Whew, that must have been real easy cutting to one of my questions and hinging your entire argument on the weakness of that one issue.
Too bad real life was not just that one issue. It came with all of those others. Answer ALL the questions in my post.
But here is my reply to your criticism of my saying there were alternatives...
quote:
What do you suggest? to Pray?
How ironic that our televangelist President never thought of that angle. Or maybe he did and when his prayers weren't answered overnight he jumped to the opposite side of the stock dilemma he built.
Not being a religious person I don't think prayer would help much. Most assuredly the prayers of the devout Iraqis didn't do much against Saddam's reign of terror.
My own thought was that containment was doing just fine preventing Saddam from threatening other countries militarily. Iraq was also not in much of a position to enact terrorist actions outside the mideast region, and according to all intelligence was unlikely to start any. Thus there was no imminent threat to the US and so should have taken a back seat to other priorities.
Which is not to say we couldn't have done anything else... just that an invasion at this time and under these conditions was putting way too much priority on a sideline figure when we have REAL threats to deal with.
quote:
While we watched Saddass, his sons and his regime imprison, beat, rape and kill more children? To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?
Yes, quite a tragedy. I am curious as to why it was good to let this occur for over a decade, and NOW it suddenly became a top priority. If it were to be stopped, there were much better moments in the past, and there will certainly be better moments in the future.
Where are your tears for the people of Uzbhekistan who are also suffering under the same conditions? Apparently they are not as high a priority as Iraq? How about Africa (damn loudmouth for beating me to the punch on this)?
There are many dictatorships out there crying for overturn. Many are supported by the US, just as Saddam was at the HEIGHT of his slaughter. Why was this the right time and invasion the method for Iraq?
quote:
To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?
Other than the purge directly after Iraq War 1, Saddam did most of his killing (including Iraqi citizens) with the support of the US. He had not been killing people in mass numbers in more recent years. He was unlikely to start again.
Unless of course you are talking about the Iraqi's dying of neglect, by the combo of Saddam being a terrible leader (misappropriating resources) and economic sanctions (which hit the regular guy more than the superbillionaire living on top).
quote:
People like you crack me up as you are aways talking about "some other way' yet you NEVER give a viable and workable "other way"
People like you crack me up, buying into whatever stock dilemma your leader hands you without question.
I started writing up some alternatives and realized I didn't want to go on about what could have been done in some hypothetical past. Whatever I said could just as easily be dismissed with "how would we know that would work?"
I had alternative ideas before the war (which to make very brief added carrots to encourage procedural changes, while maintaing a very strong stick if he did not comply), and if you want me to explore them, open a thread.
To be more practical, let us look at the statement "this war was the right thing to do", because we did it and now we can look at the results.
1) Was it necessary for US national security? No. This became evident as the war progressed and ended so quickly. Iraq posed no military threat to its own neighbors much less to the US. Ironically this was given as reason number one to go to war.
2) Was it necessary to fight terrorism or the spread of WMD technology? No. Although I myself figured he still had remnants of his earlier chem/bio programs, they were not really useful to terrorists (Homeland Security announced after the war had started that most terrorists would just make the same chem/bio weapons where they were). It is pretty obvious he had no active or "real" WMD programs going on. He also had less ties to terrorist groups than the CIA. This was #2 on the list of reasons to go to war.
3) Did we need to invade when we did? No. The only thing we accomplished by launching our invasion in the manner we did, was to divide the international community and violate international law. The damage done to Europe alone was not worth invading in the manner we did. It was Bush's claim that we simply had to go in at that time, but this has been proven false.
4) Did we free the Iraqi people? Now that's an interesting one. Certainly we removed Saddam from the picture. Clap clap clap. It is also arguable that the only way we were going to get him and his sons out of power was violent force. That deserves a thread all on its own.
But did we really free the Iraqi people of all those problems of having their money stolen by robber barons, use of torture on prisoners, propaganda as a form of state control, and no true democratic form of government?
