Posted on 03/19/2005 5:35:29 AM PST by OESY
What was the Iraq war about?....
The anti-war position is still based on the same three claims as 2003.
First, the war was illegal because it was not specifically sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. This means that the 18 mandatory resolutions that the council had passed on Iraq were not even worth the paper they were printed on. Nor is the anti-war party concerned about the fact that legally speaking Iraq had been at war against the United Nations since August 1990. The fact that the British parliament, the U.S. Congress and parliaments in a dozen other democratic nations also voted for the war, often with massive majorities, is also dismissed as irrelevant....
The most ardent advocates of the anti-war case are remnants of the supposedly revolutionary left that, in almost every other case, regard the law as nothing but a bourgeois prop to keep the masses in check. The spectacle of Leninists, Trotskyistes and Maoists beating their chests about the legality of toppling a tyrant is surely a treat for all students of politics.
The second claim used by the anti-war party is that this was all about weapons of mass destruction — which, because they have not been found, destroys the case for military action. The fact that the various U.N. resolutions cited an average of 20 reasons, other than WMDs, for why Iraq was at war with the rest of the world is overlooked. (The U.S. Senate cited 234 reasons for going to war.)
The third claim is that the U.S.-led coalition went to Iraq only to have access to cheap oil. Bearing in mind that average oil prices have hovered around $40 in the past two years....
The anti-war camp employs a number of tricks to defend its shameful position....
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I saw four -- count them, four -- anti-war losers hanging out t a busy traffic intersection on the way home yesterday. There were looking pretty dejected; I'm guessing that they weren't getting many shows of support.
Pong
Isn't that the truth!Whole article was excellent.
We were attacked on 9-11 because of a profound lack of respect, we were seen as soft, our enemy guided by the Mogadishu model. Simply taking out the Taliban did not serve to dispel this belief, as it lacked the retaliatory and punitive character required to restore the respect we had lost. Saddam was seen in the region as a hero, a winner against the Great Satan simply because he had remained in power.
It was essential in my view, that we not only defeat him but humiliate him, and in the process prove our willingness to stand and die to do so.
We have not had a repeat performance on our own soil precisely because we have eliminated the reason we were struck to begin with, dwelling on CAPABILITY misses the mark, as we have not, and cannot ever eradicate their ability to strap a bomb on a jihadi or serve up a remote detonation as in the March 11 Madrid train bombing.
We have eradicated their WILL to strike through humiliation, and have successfully instilled FEAR OF CONSEQUENCES. There is simply no way we could have arrived at this point without the elimination of the big boy in Iraq, IMHO.
Political correctniks opposed the war for a reason not mentioned by Tahiri but fundamental to their ideology; they will always side with dark-skinned peoples in any dispute with whites.
I notice we see no comment from Marine General (Ret) Anthony Zinni!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The justification for the war can be boiled down to the fact that Hussein was routinely firing missiles at our pilots in the leadup to the war. He even bragged about shooting down our drones. So how serious could we be about the war on terror if we continued to do nothing about some terrorist supporting thug who was indisputably trying to kill our pilots by firing missiles at them.
I like the image of a 'rescue mission' - that's the way it should be seen across the middle east when history is written.
To your point, I note that Yahoo and several other news agencies have purged almost all pictures of Iraqis voting on January 30.
They seem to be trying to get us to forget that we debated this proposition ad nauseum for 15 months. Then congress voted, so get over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.