Well, we finally caught the greatest threat to humanity and world security when Sadaam was pulled from a hole in Iraq?
So, with all the bloodshed on both sides what have we accomplished so far? Captured a dirty but otherwise healthy brutal dictator.
Removing a brutal dictator is a noble cause but is it the most pressing issue of the day? Many Repugnicans seem to want the US public to think so.
Also, does this "noble" action mean the US will go around the world overthrowing other brutal dictatorships? I think not.
The US public, Congress and other Heads of State were brought to believe we went to war to remove an imminent threat from the country due to weapons of mass destruction, not its dictator. This doesn't seem to faze GW "removing Mr. Hussein from power was justified even without the recovery of any banned weapons."
"When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war.�If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today � and we do � does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" Mr. Bush asked during a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002."
Is the world now safer BECAUSE we invaded Iraq or because new safety measures were implemented in response to 9/11? I think the latter and I'd love to hear explanations to the contrary.
What's the difference between a liar and GWB? About 50 IQ points.
Just a quick suggestion, here.
Treating the events in Iraq, whether you support or oppose them, as insignificant in some larger picture is trivialization.
And, trivialization is not a strong lead into an argument. That the participant loses most of the audience, save the hardcore on his side. Perhaps you want a different outcome.
<Well, we finally caught the greatest threat to humanity and world security when Sadaam was pulled from a hole in Iraq?>
I think not. Even GW would now have to admit that the greatest threat to our security is al quaida and its supporters. Sadaams support for al quaida was incidental at best. Direct support came from the Pakistani ISI and the Kashmir region of Pakistan is most of the security experts best guess of where bin Laden is hiding. We may have dodged a bullet when the "moderate" Musharraf survived an asssassination attempt. Musharraf has been able to dance on the fence between the US and al quaida for quite a while, giving up some al quaida members while placating the Islamic fundamentalist majority of citizenry. We are fortunate that while most of the citizens are sympathetic to radical islam, they are also fiercely patriotic to Pakistan. Much of this loyalty is based on fear/hatred of India and radical Islam is on the front lines of that battle also. Any investment of forces and funds that support the moderates in Pakistan and stabilize the status quo will pay off in lessening the strength of al quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The more we strenghten the government of Pakistan and increase their economic dependence on us, the more we are likely to get them to help us get rid of al quiada. Most experts on the region insist that when we went into Iraq we were fighting the wrong war. There are far more forces of al quaida in Iraq today than before the war. Sadaam, rather than exporting terror, was trying desperately to hang on to his own shorts and al quaida had no interest in helping him. I am glad the bastard has been caught and I hope that his trial unifies rather than divides the Iraqui people. This is a long shot. For the sake of a unified Iraq, it may be a bad thing that Sadaam was taken alive. The folks that the US likes best in Iraq are the Sunis but they are in the minority and they are the ones that supported Sadaam. The Kurds in the north do not trust us since we allowed Sadaam to subdue them in the 60's, and then hung them out to dry again after Bush I's war. Add to that that Bush II offered to let Turkey overrun them in his war if Turkey would cooperate with him and you can understand their reticence. The Shia in the south had the same experience in the second gulf war when they were machine gunned by helicopters while we watched after encouraging them to rise up.
I have not heard a lot about suggestions of a tripartite Iraq with the borders guaranteed by the US/UN but in the long run that may well be the most stable arrangement. With that in place we might be able to turn our attention to the real threat of al quaida and the other 20 some terrorist organizations that really do threaten our national security.
If we thwarted Al Quaeda, you'd say Saddam Hussein was the biggest threat. No matter what the scenario you won't back President Bush. Why waist our time bashing the President? At least he's trying to do something. You want Al Gore tackling the terrorist issue or Howard Dean? Be honest with yourself.
<<What's the difference between a liar and GWB? About 50 IQ points.>>
Ah, so since YOU're not GWB... LOL!
You have such a shotgun approach to the issues, I'm afraid there is neither room nor time to even help you frame the issues so that a coherent conversation could be had.
You mock the capture of Saddam and the fall of Bahgdad and ask if they were the greatest or most pressing issues of the day. What then? We should only have gone after the greatest threat, no matter the unintended consequences? Would you have supported a war against North Korea? I doubt it. Your pov never sees a reason enough...
You challenge the action because we have not yet found weapons of mass destruction. Since every world leader since 1980-something has come to believe that Saddam had wmd and was pursuing more, would your pov have been to wait until he used them? Again? Again? I put it to you that the tiny underground bunker he was in could have held 10,000 lb of wmd. How many others, now that we Know there were some, how many others will be found eventually? YOU DON'T KNOW...but really, you don't care.
BTW, wmd in an empty country wouldn't mean too much. It takes both the means and the motivation...and frankly, the motivation is the more powerful...and now the motivation of Saddam is gone.
<<Is the world now safer BECAUSE we invaded Iraq or because new safety measures were implemented in response to 9/11?>> Are you talking of the world? Because if you are, I'd like to know what safety measures you think were implemented...in the world...that makes the world safer? The last resolution from the UN? Another inspection by Blix? Watchfulness? Support from France? You can't be serious.
Please educate me on how better to frame the question so I will receive a more intelligible answer.
I'm not one to use the simplest of grammatical construction so please feel free to disregard any futher questions that you dont understand.
I know it may be hard to believe but I am human and, yes, you found a mistake I made. I certainly didn't mean the world when I wrote, " Is the world now safer BECAUSE we invaded Iraq or because new safety measures were implemented in response to 9/11?"
Please replace the word "world" with "USA". I hope that helps.
I find your question, "We should only have gone after the greatest threat, no matter the unintended consequences?" very revealing.
This shows you believe action should be based on convenience not principles.
Please answer the following question: "Also, does this "noble" action mean the US will go around the world overthrowing other brutal dictatorships?"
If the US is acting on principles and not convenience (or an alternate agenda) we are compelled to depose other brutal dictators, right?
What part of this do you not understand? "The US public, Congress and other Heads of State were brought to believe we went to war to remove an imminent threat from the country due to weapons of mass destruction, not its dictator."
Do you disagree with this fact?
I dont know where you get your information from: "Since every world leader since 1980-something has come to believe that Saddam had wmd and was pursuing more...". Newsflash, Germany, France and a host of other world leaders didn't believe this so your "every world leader" idea is shot.