Oh boy, here we go. Kick out the dictator, replace him with something worse. Well, hopefully it'll get better after things have settled down for a year or so.
Oh boy, keep singing that song every time the West is involved in war. Blame everything on the West.
But, but, I thought the rebels were the freedom-loving good guys! How could anyone have possibly foreseen that the conflict might not have been as morally clear-cut as Western governments tried to portray it? Clearly NATO did the right thing by poking its nose in this conflict in which it had no stake and no moral authority.
Dude, most of the country was rebelling against him and calling for democracy. He was bombing his own people with the airforce and slaughtering opposition with hired mercs. At some point, even the Euros say 'enough is enough'. You, apparently, have no problem with leaving him in power after what he did (for six days, before the UN stopped him).
You mean that you are abandoning the Bush Doctrine?
I, for one, am still doctrining.
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001[1] to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[2]
Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.[3][4][5] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[6]
The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was rarely used by members of the Bush administration. The expression was used at least once, though by Vice President Dick Cheney, in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."[7]
Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(GASP! I just suggested that Reagan and Obama agreed about something. The horror!)
Here's what I find immensely funny. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq was that it would result in democracies taking hold across the region -- you'd think the Right wing would be shoving this in people's faces saying "See, we told you this would happen."
Funny, and I saw Iraqi freedom causing a regional push. Told ya so.
My political party didn't deem anything necessary. I don't like the involvement, never did. Though if we're asking such questions, why after all the "rah rah, invade Baghdad" and "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" (remember McCain -- to the tune of "Barbara Ann.") is it now bad?
Here's "dixiesolutions" (whom I'm now convinced is not real), saying that it's horrible that all these Muslims are involved. What kind of democracy in the Middle East wasn't going to involve Muslims??? You wanted democracy in the Middle East, and now it's arriving. Bush was right (to an extent), but now you guys are all unhappy because....???
I'm bomb bomb Iran, bigtime. And I'm happy, except we haven't bombed Iran. If we don't do it soon, they're gonna be locked down like nK and no one will be able to do crap then.
Here's the problem with doing something "because it should be done". When we assume the role of global policeman without the capability, militarily and financially, to intervene anywhere and everywhere, we then start picking and choosing for purely arbitrary and capricious reasons. Why intervene in Libya and not in Syria, or Yemen? Why not Myanmar? Why not Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, Rwanda, etc?
Ludicrous argument. Life requires priorities. Doing everything at once is not an option. As Iraq was in the heart of darkness and capable of developing like an asian tiger, it is a natural choice. Hopefully, Iran is next and soon.
Have you read anything since?
these people are basically still living in 600 A.D. and still just barbarian tribes, and no 'nation building' is possible with them.
Hogwash. Watch, they will mad develop as soon as they get their feet stable (1-2 generations).
Who dreamed up this weirdness? If he was afraid of Iran, he would never have risked going to war over some marshes.
No, that's true. We have some pretty good info that says a big reason he was giving the inspectors the run-around (99% of their time there) was that he was scared of Iran. As long as the US wondered if he had WMD, so did Iran. We also have info that says even his own scientists lied to him about what he had and was capable of producing, out of fear of him. If they told him "look dude, we can't really do that... we don't have the capability or materials", it could be the end of that scientist. Most of his dudes were missing fingers, he systematically raped women in special rooms/homes, he tortured-to-death on a routine basis and he genocided. Saddam was full-on delusional and expecting his forces to rally a miracle counter-attack (in the form of materials and capabilities that did not exist). There was a centrifuge buried in a village... there was old deposits of mustard gas... what's that about? I bet Saddam's dudes counted that as "we are capable of enriching uranium at a moment's notice". Seriously, how does a naked centrifuge (basically a metal tube) get buried in a village?
