DescentBB

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Bush's reason, terrorism, for invading Iraq

Am I the only one who actually comprehended Bush's speeches leading up to the Iraq war? Am I the only one who noticed he gave a series of reasons for invading Iraq, not just one or two? To phrase it as though he only gave one is simply dishonest.

You're right, Lothar. VERY FEW persons in this discussion are paying any attention to the other reasons Bush gave.

But that's OK because they're slowly drifting away from the original topic of the thread.

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Bush's reason, terrorism, for invading Iraq

Am I the only one who actually comprehended Bush's speeches leading up to the Iraq war? Am I the only one who noticed he gave a series of reasons for invading Iraq, not just one or two? To phrase it as though he only gave one is simply dishonest.

What where Bush's reasons for invading? I personally did not need government reasons to attack as I have thought we needed to respond forcefully long before we did. Heck so did Hollywood, what was that movie - naked gun or something where a bomb landed in Saddam's lap near a pool. I really think we where very patient with them.

tunnelcat wrote:Bush should have been putting more pressure on the Saudi Royals to deal with the home grown terrorists that were coming from there....

I don't think anyone could have predicted what citizens would take that path until they were long gone.
Muhammed Atta was the pilot who hit the first tower, he was an Egyptian who was a decent student and very quiet well behaved son of two college educated parents. His sisters were also good students attending universities. Considered a religious and strict old fashioned family without any sign of being activist or anything close to terrorists. When Atta went to Hamburg Germany to study and get his degree in architecture he changed into a fundamentalist raving nutbag after a few months hanging out mostly in the Al Quds mosque with fellow ex patriot Muslims. He did poorly in school for the first time in his life and found a new passion...hating the west.
So do we invade, Germany? Egypt?

The only country that regularly exports terrorists as part of their policy is Iran.

tunnelcat wrote:... Now the Taliban is coming back stronger than ever, ...

ummm, you mean in Afghanistan, I suppose.

Than ever? Really?? Whence do you deduce that? I googled 'Taliban control in afghanistan'. Many of the early hits are from around November 2007, when these pundits and reporters were quoting figures of Taliban control at about 50%, and that it was likely they might meet their goal of retaking Kabul by 2008. But let's take a look at an assessment from May 2008, at the Toronto Star

Today, the roundly accepted estimate – not necessarily accurate but asserted as such by no less than the U.S. director of national intelligence – is that Taliban forces control 10 per cent of the country.

The government led by Western-backed President Hamid Karzai, its authority propped up by NATO and American troops, has purported control over 30 per cent of Afghanistan territory. Warlords, who may or may not align themselves with Kabul – depends on which way the wind is blowing – essentially lay claim to all the rest.

These are rule-of-thumb generalizations, often cited by critics who bemoan Afghanistan's regression to patchwork fiefdom and lawlessness, the Taliban insurgency resurrected like a phoenix from the ashes of a vanquished, deranged regime.

"Those percentages of what the Taliban hold drive me crazy,'' Christopher Alexander counters heatedly. "Because they don't hold anything, really. There are some places where they hold out, where they're holed up. And they're able to do so because there isn't an active challenge to their presence. None of that means that they're in control."

Doesn't sound to me like the Taliban is going uphill anywhere. So just how is that they are "stronger than ever", since at one point they governed almost the entire country?

Cuda68 wrote:No way is the U.S. acting Imperialistic. Lets do a little history with Islam leading up to this war:

You have no idea what the word 'imperialistic' means, do you?

In other words, it makes absolutely no difference what the enemy did to provoke the imperialism, it's still imperialism.

Dedman wrote:

Lothar wrote:Am I the only one who actually comprehended Bush's speeches leading up to the Iraq war?

Maybe you're the only one who believed them.

The UN must of believed Bush as they passed a resolution authorizing a invasion as Saddam was not complying to inspections. The US Senate and House of Representatives believed Bush as they authorized the war. All the major intelligence agency's believed and agreed with Bush. Britain, Australia, Poland and Denmark also believed as they sent troops.

