Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
One was a threat to us. The other was not.
One was a threat to us. The other was not. We can and did deal with shooting at planes by, for example, bombing radar installations. We did not need a full-scale invasion and a now 3-year occupation. (Yes, I know -- in neo-con fantasy-land the invasion would only take 35 troops and the occupation would only last four hours, followed by two days of cleaning up all the flowers and sweets. But I'm talking about reality here.)
|
Just because Iraq hadn't been successful doesn't mean it couldn't be successful in the future. And if we could abolustely gurantee Iraq not hitting us by other means, why couldn't we deal with Afghanistan the same way. Couldn't we have dealt with Afghanistan without having to invade it and occupy it?
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
By this logic, there is no country on earth that we should not invade. Once again, this logic would justify an invasion of virtually any country in the world.
|
I don't think that is true with the criteria I laid out. First, you need a regime that is bent on US destruction and willing to help those who would like to take us out. In those other countrys we have friendly regimes that are trying to help. The most dangerous regimes are ones that are doing everything they can to hurt us. Those types of regimes are relatively few.
Regimes that could fit into the catagory as who are bent on our destruction are: North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq and maybe Sudan.
When you look at that list Iraq doesn't seem such a bad idea. It was clearly the low hanging fruit because we had beat them before and had bases nearby with which to invade. I explained the problems with the other countries.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The threat posed by al Qaeda was a threat of radical, fundamentalist Islam. There are many groups of that ilk, and they set up shop in many countries -- Indonesia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and innumerable others. We do not, should not, and cannot invade all of these countries. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, though evil, a dictator, and an enemy of the US, was not a friend of radical, fundamentalist Islam. In contrast, the Taliban was al Qaeda's ideal.
|
I don't care where the threat comes from. A fundamentalist attack or another kind of terrorist attack is just the same to the American citizen that died. If Al Queda had cooperated with Iraq 9-11 would have probably been much worse. Why wait for you enemies to get together.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And now, we have a choice between near permanent occupation, and leaving Iraq as hospitable to al Qaeda as Afghanistan was.
|
We may also be looking at a permanent occupatoin of Afghanistan. From that perspective the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were no different. Both invasion included an occupation of a divided and violent nation. Afghanistan even more so.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And yet, despite at least a decade of purest hatred for the US, they never did so. Why is that? Why was an invasion necessary to protect the US in 2003, but not in 1996? (And before you sputter "Clinton... appeaser" identify the Rs who called for an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1996. I don't remember that as a plank in Dole's platform.)
|
Because after 9-11 it became clear that we could not wait to let them be successful before we attacked. We have to hit first if we don't want to lose another set of twin towers.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Despite all of Bush's efforts to tie the two together, the fact remains that they hated each other and there was virtually no chance of this.
|
That may be true but that wasn't my point. The point was a backward and underdeveloped country having a government with little money, no sophistication and no access to advanced technology was able to sponsor a terrorist group that pulled off 9-11. Just think what could have happened if such a group and Iraq had gotten together (any group - Hamas, etc). Afghanistan taught us that you just can't wait for a regime that has it in for you to get in the first blow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
At this point, you just get too silly to respond to.
|
Why is it such a silly point? All the arguments used saying we should not have gone into Iraq - it is a divided nation, it would be a long occupation, etc. go doubly for Afghanistan. We knew we would be successful against Iraq, Afghanistan was a much bigger risk.
