Posted on 01/15/2005 2:30:04 PM PST by Prost1
Chaos will flourish in the Middle East if President Bush’s policy continues unchanged
EVEN DONALD RUMSFELD, in his more private moments, must wonder if the invasion of Iraq was really such a good idea. It has become obvious to almost everyone else, including many such as myself who originally supported the war, that it has been a huge mistake. My support was based solely on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), on which the intelligence was exaggerated and which Washington has just admitted it is no longer looking for. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda. I believe that the real reason for the war, at least in the US, was to create a reasonably democratic, free-market Iraq to act as both a beacon and a rebuke to other countries in the region. That possibility looks more and more remote. The forthcoming elections look unlikely to produce a government with real authority and legitimacy, or to stop the violence, but they must go ahead; let us hope that they prove a step on the road to normality. Despite the bombing of the UN headquarters in August 2003, the current appalling level of violence did not begin until March 2004, a year after the invasion. It might have been more easily contained if the postwar administration had not made so many early mistakes.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
It's a war Joe, a war against any nation who sponsors terrorism, Iraq did.
The question of Iraq's presumed stockpile of weapons will be answered, but that answer, however it comes out, will not affect the fully justifiable and necessary action that the coalition has undertaken to bring an end to Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq. As Dr. David Kay put it in a Feb. 1 interview with Chris Wallace, "We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous if the war had not intervened."When asked by Mr. Wallace what the sellers could have sold if they didn't have actual weapons, Mr. Kay said: "The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what terrorists want. They don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. No, Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons."
Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the take-over of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations--including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use, or sale--behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of these criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.
Sadam had not capability to harm our national security. Witness our march into his country with nary an effort at defense.
I have no idea what those items in post 36 reflect. For all I know many or most may be simply anti-semitic. Some may have been put into place for the same or similar reasons as Iraq's were. I can't say. Fact remains, we chose not to make sure they were followed by Isreal or enforced by ourselves or other nations. We picked and choose.
If the Bush doctrine works, then we will be better off. If it doesn't were in deeper you know what than we were before. But the fact also remains is that the Bush Doctrine was not given as the reason for invasion. Sadam's security threat was. Either they lied or they made horrible mistakes which for the most part no one on this site wants to hold them accountable.
"if you are NOT a leftist, ignore their arguments,"
Why, because they're always wrong? I disagree. Every once in a while they get something right, and I will always consider a wide variety of opinions and ideas. That way I don't become a kool-aid drinker like Rush and Hannity have become. I'm sorry, but it's not "Republicans bad" and "Democrats bad" on every issue. Besides, they're more similar than different on most things anyhow.
I've never heard Savage talk about war for oil, and I think even he wants to stay, but he just wants a full assault on the hot cities instead of sending in men on foot to get killed unnecessarily. I agree with that, if we're going to fight an enemy, let's CRUSH him, not fight at his level.
"Never mind that the rule-of-law was invented in Iraq ... a mere 4,000 YEARS AGO."
That means nothing in today's world. Remember, these people get their news and history from al Jazeera, not encycolpedia britannica.
A good gov't in Iraq will no doubt go a long way in the global WOT. I just have two issues, we can win the global WOT with a bad gov't in Iraq/or if Iraq gets split up, and how long are we willing to invest in the Iraq gov't? How many men and years will we sacrifice for this?
My friend, I wish I could share your optimism, but I don't. I'm not pessimistic, but trying to look at this very neutrally and realistically.
For the sake of every family and friend of every man who's died in Iraq, I hope you're right.
All I have to say is that I believe we should follow the Constitution as written and intended. To use some famous words, that means avoiding "entangling foreign alliances".
The UN, Israel, getting into the Iran/Iraq war, etc... are part of that. I am not saying we are wrong to do these things, or to be involved with other countries.
100% isolation will NOT work. However, there is a line SOMEWHERE between having international relations with other countries and overstepping our bounds by meddling in the affairs of other people and cultures.
Don't you get that alot of muslims are scared of freedom because they think we'll be opening up Las Vegas II in Mecca or begin selling their children porn and Bibles?
I think our foreign policy should have as its first priority the direct well-being of the United States, and as a distant second would come all the rest of the neo-con philosophy.
If this effort in Iraq were as pure as many here want to say, in that we're "spreading freedom" and so on, we'd have tossed Castro out a long time ago. And Hugo Chavez. And the Sudanese who slaughter Christians every day.
Hey Joe I've got two words for you.
Childish and naieve
It is good to appreciate the good common sense and judgement of Professor Doctor Shultz (Hoover Institute at Stanford).
Link to Shultz's bio:
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/shultz.html
I enjoyed the "cut and paste".
I read a article that talked about the middle east and oil, the author went on to say if something happens to the worlds oil supply, do we really want to go though another worlwide great depression ? Think about it.
_________________________________________________
If this is your concern then you should be more worried about the straits of Mollacca (sp?).
Hey Chuck, I've got two words for you.
Spell check.
Oh horse dung.
You may fool some of these folks louie, with your neoRepublican crap, but not Joe.
If Saddam had WMDs why in hell didn't he use them on us when we clean his clock, slaughtering thousands of his Republican Guard when we kicked his ass out of Kuwait? Remember the Road of Death, the route from Kuwait to the Iraqi port of Basra along which Saddam Hussein's army retreated during the Gulf war in the early 90s?
It was inordinately clear, this AH couldn't have fought his way out of a paper bag.
No answer Joey?
I noted you just skipped over the obvious, and glaring.
No answer louie?
I must say, after repeatedly cleaning they floor with you, you never fail to give it a nice shine.
I've said on this thread that I would fully support a war for oil.
We need it, they have it, let's go get it.
But, if that is the "real" reason the neo-cons took us to war, then they are deceitful liars, and should not be trusted.
See the point? I'm not so against the War in Iraq itself, but the people running it and the transparent things they tell us.
What we have now is known as "mission creep".
I say screw the UN, screw France, screw the Democrats. If we have to go to war to secure the value of the dollar or our oil interests, fine. Just tell us so, Mr. Bush.
Kill 'Em All And Let God Sort 'Em Out
I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. -- Economist editorial
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight -- David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS -- Earth First! Newsletter
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
Poverty For 'Those People'
We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels. -- Carl Amery
I am a Christian, and I saw first hand what the islmafacists want to do to Christians.
Yes, just making stuff up as you go along and having selective memory loss at just the right moment is just brilliant, Joe. Showing up and spouting off personal insults at random to people who aren't even talking to you on threads and not even discussing the same subject matter as you insulted them over is also an amazing and effective way of demonstrating your superiority. Who can stand up to such superior intellect?
Joe, both isolationist Republicans and global Republicans have been around for a long time. It's nothing new. NeoRepublicans and the war in Iraq, blah, blah blah. NeoConservatives and the war in Iraq...blah, blah blah. It's all a bunch of neoBS brought to you by the liberal media.
You absorb it like a milksop.
You must be mistaking me for someone that follows the liberal media. I for one do not march in lock step cadence to the liberal media, or either of the two beltway party's.
I did notice you failed to address anything I have posted here about the UN, and WMD, or lack of in Iraq.
Cheers.
Well worth reading as well.
The glaringly obvious failure here is your failure to understand what was clearly explained.
LOL, I'll let those that read this thread decide. My post are clear, unchallenged and undisputed.
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.