Israeli exhibit has visitors walking on Arabic flags!

[kapkomet]

Again with the assumption. I've said before in here, I've said it to you... I am very well aware of the real reasons for attacking Iraq. It was never about WMD, or how Saddam was a bad man (those were way, way down the list, if they were factors at all). It was about:

 

1. Creating an anchorhead for democracy and capitalism in the Middle East, hoping it would spread in the region.

2. Have more control and influence over the flow of oil from the Gulf

3. Creating a military depot in the region allied with the U.S.

4. Centralize the greater military and politcal conflicts in a country of our choosing, where we could battle extremism head-on

 

Those were the main drivers. They are plenty long-sighted - just not very intelligent. You cannot create democracy at he barrell of a gun. It would have been much, much cheaper to invest in getting off oil entirely, then to invade and own Iraq. Now I have been wrong on a lot of things, but I'll tell you, these facts all seemed pretty damn obvious to me from the get-go. I just don't understand why this administration couldn't see it too.

 

Well, there already is capitalism in the Middle East - it's called Dubai, for one.

 

The 4 main points you listed is a lot of it, and I wasn't singleing you out - most people are very short sighted when it comes to Iraq.

 

Really, it all goes back to 8 weeks after the launch of the war. If they would have gotten in there and stabilized things right away instead of it festering (for many reasons - but most of it was a HUGE vacuum because no one knew who was in charge), then I think things would be very different now. That part definitely rests to GWB, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (aka the three musketeers).

 

I do think that the 4 things you stated are attainable, if they don't back down . . . but most people don't have the stomach for it. Now - I'm NOT saying that we should "stay the course" - but I am saying that we need to make sure things get cleaned up as much as they can be and hope that we can get more people to forge alliances like some parts of Iraq has done in the last 2-3 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, there already is capitalism in the Middle East - it's called Dubai, for one.

 

The 4 main points you listed is a lot of it, and I wasn't singleing you out - most people are very short sighted when it comes to Iraq.

 

Really, it all goes back to 8 weeks after the launch of the war. If they would have gotten in there and stabilized things right away instead of it festering (for many reasons - but most of it was a HUGE vacuum because no one knew who was in charge), then I think things would be very different now. That part definitely rests to GWB, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (aka the three musketeers).

 

I do think that the 4 things you stated are attainable, if they don't back down . . . but most people don't have the stomach for it. Now - I'm NOT saying that we should "stay the course" - but I am saying that we need to make sure things get cleaned up as much as they can be and hope that we can get more people to forge alliances like some parts of Iraq has done in the last 2-3 months.

I don't find them attainable, because of the parameters within which the U.S. military has to work.

 

But that discussion aside, here is the other question - even if we can, should we? I mean, look at what we did. We invaded a sovereign country, for our own political gain. Not in self defense, not to save lives, and not to protect our allies or ourselves. It was an aggresive, illegal invasion. This country has lost much of its leverage and political power world-wide now, because we decided to do this. That decision will be hurting the U.S. for decades to come.

 

[kapkomet]

I don't find them attainable, because of the parameters within which the U.S. military has to work.

 

But that discussion aside, here is the other question - even if we can, should we? I mean, look at what we did. We invaded a sovereign country, for our own political gain. Not in self defense, not to save lives, and not to protect our allies or ourselves. It was an aggresive, illegal invasion. This country has lost much of its leverage and political power world-wide now, because we decided to do this. That decision will be hurting the U.S. for decades to come.

OK, so I'll bite.

 

Why was it ILLEGAL?

 

And I think that word has some serious ramifications.

 

And I disagree on the part of "not to protect or allies or ourselves". I think by creating the battle field there, it's saved lives at home. Now - the real debate is - we've ruined XX millions of lives in Iraq - and all for what? I do think that it DOES protect ourselves and our allies. However, it's probably not by the means we wanted it to be.

 

[BigSqwert]

I think by creating the battle field there, it's saved lives at home.

I can't believe you really think that. Was Iraq on the verge of invading the US?

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, so I'll bite.

 

Why was it ILLEGAL?

 

And I think that word has some serious ramifications.

 

And I disagree on the part of "not to protect or allies or ourselves". I think by creating the battle field there, it's saved lives at home. Now - the real debate is - we've ruined XX millions of lives in Iraq - and all for what? I do think that it DOES protect ourselves and our allies. However, it's probably not by the means we wanted it to be.

I thought the illegal part was pretty clear. We invaded a country, one who was no threat to us, and one who was under UN sanctions that were working. That violates pretty standard international law, as it were. If you don't think international law is worth following, then so be it. But we chose to walk all over it.

