I Like to Beat Dead Horses
For me, the whole Iraq thing breaks down to one question and its answer...
Q: Was Iraq somehow MORE of a threat when we invaded than it had been for the preceding decade, the period in which we did not invade?
A: We know with 100% certainty, the answer is no.
We should have listened to the UN, somehow they knew the truth.
We squandered the precious gift of world wide support that we earned with the lives lost on 9/11 for "bad intelligence", "misleading statements", "lies", whatever. I will never forgive my government for that.
posted by Smorgasbord @ 3:22 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Smorg, you deal in fantasy here--you ask questions that cannot be factually answered.
And...if we have to gain world wide support by having our civilians killed, then I say the hell with the rest of the world! I don't understand your reasoning here...
Regards,
-Jack
I only asked one question, and it is absolutely answerable with facts. Was Iraq more of a threat when we invaded than it was in the prededing decade? The answer to that question, like it or not, is no. There is simply no debate, that is absolutely the way it is. Calling it "fantasy" is absurd.
As for "to hell with the rest of the word", I guess I see where you're coming from but it is the rest of the world that attacks us. We can say to hell with them, but that won't accomplish anything.
Smorg, I guess I have traveled so much of the world my perspective is different. I don't think we particularly need the love of the world so much as the respect. That is the realism of it, and it is governments who attack and launch full scale wars, not populations. As long as other governments fear us, they will keep their distance. That is why the Soviet Union is no more. (But I predict will definitely make a come back!)
Also, I still have no opinion of whether Iraq (who was Saddam and the Baathist Party) was a threat then--we can unnequivocally say no,they aren't now, because we run the country. So I guess the answer is "I dunno about before, but they don't pose a threat to us now."
Regards,
-Jack
The respect/support issue is a huge debate that isn't answerable by facts. We can agree to disagree on that one.
I think we can agree that the reason we invaded Iraq in 2003 was we thought that whatever threat they posed had grown so much in strength and urgency that we had no choice but to defy the UN to uphold UN resolutions. Saddam was an immediate and dire threat to the security of the United States, unlike he had been for the preceding decade. That is the reason we went to war.
That reason, we know now with certainty, is false.
Just as the UN weapons inspectors suggested, Saddam was no more of a threat in 2003 than he was in, say, 2000. In fact, they suggested he was less of a threat and was complying with the inspectors and the disarmament agreements.
Russia, Belgium, France and Germany had come up with a viable alternative to snubbing the UN and turning our back on the gift we were given through 9/11, but we gave them the middle finger and obstinately invaded. That was the wrong decision, period. You can say "I'm not sure" all day, but the facts are the facts.
You're right, Smorg, Iraq was not more of a threat after 9/11 than in the preceding decade. It remained the same serious threat the entire time. The difference is that after suffering the 9/11 attacks we decided it was not in our best interests to let that threat remain active when it could easily turn around and bite us - bad.
I know, I know, our troops found no WMDs, just facilities ready to ramp up the moment sanctions were lifted. I, for one, was not - and would not be - willing to allow a country controlled by a madman, who had proven stocks of WMDs but not proof that he got rid of them, remain in power and continue to terrorize us with the threat of supplying chemical or biological weapons to the same group that pulled of 9/11.
The facts of Iraq's danger remained the same, it was simply everything else that changed after 9/11.
Okay, I'm with you there. Iraq stayed the same and the rest of the world changed - well, at least our country's perception of it. I guess I understand your thought process.
I still think a diplomatic solution such as the one Russia, Belgium, France and Germany backed would have worked better. We could have applied pressure to Saddam and still had enough international support and resources left to fight the myriad other battles against "terror".
Post a Comment
<< Home