Ford wrote:There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding between us Pebkac. I was not listing off countries that should be on an invasion list. I was pointing out that the reasons used for invading Iraq existed in many other areas but only Iraq is painted as evil and in need of punishment.
There is a misunderstanding. The main thing I'm trying to do here is get you to see that Bush had absolutely no choice but to invade if he was to uphold his duty as CiC to protect this nation.
I was listing reasons why Iraq was a situation that was completely unique and did not in any way bear ANY similarities to the other instances you cited. None of those other scenarios provide the perfect storm of threat vs. cost to remove threat in such clear terms like Iraq.
Iraq was not evil, but are you going to deny that its former leader is? Fer pete's sake, man. This has nothing to do with punishment. The intelligence of the day painted Hussein, the leader of Iraq, as a credible threat. This wasn't just sketchy evidence. This was a working assumption of fact by the majority of the world's intelligence agencies. By Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Edwards and Kennedy etc. Now al-Qaeda enters the picture. The no-fly zone doesn't restrict land travel into and out of Iraq. AQ and Hussein have similar goals. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's why we supported Hussein against Iran and it might be enough to partner up OBL and SH.
Ford wrote:It was said that Iraq was a source of WMD to terroists. I just pointed out that there are quite likely easier sources for such weapons. Especially since it appears that Iraq didn't have any to begin with.
I pointed out that we've been aware of those other sources and have had feet on the ground working to get it secured since 1993. Unless not one speck of progress has been made toward this end since 1993, it would NOT be easier to STEAL weapons grade plutonium from the Ukraine than it would be to PURCHASE Anthrax and Sarin from a helpful Saddam Hussein. Whether or not it appears now that they didn't exist is irrelevant to the decision to invade. Hindsight doesn't work here. The intelligence was presumed correct at the time and, given the stakes, invasion was the only option to completely eradicate the threat. The only way that invasion isn't justified or necessary is if you are 100% sure that the weapons didn't exist. The only way to prove that is to go in and see for yourself. Hussein always had places that were "off limits" to search. There was only one way to be sure that the threat was completely eliminated.
Ford wrote:You seem to think it would be a disruption to the terroist cause to invade Iraq. To be "in their back yard" as it were. Yet it was the presence of "infidel" troops in the land of Mecca that was one of the chief rallying points for Ossama bin Laudin to justify attacks in the continental U.S. The presence of troops in Iraq is just more fodder for that viewpoint don't you think?
Would you say we are disrupting their cause more than we were in, say, 1996 when they declared war on us? I would say yes. What do you suppose they'd be doing right now if not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? When was the last time we allowed a war to be fought on this soil by choice, and didn't take the fight to the enemy's homeland?
We were in the land of Mecca at the request of the Saudi Arabian government as protection against the imperialist aims of one Saddam Hussein. Funny how it all ties together like that. I'm sure we'll leave Saudi Arabia as soon as the recognized government asks us to do so. Until then, terrorists don't dictate foreign policy, and I don't think merely sitting on some land at the request of the owner is grounds for incinerating, crushing, or splattering 3000 people. He had no grounds for doing what he has done.
As for Iraq, with all due sympathy for OBL, he didn't leave us much choice but to increase our presence there. He needn't worry though, we'll be leaving there soon enough. Perhaps he'll be alive to see it. If our presence in Iraq riles up a terrorist, to the point of insanity, he'll be hopping a bus to Iraq rather than a plane to Mexico City. That's a plus.
Ford wrote:Not attacking Pakistan because it would be a tactical disaster seems to mean that Iraq was chosen just because it was vunerable rather than for the stated reasons of denying WMD to terroists since Pakistan fits the bill much better than Iraq by that yard stick.
Now you're getting it. Iraq was hit because it was a bigger threat AND it was very vulnerable. If you can find any quotes from Musharaf that lead me to believe he'd like to destroy America, let me know. Until then, Iraq still trumps Pakistan in the threat vs. cost to remove threat equation. You're still thinking in hindsight. Remember, all evidence points to Hussein sitting on a stockpile of WMDs and he has a major axe to grind. Unless 100% of Pakistan's security services are corrupt and in league with terrorists, getting weapons in Pakistan is going to involve some measure of sneaking around and taking chances. Easier to buy from Hussein than steal from Musharaf.