Perhaps Dedman, you were one of the few not to believe him

TIGERassault wrote: In other words, it makes absolutely no difference what the enemy did to provoke the imperialism, it's still imperialism.

And just what was that, or are you people going to dodge that question forever?

TIGERassault wrote:

Cuda68 wrote:No way is the U.S. acting Imperialistic. Lets do a little history with Islam leading up to this war:

You have no idea what the word 'imperialistic' means, do you?

In other words, it makes absolutely no difference what the enemy did to provoke the imperialism, it's still imperialism.

Of course I do, It means Empire building. But I do not believe that was what happened for 1 second. We where not even interested in there country aside from doing business with them. We want them to set up there own security and elect there government so we can pull out. We attacked the Taliban and Saddam for many other reasons, like they attacked us 18 times killing people. We had enough and struck back, hard. Unless you condone there actions of random killing somehow .

Spidey wrote:And just what was that, or are you people going to dodge that question forever?

.....which question?

Cuda68 wrote:Of course I do, It means Empire building. But I do not believe that was what happened for 1 second. We where not even interested in there country aside from doing business with them. We want them to set up there own security and elect there government so we can pull out. We attacked the Taliban and Saddam for many other reasons, like they attacked us 18 times killing people. We had enough and struck back, hard. Unless you condone there actions of random killing somehow .

...so why did you list off all those events when it would've been so much easier to just say "US Forces aren't taking over the Middle East, they're just attacking it"?

TIGERassault wrote:

Spidey wrote:And just what was that, or are you people going to dodge that question forever?

.....which question?

Cuda68 wrote:Of course I do, It means Empire building. But I do not believe that was what happened for 1 second. We where not even interested in there country aside from doing business with them. We want them to set up there own security and elect there government so we can pull out. We attacked the Taliban and Saddam for many other reasons, like they attacked us 18 times killing people. We had enough and struck back, hard. Unless you condone there actions of random killing somehow .

...so why did you list off all those events when it would've been so much easier to just say "US Forces aren't taking over the Middle East, they're just attacking it"?

I don't understand your question?
I listed them as supporting statements as to why I believe we are fighting them as compared to Imperialism being the reason.

Cuda68 wrote:I don't understand your question?
I listed them as supporting statements as to why I believe we are fighting them as compared to Imperialism being the reason.

Err... nevermind. It's too hard to explain.

Yea, it is kinda hard to explain it as empire building after they attacked us 18 times in 20 years.

Spidey wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote: I do feel there is room for the U.S. to back down on many of their policies that create the irritants that are at the root of these conflicts but it would cost in prestige and influence, something I don't see them giving up voluntarily.

Ford

As an American, I have given this subject a lot of thought, and I would like it if you would be more specific about just which policies you are refering to.

I hear a lot of this “It’s all the Americans fault” but I still have no idea just which policies are to blame.

So please if you would be so kind…no links please.

I think I can answer this one. The biggest mistake made with the Middle East concerning policy's started with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Several countries, including the U.S. made deals with the Palestinians to topple the Ottoman Empire from the inside. The Palestinians where the inside force that was recruited. The powers who brokered this deal screwed the Palestinians. This was done in the late 1800's and the promises made have yet to be lived up to. This was the beginning of the end for peace in the Middle East. This is the Major sticky point if you will for the extremist also. Perhaps you remember the Olympics where the Palestinians attacked Israel athletes and killed them. They wanted the worlds attention to the suffering of the Palestinian people and policy's that maintain the suffering.

Cuda68 wrote:Heck so did Hollywood, what was that movie - naked gun or something where a bomb landed in Saddam's lap near a pool. I really think we where very patient with them.

I THINK it was Hot Shots: Part Deux. I don't remember that particular part, but I do remember the person in question, and the pool. That was probably one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.

So cuda68, you also believe that’s it’s all America’s fault?

To be specific I am looking for policies that justify mass murder.

Ok TIGER I understand the problems with this medium, so I will spell it out for you.

TIGER, exactly which US policies justify the terrorism coming out of the middle east?

