www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/837467/posts?page=1,50
Assure the world that Saddam would never ever use weapons of mass destruction (even if he had them). We need to get into that part of the world so we can start dragging it into the modern age. Until the modern world does this, there will be no peace. To do nothing about radical Islam will doom us to 500 years of increasing Jihadi violence with ever more deadly weapons. The only reason Iraq gets to go first is because we have all the authority we need to take them over, based on Iraq's failure to abide by the terms that ended the first Gulf War. Without the long term rehabilitation strategy, I would agree that making war on Iraq does not make a lot of sense. I am confident, however, that this strategy does exist, and that Bush will have another six years to carry it out. And remember folks, Alberta's Child is our friend, so let's take it easy here. If I were a betting man I'd say that Saddam Hussein is going to end up living in exile somewhere else when all is said and done -- under pressure from other Arab heads of state. Certainly Kurds may have reservations about our own determination after we left Saddam in charge in '91, but we're in the present position because we did so, and aren't likely to repeat that particular error in this case at least. But we're not turning Iraq into a colony or even a protectorate. We have not done so in Afghanistan - that sort of imperialism is simply too impermanent to attempt. Iraq is perfectly capable of standing on its own once Saddam and his party's stranglehold has been broken, and it will. What has changed is that overt state support for terrorists is now much riskier than it has been, and I think that if there is hope for peace in the middle east this has to be done. We no longer have the option of striking before they do, they already have. We do have the option of striking before they strike again. For the time being, the oil there will keep our attention, regardless of who's in charge. The neighboring countries, I think, are not worried about the Kurds. Remember, the vast majority of Middle Eastern natives that we encounter in conversation or on the TV are members of the aristocratic, or at least wealthy, population from each nation. They have a vested interest in regime stability, even if they are not in direct line to power. Both Iraq and Iran have educated populations capable of self-government, I think, if given the chance. Lastly, I believe war is a legitimate means to remove a threat to the American people, be it a current threat, or near certain future threat. But I'm happy the people in charge currently feel the same way I do. Bird 69 Post Reply | 70 Private Reply | 71 To 1 | 72 View Replies To: Alberta's Child Right, stay home until they hit us and then dig a deeper hole. The rational you use is a "do nothing and make excuses" argument. They are mired in emperor worship and could never be democratic. Neither will never change and we will not stay until the job is done. I would guess at the end of the war there will be a new US Base in Iraq. The only reason Iraq gets to go first is because we have all the authority we need to take them over, based on Iraq's failure to abide by the terms that ended the first Gulf War. Ironically, Iraq gets to go first because it is one of the few countries in the region that has a history of "moderation" in terms of its attachment to Islam and has the potential for a Western-style government. I don't consider the current situation in Iraq as a "second step" by any stretch -- the decision to topple Hussein was made in 1991, and the "failure to abide" by the agreement that ended the first was is simply the rationale that will be used to do this now. Without the long term rehabilitation strategy, I would agree that making war on Iraq does not make a lot of sense. I am confident, however, that this strategy does exist, and that Bush will have another six years to carry it out. See my comment in the original post about a President named Bush with an approval rating of 90%, who was defeated a year later by an Arkansas psychopath with a disco haircut. The Brits were talented at building and holding together an empire. Their decision to liquidate it -- thanks to Rooesvelt and the UN -- has been the chief cause of mischief in the Middle East and Africa. Only India has managed to build a genuine Nation in which English parliamentary traditions hold sway -- and even India has experienced periods of backsliding. We're not terribly skilled at the art of imperialism -- at least not the kind maintained by military force. We are unmatched at cultural imperialism, which is why the Islamists fear and loathe us. Our values represent the antithesis of a carefully ordered world that has not gone through the challenge of the Enlightmenment. The proposal for a new Marshall Plan for Iraq would be prohibitively expensive except for one thing: It can be financed on their nickel via their oil. Forcing the Enlightenment -- and civil liberties -- on a culture that doesn't want it is going to be a problem after the secular Baathist regime falls. After removing Saddam, the United States will be able to set up very effective ground intelligence in the Gulf region, making it much more difficult for Al Qaeda to operate there. Also, the USA will be poised on the border of Iran, making it much more difficult for that country to support terrorism. So, terrorism will suffer a big defeat, along with the criminal regime of Saddam. And once things calm down in Israel, a truce between the Palestinians and the Israelis becomes much more realistic. So, there's a huge up side for removing Saddam that has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. This argument, though, and all others, will not sway people who hate America or President Bush. No matter how the case is made by Colin Powell or anybody else, they'll oppose removing Saddam. Saddam is toast and most nations in the world will provide the butter. Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein's survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. This point has been brought up before, and it is certainly a legitimate one. The difference, however, is that Japan and Germany were largely homogenized societies in the post-WWII period. Nation-building will, however, be a lifetime commitment when you are trying to build nations out of separate "tribes" of people. What has changed is that overt state support for terrorists is now much riskier than it has been, and I think that if there is hope for peace in the middle east this has to be done. That's another good point, but what the last few years have shown us is that if anything, state support for terrorism is becoming less vital for terrorism to thrive. Between Iraq and Afganistan sits Iran, already on the verge of a revolution, as younger, more "liberal" (in the good sense) are willing to protest even under threat of death. Take a breathe, consoldate things and let their neighbors see what free Muslims look like. Then start putting the pressure (social and political, not military, most likely) on Saudi, Jordan, etc to move to a Democratic for of government ( a real one as opposed to what they have in Iraq). Pie in the sky, I know, but its the "Domino theory" in reverse. And freedom should be a heck of a lot more contagious than Communism. But I also believe that the course of doing nothing is a guaranteed disaster. I would also agree that it is ironic that we are going into Iraq, because they are, indeed, the best candidate for a self-governing scenario. But when you think of it more as a liberation that a conquest, maybe it is more of a reward than a punishment. To respond to guaguanco, I would see this strategy being applied next to Iran, with an active attempt to foment a popular revolution in that country. Next Yemen or Somalia, because you really can buy those countries on eBay! They are going to lock Iraq in a rather close embrace, for their own survival. We are drawing people away from our German bases, and I doubt if they are ever going back. I think Bagram in Afghanistan is goin...
|
http://csua.com/feed/