Maxwell Lol wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" writes:
Maxwell Lol wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...
If you swallow, whole, everything the media tells you, then you are
very easily led.
You probably still believe that The Mission has been accomplished.
"Rod & Betty Jo" writes:
You mean the despot Saddam and his murderous raping sons are still
controlling Iraq?
I said
And how did eliminating Saddam reduce the risk from future 911-style attacks?
Since that was neither the specific intent nor direct intended goal I
wouldn't understand the expectation......
Looking at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=2679
This lists 21 reasons for the war.
Here are some of the goals that were NOT accomplished - as I see it
Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope.
So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me.
To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that.
So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero
impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting.
To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem.
Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having
never funded known terror organizations and/or other states
unfriendly to Western interesting.
Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this
The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence
of evidence is. There is no evidence, for example, that my
cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't
know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you
are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean
you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here.
Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence
"Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration,
the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can
no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*.
The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not,
prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the
implication of your point).
To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms.
One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent.
I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that
the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's*
Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain
civil order and their borders.
As a warning to other terrorists nations - I think we made it worse
You're welcome to your opinion. DAGS the conversation between
Berluscone and Gaddafi after the latter witnessed the US war machine
in action. One such link:
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/...tory133588.asp
Think that would have happened otherwise?
Because Hussein was a threat to the region - Not really.
Yeah, he started a war wherein 1 million + died, invaded a neighbor
(and the West had to kick him out), murdered 10s of thousands of
his own people, and committed genocide upon the Kurds. Only in
the Jimmy Carter songbook is this "not a threat".
Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. -
That was also wrong. There were no WDM.
As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple
governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed
to there being some. No suppose we took your line of reasoning back,
say 7 years and there WERE such weapons. 'Think SH might have wanted
to play with his Evil Toys? I do. It's better to go in and find out
we're wrong about their existence, than not go in and discover we're
wrong about them not existing.
For the safety of the world - nope.
In what way is the world today not safer because of the decapitation
of Sadaam's regime? I suppose the murderous swine that commit
suicide bombings in the Middle East are less well off, but that's
all that leap to mind.
To preserve peace around the world - nope.
Ditto.
Because the United States could (easy victory) - nope
Oh, the U.S. did have an easy victory. However, the U.S.
also fell prey to the collectivist do-gooders (on both
sides of the political divide) that wanted to "improve"
the country after SH was gone. The mess that is the
Kurd-Shia-Sunni debate is not of Western making. Let the
principals in that debate take each other out as needed.
The West should have secured the borders to contain the
spread, and sold tickets to the show. MTV could have
made a Reality TV show out of it...
It's hard for me to thing "mission accomplished" when many of the
reasons were either wrong (and the money and lives were wasted) , or
we didn't accomplish what was desired.
The proper "mission" was accomplished. It was the Saving The World
mission that was not. I would suggest that leaving Iraq in ruins
would have been a powerful message to the rest of the world
as to what happens when you support terror in any form.
We did "change the regime" - but it's not a democracy, and it
certainly isn't stable.
Who cares? Democracy has to be earned by those who wish it.
It cannot be bestowed by fiat. Moreover, the region has never been
stable, and likely never will be. Again, no one's problem but the
locals.
Looking at the 21 reasons for war as listed above - it's not clear to
me we did anything positive - except to get rid of Hussein.
That's hardly "mission accomplished"
What we did was: a) Act with good intention to make things "better".
b) Allowed the political debate at home, an overweening Congress,
an apocalyptic White House, and a drooling idiot Left keep us
in-theater far longer than needed.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/