Thanks for the excellent post Rob and tho I know this isn't really the forum for protracted political discussions I feel I should respond to your points but please do not interpret this as a personal attack.. The Middle East is now far more radicalised than even the cretinous US 'government' could have intended - of course they could have started the 'road to democracy' on regimes they were actually on speaking terms with namely Saudi. However seeing as the they have the US by the short and curlies that wasn't going to happen. So a dictatorship, that the US had armed & funded over 25 years and then proceeded to starve and bomb for the next 10, got their shock & aweing democracy instead. It's three pronged purpose: secure the dollar trade in oil, secure the reserves (before they'd even reached Baghdad) and remove another threat to the State of Israel. Who by the way have the US 'government' by the short & curlies even more than the Saudi's do and would have more resolutions against them than Iraq if not for the US veto.robtronik wrote:All of you need to read more before you spout off a particular point of view. Its silly to read some of the reasoning behind the "obsession" w/ Iraq.
I'll address a couple points made above:
1) We cannot and will not leave until a stable government can be created and sustain itself. If you haven't noticed there is a terrorist strategy to take control of Iraq before the infrastructure can mature. This "give them advice and then leave" approach is stupid. It also doesn't take into account the larger strategy behind Iraq.
This is a war on terrorism. Part of that objective is to remove threats like the Taliban in Afghanistan (accomplished) and the removal of Saddam's Baathist (i.e. fascist for those that think it was a paradise or more well run than that of what a democracy can produce. Silly tricks, fascism is for kids.) party that was well in violation of U.N. resolutions, had used WMDs on his own populace (therefore the argument about whether he had them or not is moot, he had them), and didn't provide the mandated proof that he removed them. Most importantly, post 9/11 America's tolerance for states that supported terrorism or state sponsored attempts at undermining American safety (i.e. funding and support of illicit WMD) were no longer acceptable.
Couple the above w/ a much needed stake in changing the type of despotic, fascist regimes in the middle east with a jolt of reform is a necessary step to eventually change the opportunities and mindset of those that would be radicalized against the west and its culture/society/government systems.
9/11 was a SAUDI operation. I'll reiterate it for you - SAUDI. How many active Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups were there in Iraq pre invasion? None. And no - that minor thug Abu Nidal doesn't count. Didn't you know that Bin Laden, warmed by the six billion dollars those idiots Reagan & Bush gave him actuallly offered to bring the Mujahadeen to drive Saddam out of Kuwait (an invasion which was sanctioned by US Secretary of State James Baker) but the Saudi's and US said no? As for it not being about oil - it's not about the possession of the stuff it's about the trade in it. Why do you think the US has been running terrorist groups out of Colombia into Venezuela to destabilise the legitimately elected government? Human rights? No - Chavez wants to trade oil for Euro's and if, like Saddam, he succesfully does and others follow the entire US economy will be deader than Fallujah within 6 months.robtronik wrote:This whole thing about oil is ridiculous an a obvious knee jerk, not well thought out, understanding the total effort that has gone into what is currently culminating in Iraq. It is a serious front on our strategy against terrorism. If you don't think turning a fascist state into a democracy is worth it and you preferred the status quo then welcome to 9/11 all over again.
No - they specifically want the US out of Saudi and have done for quite some time. That won't be happening because the US has been propping up the medieval House Of Saud since FDR's little agreement with them. As for not doing anything why did Clintons outgoing head of terrorism warn his incoming Republican replacement that something bad was on the cards? What did George do in response - well he spent the first 40 days of his Presidency working through the foreword of 'My Pet Goat' down at the ranch. The goodwill directed at the US post 9/11 your administration has brilliantly pissed away in a shockingly illegal invasion involving lies to it's people, deceit of the world (including the subversion of the British and Australian governments) and attempted and successful bribery of several UN member states.robtronik wrote:If you didn't note this in the past, it is precisely the strategy of not doing anything that resulted in the attacks of the 90's and ultimately 9/11. Al Q. and the like don't give a damn about whether we pull out of Iraq or not to appease them. Theirs is an all out war against the west, its government systems and culture.
I have. What currently passes for a democratic government in the US is anything but and, as such, you have no right inflicting it upon anyone else. The reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, which was a justifiable invasion, have been nothing more than pathetic and the country, outside the capital, has essentially fallen back under the control of the warlords. As a result heroin production is peaking at an all time high - an increase of over 2000% from the days of the Taliban.robtronik wrote:As an American, I support our efforts in Iraq. I wish they could have been executed more adeptly at times. I wish we could have done a PERFECT job, but this is beyond reality. But for what the stakes are and what the positives are that can result in the enfranchisement of the Iraqi and Afghanistani people, this is a welcome byproduct on smashing Al Q and anyone that whiffs their politics in that direction. Go read some history and decide whether you think you really are on the right side of history when it comes to how this is playing out.
Iraq is, despite what Faux will tell you, an absolute bloody shambles. Of course if the people who supposedly planned this had actually done any planning other than how to murder thousands there may have been some chance at success. As it is - there is none. I'd really like to be more optimistic but due to the cackhandedness of the figures involved we're almost certainly looking at failure and all that it implies. That means the US attempting to staying chummy with the oil laden predominately northern Kurds (who incidentally don't trust the US after it abandoned their uprising in '91 resulting in the deaths of thousands), attempting to stay chummy with the oil laden predominately southern Shia (who are getting more friendly with the Iranian Shia by the day) and meanwhile the oil bereft Sunni, who're getting precisely squat from the constitution, will probably storm Baghdad within a year and slaughter the installed puppetry. All of which means that, barring a miracle, the state of Iraq will disintergrate and the US will be lucky if the Kurds continue to play ball.
