civilcynic said:
Mr. Spinkles, I would like to respond to your question of why we should not gone after Saddam Hussein....
1. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on the US,
I agree, but this is irrelevant.
no WMD evidence was available
Virtually every intelligence agency on the planet, and the U.N., would disagree with you. We know for a fact that WMD's were there because he used them on the Kurds. There was zero evidence that Saddam's WMD program had been dismantled. I think you should read this:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html What are these, ice cream trucks?
Here is what the CIA has to say about the prewar WMD program:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#09 If you can provide reports from a credible intelligence agency that disagrees with this assessment, please do. I highly recommend reading this post-war WMD assessment...at the very least, please read the part underneath "
Myth #10: The NIE asserted that there were "large WMD stockpiles" and because we haven't found them, Baghdad had no WMD" :
http://www.odci.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm
and most importantly we were not under immediate threat from Saddam Hussein.
The lesson learned on 9/11 was that in today's modern age of instant transportation and communication, threats change directly into attacks....there is no transitional "immediate threat" to which to respond. Since nothing, not even the threat of invasion, persuaded Saddam to comply with all U.S. and U.N. demands, it is clear that an attack on U.S. forces in the region or on neighboring Arab countries was an imminent (though not necessarily immediate) threat. There were two choices: use force, or continue to tolerate the threat. I think the second option would have been irresponsible for any leader.
2. We just went into Afghanistan (and rightfully so) who was harboring terrorists, training camps and most importantly Osama Bin Laden. We have not followed through in searching for Bin Laden...
How so? I realize that the media has not reported much on Afghanistan for the past year or so, but operations continue, much of it being carried out by Afghans and Pakistanis, and of course much of it is clandestine. How have we not followed through?
just think if we left all our forces in Afganistan, perhaps the country we supposedly liberated would not be in such a mess and perhaps we would have Bin Laden.
Ah, I see the problem now--you seem to think that more troops = better success of finding Bin Laden. The fact of the matter is, most of the searching requires spies, payoffs, satellite and UAV observation, and special forces. If we need to see the terrain, we don't need the 1st Armored Division....we have satellites for that. And if we need a cave checked out, the Navy Seals and the U.S./Afghan/Pakistani soldiers currently in country are more than sufficient (Bin Laden probably doesn't have a large company of tanks left to contend with
) We don't need a big army to find Bin Laden, we need a specialized one.
Instead we toppled the Taliban, placed Kharzan (?), a form Bush business associate in power and now,
Are you suggesting that the President should have placed someone he DIDN'T know into that position?
it is so dangerous that even "doctors without borders" have withdrawn. We never finished the job
What, specifically, do you mean by 'we never finished the job'? What was the job, and in what period of time was it supposed to have been accomplished? You mean that our two-year presence in Afghanistan STILL hasn't reversed the effects of more than thirty years of anarchy and war?
and by reducing our soldiers, we have put those left behind at greater risk.
I don't think this is true, and I tend to leave strategic decisions up to the commanders of our military, not to civilians or politicians. But I'm willing to hear you out--can you give references showing that attacks on our troops or troop casualties in Afghanistan have increased since the Iraq War? Otherwise, this statement is pure speculation.
Besides, if the reasoning is that we should police other countries and topple oppressive regimes, why didn't we topple the Taliban prior to 9/11....
Great question-- I think the Taliban should have been toppled prior to 9/11. The reason no one took action is because Europeans and Americans alike don't give a crap about others until it directly affects them--"some Afghans are being brutally oppressed? So what? A military operation would cost the lives of some of US and a bunch of OUR money." But then the inevitable happens, and it's too late to go back in time and do the right thing and prevent disaster.
No one would have supported a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. The only reason Americans supported the invasion of Iraq sans an attack was because they were still in war mode from 9/11. It's sad, but if 9/11 had never occurred Americans never could have been convinced to use force on Saddam. War would have happened anyway, though, as soon as Saddam or one of his successor sons invaded a neighboring Arab country (this time with more WMD's and even nukes in their arsenal).
Why were members of the Taliban prior to 9/11 given the Red Carpet treatment in the US and, in fact, welcomed as favored gusts to Bush's Texas ranch.
Could you please provide a reference for this?
3. During the Iran affair, Saddam was our buddy....we could have cared less that he was a murderous dictator (just ask Cheney).
No, he was not our buddy. He was the enemy of our enemy, Iran and the Ayatollah. If the U.S. hadn't given Saddam support, Iran would have won. If the Ayatollah had conquered Iraq's vast resources, world stability would be compromised.
In fact, where do you think Saddam got the Sarin gas he used on the Kurds.,,the US.
If this is true, I would like to see a reference (CNN or something) with facts in it please. I concede that he was given money and military equipment.
4. If as a nation, we believe we should police the world and topple dictators of oppressive governments, there are certainly many to choose from. Why did we choose to go to Iraq....why not one of the African countries whose militaries have slaughtered not thousands but millions? Could it be because there is no finacial gain...no oil, no wealth...?
There are MANY reasons to choose Iraq, and yes, oil is one of them. The dictators of Africa do not have illicit oil sales with which to fund large scale, clandestine WMD programs. The fact that Iraq has valuable natural resources means that it has a better chance of prospering as a democracy post-war. Oil is also a big component in world stability--getting it out of the hands of people like Saddam is important. Finally, now that Saddam is gone the world can buy oil from a free Iraq and stop buying it from terrorist-sponsering nations in the Middle East.
5. Why have we not declared war on North Korea which has WMD's, has threaten to use them and has the capapbility of reaching American targets unlike Iraq?
You just answered your own question. North Korea has the potential to reach American targets, and whether we like it or not this is a bargaining chip they now have. Also, as diplomatic and economic strategies for disarming North Korea have not yet played out, war is not the only alternative left.
What about Castro's oppressive government?
Castro clearly has no designs on developing WMD's or invading anyone in the region. He is quite content to oppress Cuba until he dies, so the best strategy is to just wait him out. An American-supported democratic revolution in Cuba will certainly follow his death.
What about Saudi Arabia who actually provides money to terrorists and the families of suicide bombers, protects the bin Ladens and was the country that most of the attackers were from...Oh, yeah, I forgot..the Bush family and the Royal Family have close personal and business ties that go back for generations!
The only Bin Laden who engages in terrorist acts, as far as I'm aware, is Osama. The rest of his family (but correct me if I'm wrong) does not support his organization. Also, the Saudis offered to give us Osama multiple times but we refused.
The Saudi government is in a very difficult position. On the one hand, it is glad that the U.S. has protected it from Saddam for so long and wants to sell its oil to the U.S. On the other hand, the Saudi population at large hates America and supports the suicide bombers in Palestine. If the Saudi government gets too chummy with America, it risks popular rebellion. The fact that the Saudi Royal family has close personal ties with the Bush family attests to the truth that they want to have close political and business ties with America.
At any rate, Saddam also gave money to the families of suicide bombers, and his brutality and unpredictability cannot even be compared to the Saudi government.
