Zo Re...But, the type of support he gave to anti-Israel terror, which is regional in nature, had nothing to do with WMD, or being a "rising threat" to the U.S., which were the arguments fed to us.
While the terror Saddam sponsored with his payments were primarily directed at Israel, terror itself, through Al Qaeda started to go way beyond that, with 9/11, the antrax, and the ricin attacks in France and Britain, Bali, Malyasia, etc. If it had stayed confined to the ME, the US could have put up with Saddams shenanigans; but after 9/11, he became impossible to ignore. When the Dems ask if we are any safer now, I have got to say, it certainly feels safer, and we don't have the hysteria, we had, especially after the gassing videos, and the anthrax scare. Now we have Ricin; and no matter how the dems play it, it will bring back 02-03, and remind everyone that the war isn't over; and security will be paramount in the Nov. elections.
If Bush had told the American people that we were attacking Iraq because he paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, do you think the country and Congress would have agreed? It's just not a strong enough argument to me to make me think the lives of 500+ of our soldiers is worth it.
Maybe you weren't here last yr. at this time, but I did post to Al at that time, that the WMD was just a vehicle to get censure passed by the UN. Ask Al, or Tench, or Dave. At that time I stated, and I have steadfastly stood by the opinion that, WMD or no WMD, Iraq and Saddam was a good as history. There were far too many US interests at stake in Iraq and the ME, for the US to just walk away. And any guy running for president who can't understand the importance of Iraq in the ME equation, shouldn't be president.
We were still technically at war with Iraq, since 91; and Saddam had defied 15 resolutions to comply with the truce brokered by the UN. So to get UN support, WMD was the stated reason, however that doesn't diminish the fact that there were other more pressing reasons out there. WMD or no WMD, Saddam was a key cog in cleaning up the ME. Why Saddam?
Because everybody hated him, The US, the Iraqi people, Kuwait, the rest of the Arab nations, etc. The only ones who cared were the ones who took the most money in bribes. Any other nation in the ME, and we could have had a widespread Islamic revolt on our hands. So, if we had to start somewhere, sometime, to clean up the middle east, Saddam and Iraq offer the perfect place, and the events of 9/11, the gassing videos, anthrax scare, etc, demanded that we couldn't wait.
It's just not a strong enough argument to me to make me think the lives of 500+ of our soldiers is worth it
When you consider the price we paid for peace, in other wars., it would have been worth it at 10, 50 , 100, or even 1000 times the price. You just can't keep on letting this piece of sh$$ that terrorism has become, stay around, blowing up bldgs, and terrorizing people in the name of Allah. It was past time to stop it. Clinton would have himself, if he had 9/11 as a backdrop. So the left should stop berating GW for doing what had to be done. Read my articles, I posted for John. They are interesting.
They hadn't been attacking us in the U.S. since 9/11/01 anyway! Plus, they don't seem to be leaving the U.S. to go to Iraq, they're coming from neighboring states where they were anyway.
Gee, I wonder why that is. Maybe because they are too busy hiding out in caves, and ratholes, in Afghanistan, or are too busy trying to defuse the threat Iraq has become to them. Every war has its Waterloo. For Germany, in WWII, people might think it was the beaches of Normandy; when actually it was Stalingrad. For France it was Dienbienphu in Vietnam. For the US is was Tet. For Al Qaeda, it could be Iraq. Don't know, history hasn't been written yet, but it is looking like it.
The Arabs have a pathological way of being able to delusionally hold a grudge for a long time instead of looking inward -- note their seething hatred towards Israel. The war in Iraq isn't going to change that, unless we hang around there for decades and pump them with hundreds of billions of dollars -- personally, I'd rather make sure everyone in the U.S. has health care.
Then your priorities are mixed up. The most important job of the gov. is to provide security; period. Everything else is secondary. Secondly, to clean up the middle east, you have to eliminate the natural hatreds the arabs have, and replace them with freedom, prosperity, and capitalism and greed.
They've done pretty darn well -- it was just two years ago that they were having five or six attacks a week, and the fence will go further to prevent attacks once it's finished and secured.
The fence is only a temporary solution. Fixing the causes of terrorism would eliminate the fence. But to fix the causes, you have to change the mindset in the ME. It won't be easy, but it has to be done.
Oh, I agree with that -- I think stabilizing the Middle East is a good idea -- in fact, I read the 80-page neo-con "manifesto" from the mid-90s and liked what I'd read. I'm just very uncomfortable with the nature of our reconstruction and diplomatic efforts, as well as the fact that although there were some good reasons to go to war, they weren't the reasons that the administration gave us (until after the war).
Read the links I gave to John. While Pollack doesn't explain the whole neo manefesto, he does explain why Saddam had to go. |
