures, which were never considered by this administration. Demands for human rights and fair and free elections. Gathering world support in remaking Iraq a better place for their people. Patience is a virtue in my book. Expediency should never be a factor when we are talking about lives and blood. This kind of concerted effort would have been well recieved by the Iraqi people and would have been supported by the world...and it would have been a right and moral cause.
Yes, that was the chief reason given, mainly for the sake of trying to get UN support. It was given because it was a) believed and b) thought to have the best chance.
So the whole dog and pony show about WMD was a rouse? That another reason lay below the surface, which could not be discussed with the UN? You mean OIL? You mean all that was for the sake of TRYING to get UN support...that it was not the real reason. What was the real reason for being so quick on the trigger?
Saddam's past and potential future support of terrorism was a very real threat, particularly after 9/11, an event that changed the way a number of people reckoned their chances in the Mideast. Saddam didn't just pay $25K to the families of Pal suicide bombers (though he was the only state head to do so openly), he had Zarqawi and Abu Nidal working for him in Bagdhad, he trained Islamist terrorists at Salman Pak, he sent Iraqi intelligence to Afghanistan to help AQ weapons training with poison gas. And just btw, he had a track record of using poison gas on his own people.
What a load of Rushlimbaugvian horse manure. Saddam had Zarqawi and Nidal on the payroll? Saddam trained terrorists at Salman Pak? Saddam aided AQ with poison gas training? None of that can be substantiated without the use of rightwing nutzo web sites. As for Saddam using gas on his own people...there is evidence that he used gas on the Kurds. That is an abomination indeed. And that alone is a reason for removing Saddam...without the other garnish (rubbish) that you foisted upon us in your argument. To be clear, Sunni (Saddam) and the Kurds were vying for control of the north...and potentially for Iraq as a whole. It was an internal struggle. No justification can be made for using poison gas on the Kurds, same as no justification can be made for bombing Falujah and using Napalm there, or taking out entire city blocks in targeting Saddam in Bahgdad in the early days of the war. What justifies the annialation of an entire city block? The chance that Saddam may be hit? So then you take out hundreds of civilians that happen to live and work there? What is the difference in doing this to civilians with a huge bomb that rips your body apart or using poison gas? They are both despicable acts of war.
If you were President, would you look at this history, plus intelligence reports of hidden weapons programs, plus the North Koreans running around selling anything to anybody (we didn't yet know about AQ Khan), plus sanctions falling apart at the UN, and conclude that Saddam was not a threat, better just wait a few years and see what happened down the road? Sure, Saddam was trying to sound like an Islamist, but maybe his homebrew terrorists wouldn't amount to much?
This may come as news to you, but Presidents don't get to formulate policy in the light of hindsight. Even knowing what they know now, they still would have wanted to go in, since the other option was letting sanctions fall apart & a huge American climbdown that would leave Saddam as one of the biggest players in the Gulf. An undesirable outcome before 9/11, and an intolerable one after 9/11.
President have very hard choices to make. The proper choice of action would have been as I outlined above. Increase readiness, and increase pressure diplomatically, and gather consensus with the world. Demand weapons inspections, human rights and fair, free elections. I wrote to Bush several times during the build up to war advising him to do same. Obviously my words fell on deaf ears.
And as for the policies of PNAC, while we are going on about oil, which is certainly always a factor in the Middle East, let us not forget about democratizing and reforming the Middle East, also always high on PNAC's program. Why? Because without it, there is no ideological answer to Islamism, which presents itself as an answer to Arab dictatorships. And Islamism is a real danger to US national secuirty, as was discovered by everybody on 9/11/2001, in case you've forgotten.
Islam is not a danger to the US. The danger comes from fundamentalist crazy Islamists. We do not need an ideological answer to Islam. As for Arab dictatorships, if you wish to eliminate them...you need to stop coddling and favoring them. They exist simply because it has been expediant to keep them in power. Clearly they cannot exist in a globalizing world without the assistance of other democratized nations...but we find it useful to allow them, deal with them, trade with them and even exploit them.
Democracy and freedom will find their way in the world, when we make it a requirement to play. As long as dictators are favored, protected, enriched, armed and coddled...they will exist. This is not a projection of Islam. It's a result of western groping for expediency. Control of OIL is one of the main driving reasons for allowing dictators. So long as the dictators keep the flow of oil coming...they are supported. When they don't comply with the west...suddenly we need to bring democracy, er a, freedom to them.
So your rule is, the US should only undertake $100 billion dollar foreign policy initiatives where there is no conceivable advantage to the US? Because that way, no one can accuse us of hypocrisy, the worst possible charge. If anybody is suffering in regions where the US does have interests, I guess that is too bad for them.
Typical right wing tactic. When you cannot attack the argument made, simply make up an argument for your opponent. Label it a rule even. What hypocrisy! If you are trying to argue that we needed to go to Iraq to "Free" the people of Iraq...and this is the main driving reason now for military intervention...at the expense of tens of thousands of lives and hundred of thousands maimed and injured...spending $200 billion so far...and what we do this for is freedom of the Iraqi people???
If this is your argument for this administration then the whole lot of them needs to be put in straight jackets and taken down to the Senate for Impeachment hearings. No my friend, the real reason for this conflagration in Iraq is simple...OIL. If it were freedom that we were holding high, then we would have aided the people of the Rwanda, Sudan and the Congo. But as you admit...there is not much benefit in that is there? What we need to do is combine the war for freedom with those areas of the world that are resource rich, so that while we are bringing freedom to them...we get the little side benefit of access to their resources. Oh the hypocrisy of your argument drips in blood.
This is not the policy of grownups, that is all I can say, nor a realistic view of foreign policy. If this is the new Democratic mantra, it's going to be a loooong time before the American people entrust their security to the Democrats again.
Wow...I'm an independant. I have no party. I'm a conservative person. I find little solice in the policies of this adminstration in the areas of fiscal or foreign affairs. I've never seen such a disregard of fiscal responsibility in my life. I've never seen a more bankrupt foreign policy. This adminstration is selling our country down the river...and those close to the adminstration are reaping huge profits...at the expense of the nation. We're being drawn, quartered and sold to the highest bidder all in the name of Jesus and Corporatism. It's uncanny that this nation sits back and lets it all happen. Believe me if we don't make substantial changes soon we're all going to be in deep doo doo.
Where do we go for those changes? In this political landscape there is not much solice to be gained in any direction.
Orca |