The governing council was appointed by the US and it is now being said that the Iraqis may not be allowed to have a true democratic nation, which is to say they vote for who they want. This is because the end result of a true democracy will be the rise of fundmenatalist Islam. So now US officials have begun saying as long as the government is representative of all people (hmmm wonder if that will include gays, and athiests) it doesn't have to be elected.
One member of the council by the name of Chalabi, essentially the head of the council, is a convicted criminal along the lines of Ken Lay (of Enron fame). Not sure if you know this but he now owns the main press in Iraq, and swamped the media with photos of a captures Saddam sitting beneath Chalabi. Guess regime change is in place huh? Trust Chalabi everyone, he won't steal any money... he's only guilty of bilking millions to get to the position he is in now: running Iraq. After all, his own newspaper won't lie will it?
While a constitution gets firmed up there is no reality being set up on the ground for adequate resource "rearrangement" to make up for the years of getting screwed at the hands of Saddam. If they follow the US model, they may even lose health and welfare coverage.
There is also no sense that humanitarian rights will be followed in the coming regime. They are already being violated in order to crack down on insurgents. Hmmmmm... that's exactly what Saddam was doing! We even enjoyed having people "rendered" into his hands for torture that we could not commit in the US. You think that will change?
And if one looks at the past, this really does not look good. Britain did this very thing almost 100 years ago. It was from the ashes of the wonderful government they installed (which was supposed to become the example for great governments in the region) that Saddam appeared.
I grant that with Saddam gone there is an opportunity for a better Iraq. I really do believe this. But we are not helping this possibility become a reality as we continue to follow the failed policies of the past (installing a government we like), and knowingly put into power a ruthless man who is without question a criminal. The latter is exactly what we did with Saddam.
I am unsure if this opportunity was worth the price we paid, and forced Iraqis to pay. Many Iraqis are stating this themselves, and may raise there voices louder when the final government has been installed. We'll have to see.
quote:
I'll bet you were against us freeing Kuwiat or stopping the killing in Bosina, Crosia and Kosovo.
What a maroon. We freed Kuwait? When did we do that? Sure I was for freeing Kuwait (so you lost that bet), but all we did was free Kuwait and then turn it back over to its original dictatorship. You really think they have a free government and no torture?
All we freed was oil fields for the emirate and ourselves. When confronted with this fact (Kuwaitis are not free, only the oil was freed) Cheney admitted this was our goal and said there was no moral problem with that position. Yeah.
You also lose your bet with Bosnia and Croatia. Feel like an idiot yet? I am against INVASIONS which break INTERNATIONAL LAW. It just so happens that's what we did in Iraq. What that makes me is consistent.
Your only correct guess was Kosovo. Ironically Milosevic was actually fighting a real menace in that region... Islamic terrorist groups. He had a heavy hand, but just as ruthless as his opposition. His only mistake it appears was timing. If he had waited till after 9-11 he could have waved the "war on terrorism" banner and did all he wanted. That would put him on par with that guy in Uzbekistan, who is just as ruthless as Saddam, but our best bud.
quote:
Guys like you sit around wringing your hands and talking while people are being tortured and killed by the thousands while people like me take action to stop it.
This is material for a standup act you're working on right?
Uhhhhh... It was Rumsfeld, Reagan, Cheney, and Bush (both jr and sr) that wrang their hands and talked while Saddam killed. All but Jr even gave him materials and intelligence to do so. That's why he was in a position that when he finally turned on us, we had to resort to force to get him out.
But mr action hero, do tell what you did for the Iraqi people to try and oust Saddam during his reign of terror under the Reagan administration (and so were a traitor to our country at that time)? Or how about under Bush Sr when he was still our pal? Or after he was our enemy? How's about during this last war? What action did you personally take to stop it?
And why are you relaxing? Uzbekistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Israel (which is to say Palestinian children tortured in Israeli jails) and the people of many impoverished nations of Africa and South/Central America are crying for your help!
Tell us very clearly what you are doing for them tough guy.
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2