Ford wrote:A couple of times you have refered to reducing the loss of life through the invasion of Iraq as a justification. Why do the Iraqi citizens rate such concern?
Well, to be honest, the health and safety of my family is most important. I refer to it because I get tired of watching anti-warriors cry crocodile tears over the plight of Iraqi citizenry over this war. They'd happily return to the old setup in a minute, and the old setup was killing them faster than this war. They obviously don't give a ★■◆●, so I just want to call them on their bull★■◆●.
Ford wrote:What will this war cost 100-200 billion dollars? You are aware that every day 10 to 14 thousand children die from poverty related diseases. If it was loss of innocent lives that justified invading Iraq there are much better uses for that quantity of money with many more lives to be saved.
Like I said, I use the "War causes fewer civilian casualties than sanctions" argument to call out bullshitters. It is a ★■◆●ing tragedy the conditions that some people must live in. Backbreaking poverty the likes of which your average welfare mom can't even comprehend. Yes, $200 billion would go a long way to easing the suffering, but we don't have that luxury right now. We're at war, and the protection of America must take precedence over all else.
Loss of civilians was but one in a long line of justifications for invasion. The primary duty of the CiC is to protect this nation, and Iraq was a situation that called for neutralization. Again, Bush would have been derelict in his duties if he had chosen to trust Saddam's promise that the stockpiles were destroyed. Only a fool would make such a choice.
Ford wrote:It would seem, but I may be misinterpreting this, that you feel an invasion of some country was nessessary and that Iraq was the best target. That supports my contention that the invasion is just to salve the wounds of the American people after 9/11 and the current administration is being pushed into this war rather than leading the people with wisdom.
I felt that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified based on al-Qaeda training camps there. I felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam (according to the intelligence analysis of the day) had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an ideological ally in OBL. Not invading meant relying on OBL's disgust for secular leaders trumping his desire to hit the West as hard as he could. That wasn't a chance worth taking with Iraq being so weakened militarily.
As for salving wounds, if you are asking if the thought of a terrorist having his brains blown out just before he gets that RPG shot off makes me smile inside, then yes I'll cop to that. It's human nature. However, that isn't the motivation for Iraq. Your contention is simply wrong and is based more on an irrational distrust of Bush than on any real analysis. Iraq was a potential WMD repository waiting to be distributed to our enemies. Bush was pushed into invasion, indeed, but not by the American people's desire for revenge. Invading Iraq was not an option at all. It was imperative.
Ford wrote:Would the Democratic party stoop to such tactics? I am a Canadian so I am no expert on this but my guess is yes. Especially given Lyndon Johnson's tactics using the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco to justify expanded action in Vietnam.
But two wrongs don't make a right do they?
Vietnam didn't declare war on us. Our waking up to the fact that al-Qaeda was a force to be reckoned with lead directly to the invasion of Iraq. Iraq had the weapons, AQ had the capability to bring them here and hit us. Hussein was a wildcard in an extremely high stakes game, so he had to be taken out. There was no responsible choice but to remove him.
As to the Democratic party, that party died in Dallas in 1963.
Ford wrote:Oh and my comment on the unlikely hood of a free and democratic state in Iraq is based more on my feeling that what the Iraqi people want as a government is different than what the U.S. wants and that conflict will not resolve into "freedom" for the average Iraqi.
Oh, I see. I believe what the Iraqi people want above all else is to live their lives in peace and free from undue aggravation from their government. Unless you are a Sunni, you haven't ever had that before. Not surprisingly, the resistance is made up primarily of Sunnis. I believe that the average Iraqi could give two shits about what kind of government they end up with, so long as they can live their lives without a sword of damocles hanging over them. I'm thinking that they will accept whatever government is put in if they can live a full year without some sort of air strike or car bomb. If the new government is overthrown a few years after we leave, well, the government sucked before we went in, too. If the new Iraqi government is given enough time to get going, it will be increasingly difficult to overthrow.
In the meantime, the WMD stockpiles were found to be either mythical or moved to new locations, so the threat level will be less than before the invasion no matter who takes power. Then they'd join the ranks of Syria and Iran, thorns in the side but not too far gone to negotiate with.
