A different perspective on Iraqi Invasion

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

No, I did not write this...and I do not necessarily agree with all that the author wrote. But to me, this is a lot more like what actually goes on in the mind of a president than what all the leftist, anti-American, media-enriched propaganda I've been finding on this board of late would have a person believe:

___________________________________________________

The Case for War (Sans Smoke and Mirrors)

There is no more serious order a President can give than to send our troops into battle. It remains every president's solemn duty to do so only when there is no alternative, when all other options have been exhausted. It is my opinion that we've reached that point with regards to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein has not completely complied with the series of UN Resolutions that ended the aggression against Iraq by an international coalition. He has complied with parts of them, but in even the best possible light, he is violating the spirit of the resolutions. Even if one believes that he has actually destroyed his weapons (he claims he has), but is afraid to admit it because he has hostile neighbors and domestic enemies, he has also repeatedly, blatantly obstructed the weapons inspectors sent to assess his progress in dismantling his weapons programs and destroying his stockpiles. This is in direct violation of the UN resolutions. And while this could, again, be explained as being motivated by fear he'll be attacked, the resolutions' terms were clear. Furthermore, there is no reason to take Hussein's word on anything at this point.

Even the most skeptical of Western intelligence reports conclude that Hussein most likely still has stockpiles of WMD anyway, and given any wiggle room he will continue to build more. He is not likely to have an epiphany and become a more responsible leader. Admittedly, many of the intelligence reports we have are somewhat out of date, but we must rely on the best data we have.

It's important to keep in mind how deadly these weapons are that we believe Hussein has, as well. In the hands of the wrong people, brought to our shores, they could be devastating. This is not a highly likely scenario (we have no intelligence to indicate Hussein has plans to attack us on our homeland, and he has not been known to give such weapons to terrorists organizations, and it's probably more likely that some former Soviet Republic would give terrorists a WMD than it is Hussein would), but we do not wish to risk it. I don't feel we can afford to risk it.

Hussein is also a murderous tyrant. Obscene human rights abuses in Iraq are common and often directly called for by Hussein or his sons. Hussein has demonstrated that he will use weapons of mass destruction on his own people as well. If he still has such weapons, as we suspect he does, it stands to reason he will not hesitate to use them again.

Having said that, the United States has found no significant connection between Iraq or Hussein and Al Qaeda. Further, we have found no evidence at all of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

Still, we believe that the root of the terrorism that landed on our shores on 9/11 is the Islamist movement born out of the political oppression represented by far too many nations in the Middle East and Africa, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Iran. We believe that if we can interrupt the stability of that region, and re-stabilize it with democracies, instead of tyrannies and oppressive monarchies, then we will strike at the root cause of the threat against us.

There is a highly praised theory that's been circulating for many years now, long before the 9/11 attacks in fact, but those attacks have made it more imperative we do something, so we're going to initiate the plan that theory argues for now. The theory suggests that by invading Iraq and transforming it into a democracy, this will rattle the foundations of the neighboring nations and democracy will spread through the region. Even though Iraq is a secular state and the number of members of known terrorists cells who are Iraqi is negligible compared with those from other Muslim nations, Iraq remains the best choice for starting this hoped-for domino effect because 1) its defenses have been considerably weakened by a decade of sanctions, 2) Iraq is isolated and cannot expect any other nation to come to its aid, and 3) Hussein's noncompliance with the UN resolutions is the best available legal argument for invading any of the nations in the region.

It is, admittedly, still a long shot. There are so many variables...so many things that can go wrong. We know that some of our best sources for recent information are not highly trustworthy, for example. We also know that there are competing interests in Iraq, and some analysts fear a civil war there is a strong possibility once Hussein is out of power.

We're also aware that because this region is rich in oil (the industry many of my administration officials are widely known to have strong ties to), our actions will be interpreted by many as driven by greed for that resource. Additionally, because other nations will resent our control over those resources, we have to expect that they'll not support our efforts there readily. This makes building a coalition more difficult than it had been when Hussein invaded Kuwait. Back then our objective was clear (Hussein was more of a threat to his neighbors back then, and hence to the world's access to oil): to liberate Kuwait and then leave. But this time, it's very likely we'll need troops in Iraq for many years to come.