Spidey, the main policy that \"contributes to\" but not \"Justifies\" (because nothing does) the terroism coming out of the middle east is our support for Israel, but as many have poorly tried to point out here America is the big bully and everyone hates us. and no matter what we do that will not change. oh sure they love to take our money but when it come time to pay the interest, they cry to momma that we are unfair and Imperialistic bullies. doesnt matter what we do we are in a lose, lose situation

Spidey wrote:So cuda68, you also believe that’s it’s all America’s fault?

To be specific I am looking for policies that justify mass murder.

Ok TIGER I understand the problems with this medium, so I will spell it out for you.

TIGER, exactly which US policies justify the terrorism coming out of the middle east?

Not at all. They choose to use violence as a medium instead of negation. Also, we where one of several powers and they choose us and Israel as there hated targets and justify it with religion reasons. I am all for this war and I also think we should have gone to war 30 years ago with them.

Cuda68 wrote:

Spidey wrote:So cuda68, you also believe that’s it’s all America’s fault?

To be specific I am looking for policies that justify mass murder.

Ok TIGER I understand the problems with this medium, so I will spell it out for you.

TIGER, exactly which US policies justify the terrorism coming out of the middle east?

Not at all. They choose to use violence as a medium instead of negation. Also, we where one of several powers and they choose us and Israel as there hated targets and justify it with religion reasons. I am all for this war and I also think we should have gone to war 30 years ago with them.

well I cant argue with you there.
but thats probably the neo-fascist conservative religious zealot in me.

Spidey: As Cuda pointed out much of the unrest in the mid-east centres around Israel and Israel would not exist without billions of dollars in U.S. aid. That is a major sticking point.
And don't forget U.S. support for the Shah who's mad policy of having the largest standing army in Asia led to the revolution and the current rule by Ayatollah.
Supporting the Saudi Royals is probably not an avoidable option but when you chose one side in a power dispute the other hates you no matter.
Screwing the Kurds in the aftermath of Gulf War I made no friends.
Pouring millions of dollars in aid to Iraq to encourage the brutal war against Iran was a major irritant that also completely backfired. One of the worst Lose/Lose scenarios in modern political history.
Do you think the Areminians are pleased at the U.S. (and many other Western Powers) tacit support for the Turkish genocide of their people?

If I was a real student of history I could go on but I'm just a old internet poster so that is the best I can do with the 10 min. I have before supper.

Thanks…

I agree that befriending Israel is the main reason they hate us.

But, I’m still looking for that justification for the terrorism & mass murder, so let one of the others* answer that.

* Ford, TIGER or tunnelcat…etc

Ford…

Do you think we should give up a friend because they are a liability? (Israel)

Yes support for dictators…very bad. (Iraq)

Support for the Royals…we can choose our friends…right? (Saudi Arabia)

We screwed the Kurds…but have made amends. (Post Gulf War)

Picking a side in a war is neutral in the whole of things. (Iran - Iraq War)

I doubt we had anything to do with the Armenian genocide, other than being friends with Turkey. (Turkey)

BTW Thanks for answering.

So do these things justify mass murder of innocent people? Which?

EDIT:

Also some of you points are invalid.

Example: The Kurds are not Arabs, and as far as I know have never used terriorism against us, and I also believe they are our friends as well. (but Sodamn Insane did use toxic gas against them)

Also as I recall history, the Arabs may have actually agreed with the killing of Armenians. (who by the way, are also not Arabs)

And in the Iraq-Iran war didn’t we support the Arabs against non Arabs in that case? (not sure on that)

woodchip wrote:Perhaps Dedman, you were one of the few not to believe him

Perhaps, but I doubt it. There were many who didn't believe the evidence that was presented.

