do you think the US would be "rescuing" iraq were it not for 9/11?
i don't.
unfortunately i think we would be in year 13 of the cat and mouse game of dealing with saddam's flouting of the 1991 un security council resolution that he agreed to as a condition of ending the military action in the gulf war.
Well, the real answer, at least for me is.... I do not know, because I simply do not have a crystal ball that tells me the future...
However.
had we followed the line that it was being followed up until the idiotic French officials told the US that no matter what the proof was, they would veto whatever resolution the US would be capable of getting... my belief was that we would have achieved the same coalition as we did in 1990/91 and YES... in he end we would have gotten the war...
But on better footing as then we would have had a better strategy and stronger position.
You forget, this time around, it was not only the US and Britain, we had Spain as major ally, (at least in the diplomatic eyes.) Spain was doing a great job of countering the ill effect that the French retards were attempting to impose on the entire deal; indeed Spain would have influenced the entire European community.
However, France gave the US a tremendous excuse and justification to act on their own and in the process did a disservice to the European Community as they made it irrelevant.
The US acted by themselves.... (With the assistance and support of Britain and Spain. (And Australia)
we've covered this ground on this thread before, we may all agree that it was stupid not to take out saddam in 1991, but i fail to understand your logic that it was good to take him out then, but not now??
not after 9/11??
Mama mia...
I guess I fail to communicate in the English language correctly.
From day one I have said that taking Saddam Hussein was a great idea.
But there are ways to do it and then there are ways to do it.
Mentioning the 1990/91 fiasco has no other objective but demonstrate to you that errors of strategy have long term consequences....
NOTHING ELSE.
What’s the point?
Making the strategic error of terminating Saddam in 1990/91 --->regardless o whatever deal justified (in the administration's eyes) to allow Saddam to live had the consequence of 12 yeas of being ridiculized and laughed at by the Saddam hooligans... does that have consequences? Absolutely... the continued frustration allowed the Muslim world to recuperate from the Gulf War and create the momentum that climaxed in 9/11
Did the half finished job in Iraq told Ossma Bin Laden that the US would NOT retaliate with sufficient force to an attack like 9/11?
I do not really know, but the thought has crossed my mind.
Personally, I do not believe that Osama Bin Laden ever imagined he would have the success he accomplished in with the twin towers.
On the other hand, had we finished the job in 1990/91, we may have had a different world today...
I do not really know.
in re: defense
if you believe that, you are entitled to your *belief* however it was never the pre-imminent impetus for the war...
DISARMAMENT
was the impetus
HU? THAT MD, is a different argument altogether.
Are you losing the thread of the conversation here?
The reason we were discussing rescue/defense was more of a semantics question rather than debating anything else... (Such as the "reason of the war").
I showed you the definitions and that was that.
So, please do not twist the intent of my words.
As to the reason of the war....
First it was tat Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda
The pretext of the war was disarmament of WMD (which have yet to be found)... and to a degree I do not care... the point is, we've got Saddam. ----> That is what at this point so far really matters.
It is the HOW that I object. It concerns me that the WMD have not really been found... where is the connection between Saddam and Ossama....?
Saddam was a secular government; Ossama is a religious fanatic... How can these two be together in bed? They are probably NOT together...
Now... does that mean that one is less evil than the other? A = NO... but it is CREDIBILITY of the leaders that I am concern with.
Do you NOT care about credibility? I am a businessman. Credibility of my word is my largest asset. Would I demand credibility from a political "leader” absolutely.
I do not give a shit from what dogma this leader preaches from... I care about his credibility. If he puts his dogma before his credibility... then F*** him.
Particularly in the evidence of past history...
NOT because I pretend to be a pacifist. Understand this now... I am not. If you think you could have me in your government as your "peace minister” you would be making a tremendous mistake.
But it is the METHOD that I mind. once again, you dismiss my interest in history as near irrelevant, but you are mistaken, because what you fail to see is the perception of HOW do the people in the rest of the world perceive us.... you seem to take this "cowboy attitude” that does not give a shit about what the rest of the world think ... you are just going to bomb the hell of the place and it is the end.
I am telling you, you need to be more careful. What history has to say... matters a lot, it is like a road map of the events that are about to happen... if you choose to ignore it, you do so at your own peril.
On top of that, you fuel the image of arrogant and ignorant.
Yes, I understand that 9/11 changed a lot of things, but that does not allow you to become stupid and rush into a possible minefield of your own creation.
You still have to maintain you’re cool and find a long term solution. One that requires a lot of knowledge about your enemy and indeed yourself.
Gut reaction is nothing more than stupidity on speed.
Now...
you simply cannot revert to historical analysis of past events as though they can be projected as some future template.
so enough of the history on the failed dictatorial regimes of the past
And ... WHO is "projecting”? all I am trying to tell you is what has happened in the past and given the latest "reasons" "pretexts" and "posturing" you better have a different strategy, because if not, you are liable to repeat the errors of the past because you are simply repeating past actions only at a higher multiplier... with even bolder moves.
i do in fact discount the comments as hyperbole when you say that the goal of our foreign policy is to "install an assasin"
pray tell....
which "assassin" do you think it is we hope to see in power in iraq? who is this assassin we seek to install...that we are willing to sacrifice american lives on the pretext of "rescuing" iraq
Rubbish!
