OutcastHuman said:
We didn't go into Iraq because of AQ everyone thinks we did. We went in to stop the flow to terrorist org. whether they were AQ or not and to stop a brutal dictator who killed his own people. Stop saying we went into Iraq cause of AQ.
With due regards, the rationale for going to Iraq was:
President Bush was emphatic, including in his State of the Union address that the reasons for going to war with Iraq were to oust Saddam Hussein because:
• Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which was a threat to the US.
• It would abate international terrorism and threat to the US since Saddam has ties with the Al Qaeda and WMD.
• ‘Liberating’ Iraq from Saddam would bring ‘Freedom and Democracy’ in Iraq and in the Middle East.
The unfolding of events, the internal debates in the US (both official and unofficial) and the various Senate hearings indicates that the ostensible reasons articulated by Bush were, at best, suspect
The acutal reason lies in the Defence Policy Guidance.
The collapse of the USSR literally pitch-forked the USA as the sole global superpower.
Given the global geo-strategic realties, this lifetime opportunity for global supremacy was too lucrative to pass. Quite naturally, therefore, the Grand Strategy was to extend this advantage (as the only superpower) as far into the future as feasible.
The danger to this paramountcy was the nations inimical to the USA that harboured ambitions as alternate power centres and the US apprehension that the supremacy might not be in perpetuity. Therefore, rightly, it became essential to re-engineer the world political and strategic matrix in favour of the US, or, neutralise antagonism to US interests. This dictated arraigning world strategic resources within the ambit of US control.
In this connection the Testimony of the Unocal boss to the Senate Committee investigating the CAR connection is relevant.
>
I have heard this logic of to stop a brutal dictator who killed his own people before. Yet the facts don't quite add up and none can really explain.
The brutal dictator killed his own people in the 80s.
President Regean took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations in Feb 82 against the wishes of the Congress.
Therefore, it is rather paradoxical that Iraq is now a terrorist nation (when a very conservative President decalred that they were not) as also this belated action to avenge the immorality of 'brutal killing of his own people'. Indeed, if such was the desire, it should ahve been done then. After all, Justice delayed is justice denied.
North Korea also brutally kills their own people so we are told. Mao Tse Dong killed a whole lot of own people during the Cultural Revolution, much more than Sadam.
Therefore, logically China, should have been first on the sights.[/i]
>
Whispering Death wrote:
The problem comes in the fact that our army needs another division or 3 of army soldiers to effectively pacify Iraq in 2003 but the army wanted to go in with what it had. So now we are slowly pacifying the country and I have no doubt that by the end of 2005 it will be relatively peaceful in comparison to the anarchy of 2003.
The elections concluded in Iraq gives hope.
That the Shias are amenable to giving seats to the Sunnis, even though they practically boycotted the lections also gives hope.
However the following requires watching:
1. The role of Iran since the Shia have loyalty to them and quite a few of the Shia leaders are from Iran, studied in Iran or have relatives in Iran.
2. #1 will be more complicated if the US 'sorts out' Iran on the nuclear materiel issue.
3. How the Shia will react to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri of Lebanon which is being reported on TV as I write. It has Shia and Syrian and Saudi connections as per the TV reports coming in.
4. Transparency (without political and the war on terror hoop la) in the trial of Saddam who should be legally dealt with as would any other mass murderer be dealt with.
There is no doubt that the election has been a very major step in the right direction.
Very pragmatically observing the events without giving way to emotional fissures, one would jsut ahve to wait it out. And as Bush has said, no time limit for withdrawal can be given.
Indeed, there is no rquirement to raise hopes and then dash it. It is a bad job and one ahs to grin and bear it as the British would say.