Do any of those acts justify terrorist attacks of any kind? Of course not.
Did the actions of Saddam Hussein justify the pounding of his country's infrastructure into dust, the killing of countless thousands of civilians, the elimination the protection of law and order for it's citizens?
I think not as well.
You can't justify wrong actions. They are just wrong. You might be able to excuse them the way you excuse someone's bad behaviour because they were drunk at the time or because they have an anger management problem. The excuse does not make the actions right, it only explains the reasons for them.
Piss a large group of people off enough and a certain extreme fringe will become unreasonable and you end up dealing with extreme actions.
The Kurds and the Armenian people are not \"Arabs\" but they are citizens of the middle east and seeing them get screwed doesn't give you a good feeling when your turn comes to deal with the screwer. You begin to see a pattern of what you can expect from them.

BTW
The Kurds have not yet been compensated for being screwed in GF1. They have taken control of their territory and with the exception of the disputed border area they have established law and order within it. No thanks to the U.S. When the time comes to make Civil war or unify Iraq under the control of the Sunni or the Shia what do you think the Kurds are going to do? They are not going to join hands and sing from the same song book. And they cannot be supported by the U.S. as independent since that would be seen as an attack on the Turkish territory that the Kurds claim. The same goes for the Irani and Iraqi Kurdish territory. The U.S. will have no choice but to throw the Kurds under the bus once again and there will be no Kurdistan. I believe the Kurds are the spoiler in the entire Iraq situation, something that will not be an issue until the Shia and Sunni come to some kind of accommodation and begin to govern Iraq. Whenever that might happen.

Spidey wrote:TIGER, exactly which US policies justify the terrorism coming out of the middle east?

Umm... none.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at though.

Ford,

How to hell do you jump to the conclusion that I want to justify or excuse terrible things we have done, I was just trying to get your concept of what justifies terrorism.

You don’t even know my stance on Iraq.

Are you suggesting we support a Kurdistan? Because that’s just the kind of crap that got us here in the first place…right?

And TIGER…forget it.

for those that feel the US is acting Imperialistic and Bush is a War-Monger, how would you describe the retoric from Ahmadenijad of Iran and Chavez of Venezuela? not to mention the multitude of other minor leaders around the world. I am curious.

Spidey: I was just responding to your question:

So do these things justify mass murder of innocent people? Which?

From that I guessed it was you that thought I was justifying acts of terrorism.
Should the U.S. support Kurdistan? I don't even see how that could be done. Backing them in a civil war against Turkey, Iran and whatever Iraq becomes... a real disaster that would be. No the Kurds are going to be on their own again and that's that.
The entire region has been carved up into countries and Emirates and Monarchies and such by interfering Europeans and others for generations. I don't see how you can push the reset button now and let them sort themselves into the natural arrangements they should have been.
Bob Marley said it:
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be pursued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war

Edit: Fixed messed up bracket for quote

Spidey wrote:But, I’m still looking for that justification for the terrorism & mass murder, so let one of the others* answer that.

* Ford, TIGER or tunnelcat…etc

Sitting here suffering the worlds worst cold bug has given me time to think about your questions, Spidey.

There is NO justification for mass murder, ever. However, there is the idea of 'rationalizing' someone's hate that will then give someone the justification for murder. Religion is a good example of where people will use the Bible to justify their acts upon other people. Stoning adulterous women or selling them as slaves, cutting off the hands of thieves or even the murder of homosexuals are somehow rationalized as correct because some religious book claims it as God's word.

Now most modern, rational people will denounce such behavior, but the fervent or even entire countries use religious texts to justify torture and murder. Islamic terrorists have interpreted the Koran in a way to justify the murder of those they see as infidels, all non-Muslims. In this case, there is no logic to counter their beliefs, because they WANT to find reasons to kill those they don't like and using God to justify murder somehow makes it right, even necessary in their minds. Other than killing them first, I don't know how to stop Islamic religious fanatics. But invading a country, that didn't harbor them in the first place and having no plan to secure the population and infrastructure is a REALLY STUPID way to deal with it.

