2/20 Ok serious question, NOT political. This is straight up procedural.
Has it been declared that we didn't find WMD in iraq? (think so).
So why did we go into iraq (what was the gain), and if nobody really
knows, why is nobody looking for the reason?
\_ Political stability, military strategy (Iran), and to prevent
Saddam from financing terrorism.
\_ Ok, fair answers. I grant you 2 and 3 probably actually worked
was that the political stability we were looking for?
what i mean is, wasn't that area "stable" under saddam?
\_ This is somewhat of a guess, but it wasn't stability of Iraq
that was the concern, but stability of the entire Middle East.
During the first Gulf War, Sadaam demonstrated that he was
more than willing to launch missles at Israel and Saudi
Arabia. That was largely the reason why the US had troops
in Saudi Arabia. And the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia
was one of the major reasons (among many I'm sure) why OBL
was so angry the US. After Sadaam's capture, the US pulled
its troops out of Saudi Arabia.
\_ So basically the people threatened with Saudi and Israel
and we got the whole world to help the two nations that
arguably the rest of the world hates more than the US.
\_ I think it is pretty clear that the Gulf War strengthened
Iran strategically.
\_ Did you notice iran went for a nuclear enrichment
program just to save themselves? I guess they learned
from iraq and dprk, if you have no nukes, you are
screwed. Will it be a balance of power in the region
Iran/Pakistan?
\_ Having a battle-tested US army on your border is not
a position of strength if you are anti-US.
\_ This is a temporary situation. A weak, divided Iraq
is a huge win for Iran. Remember Iraq fought two bloody
wars with Iran in the 80s.
\_ Well, yes, but largely at our behest (cf. pix of
Rusmfeld shaking hands with Saddam) and mostly
because we were still pissed about the hostages
and the Iranians overthrowing our puppet, the Shah.
The biggest win for Iran here is that Iraq no
longer _wants_ to fight with Iran, even if it
could.
\_ The reason was that the GOP needed to find a way to funnel taxpayer
dollars to their big donors and the cover of a war was the easiest
way to do this. Don't you remember the "Permanent Republican
Majority?"
\_ But isn't this the case for any administration- that the
funneling comes regardless of whatever policy happens?
\_ Sure, but defence contractors don't donate to Democrats.
Remember how Clinton slashed the DoD budget?
\_ The reason that no one in the Administration is looking is that
Rahm Emmanuel has the Prez's ear on policy right now, and RE's
take on the whole thing is don't look back, don't investigate.
Cf. RE blowing his top when Eric Holder started looking into
whether CIA operatives could be prosecuted for tortuure. |