Given all of the above, even though we are paying a higher price for invading than we probably would have if we didn't, we find ourselves having to stay in Iraq because to leave would virtually guarantee, at the very least, a very destructive civil war, with a good chance that we would end up with another Islamist state in the region. Even staying, it is very questionable to me that the country will ever stabilize in the next decade. How will Americans feel about Iraq if things are exactly as they are five years from now? Ten?
Given the fact that Bush has cost us so much by forcing the issue of Iraq and achieved so little, doesn't it make sense to vote in someone else for president? I think so.
[ August 03, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
SS,
This is off topic from your title, but wouldn't you agree that the daily attacks by Iraqi and non-Iraqi groups on Iraqi citizens equates to a "very destructive civil war"? Don't get me wrong, I don't propose withdrawing, but we're really causing a lot of problems just by our presence in the region. Almost every surrounding country is hostile and has "martyrs" willing to travel to fight "the great satan".
Very thorny situation.
[ August 04, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting question. I would not call the attacks on Iraqi citizens a civil war so much as terror attacks. I guess that raises the question of what a civil war really is. For me, I suppose, when you kill people for the sake of psychological effects such that your side wins through demoralization of the other side, rather than conventional war where you fight for land, this constitutes terrorism rather than civil war.
I would suggest, in fact, that our presence deters conventional war and forces the Islamists to engage in terrorism. Will this terrorism force more people to their side out of fear or will it cause them to hunker down and wait for the police and other security forces to get rid of the domestic terrorists? I'm not sure, but it seems at the very least that Iraq is in for a long and bloody struggle until it stabilizes.
[ August 03, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, I didn't phrase the title very well. So, your reply is right on target with my comments, which weren't exactly in line with my title to begin with. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gadzooks, that's a long set of articles. It will take quite awhile to read. A nitpick already, though . The cato article says, "But even if Iraq was in violation..."
There ain't no 'if'. Put it more honestly, I say, and say, "Yes, there was a violation, but it wasn't enough of a violation."
Edit: It's pleasant to see his remarks about self-defense and the UN. I'm amazed to hear him say that even if Saddam did have WMD, they were not any threat.
I reject the idea that since Al Qaeda perpetrated the 9-11-01 attacks, they are our sole enemy, the target we should be focusing all of our military efforts on. Al Qaeda is not responsible for all the terrorism in the world, nor all of it directed against the USA. It's just getting the headlines right now. I disagree with the idea that since Saddam was a secular tyrant, and Osama is a fundamentalist, they would not help each other. Saddam has shown willingness to use fundamentalists before-paying suicide bomber families is just an example-and Osama has shown willingness to get help even from the Great Satan-US, if you'll recall.
The fact that 1441 did not explicitly state that violation would result in war is just another example of how impotent and absurd the UN has become.
I don't really think that the October 2001 speech was a subtle shift in rhetoric, since to me the idea that we now publicly, explicitly oppose state sponsors of terrorism was pretty obvious. But I admit that the wording was almost certainly chosen to provide a foundation for later rhetoric supporting Iraq.
The quote about what a terrorist is and is not does not include-in that quote, at least-developers of WMD. I find it strange that the author makes that statement, since to me it seems that when I say this is a terrorist, this is a terrorist, this is a terrorist, this is a terrorist, this...they'll be held accountable, is going out of my way not to say that the 'they' are all necessarily terrorists.
I was and continue to be irritated at the lack of mentioning of Osama bin Laden. By no means do I think this means we've given up looking for him-in fact I can't be sure he isn't dead, and I wonder that more and more with the lack of video footage-but it's still annoying.
Anyway, it's a long damn article.
[ August 04, 2004, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rakeesh, I believe the key statement (to paraphrase) in the Cato article regarding the UN is that whether or not Saddam was in violation of 1441 is irrelevant since the US does not exist to enforce UN dictates.....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. The cato article says, "But even if Iraq was in violation..."