Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
We controlled him? We could have controlled him forever? On what planet? We had cornered ourselves into a box. There were two no fly zones that were created, that eventually would lead to a pilot being shot down ending up under Saddams control. In addition, those fly zones, and the enforcement had tied up a good deal of our forces in Saudi Arabia with no foreseeable timetable for them to get out. We looked totally weak because we had let Saddam Hussein kick out the inspectors (it was only W's saber rattling that got them back in). Saddam Hussein had completely violated the peace treaty that ended the gulf war and it didn't look like he was going to get overthrown any time soon. In addition, his people were in total misery, caused by the sanctions and his brutal regime. We couldn't lift the sanctions while he was flouting the treaty. We had a guy who had control of a lot of money and a large country who had it in for us and would not think twice about taking out New York or Chicago. Without his help, Al Queda did quite a bit of damage so if the two of them ever hooked up - giving Al Queda to the entire access of the Iraqi state - lord know what they could have accomplished. We had the choice of giving up and not enforcing the treaty or going in and taking him out. The only practical option was taking him out. I am just glad we had a President who had the Cajones to make the call. I believe in the problem solver, not the person that says - lets just let things alone and hopefully they will fix themselves. That is what led to WWII. Iraq was not going to fix itself. I have a lot of problems with the Bush administration, but the fact that they made a decision and stuck by it through thick and think eclipses everything else they do. He didn't let the international community or the liberals take his eye off the ball. Once we started the military buildup Saddam Hussein was milking the international community trying to delay things so we would get into Ramadan and then the summer months. Leaving our entire army over there to stew. He stayed focused and didn't let the prime military situation get screwed up over delays for "consultations" and any other such BS that was not going to lead to anything. Once you give a deadline you stick by it. He did what needed to be done no matter what the consequences. I'll take that any day over a politician who makes foreign policy decisions based on the latest polling. I don't care if Iraq turns into a quagmire for the next forty years. We had to take the risk and thank God we had W. there to make the right call.
|
You can't do this to me... its like a smorgasbord. Where to start?
1. We went to war to avert a pilot being shot down?
2. We were cornered? WE, not Iraq, were ringed by enemies?
3. We looked weak? The world paid even a smidge of attention to what a tin pot dictator like Hussein did prior to our war on terrorist activities in which Iraq has been proven time and time again to have not been involved?
4. We went to war to free his people from misery? Funny, I didn't hear that until after the war. Or, excuse me... after the WMD search came up with nada.
5. Saddam was going to suddenly shift his policy of killing fundamentalists and allow AQ to use Iraq for staging exercises? So a despot would put his tenuous control at risk to invite fundamentalists who'd sought his overthrow into his country? And he'd do it so AQ could plan to attack the United States? What would this gain him? How would this be at all consistent with his previous 2 decade policy of self preservation. To believe your horseshit theory, you'd have to believe Hussein was suicidal, which he was not.
Before you claim Hussein was suicidal, and offer as proof the fact that he did not leave his country in advance of a US invasion, understand that even if he left, he was dead. He knew that wherever he went, he'd eventually face a fate like Milosevic's. So his remaining in country is proof of neither madness nor suicidal ideation - he simply had nowhere to run.
6. AQ is tied to the Saudis, monetarily, spiritually and physically. If we had no choice but to take out Iraq, a country with no ties to AQ other than the after the fact bin Laden follower Zarqawi, then why weren't we also compelled to take out the Saudis.
We took out the neighbor of our greatest enemy because he was the easy target. Iraq got the bullet because it was the only weak state we had a pretext to invade. We half assed our response. The Saudis are still, and always will be, our biggest problem. Thank God Bush had courage? Are you fucking insane? Attacking Iraq was ballsy, but courageous would have been facing down the Saudis. Sure, I understand that we couldn't take over Saudi Arabia. But the fact that you can't attack your real enemy doesn't mean you should waste your resources attacking his neighbor.
Yeh, I understand that "now the war is over there," and thats a good thing. But its a half step. Its treating the disease, but no cure.