But we can search for the REASONS that so many Muslims are becoming terrorists for the sole purpose of killing Americans or Europeans. Now the U.S. support for Israel will always be a sticking point as long as the Palestinians and Israelis don't come to some sort of peaceful settlement. But the U.S. always trying to make policy decisions for the Middle East is going to result in anger and that's where the U.S. needs to step back and take a good look to find better ways to stop the hatred and creation of countless terrorists. The U.S. can't do it alone, we need the world community with us to solve the problem. We need to stop being the sole world police. I just heard on the news today that Myanmar doesn't want the U.S. to come into their country to give aid because they're afraid we will invade and take their oil. What does that tell you about U.S. policy if they even PERCEIVE that the U.S. might do that.

Since religion is one the the roots for rationalizing murder, I really believe that the U.S. needs to stop sending Christian groups, especially under the guise of relief workers, into Muslim nations for the purpose of converting the population to Christianity. I'm sure that Muslims take great exception at this and blame the U.S. government for the practice. In fact, isn't this part of Bush's faith-based initiatives and aid efforts?

I was also thinking about what I would do if I were trying to change the way our government does things. One would be to quit privatizing and selling our government to corporations. Through lobbying and other means, most of our leaders and representatives have been bought by the global multinational corporations. We no longer have a government that is by the people, of the people and for the people. No one represents the single voter anymore and we seem to have little say in our affairs. We no longer have a democracy, but instead we are slaves to the corporations, and Americans keep enabling them. It's the interests of the corporations that are now setting our foreign policy.

Bush's reason for the war may not have been oil, but it was for the personal reason of creating a legacy and gaining exceptional powers that no president has had before and trampling the Constitution in the process. It's Cheney that went to war for oil and profit. It's in the record that Bush wanted to complete the job that his dad never finished. If he'd wanted to fight terrorism, he should have stuck to Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Now the Saudis are probably worrying that Iraq might not be a stable buffer between them and an increasingly militant Iran.

Hope ya feel better soon.

I was watching “Bush’s War” last night on Frontline, and one thing stuck in my mind. Both countries that we are at war with, had a reasonable chance to avoid invasion.

Afghanistan simply had to turn over Bomb Laden, and Iraq simply had to obey UN mandate something something. (I can’t remember the #)

Wouldn’t it have been great if they had just swallowed their pride, and avoided invasion?

Edit:

I did read your post, too many points in one post for me. (but that’s just my simple mind and all)

I do agree with some of your points, and sympathize with others, But I must also point out that some of it sounds like spoon fed Democratic rhetoric.

As far as Bush’s legacy, that’s a little unfair, because I think most presidents are worried about their legacy. And since nobody even cares about his donations toward fighting AIDS, and other things, what’s really left? (rhetorical) Other than finishing his fathers job. (which I believe is right on the money, btw)

tunnelcat wrote:...Islamic terrorists have interpreted the Koran in a way to justify the murder of those they see as infidels, all non-Muslims. In this case, there is no logic to counter their beliefs, because they WANT to find reasons to kill those they don't like and using God to justify murder somehow makes it right, even necessary in their minds. Other than killing them first, I don't know how to stop Islamic religious fanatics.

Since they can't be convinced they're wrong, you have nothing left except to kill them first...and on their soil.

We need to stop being the sole world police.

True, but without any other major world power stepping up to the plate, terrorism would just increase.

Bush's reason for the war may not have been oil, but it was for the personal reason of creating a legacy and gaining exceptional powers that no president has had before and trampling the Constitution in the process. It's Cheney that went to war for oil and profit. It's in the record that Bush wanted to complete the job that his dad never finished.

I want to believe that too, but I think it's wrong. I read what kind of information president Bush was given at the time and I think as president, he acted on that information. However, I think Mr. Cheney is the most corupt VP the U.S. has ever had and with HIM... it IS about oil.

If he'd wanted to fight terrorism, he should have stuck to Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Now the Saudis are probably worrying that Iraq might not be a stable buffer between them and an increasingly militant Iran.

Maybe, but I have to wonder if Iraq would have remained neutral and not harbor any of the terrorists using it as a base to launch attacks on our soldiers in Afghanistan. Remember who you were dealing with.

Oh well...just my pov.

Bee

For those of you who exclaim they know the real reason Bush went to war leads me to believe you have a relationship with him that he will confide in you his most personal of desires. Is this true?

