Thanks Dread, this has been an interesting dialog for me as well. It?s nice to speak with someone who isn?t aggressive but willing to discuss. I definitely think we can relate on some of these issues (and mainly that we don?t want the US involved in things it shouldn?t be).
Originally posted by Dreadsox Part of the case the was definitely about the threat. The reason that he was viewed as a threat was that he had used the WMD's before. He has acted irrrationally before. These weapons in his hands made him a threat. HIs attempted assasination of former President Bush made him a threat.
The last point the WHite House clearly cannot use because it makes it a personal vendetta. However, to me it is still valid.
He has acted irrationally before- but not against the US. If we disagreed with his using WMD against his people, we probably should have acted then. It's hard to forget who gave him those weapons in the first place?
I agree with the part about it being a personal vendetta. It is reason to be wary, but not aggressive.
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I agree with you here on some level. I do believe we violated international law by acting without the security council. Others here clearly do NOT and I understand their points. I believe we do not have to have permission to defend ourselves, so if we have to strike first so be it.
I agree with you also- and I understand the point of other people. If we were attacked, and the security council did not support us, I think we have the right to defend ourselves. But I don?t think this situation called for that response.
Originally posted by Dreadsox
That said when we strike first WE as citizens must hold all of the politicians to the highest level of accountability. If the White House sold the Congress a load of crap, why aren't they going after the President in a big way? Why aren't they calling for an investigation? Maybe we need more time. I still think with the vote the way it was, meaning lopsided that the congress was 100% convinced this was necessary.
?. However, it
is an enormous risk for a politician to stand up on their own and start accusing and asking these sort of questions, especially in a republican controlled (in both houses) congress. So it's sort of not surprising that, despite the growing amount of evidence of improper actions that not much has yet been done? especially when anyone (from politicians to musicians- i.e. Dixie Chicks- to celebrities) who dissents is painted as anti-American, and harassed. This needs to change and hopefully it does, but the fact remains that right now it?s very dangerous for anyone to come out as having a problem with what is going on. It seems the White House has created an environment that is particularly hostile to dissent about the war. This, I think, is a whole other thread ;-)
Originally posted by Dreadsox Olive, I never meaned to imply that their nuclear program pointless. How old were you when the Iranian Revolution occured? Do you remember it? I remember it. Iran is no friend of this country at all and the thought of them holding these weapons scares the out of me. Yet, they have not through their actions in the last twenty years invaded another country unprovoked or used WMD.
Dreadsox, I'm not sure if you meant that to sound as condescending as it did. But I have to say, I find it demeaning when someone asks me how old I was during a discussion like this. I?ve had a coworker do it (regarding this same issue, which he obtrusively brought up in my office without invitation or desire on my part to discuss). Does "witnessing" an event automatically equal knowledge about it? This sentiment makes it seem like anyone (presumed) "young" shouldn't bother with grown-up stuff.
That said, I know you didn?t say Iran?s nuclear weapon program was pointless. But we?re treating Iraq as if they have already let loose some WMD on us, and ignoring Iran when we know what Iran is capable of. I understand what you are saying that Iran hasn?t used them at ALL- but Iraq never did use them on
us (while AQ, on the other hand, DID attack us).
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am pretty sure that we are and were working with the SA governement. The SA governement publicly puts on a different face than they do behind the scenes. They are and have been supportive of the United States. The people living there however, hate the US.
I do believe we began to and are continuing to deal with Al-Qaeda. WE began that part of things 1st. 2ndly Iraq's influence on our foreign policy, ie Keeping Trops in Saudi Arabia, was/is one of the main problems that Al-Qaeda has. They believe that it is a sin for us(infidel) to be on their holy land. Taking care of Iraq after 12 years of waiting for the UN to was a very important piece of this. If a stable government can be places in Iraq we can remove our soldiers from the holy land, and MAYBE the target from our backs. I would not call the move against Iraq all of a sudden. Twelve years of resolutions, attempts to work with the UN, and plenty of warnings since 9/11.
Definitely, Al-Qaeda was angry about our troops being over there. Instead of leaving to pacify Al-Qaeda, we should be dealing with the two situations separately (post-war Iraq, and finding the miserable bastards of AQ).
I think post-war Iraq deserves another thread. For us to leave the middle east, we?re told we want Iraq to have a secure govt. But right now the infrastructure in Iraq is a mess. The people are not safe or secure or prosperous or happy. Islamic fundamentalists are right in line to take over. Yet if we leave, are
we any better off? After all the men and women we?ve lost, and all the money spent, and our economy is the worse it?s been in years? But, it doesn?t seem sending
more troops (now to Iraq) would defuse the situation. Certainly controlling Iraq isn?t the answer, even if we did ?liberate? them.. I know you didn?t say we should send more troops and have stated that we?re doing a poor job post-war. But it?s impossible to justify the war by saying 'at least our troops will leave the Middle East and not instigate AQ' when our troops aren?t leaving the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and we will probably need to send in even more before it's all done... not to mention any troops we may need to send in to deal with a potential iran situation, or ones that we *should* send to clean up the mess we made in afghanistan... the only reason AQ is related to iraq in this discussion is because the white house continued to imply that it iraq was involved in 9/11 in order to raise popular support for an invasion.
I understand what you mean about 12 years of resolutions, etc, but there weren?t any known WMD. So find them, and then go in there and do the job the right way. Without that precedence, I don?t see proper defense behind the attack.
Good discussion,
Olive