In fact, we'll definitely need to keep bases in Iraq for the foreseeable future, in order to maintain the sort of pressure on its neighbors that we hope will stir up regime change for them. This may add to the perception that we're entering Iraq as occupiers, not liberators. This may also increase the chances that our troops will be targeted by our enemies in that region. Finally, there's a strong possibility that our presence in Iraq will serve terrorists globally as a recruiting tool.

We should also be aware that the number of variables involved here make it difficult to know how much this war will cost the US. Realistic estimates range from 60 to 200 billion dollars over the first two years. We hope to offset some of those costs (particularly costs for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure we'll need to damage in the invasion) with oil revenues from their oil fields. And we're hoping once stability returns, other nations will invest in the new democracy. But if those things don't come to pass, the US will need to continue to fund the effort.

Still, we're convinced that invading Iraq remains our best option in preventing the continued rise of the sort of terrorism that came to our shores on 9/11. Morever, Hussein is currently a potential threat to other nations and clearly a continued threat to this own people. For all these reasons, it's time we changed that regime.

___________________________________________________

...comment as you will.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

Quote:
Saddam Hussein has not completely complied with the series of UN Resolutions that ended the aggression against Iraq by an international coalition. He has complied with parts of them, but in even the best possible light, he is violating the spirit of the resolutions.

gong!!!!!

next

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

bitwhys - I'll post this here in case you miss the other thread.

www.nti.org/e_research/e3_20b.html

PS - Don't miss "Iraq's Strategy of Denial" off to the right of the above.

and then:

cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/vxindex.htm

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

Edited by: DreamTone7 at: 11/16/05 5:06

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

don't spam me with ancient history. there was nothing @#%$ ing there and Blix was reporting no problems with cooperation. they were down to chasing paperwork dotting "I"'s and crossing "T"'s.

Blix has gone on record as saying it would have only taken three more months to actually prove the negative which to me is simply one more reason why Bush jumped the gun, rolled the dice and came up snakeyes.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

bitwhys - "there was nothing @#%$ ing there..."

Evidence posted to the contrary...I'll take that over your opinion.

bitwhys - "...and Blix was reporting no problems with cooperation."

That's not exactly what Blix reported...and based on Saddam's history of "off again/on again" compliance, there is nothing to support the stipulation that he would have continued to comply. In fact, the history is very much in favor of his not complying. How is it US troops found missles and remote-control aircraft modified specifically for carrying chemical/biological weapons while Blix did not? The answer is that Blix, obviously, did not find everything. It's easy to hide things in the desert...think about it.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

"evidence posted" totally outside the timeframe.

if it wasn't found after March 19th 2003 its only proof they were cooperating.

whatever.

I'm not into reruns.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

I don't think this guy is saying anything unheard of, but the problem with the conclusions he reaches is that we'll be in a perpetual state of war if these are the guidelines being used.

DT, do you believe it is the job of Americans to pay for an endless set of wars (and we're having a hard time keeping two going and still maintaining a force at home) to rid the world of tyrants? And what happens when the tyrants are elected? Or what happens if the tryant happens to be the kind of tyrant America likes (like Hussein in the 80's)?

For me this is a matter of setting an established foreign policy that minimizes the likelihood of war at later dates. We don't do that. We are antagonistic, we support lunatics for our own benefit and then railroad them later on for drug dealing or invade because they didn't behave according to altered guidelines because they are no longer useful. Our history of supporting tyrants is very long, at present we appear to be harboring a known terrorist simply because he was anti-Cuban. Either blowing up civilian planes is wrong and people need to be punished for that or it's not.

So Saddam had to go, I can agree with that, what I can't agree with is that we helped create that monster and we're creating new ones everyday and that's just dumb. And I just believe that as far as 'atrocities' go, there are much worse than Saddam but they have no value for us, they are irrelevant.

A solid ideological approach to foreign policy would be nice, not just what's best for the moment. In Iraq we've had 2000+ soldiers die and the leader of the country is an Iranian who is very cozy with the lunatics in that nation. But he was elected, what the hell can we do about that? What if Iraq wants to develop weapons after we leave? Are they allowed? What if they're not chemical, biological, or nuclear? Just traditional bombs strapped on to traditional missiles that can blow up Israel? Can we allow that? Are they sovereign or do they have to do what we say?

That's why all of this intervention doesn't work. I don't know if there's a solution, but this approach isn't it.

