- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 17,108
- Reaction score
- 5,786
- Location
- Nationwide...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Without even checking the accuracy of your statement I'll agree it rings true and I will accept it on face value as a sign of good faith and hope that we can at least agree on this much: a secular government in Iraq helped prevent the entire region from being monopolized/annexed/made subservient to Iran and it's Jihadist goals.
Okay we can agree here, however you must keep in mind that the Shah was still in power during Saddam's rise through the ranks. Meaning the Ba'ath party took power while the Shah ruled. It's true that there was no way we were going to let an anti-west, radical Islamic theocracy spread through the most oil rich region in the world. But Saddam didn't attack Iran at our bidding, he attacked Iran because they were trying to dispose of him. Saddam hated the Persians from way back anyway. They may have been Muslims, but they weren't Arabs.
This one you can't fudge on. You can't prove it WASN'T about containing terrorism (as I can't definitively prove that it was). But a look at the facts gives MORE reason to assume that containing terrorism WAS a factor in the decision to invade than for denying it as a reason.
I have already said it was about getting a close operational position next to Iran. Iran is an exporter of terror, I would even go so far as to say the largest exporter of terror in the world. But I'm guessing you have never really researched your own cults policy history. The NeoCon's have had a plan in the works to assert our nation economically and militarily since the just after the mid nineties. They laid out the plan before Bush ever took office and had actively begun strategizing about invading Iraq as soon as they took the Presidency. Further, the NeoCon's host party, the Republicans, never took terrorism seriously. Neither did Bush Sr. GWB's administration didn't give it much thought either until 9/11. Which the automatically tried to link to Iraq. GWB never told the people this was about containing Iranian terrorism. At the time it would have been a hard sale because the Iranians, while glad that 9/11 happened, weren't directly linked to it. Nobody had ever done a very good job on informing the public of the very real threat that radical Islamic terrorism posed to the U.S. 9/11 was an opportunity. Without it Bush would have pushed the WMD line. So prove the invasion was about containing terrorism? I'll agree it was in part about addressing Iran, but even that was more of an economical goal than a counter-terrorism goal.
I am constantly perplexed by seemingly intelligent people who will rest their case about the reasons for invasion with only one or two factors. It's as if they think the rest of the world isn't as smart as they.
Lol...don't confuse my concise posting as "one or two factors." I have said in other posts on this forum that there were dozens of reasons. But the most important ones were the ones we weren't told about. The economic reasons. The reasons Bush said this war wasn't about...you know when he said to his critics that this wasn't a war about oil? When it was.
And the reality is that most of the bright fellows who criticize the President are galled to think the President might just have a better grasp of things than they have. Sorry, but it's true. The President probably has close to a dozen reasons for the invasion and most critics can barely come up with three. And even those three are fudged.
See the above post.
WMD's is a B.S. criticism and most of you know it.
The fact is that nothing was found. We have an air force general who defected that claims WMD material was flown to Syria on specially modified jumbo jets but we can't verify this single man's story. We have a few piles of decades old artillery shells that were probably inert. We have some dual use equipment that made in country, but no nefarious use of it yet. And we have the infamous mobile labs. Now those I'll admit are interesting. But we have no actual stockpiles of WMD's as we were told. While I'll say Saddam was certainly interested in resuming his program, I'll also content that this is what we should have been told...not "Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's and we are going to get them." It wasn't a slam dunk.
You have a gun and you point it at a cop and he tells you to drop it and you don't and he fires and takes you out and then it's found that the gun was empty, the cop goes free. Justified shooting. He couldn't tell. The risk was too great to not take action.
Period.
In this case there was only a rumor that the bad guy had a gun. We know he may have been trying to buy a gun, we know he wanted a gun, but he had no gun in his hand. After the cop shot him we searched his body and found maybe a couple of bullets, a firing pin, a set of handgrips. But no actual gun. Your analogy is weak.
Are you normally a cheap shot artist?
No and I haven't taken a cheap shot yet.
The phrase, "spreading U.S. influence" gives a malevolent characterization to what is actually a great thing.
I'll agree that as an American, it's good for us. I even understand why we did it. I can't argue it. So stop trying to associate me with a position I have not taken. My position is that Bush lied to the people, that and he in incompetent based upon the occupation fumbling and horrible domestic policies he has pushed.
If you had a region where Iran was exporting terrorism and has imperialistic designs...
A region where every terrorist group and nation can gain power, riches and defeat their greatest enemy by controlling or denying oil...
I'm tracking you here. Again, I understand your logic. However, the invasion of Iraq was not about containing the terrorism as it was about containing the flow of oil to the west. In this case you are saying Bush's main priority was containing the terrorism. The problem is that the entire NeoCon agenda loudly proclaims otherwise. The oil, and subsequently the U.S. economy, is the number one priority. Countering radical Islam is an secondary issue. Bush's policy has proven this. Just take a look at how he has ****ed up the situation in Afghanistan.
A region where a former ally was now a rogue dictator and a loose cannon threatening parts of Europe and Israel and any number of it's other neighbors with attack or intimidation with WMD's which he had developed before and had been caught in time...
Saddam was NEVER an ally. He was the lesser of two evils. There is a difference. Iran was an enemy and Iraq was a Soviet military client state. So they were also an enemy. However Iran was the worse of the two.
A secular dictator who was supporting Islamic terrorism and encouraging terrorism and trying to make deals with terrorists and planning acts of terrorism...
A dictator who was using WMD's on his own people and committing the very worst human rights violations possible...
A dictator who was boldly contemptuous of the treaties he signed and international resolutions lodged against his regime...
A region where fights and wars and armed conflict was an ongoing reality of life every few months...
A region where many deserving people were fighting to be free against the overwhelming force and intimidation of fundamentalist religious zealots in government and in groups which sought to overthrow moderate governments...
And a region from where we have accepted increasingly greater numbers of immigrants but still can't save them all by bringing them here to the United States, but where if we helped them achieve a secular government, prosperity and freedom that they wouldn't NEED to come here. They could stay there and find the peace, stability, freedom and prosperity without overburdening the US infrastructure...
A region where their home grown freedom fighters could be counted on to oppose radical jihadists if only they were helped to break free from the yoke of tyranny...
That was a mouthful huh? You need to learn to separate some of your rhetoric though. You are crossing situational timelines in order to justify Bush's invasion and it kind of exposes your agenda. I know the kool aide tastes good, but it's not necessarily healthy.
I'll break down my thoughts on some of your points later...I have to get to the office. I agree with a couple of them.