Why did the United States choose to make war on Iraq? (GREELEY ALERT)

Daily Southtown - Chicago ^ | Friday, January 6, 2006 | Andrew M. Greeley

[68skylark]

Who but far-out liberals would object to an attack on Fidel Castro? Or, more recently, Hugo Chavez? What about Kim Jong Il, of Korea? Surely he is a greater threat to the United States than Saddam. Or the Muslim Arabs in Khartoum who have been practicing genocide against black Christians in southern Sudan and black Muslims in Darfur? Or the Shiite Grand Ayatollahs in Iran? Or the shifty Syrians who have been stirring up trouble for 30 years?

Greeley is actually making some sense here -- if he wants us to think out regime change in some of these countries, I'm with him. I vote for going after North Korea, or maybe Iran, or maybe Syria. Cuba would be fine with me also.

I don't know if he's really advocating an attack on one of these countries, but if he is that sounds good to me.

[Racehorse]

The proper question is, of all the bad people in the world, why was Saddam Hussein targeted?

22 September 1980 - Iraq invades invades Iran.  Objective:  control of  the Shatt al-Arab waterway through which both countries transported oil.  Iraq claimed a historical right to the waterway and (oil rich) adjacent land.

2 August 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait.  Objective: reclaim sovereignty over Iraq's (oil rich) 19th Provence.

The proper question is, why did Saudi Arabia permit the infidel army on sacred Muslim soil to deal with Saddam?  My answer:  they were next.  With Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in his pocket or under his thumb, Saddam would control two-thirds of the world's future energy in the form of oil.  World conquest need not be by the sword.  Saddam may well have pulled it off at the well head.

The man was a first rank threat to the world.

But was Saddam a threat a couple of years ago? The president says he was, but where is the evidence that Iraqi terror was aimed at the United States?

May be here:

Saddam's Terror Training Camps

As reliable as anything Greeley pontificates.

So Iraq was the obvious target for another "war on terrorism" even though the evidence that Iraq had cooperated in terror against the United States or was even planning on it was thin — and we know now nonexistent.

But were they nonexistent?

New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Don't worry your mushy little head about it, Mr. Greely. We'll get rid of the rest of them at a time of OUR choosing, or through the spread of Democracy...whichever happens to come first. :)

[freema]

I will simply remark that Bush is pro-life.

[RedRover]

Are we there yet?

I supported the war because I felt it was entirely justified--not because I thought it would be a "cakewalk". If America is only willing to fight "cakewalks", we should save time and treasure and surrender to the IslamoFascists now.

[p23185]

Why risk death to more than 2,000 Americans and more than 30,000 Iraqis?

What only 30,000? The libs have been spouting 150,000+ and counting. Where do the libs get their disinformation? Must be right out of their a$$.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

The writer of the article is too stupid to understand why and far be it from me to spend my time trying to educate the irresposible twit.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

It is doable and we are on our way.

[goodnesswins]

HA.....I'd put MY preacher up any day against this loser....today he quoted.....ta da....MARK STEYN!!!

[Democratshavenobrains]

They have been saying hundreds of thousands died since 2003. Obviously keeping consistent isn't a big priority.

[visitor]

read my 9/11 web log for the answer...rto

http://community-2.webtv.net/rtowen/myBlog/

[AmericanChef]

Indeed, the lefties seem anxious to go to war, it seems, but "any country but Iraq", of course!

[CyberAnt]

How about this .. because there was only a "cease fire" in Desert Storm .. and Saddam's people were continuing to shoot at us.

How about this .. Saddam was training terrorists on Iraqi soil to attack WESTERN TARGETS - innocent civilians.

How about this .. Saddam had amassed a large knowledge of the making of biological and chemical weaponry - and had practiced with it on his own people.

And .. 11 million Iraqi's got to vote.

[Hugin]

So Iraq was the obvious target for another "war on terrorism" even though the evidence that Iraq had cooperated in terror against the United States or was even planning on it was thin — and we know now nonexistent.

Someone needs to tell this fool about the captured records of 30,000 terrorists who trained at Salman Pak base in Iraq from 1998 to 2003.

[TaxachusettsMan]

Greeley is still alive?

I lost track of him about 27.5 crummy novels ago.

Somehow missed him during the April conclave coverage: he got the last one (1978) so wrong, yet managed to turn it into several books, you would have thought someone would have tapped him this time around.

Imagine how distraught he must be now with Bush (or any Republican) in the White House and Ratzinger (or any real Roman Catholic) in the Vatican!

And no one giving a damn what he thinks!

Can anyone say Father Robert Drinan Syndrome?

[Cheburashka]

I don't know if he's really advocating an attack on one of these countries, but if he is that sounds good to me.
---
Don't worry, he's just fulminating.
He has a deadline, he has to turn in a column. Once he's got enough words down on paper he's done.
And if he accidentally appears to support some course of action that he will condemn if it is actually carried out, well hopefully most of his readers won't notice.

[Cheburashka]

I will simply remark that Bush is pro-life.
---
I will note that in all I have read of Fr. Greeley's writings I have never read anything condemning abortion.
Perhaps I just haven't read the right piece, perhaps he feels it goes without saying.

[MNJohnnie]

For the major morons in the Anti American movement who insist on re-fighting the campaign issue they lost in 2002 and 2004, here is the reason we are in Iraq. Curious wif some of that Oil For Food money ended up your pocket Mr Greeley? You seem awfully desperate to have the US Military attack anyone BUT Iraq.

Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing Hate America First types forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it. So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.

Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasion.

Here in a nutshell, is the MILTIARY reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the MILITARY reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It might be just me but shouldn't we finish one war before we start another?

I would say yes. Something had to be done about Saddam. Even Clinton knew it.

You can not allow someone to sign a cease fire and then break the terms with impudence. If you do not force them to live up to their end then the cease fires are worthless.