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK - "but the problem with the conclusions he reaches is that we'll be in a perpetual state of war if these are the guidelines being used."

I don't think so...if the idea that democracy will catch on according to his ideas. Indeed, Lebanon kicked Syria out not long after...which is a start.

NRK - "DT, do you believe it is the job of Americans to pay for an endless set of wars (and we're having a hard time keeping two going and still maintaining a force at home) to rid the world of tyrants?"

No I do not. I think the Europeans should get off their collective duffs and help out. Long they have relied on America to clean up messes...including many started by them. It's time they got involved instead of railing at us about it...almost as if to draw attention away from the fact that we're the only ones trying to help out and they're doing nothing.

I am not so sure, though, that we do have the right to set up a democracy everywhere we go...but leaving the same kind of government in place would most likely mean having to come back some years later again...so...?

NRK - "...what I can't agree with is that we helped create that monster and we're creating new ones everyday and that's just dumb."

Which would tend to support the arguement of setting up a democracy instead of leaving the current style of government in place...should the need to invade arise.

NRK - "What if Iraq wants to develop weapons after we leave? Are they allowed? What if they're not chemical, biological, or nuclear? Just traditional bombs strapped on to traditional missiles that can blow up Israel? Can we allow that?"

This begs the real question. What is the line that must be crossed before enough is enough. How many people of his own does a tyrant have to slaughter before we decide to put a stop to it. Or do we even worry about that? (No other countries seem to be interested in doing anything about it...and they just whine at us when we do.) How crazy does a tyrant have to get before we consider his posession of WMD as requiring us to do something to shut him down? 9/11 was enough reason for me to think about setting things to right with countries that harbor and sponsor terrorists in some way. The alternative to the plan this guy talks about would be to put them all on notice...so in some ways, I think we truly are taking a less aggresive approach than we might. A less aggresive approach than we are taking now would be the same "go-ahead and maul us" message that some of the european countries have given Muslim radicals. It sounded, initially, as if France might finally put its foot down. Well...they're waffling now. We'll see what happens. Either way, I think europe is in for more trouble because they haven't taken a hard enough stance against terrorism.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Spoken like a true neo-con.

:lamp

How come nobody's doing anything about mugabe?

And why did the US sell WMDs to Saddam in the first place?

And why did the US train Osama?

All of this @#%$ is of the US's making, so don't come spewing stuff about agendas and dictators and the good fight. As long as they keep interfering they are going to keep creating monsters. Now the world has to contend with a far more motivated hardline terrorist population that has new recruits everyday. This is the uncontrollable monster that has been spawned. There's also Iran, the real threat. Got troops, will send to war, eh? Yeeeeehaaaw.

Smart move, that, invading Iraq.

:popcorn

Edited by: HKRockChick at: 11/18/05 21:37

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

HKRC - "And why did the US sell WMDs to Saddam in the first place?

And why did the US train Osama?"

I would hope that if you're posting on this board that you're smart enough to realize that Saddam and Osama had different agendas at the time.

HKRC - "All of this @#%$ is of the US's making..."

Ah...I see...so the US is to be blamed for other peoples (Osama and Saddam) actions. Spoken like a true leftist who does not think individuals should be responsible for their actions. It's no wonder to me why society in general is going down the tubes when the true criminals, the ones who pull the trigger, are not held at fault. But isn't that what you're claiming the US isn't? Responsible for it's actions? So, yet another double standard. Either you hold people responsible for their actions or you don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't hold the gun-maker responsible for the gun killing somebody yet not the one who pulls the trigger...I think that's a little backwards, yes? Sure, we put a gun in Osamas hand...and we bare some responsibility in that. But we were trying to do the right thing. Now we are trying to clean it up, and getting heat for doing it and no cooperation from many of the eastern countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc) in doing it. They are the ones who deserve to have some pressure put on them to stop protecting these dirt-bags...instead, you seem to be out to help them do it! Europe? Don't make me puke...the least they could do is stand by and shut up while we go about the business of finding these clowns who are running around blowing things and people up. They need to either help or get out of the way.

HKRC - "Now the world has to contend with a far more motivated hardline terrorist population that has new recruits everyday. This is the uncontrollable monster that has been spawned."

