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 ...
Wow! That's a long list of violations.
The Reagan Revolution is pretty much considered the start of so-called 'neoconservatism' by many. It certainly cannot be argued that he did not have an aggressive foreign policy, as you seem to be doing.
Bush NEVER said this will be quick nor easy. Also taken out of context when he spoke on a carrier that was to go home and “Mission accomplished” was on a banner. Read his pre war speeches. They don’t hide or downplay that he believes this will be long and hard, even casualty intense.
We are not even two years into the mission and we are having elections! The Iraqis are beginning to police and patrol themselves, the courts are up and running, Saddam is caught (That was another “You’re failing! Where is Saddam! You still don’t have him!”), infrastructure is mostly restored (Also a you’re failing argument of the media a year ago.), Iraqi Police are already doing the majority of police work, the Iraqi Army is beginning to run and take on greater roles, you have a Constitution and this month there’ll be elections. Yet he calls this a failure. Wow-
What will he have to say in 3 years in order to see failure?
Red6
If the US pulls out of Iraq what do you think will happen to the Iraqi people?
Reagan's amnesty was a citizenship amnesty. It's worse than the Bush plan.
Reagan invaded Grenada.
Since you're so inclined to pin a label on yourself, I'll call you a NY Times conservative.
"this thing won't reveal itself for another 10 years or more."
I think it will be clearer sooner. When I look at a map I see to the right Iran. To the left is Syria. To the south are our "friends" the Saudis. We will be in a much better position to keep on eye on the neighborhood in the near future. In order of quell the Arab fundamentalists, we need to squeeze the Saudis (Colin Powell's friends). We need to influence Iran and Syria.
Our State Department is influenced by those who follow Metternich (Realpolitik) but who ignore the salient fact the diplomacy not backed by power is useless (Bismarck).
This is the house cleaning that needs to be done. Completing this task, strengthening our finances, and revamping our military doctrine will go a long way in our struggle against the crazed muslim militants.
Don't address him. He has little purpose other than just trying to stir up trouble. Truly a troubled man, to say the least. He needs pity and prayer, not engagement. Just leave him be.
That wasn't the primary reason either. There were a lot of reasons, some interrelated and some not, but if you're looking for one overriding reason, it's a belief that this can help secure prolonged economic stability for the west.
"Mission Accomplished!"
I always took that to mean the Aircraft carrier and group had accomplished her mission in the gulf and was returning home with pride in the purpose and roles.
It took the democrats and their liars to change the meaning to "Conquered Accomplished!", something never said or indicated.
The truth, and succinctly stated, but it doesn't sell magazines.
I really don't care, to be quite frank. They've lived there for thousands of years. I am sure they can get by without America. We are not the worlds cop, nor should we be.
"Violation of 16 U.N. resolutions was the primary reason"
So US troops are supposed to die enforcing UN resolutions?
That's funny, I thought "conservatives" see the UN as irrelevant and illegitimate. I certainly don't support sending US servicemen ANYWHERE to support the United Nations in any fashion.
Nuff said. You're not worth another second of my time.
"The best way to reach that world is debatable, but it has been proved over the last 30 years that appeasement, relative to the mid east, will not work."
Appeasement won't work, but why aren't we using the advanced weaponry we spend BILLIONS on every year?
We could incinerate a city from 50,000 feet, but we choose to fight the battles in such a way as to give the enemy a more fair chance.
WHY?
If you care so much about Iraqis, why don't you send them your pay checks? Why are you typing on a computer, when you could be on your way to that country, helping them do whatever. Why do you feel the American people owe Iraq?
"Being a Repub and FOR the war cause I believed that we gave the appropriate reasons and Saddam did not comply"
Me, too. I said the statement was a good reason even in the absence of other reasons. I didn't say other reasons were absent.
"........you do not invade countries JUST to spread democracy......."
I stand by my original statement. For over half a century there has been a very good chance the world will be ignited by the conflicts and exportation of violence from that region. Putting a beacon in there, whether it be one of democracy or hope or just plain putting fear in the hearts of the bad guys is, as I said, IMHO, a good reason for what we did.
"I was for invading but not for that lame excuse......if we didn't, I fully believe that Saddam would have started up WMD and sold it to terroists."
Again, I disagree about the 'lame' part but agree that there were other reasons.
Please forgive the lack of capitals. I have a sore throat.
Check your premises.
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.