Originally posted by SDW2001
The answers are insufficient for leftist Bush haters like yourself.
What this is really about is the overall justification for war. The fact is that there were a thousand good reasons to invade Iraq. I'll list them again.
--Saddam violated every UN resolution thrown at him, including his "final chance" resolution. The final resolution threatened "serious consequences" if he failed to comply. No reasonable person can argue that Saddam fully complied. We had tried every other means of getting him to cooperate..including inspections, sanctions and even limited military strikes. What else was left?
--Saddam made a mockery of the inspection process for ten years.
--Saddam had at least some ties with Al-Qaeda and openly let terrorists train and meet on Iraqi soil.
--Saddam's intelligence services tried to assasinate former President Bush.
--Saddam's military fired on allied aircraft every day for ten years.
--Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.
--Saddam was openly and consistently hostile to the US and praised the 9/11 attacks.
--Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each after they're beloved sons and daughters slaughtered innocent civilians.
None of the above takes into account our changed perception of threats in a post 9/11 era, nor does it take into account the notion that Democracy itself could help to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East. Now I ask you: If any other nation on Earth had done what Saddam had in the past ten years, would we not have invaded them too? North Korea looks like Disney World compared to Saddam's Iraq.
Yes, many good reasons to get rid of Saddam, but not in the manner nor in the timing.
Either the UN is legit and you act according to its council votes or you think they are illigitimate and you therefor discount the validity of the sanctions in the first place? Conundrum . . . it is easy to see how simply doing something seems like the right course of action (even if it wasn't) But then again, the actions chosen were ill advised, the supposed 'reasons' for doing them were false or 'faulty'
and as far as cooperating . . . . If I remember well, and I'm sure that you do too, there were inspectors doing their job quite well before the war?
Not as much of a 'mockery' as many think .. . at the end there they were proceeding well . . . particularly considering there was nothing to find that hadn't been found and destroyed in the first round of inspections
. . .oh . . . except for the few odd mortar rounds filled with expired residue.
Yeah, that's bad . . .it was also eight years before hand, was the reason for a resounding bombing campaign by Clinton, and, did not actually amount to any actual aggression on the part of the Iraqis . . .as far as I can tell, the issue of the certainty of this attempt is still up for grabs and was always up for grabs.
At the time, Clinton got shiite from the right and the left for his bombing campaign . . . after all the supposed attempt never materialized, it was supposed to have happened in Kuwait, and there was never any hard-'fact' type evidence that was not questionable . . . .
The truth of the matter is that many on the anti-war side never look at this question because it was a 'positive' anti-terror action taken by Clinton . . . but really his case was not strong
a good article from the time:NEW YORKER ARCHIVE
I am not trying to deny that the attempt took place . . . my main contention with that excuse for an INVASION (which is far larger in scale than I think you understand) is the timing and the apparent unnecessariness of it after the earlier, and quite deadly, bombing campaign.
--Firing on aircraft?
-Yeah, and if you had paid any attention at the time, it was considered quite a strange joke: why would these Iraqi soldiers lock radar on American planes? they NEVER EVER came close to doing anything and they ALWAYS were in turn OBLITERATED . . . over and over and over.
--Saddam was a brutal etc etc . .
-yes, all that is true . . . the hieghts of his murderous tyrany were in the mid eighties . . . when we loved his soft sphincter with lubricious kisses moistened by money and armorments . . .
It never bothered us then?
Post 911? . . . he wasn't murdering nearly as many as he had . . . WE WERE doing it for him through sanctions.
I think that this is the best reason for going to war . . . but it was not the reason and it should have been something taken care of even while we were stroking his stiffening barrels: gun barrels, and getting ours stroked in return: oil barrels.
--Sadam was hostile to the US: he hated us.
-So are lots of people . . . we don't go to war for opinions
--Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each
-Yes that too is bad, but is something that could have been dealt with through other means . . Besides, Iran has supporters of Hezbollah, Lebanon has supporters, Syria has supporters etc . .
The Palastinian terrorists are murderous arseholes . . . but if we worked to change the conditions under-which Palastinians must live there is a stronger chance that the reasons for their hatred would not seem as real: work for peace and equity . . . real work not simply unquestioned support for everything Israel does
I know that seems to be besides the point and is not a real answer to the 25,00$ issue . . . but it is a part of an answer that continues to be swept aside in stupid gestures of 'anti-semitism' . . . which is silly, particularly from me who supports Israel.
So, IMO none of the above mantioned reasons are enough for a wholescale invasion, particularly not an invasion planned in the manner in which it was, sold in the manner in which it was and with the obvious reprecussions that many knew this war would have . .
For instance, If it was thought that the reasons listed above were enough due to the War On Terror after 911, and the war was thought to be a way to solve all of those problems as well as nip-the bud of terror, then it was calamitous idea: it was obvious to anyone who knew the slightest bit about the region that our invasion would not be welcome -not in Iraq and not in the ME at large. . . except for by the Kurds. It was obvious to many, including, unfortunately, OBL, that it would create resentiment and would probably even raise the positive perception of groups like AQ? In fact, I seem to remember OBL predicting o the Arab people through a taped message, that the US would in fact begin to invade the Middle East beyond Afghanistan. . . We made him seem prescient and prophetic, and what is worse, we made many see him as right
all that is bad for the WOT . . .
The best way for us to have approached post 911 was, Afghanistan and then we should have put incredible resources into rebuilding it.
We should have also put incredible resources into turning the post-911 sympathy from other countries into coalitions, intelligence networks with international agencies and extending our positive impact on the world through commerce and diplomacy and very directed strategic, non-overtly militaristic muscle: money and trade, and intelligence.
In other words: work behind the scenes stridently with re-organized agencies, internationally, to track down and kill terrorists . . . and ramp up power-punching diplomacy that utilizes our economic power and works to reshape our image rather abroad rather than paints posters advertizing for AQ . .
and, work on a long term plans to develop a real method to combat tyrants like Hussein,
. and tyrants like the rulers of our current buddies in Uzbeckistan and Tajickistan and Ukrain and etc