Good point.For once I would wish an author could cover both sides of the real story and not be slanted to one side which this article obviously is. First, we didn't conquer Japan, Germany, and Bosnia to impose democracy there - that's a ridiculous analogy.
Granted Saddam was a brutal dictator (which we help place into power BTW) there are lots of them out there and I am almost certain that he wouldn't have allowed anyone to take over his country - another absurd assertion in this article. Saddam despised these fanatical groups and his country was one of the most Western Arab countries in the region.
Yes, we should've been concerned that he was violating UN security measures but so has other countries like Israel. The UN has proven that they are all bark and no bite so bravo that we took the initiative, only there was not enough credible evidence to invade Iraq IMO. I don't know if sanctions would've worked, something did in Korea, but we took a very bold step that smacks of non-altruistic motivations. Let's not forget that the government's argument went from WMDs, Al Qaeda associations, toppling dictators and spreading democracy, to protecting our freedom. What will it be tomorrow?
But now that we've screwed it up, we should stay until we fix it. I just read recently that we have trained 375,000 Iraqis so far. Wow, that's about 3 times our force there. The question remains about when will Iraqis put aside their historical hatred for each other and form a country again. Can democracy ever establish roots in this environment?
By this article's same argument, we have some pretty convincing evidence (not cartoon pictures of mobile labs) that Iran is enriching uranium for obvious reasons. Why don't we invade them? The precedence is there for all the right reasons. ****, they are and always have been the radical element in the middle East. Saddam was actually the defender of the Arab world against these extremists for this exact reason that we are fighting now. Remember the long bloody Iraq/Iran war?
I can understand the general intent of trying to spread democracy but isn't it fair to think that other cultures to might want to spread their own too? Despite what people may want to call it, this is an idealogical war. Can it be won militarily? How would history answer that?
If you feel so strongly about your solution to world atrocities, you should go see a recruiter.I will let this article speak for itself. Its pretty flawless.. and it comes from a Dem.
I will just add that we did not help place Saddam into power. We did help him fight Iran at one point.
However... on a side note about Korea. I think most Pol are greatly unaware of the state of affairs there.
Sanctions did not work in Korea... um mm, they have nukes now. So... we put them under sanctions and they get nukes anyway.
And in the meantime what a wonderful thing peaceful co-exsistence is. We get to feel safe while untold scores of Koreans starve under a brutal dictator. They live in fear. They are forced to serve the state.
That is all way better than firing shots though isnt it. Sir Neville Chamberlain gets the last laugh. He was right all along.
Yep, and a regime change is coming. We'll stop warring with these folk and will just manage them...as it should be.**** hit the fan,yep!Israel jets are hitting targets!Our aircraft carriers are over there doing,"exercises".More troops arrive in mid June.We've built the biggest Embassy ever,in Baghdad.The troops are not coming home any time soon.Plus GW said yesterday,it's going to get bloody.That's a big hint!
well thought. i appreciate thinkers. btw, you saw that we sent weapons to the Lebanese?Yeah, I saw that story in today's headlines. There was another the previous day how ABC leaked out that the CIA was supporting regime change in Iran. Stupid media - anything for a buck. But this all sounds conspiculously what we're accusing Iran of doing in Iraq. It's ironic that our government's stated goals for this war were to stabilize the area. Israel destabilizes Lebanon, we destabilize Iraq. You are right in that it is all culminating into something big. Iran is naturally bolder in the region without Iraq around who had the only other large standing Army. Iran is no doubt unpredictable but I don't think they're be foolish in the end. I read about grumblings from the educated masses on this entire stand-off with the West. Even the Clerics evidently aren't supportive of this bravado. The CIA report justifies the position that the Islamic world views this as an assault on their idealogy, but only with bullets. Conspiracy theorists state that this World powers manifest doctriny was drafted up by Wolfwitz, Pearle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld back during the first G.H. tenure and GW and gang are merely executing the plan. I do acknowlege the thought process however. One could hope it could be won this way. Based on humanity's history, this clash has to happen sooner or later. Personally however, I always like them to throw the first punch before you take them off at the knees.
Yeah, we should keep our policy of pre-emptive striking countries that might be a threat to us!What if that first punch is "Pearl Harborish" or "9/11'ish"......?
I would say that that's the price you pay for having the moral justification. It would also garnish the wholehearted support of your allies, if not the entire international community, plus it unites the nation as a whole. Pre-emptive strikes are like the death penalty - you better be absolutely certain you're right.What if that first punch is "Pearl Harborish" or "9/11'ish"......?