ThePatriot said:
Well, that situation isn't even close to resolved yet, is it? Lets see what transpires in the next year or two.
It has been a few decades, I guess another few years won't matter in the scheme of things. The point that regime change doesn't always go as planned seems to be lost here.
So, we must affect everywhere to be effetive anywhere?
Our ally that we have agreed to sell more weapons to has not had any form of democracy for several years and its president is in his position by virtue of a coup. Not much has been said about democracy in that country.
We can't pick and choose where we wish to employ our policies because it smacks of hypocrisy. If we have a uniform policy, than we must employ it as such otherwise rhetoric is empty.
I never said you were "un-American". Just of differing opinion. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon because it seemed the right thing to do at the time. GW didn't twist anyones arm and I'm still amazed that otherwise intelligent people think he has that kind of power.
He is very adept (thanks to his team) of twisting arms to engage in positions they would not otherwise engage in. It is a different type of politics introduced by Clinton and honed by Bush.
No more stable?! Officials elected by the people and NOT threatened with death for voting wrong is not more stable? Not only is that a ludacrous, but an insult to all the men and women in uniform who work hard every day to make it better. I think you need better information.
I have good information. There are numerous issues to resolve and from day 1 the main problem has been the kurds and their reaction to giving up their psuedo autonomous state. Read my posts in the war on Iraq and read up on the subject. They are the best organised military group in the country.
Also elections != stability. Stability will be a resumption of the local economy to an extent where all the yound retards currently blowing themselves up will actually be gainfully employed. If you think I am insulting the men and women in uniform because I disagree with the rosy assesments and refuse to hold up a single positive event or a single negative event, and instead comment on the situation as a collective whole as I see it, so be it.
I didn't label you as liberal, I just said you believed their pompous line of crap that they constantly spew.
Obviously you disagree whole-heartedly because you believe the pompous line of crap constantly spewed by neo-conservatives better suits your own idealogy. You are entitled to your opinion but please do not pre-judge my opinions if you do not know where I am forming them from.
Maybe just what they needed was to be reomoved from under the finger of a regime that is known to be less-than-user friendly? Maybe a little freedom from dictatorship-by-proxy rule will give them the incentive to move towards democracy...maybe not. But it wouldn't do a damn bit of good leaving them the way they were. Syria will answer for their misgivings sooner or later. If Lebanon is under their own power at that time, it'll be that much easier.
We have run plenty of proxy governments around the world and still have a few that resemble those of the 70's and 80's. Syria and Lebanon have had an intertwined existence. I am all for the complete withdrawal of Syria but the suggestions made to date that Syria withdraw completely and the simultaneous utter lack of help or organisation by way of international troops coming in to assist with the power vacuum smacks of stupidity.
All true...as I said, being proactive means you will make mistakes and maybe big ones at times. But ignoring the problem wont make it go away. We ignored the problem for decades. Now we have to actively go out and do what we can to fix it. BEFORE it comes to our doorstep again.
We had an opportunity after the first Gulf War. We faltered, thousands of Iraqi's died. We had an opportunity everytime we thought about regime change or propping up the mujahideen or the early version of al-qaeda and other terrorist organisations. We have had PLENTY of opportunities but for some reason we never seem to learn that our own policies are resulting, constantly, in the problems that we are trying to resolve.
If we have not learnt by now, what makes you think that we will miraculously find a way out of the blue? There is no correlation between actions and the end result.
We didn't in a direct manner. I never said we did. I never connected the invasion directly with the war on terror...but it sure did help. How, you ask? Al Quaeda terrorists, among others, are falling all over themselves trying to get a piece of the Coalition GI's in Iraq, and that keeps them away from here. Not to mention the still-evolving Oil-for-Kickbacks scandal which I am sure has money tied up in terrorism. Thats not a reaql stretch considering there is already proof Saddam funneled money to terrorist groups.
Terrorist organisations have existed for a LONG time. They did not somehow magically come out of the blue on 9/11. They will continue to evolve and come forth in the future as well because their methods, as abhorent as they are, work.
Al-Qaeda has a limited presence in Iraq. It is all the NEW terror organisations that have formed since the invasion that have been plugging away at our troops, our allies and the iraqi people. In the meantime, there are plenty of terror attacks continuing across the world as before and americans are still being targetted.
Invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do from a point of principle.
Wrt the oil-for-food, how in the world does it segue to terrorism? Does that mean that the american companies and individuals assosciated with the program who benefitted immensly and assisted in the fleecing of billions are complicit in terrorism?
Also what terrorist organisations did Saddam funnel money to?