 

Iraq was a near-zero threat to the U.S. Here is a list of countries who, off the top of my head, represented greater threats to us and our interests as of 2003:

 

Iran

North Korea

Syria

Pakistan (yes I know they are an ally, but it doesn't change the fact)

Saudi Arabia (same)

Russia

Yemen

China

 

So let's dispense with the B.S. about a threat, and be honest about why they chose Iraq. They chose Iraq because of location, because of the perceived ease of victory, and because of oil.

 

[kapkomet]

I can't believe you really think that. Was Iraq on the verge of invading the US?

Oh I absolutely think that. And really, that's NSS's point - is that we were so arrogant to making Iraq our playground to fight a war.

 

It's sort of like Ohio wanting to fight Illinois and taking over Indiana to do it.

 

The people who get screwed are the Iraqis. I know this and I also think that a lot of resources by terrorist organizations are being funneled into Iraq - whereas it would have been here at home if we didn't invade. Now - knowing that Saddam was pathological in a lot of ways anyway, I think the right decision was made. He had always shown a propensity to go against the rest of the world (Kuwait, Iran/Iraq in the 1980's, WMD's against his own people, defiance to the UN resolutions after 1991, oil for food, etc. etc. etc. etc.) and therefore the decision was made to eliminate that threat.

 

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

I thought the illegal part was pretty clear. We invaded a country, one who was no threat to us, and one who was under UN sanctions that were working. That violates pretty standard international law, as it were. If you don't think international law is worth following, then so be it. But we chose to walk all over it.

 

Iraq was a near-zero threat to the U.S. Here is a list of countries who, off the top of my head, represented greater threats to us and our interests as of 2003:

 

Iran

North Korea

Syria

Pakistan (yes I know they are an ally, but it doesn't change the fact)

Saudi Arabia (same)

Russia

Yemen

China

 

So let's dispense with the B.S. about a threat, and be honest about why they chose Iraq. They chose Iraq because of location, because of the perceived ease of victory, and because of oil.

The sanctions were working because France, Germany, et. al were profiting off of it. Doh!

 

Anyway, I don't think it was "illegal" as the resolutions were pretty clear that we could resume the 1991 conflict if Saddam were found not in compliance with the resolutions, and his government was found in contempt of those resolutions.

 

And I agree there were (and are) bigger threats to the US. But that's not the point.

 

[southsider2k5]

Um the Embassy takeover was some pissed Iranians who were upset at our support of the Shah and his secret police. So that was a little of 'reap what you sow'. And the rest of this isn't directed towards you SS, I just didn't want to double post in the thread back to back.

 

And we haven't been just under attack by Muslim extremists in the US and the world. Perhaps Eric Rudolph is worth remembering as well, the Army of God, the ultra-rightist Christians who bomb and shoot doctors/medical clinics, the KKK (a Christian extremist organization), the Christian Identity movement...and a little from Wiki:

 

Clayton Waagner claimed to be on a "mission from God" when he set out with his family on a trip across the United States, intent on killing multiple abortion providers. Ultimately he mailed envelopes, falsely claiming they contained anthrax, to more than 500 abortion facilities, as part of the larger, and unconnected, anthrax attacks of 2001.

 

On 11 September 2006 David McMenemy, who has pleaded guilty to second degree arson allegedly attempted a suicide bombing, deliberately crashing his car into the Edgerton Women’s Health Center in Davenport, Iowa. According to a court affidavit, McMenemy swore under oath that he mistakenly thought the clinic performed abortions.

 

The National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Fundamentalist Christian militant group in India, demanding a separate Christian state. Allegedly funded by the Baptist Church of Tripura, it is accused of ethnic cleansing and bombings that have killed hundreds, as well as forcing gunpoint conversions. They were declared a terrorist organization under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2002.

 

Poso, Jakarta (2000)

On July 26, 2007, 17 Christians were convicted of religion-inspired terrorism under Indonesian law. A Christian mob attacked, murdered, and beheaded two Muslim fishermen in September 2006, reportedly as retaliation for a previous court ordered and legally sanctioned execution in 2006 of three Christians convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000. In addition to the seventeen Christian defendants found guilty of "acts of terrorism by the use of violence", two defendants received fourteen year sentences for their main roles in the killings, while ten were sentenced to twelve year terms. Five other defendants in separate hearings received eight year sentences for their part in the disposal of the bodies.

 

So, perhaps it isn't just Muslims that are rioting and beheading in parts of the world over perceived injustices. Fundamentalists of all stripes are f***ing nutty and it helps to not make exemptions for fundies of a certain religion.

 

That was pretty much my point, without the liberal cut and paste usage, and the antiChristian bias.... It doesn't matter who is in charge. There are always going to be radicals who feel that they have been wronged, and are going to take extreme measures to right those wrongs. If you move the Presidency to another point on the political spectrum, you'll just piss off someone else. For the Muslim radicals, as long as we are Christian nation who supports Judaism, we are going to be a target.