- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,485
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yes, Iraq had the benefit of getting rid of a tyranical dictator that killed many of his own people. Are there worse out there? Yes.
However, I'll be realistic and say the things that a lot of people won't because it'll be painted as wholey horrible thing.
There's three reasons Iraq was a better choice at the time than something like Rhwonda...
First, in the scope of how George Bush laid out the goals of the War on Terror...namely that it was aimed at countries who had state sponsored terror, not necessarily against the U.S. but in general...Iraq fit that bill.
Second, while there is great arguments over the legitimitacy of the claims, thre was at least SOME legal grounds based on dozens of U.N. resolutions that threatened force if Saddam ever violated them. While yes, there are arguments on whether or not those could apply, going into anywhere else wouldn't have even HAD an argument, which would put it a step behind Iraq.
Three, there was American defense interests in invading Iraq that wouldn't be present in something like Darfur or Rhwonda. The 1993 WTC Bombings, the Embassy Bombings, the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and 9/11 made it abundantly clear that radicalized islam was a threat to this country and if we did not take their declared war on us at least somewhat seriously that problems would continue as would the escalation. Additionally, a stout ally of the U.S. in Israel had the rhetoric against it being ratcheted up for some time. Having a potential friendly allied nation of decent size in the center of the Middle East where we could potentially have bases and perform operations out of, if necessary, was of strategic advantage to the United States and deterent defense. This goes beyond simply the notion of placing a democracy in the Middle East would somehow "spread that", which indeed was a goal, but I believe the more important goal was to establish a potential ally in the region that current housed potentially the most tangable threat to the United States at the time.
When those things taken together along with disposing of a ruthless dictator, it is not truly hard to see why if given the choice between Iraq or Darfur or Rhwonda that Iraq was chosen. That is not me saying it is the correct choice, or necessarily that the war was right or justified, but simply stating that because it fit into the scope of the activity we engaged in after 2001, we had at least some foundation for a legitimate right to enter, and because it had some potentially legitimate strategic interests that there were legitimate reasons why to choose it over other places in Africa.
However, I'll be realistic and say the things that a lot of people won't because it'll be painted as wholey horrible thing.
There's three reasons Iraq was a better choice at the time than something like Rhwonda...
First, in the scope of how George Bush laid out the goals of the War on Terror...namely that it was aimed at countries who had state sponsored terror, not necessarily against the U.S. but in general...Iraq fit that bill.
Second, while there is great arguments over the legitimitacy of the claims, thre was at least SOME legal grounds based on dozens of U.N. resolutions that threatened force if Saddam ever violated them. While yes, there are arguments on whether or not those could apply, going into anywhere else wouldn't have even HAD an argument, which would put it a step behind Iraq.
Three, there was American defense interests in invading Iraq that wouldn't be present in something like Darfur or Rhwonda. The 1993 WTC Bombings, the Embassy Bombings, the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and 9/11 made it abundantly clear that radicalized islam was a threat to this country and if we did not take their declared war on us at least somewhat seriously that problems would continue as would the escalation. Additionally, a stout ally of the U.S. in Israel had the rhetoric against it being ratcheted up for some time. Having a potential friendly allied nation of decent size in the center of the Middle East where we could potentially have bases and perform operations out of, if necessary, was of strategic advantage to the United States and deterent defense. This goes beyond simply the notion of placing a democracy in the Middle East would somehow "spread that", which indeed was a goal, but I believe the more important goal was to establish a potential ally in the region that current housed potentially the most tangable threat to the United States at the time.
When those things taken together along with disposing of a ruthless dictator, it is not truly hard to see why if given the choice between Iraq or Darfur or Rhwonda that Iraq was chosen. That is not me saying it is the correct choice, or necessarily that the war was right or justified, but simply stating that because it fit into the scope of the activity we engaged in after 2001, we had at least some foundation for a legitimate right to enter, and because it had some potentially legitimate strategic interests that there were legitimate reasons why to choose it over other places in Africa.