If not, then you are only speculating and know absolutely zilch.

I’m guilty.

I admit to the speculation, but I prefer educated guess, or maybe just insight.

But I make no claim to the truth.

And, the problem I see with the legacy theory is, if you follow the logic…

Washington fought the revolutionary war for his legacy, not for freedom.
Lincoln fought for emancipation for his legacy, not for freeing the slaves.
TR created the national forests for his legacy, not to save wild spaces.
FDR started the new deal for his legacy, not to help people.
Kennedy started the space race for his legacy, not to advance science.
Carter started stagflation for his legacy, not to…errr.
And Reagan fought the cold war for his legacy, not to defeat the commies.
etc.

I find the whole thing about 'He went to finish what his father started' kind of stupid.
For those who think that, do you think he feels like the world will look differently on his father once he finishes the task?!? Like we held it against his father but now the problem has been fixed so we'll be happier with him now?

Ridiculous, if we were disappointed in someone for not doing something, just because someone else comes in 8 years later and does the job doesn't change what we think of his father. And just because the person that finally did the job was related to the man who didn't finish the task doesn't change the assessment of the guy who failed to complete the task! He's still the guy who didn't get it done!

Or maybe you think he's trying to show his father up, like \"Hey Dad, you couldn't get it done but I could!\". I hope you don't think that! How cold and ruthless would he have to be to arbitrarily start a war and kill thousands just to show his father he can kill more people and send the troops deeper into enemy territory! I know some people like to say Bush is evil but come on! Can you really believe that line of reasoning?!?

The only context that \"He wanted to finish what his father started.\" really makes any sense is with the benefit of hind sight he knew it would have been better if his father had finished off Saddam so since he had the opportunity and the need was there he went in and did it.
And if that's the case then where the hell is the fault in doing something that needed to be done?

If Bush believed removing Saddam from power was justified and beneficial to the U.S. then the fact that anyone almost did it before is irrelevant. If he had refused to go after Saddam then people could say 'He didn't want to embarrass his father so he let Saddam get away with murder!' I could buy that one, at least that conspiracy theory sounds like something a Son might do following in a Fathers footsteps.

I think he finished the job, but because he believed it had to be done, not for the “stupid” reasons you stated.

Bush's father was a little bit smarter. You'll notice that he didn't topple Saddam when he clearly had the chance during the first Gulf War. He knew that a quagmire would result when the three different factions that were no longer chained down by Saddam started a civil war. The son didn't even heed his own father's advice.

Haven't you been listening to Scott McClellan and Richard Clark? There were no WMD's, no purchases of yellowcake to enrich uranium, no nuclear programs, no nothing in Iraq. Sure Saddam had some chemical weapons (which he unfortunately used on the Kurds), but not in any large amounts and any biological stuff he had, the U.S. gave him years ago. They've also confirmed that what little intelligence about Iraq Bush had was embelished to sell the war. If that's the case, what was the real reason he went to war? It can't be for rooting out terrorists, there were none there before we invaded and there was no intelligence to indicate that this was the case.

tunnelcat wrote:Bush's father was a little bit smarter. You'll notice that he didn't topple Saddam when he clearly had the chance during the first Gulf War. He knew that a quagmire would result when the three different factions that were no longer chained down by Saddam started a civil war. The son didn't even heed his own father's advice.

Haven't you been listening to Scott McClellan and Richard Clark? There were no WMD's, no purchases of yellowcake to enrich uranium, no nuclear programs, no nothing in Iraq. Sure Saddam had some chemical weapons (which he unfortunately used on the Kurds), but not in any large amounts and any biological stuff he had, the U.S. gave him years ago. They've also confirmed that what little intelligence about Iraq Bush had was embelished to sell the war. If that's the case, what was the real reason he went to war? It can't be for rooting out terrorists, there were none there before we invaded and there was no intelligence to indicate that this was the case.

What your saying is true in hindsight. Saddam at the time was implying he had them and daring us to come get them. He was also verbal in his support of the radical terrorist at the time. He screwed himself.