I agree that it is an uncontrollable monster...in fact, it's the first time I've seen you admit to this...ever. But doesn't it also beg the question in that somebody needs to try and get it under control? That's what the US is trying to do...and getting guff from every leftist (like you) with enough breath to speak or type for trying.

HKRC - "There's also Iran, the real threat."

Interesting...you just answered your own question as to helping Saddam. OK, yes, it backfired...but we were trying. Same thing with Osama...we helped him fight off the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now he's turned back-stabber as well. There are most certainly lessons to be learned here. One of them being: If you want something done, you've gotta do it yourself. To wit: Invasion of Iraq. (Refer to initial post in this thread.)

HKRC - "How come nobody's doing anything about mugabe?"

I'm glad you said that...NOBODY. As in not the US...or France...or Germany...or etc, etc, etc. The US is not the only country in the world. How about some of these countries lending a hand? It's as much their responsibility as it is ours. They (and you) can cry and whine that nothing is being done, but won't lift a finger to do anything themselves. Right now, the US has its hands pretty full...and folks like you throwing rocks at us isn't helping matters any.

HKRC - "Smart move, that, invading Iraq."

We'll see. So far, it seems to be working out pretty well...all things considered.

Edited by: DreamTone7 at: 11/18/05 22:24

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Quote:
I agree that it is an uncontrollable monster...in fact, it's the first time I've seen you admit to this...ever.

are you CRAZY???? That's an outright lie, or DT doing his "I can read but dont understand" bit again. Read my rants from months and months ago about the terrorists knowing no borders and all of us in danger now.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

HKRC - "Read my rants from months and months ago about the terrorists knowing no borders and all of us in danger now."

Sorry...I'll clarify. This was the first time I've ever seen you say something like this without it being used as a stepping-stone to sling more mud in our direction.

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

The west created the uncontrollable monster. no question, and the utterly farcical iraq invasion has given it unbelievable momentum. If you search for my posts from before the war, you'll see this I've been saying this all along.

And do some reading of history, will ya. People don't become terrorists overnight.

As for things going well in Iraq... you guys will say anything to obliterate the truth, isnt it?

:popcorn

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

HKRC - "As for things going well in Iraq... you guys will say anything to obliterate the truth, isnt it?"

Do a little history reading of your own. It took a lot longer for allied forces to get out of Germany and Japan before leaving these countries to their own devices than it looks like it's going to take for us to get out of Iraq. I call that "going well".

HKRC - "People don't become terrorists overnight."

Correct...the mentality required started long before the US had anything to do with it.

HKRC - "The west created the uncontrollable monster."

There you go again...laying all the blame on "the west". So if you get shot by a terrorist, it's all our fault, yes? The shooter had nothing to do with it, yes? If it happens, I'll remember that it's all our fault...fair enough? Perhaps you may instead consider stopping the grand-standing of your leftist "anti-American" agenda and start taking a stance against terrorism in hopes that it might never come to that.

Parlez-vouz francaise?

:popcorn

(I've got my own now :bleh

)

HKRockChick · No More Peas! Joined: 25 Nov 2003 Posts: 1513

Quote:
Do a little history reading of your own. It took a lot longer for allied forces to get out of Germany and Japan before leaving these countries to their own devices than it looks like it's going to take for us to get out of Iraq. I call that "going well".

How can these wars be likened to the invasion of iraq, please tell? What was the US doing in these wars and how did they become involved?

Quote:
There you go again...laying all the blame on "the west". So if you get shot by a terrorist, it's all our fault,

Oh DT, you really MUST do something about that comprehension problem of yours...

Quote:
Correct...the mentality required started long before the US had anything to do

Are you agreeing that knowing that these people had the "terrorist mentality" the US still went in and interfered and tipped them over the edge? And if Saddam and Osama had this mentality why sell em weapons and train em in the first place??? Why arm dangerous people you dont trust???? Do go ahead and quote agendas again, you are only pointing out how stupid and short sighted and downright unethical your govts. were/are. hahahaha

And anyone who doesn't agree with your right wing agenda is a leftist, so who cares what you think. If the media tells it like it is, that's leftist too. hahahahahaha.

Have you ever been to any other country and watched/read anyone elses news, or really experienced another culture for any length of time? I'm not saying you haven't, indeed you well may have...

Be happy with your "own", its all you're ever going to get.

Edited by: HKRockChick at: 11/19/05 7:00