When did I say that the "GOAL" is to install an assassin?
Here are my words once again:
In the post to Vitas:
Best thing would have been NOT to put Saddam, Somoza, Pinochet, Stroesser, Noriega, etc etc etc.... and the rest of rogue bandits that the US seems so keen on "making others free" by putting these animals in power... under the false pretense that these "leaders" will be in the "best interest" of the respective peoples...
AND
In the post to you:
So... do I believe that they intentionally paced these bastards in?
I think it is worse as they really do not care, OR do not go back and check what their record is... or WORSE... they have absolutely NO idea who the hell are they backing... Somehow, I do not think this last option is the case...
Now... you asked me:
Do you really believe that?
Well, do not believe me... research it yourself... Please show me the evidence that refutes the appalling record of most of these leaders....
Don’t discount my comments by saying "hyperbole"
Now... WHERE in these words, do I say, or imply that the GOAL of he US is to install an assassin?
All I am giving you is a historical record; therefore, it is fair to put to you these facts in front of you and wonder WHO will end up as the leader of the new Iraq --assuming such comes to pass...
I gave you the historical facts, so now you give me yours.
Who will be the chosen one? Don’t ask me, I am in no position to tell you... the real question is what kind of compromise the US is willing to make so the next guy in power will be any sort of honest leader.
You cannot begin to make a suggestion, because there is NO ONE as possible candidate.
Refute your own past history with a valid alternative, not simply with an empty snort at the historical evidence.
And DON'T put words in my statements... once again, I did NOT say that it is the US GOAL to install an assassin, I said the historical record does not offer any better.
only in the context of post 9/11
in a word
defend.
i see rogue nations with WMD and now even worse the spectre of their surrogates ..."their friends" terrorists of many stripes with the same common denominator....
snip
and i feel quite comfortable with continuing to give them "war" on many different levels until they are vanquished.
Ah... so this is where -- "defend” -- comes from... I begin to understand... only last week I was discussing with a friend of mine, a fellow Libertarian, a similar issue about the differences between Latin American revolutionaries and Middle Eastern ones... in his eyes, the LatAm kind did not represent any danger because the US through the respective Latin American leader has completely annihilated these people.
He cited as the last example, "The Shinning Path" in Peru, where Alberto Fujimori had practically exterminated them.... (Well... almost)
fpri.org
He then continued to make the case that one of the main reasons the US army was in Iraq is to do exactly that since there is no one in the Middle East to do it...
I argued against his premise.
After reading your comments and considering other evidence... I believe that my friend is correct in his assessment.
frankly, it's not worth arguing in light of the development idealogically motivated terrorists in pursuit of WMD with the US and other civilized world in the crosshairs.
Fine... let's not.
But don't pretend the rest of the world cannot see and/or feel the RESULTS of your choices and actions, regardless whether your intentions are "a” or "b” and do not discount these thoughts JUST because the historical evidence happens to be NOT of your liking.
but my point is i will not see our government dispense with any means at our disposal to win this war, unfortunately that includes military force
Oh please... I do not mind the above paragraph, except please change the word "unfortunately" because if you are going to go to war, as you have... then it is VERY FORTUNATE that you are using the military.
They are the only ones that have the resources and determination to achieve the goals (stated or not) of accomplishing what a military campaign is design to achieve.
Destroy the enemy.
And let's hope this time around, no "behind the curtains" deal stop them from accomplishing it.
we're not trying to fight the rest of the world...
only those who painted a target on our backs and are trying to kill us.
Oh you see... but you ARE fighting the rest of the world... let's see...
Is France your friend? I doubt that very much.
Is China not capable of organizing an economic assault? I believe they are already doing it. [Comment aside.... HOW strange that the Chinese seem so very quiet in all this Iraqi thing... while they are very quietly making themselves stronger and stronger...]
Half the Muslim world, as you already pointed out is already aiming at the US
Is Latin America (via Mexico) not invading the US creating a weak point and creating an economic hazard in your territory already? I believe it is already happening.
So.... the better question is... who you NOT fighting already...are
What about North Korea.... and Iran... and Syria and Afghanistan...
to hell with them
Ah yes... indeed to hell with them... let them eat cake... just make sure the US is not taken to hell as well, as you are sending them in that general direction.
All I am saying is... I believe that a far better strategy ought to be implemented; it would be to your benefit... a direct confrontation is most definitively NOT in your best interest...
now i'm going out to enjoy dinner
I hope you had a nice bottle of wine...
I did tonight, in fact several, I found a place where they had a Spanish wine tasting, including "tapas" and tried about 8 - 9 different wines... a great evening! I hope yours was just as good. |