And as for Richard Clark he was a Clinton flunky!

And Scott McClellan is just another in a long line of backstabbing hypocrites.

tunnelcat wrote:...They've also confirmed that what little intelligence about Iraq Bush had was embelished to sell the war. If that's the case, what was the real reason he went to war? It can't be for rooting out terrorists, there were none there before we invaded and there was no intelligence to indicate that this was the case.

Until we went in there was no way anyone could definitively say that there was no threat of Saddam producing WMD's. Although the WMD's were not the only motive, without Saddam opening up for real inspections, there was plenty of reason to believe he could produce them in short order. Now he can't....and you wouldn't be able to say that if we didn't go in there.

As for the other reasons, being inside Iraq, after just toppling the biggest baddest man on the block, is a good place to be strategically if you want to be a force in the region...either just for a few years or maybe strike a new deal with the new government of Iraq to establish a more permanent stronghold there...maybe a superbase somewhere between the Kurds and the the rest of the country to the south. One hell of a handy location for being able to poke a finger in the eye of, or just keep an eye on, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.

Will Robinson wrote:As for the other reasons, being inside Iraq, after just toppling the biggest baddest man on the block, is a good place to be strategically if you want to be a force in the region...either just for a few years or maybe strike a new deal with the new government of Iraq to establish a more permanent stronghold there...maybe a superbase somewhere between the Kurds and the the rest of the country to the south. One hell of a handy location for being able to poke a finger in the eye of, or just keep an eye on, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.

Which brings us right back to the US being imperialistic. Thanks Will

Dedman wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:As for the other reasons, being inside Iraq, after just toppling the biggest baddest man on the block, is a good place to be strategically if you want to be a force in the region...either just for a few years or maybe strike a new deal with the new government of Iraq to establish a more permanent stronghold there...maybe a superbase somewhere between the Kurds and the the rest of the country to the south. One hell of a handy location for being able to poke a finger in the eye of, or just keep an eye on, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.

Which brings us right back to the US being imperialistic. Thanks Will

I don't think it's imperialistic to have stayed in Europe for going on 70 years but we sure have a lot of bases there. I don't think our similar long running presence in Japan was imperialistic either. So if the new government of Iraq strikes a deal with us to maintain a presence I'll consider it un-imperialistic as well.

Did we have a powerful imposing identity when we struck up those deals? Sure, but when throwing around the imperialist indictment the line between negotiating and conquering must be observed otherwise, for just one example, you validate bin Laddin's assertion that merely supporting Israels sovereignty constitutes an invasion on our part. If you want to apply that liberal of a definition to imperialism and site our affairs outside our borders then how shall you define the affairs of every other prosperous nation?!?

According to the rules of the United Nations, not just the will of the U.S., Saddam is responsible for forcing the invasion. Just because some members of the U.N. Security Council, after voting for those rules to be enforced numerous times, decided to go behind the scenes and accept bribes to stop any actual enforcement from happening doesn't mean the conditions of the situation suddenly become the sole responsibility of the nations that stuck to the agreement to enforce the rules.

So many people now whine about how we should have acted with world cooperation, world involvement etc. etc. but when push came to shove France and Russia sold out the world community for a shot at billions of dollars profit and now you guys want to ignore that catastrophic backstabbing and swallow the anti-american kool-aid!

The U.S. and U.K. have blood on their hands for some of the execution of the war but the back room greed and geo-political backstabbing caused Saddam to stand up to what otherwise would have been the very world cooperative that would force a peaceful solution!! Hell yes Bush wanted to go in regardless, but he begrudgingly agreed to let Saddam remain in power if he simply allowed real inspections. Saddam refused right up to the end because he thought France and Russia and Germany would protect him.

We did the right thing not letting Saddam bribe our so called partners into letting him completely skirt the much called for 'justice enforced by world cooperative'. And any criticisms from our so called partners should be taken for what it is...bull★■◆●!
And anyone who mimics those criticisms is nothing but a useful idiot to those hypocritical whining euro-weenies.