No - what I would've suggested would've been to start with Saudi given that it is source of American woe. Rather than bombing a country into freedom it would've made far more sense to take the most powerful, US friendly and wealthy state in the region and work from there on out. Couldn't do that as the House of Saud would've whipped the rug out from under the US economy before you could blink.robtronik wrote: The above bolded comment makes me want to invalidate your entire argument. But I won't. But let's just agree to disagree and realize that our POV's are totally opposed (except for the bit about Saudi contribution to terrorist thought processes. Saudi's are trying to fight terrorism in their state, but the wahabism is very strong there. Are you suggesting we take out Saudi Arabia too? I'm not suggesting that at this point. Saudi Arabia is NOT in defiance of over 14 U.N. Security Council resolutions at this time.)
Iraq posed no threat, none whatsoever, to anyone other than Iraqis. The highly lauded 'long range' missle systems, highlighted as a threat to the UK population that could arrive within 45 minutes, were in fact so outdated that they actually posed more of a threat to the inhabitants of the country that launched them. The WMD's, most of which had been sold to Saddam under the guise of 'dual use' equipment by the US, France, Germany and Russia, was essentially outdated and, in many cases, eroded or depeleted past the point of effective usage. As for his pursuit of nuclear technology - well hopefully this week will see the arrest of Scooter and, we can hope, that dick Cheney for their stupid lies and schoolyard vengeance over anyone that questioned their stupid lies.
The continual linking of Iraq and Al-Q, repeatedly made by such simians as Cheney, were in fact complete and utter fabrications that have now been shown to be nonsense - such as Atta's meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Saddam would never have stood for such unstable elements within his borders and would've had them executed immediately. On the other side Al-Q HATED Saddam with a passion as they felt he was an infidel - in which they were actually correct as it was well documented that Saddam couldn't even pray properly.
You cannot claim rights of international law unless you are willing to live by all of them. The US and UK are in clear breach of the UN charter, nevermind the Geneva convention, over illegal 'regime change' and resolutions 1441 (following 678 and 687) including attempted bribery, coercion & subversion of member states, covert surveillance of international diplomats and UN heads. Though I do agree that we are now honour bound to stay and try and aid the Iraqis - quite simply I don't see that it actually helps. The 'terrorists' weren't there before the invasion and these much vaunted figures of foreign fighters are way overinflated - no more than 10%. The other 90% are just average Iraqis, who just like pretty much every American would, are fighting to remove, as they see it, an occupying power that is there purely for altruistic motives. The other argument, pressed forward by many of the Neo-cons, is that it is a way of 'fighting them over there rather than here' - which, given Americas history in Iraq and it's employment of Hussein from 1959 onwards, is frankly disgusting.robtronik wrote: I can't help but pick apart your stance: according to international law we do have a right, by the geneva convention as the occupying power, to see to the safety and infrastructure of the people of that country. This means instituting a democratic process to us. If it wasn't for the terrorists who are still fighting there for control, we'd have less problems than we do. It is what it is. But we aren't leaving because of them, thak goodness.
Oh believe me I'm all in favour of democracy Rob and I would hardly call myself an extreme radical. At least not in comparison with the junta currently running Washington. Human life is far more important to me than the mere value of a currency.robtronik wrote: Secondly, your logic also dictates that we had no right to set up democratic processes in Germany and Japan in WW II either. Nice. What DO YOU support? Are you a person who supports democracy or not? It'd be nice to know your stance first on this piece to understand why you argue the points you do in such a extreme radical way.
LOL - it ain't the winning that counts - apparently it's the taking part. At least if your willing to take billions of dollars in bribes before you even take office and write a policy.robtronik wrote: Okay - maybe we aren't a strict democracy. I believe technically we are representative democracy. Okay you win. LOL.
