ThatGuy,
"That's fine, STING. We never invaded the Soviet Union supposedly to free the people from the tyrannical, murderous rule of the dictator we had previously sent money and supplies to. That's what makes these two situations very different."
The two situations are not different but the same. They prove that it is sometimes necessary to temporarily support someone you don't like in order to achieve a greater good.
"Frankly I have a hard time swallowing the revisionist reasoning for our most current war in Iraq. When it was in our own best interests we gave money and supplies to Saddam, so what if he was murdering his own people. Now that we've waged a war and deposed Iraq, those same people are now free. That is a very nice side-effect of a war we started with our own interests in mind. Please don't try to argue that the crux of our mission was to free the Iraqi people."
No one has ever stated that freeing the Iraqi people was the main reason for the war. But it is was a reason, if not the main one. Building a democratic Iraq solves a decades old problem for US and International security. That problem was that an Iraq that had the capability to defend itself from Iran would always have the capability to overrun Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, simply because of its size relative to them.
Because Iraq would always have this capability, the best way to ensure stability and security in the Persian Gulf is to have an a democratic Iraqi government respectful and friendly to its neighbors rather than an unpredictable dictatorship like Saddam's, hostile to its neighbors. A Free, prosperous, and stable democratic Iraq makes for a more secure Persian Gulf.
"I understand that wars are started for many reasons. However, Mr. Bush and his cabinet made the case to the American people for the war based on the idea that Saddam was a intergral part of the terrorist threat, and an imminent threat to Americans. Now the war is over, and it's been shown that that evidence was at best flimsy, and in some cases downright wrong."
This is false. Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. It was already determined back in 1991 that Saddam's failure to disarm would be a threat to the world. The case for war was based on Saddam's failure to disarm. The Coaltion never had to prove anything!!!!!!! It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he had disarmed of all WMD.
Saddam invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years completely unprovoked in each case. I'm sorry but thats not peanuts. Its behavior that is a serious threat to world peace and international stability especially considering the threat to the WORLD's energy supply.
"But I am unhappy that we were led into a war in Iraq on false pretenses. You can quote UN resolutions until you're blue in the face, STING. I know that 1441 authorized the use of force. I'm glad that you feel this justifies the actions of the president to act unilaterally."
You don't really seem to care or understand the resolutions, but if you would take the time to read them, I think you would understand their value and the seriousness of Saddam's violations. If you have and don't, oh well.
The President never acted unilaterally. It is the UN that authorized the use of force through multiple resolutions. That makes it a multilateral act.
"I feel that if the president was going to lead our nation into war, he had to give us very good reasons why. Without quoting UN resolutions, can you give me those reasons?"
Thats simple. If Saddam could not be verifiably disarmed and sufficiently contained, given Saddam's prior behavior, the invasion and attacks, unprovoked, of 4 independent countries, the highest percentage of GDP devoted to the production of WMD, the greatest use of WMD ever, having nearly successfully built a nuclear bomb just prior to the Gulf War, Saddam's continueing and obvious regional ambitions, the risk to the energy supply coming from the Persian Gulf would simply be to high if Saddam were allow to remain in power with WMD or WMD potential.
Because of culture and Politics, the USA could not maintain large numbers of troops in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Secondly, the efforts to keep Saddam contained were failing as evidence of the flow of 4 Billion dollars worth of goods every year through smuggling across Iraq's borders.
Saddam perhaps not now, but in the future would have the ability to smuggle in new weapons banned under the embargo which could improve the conventional effectiveness of his fighting forces and aid in the delivery of various kinds of WMD.
Deterence against Saddam having failed so many times in the past could not be counted on in the future to work against him indefinitely. Especially as the smuggling continued or even increased, and Saddam's capabilities improved.
The Ultimate risk here is that sometime in the future, Saddam would obtain the means to either grab control of most of the Persian Gulf Oil Fields or subject them to destruction through the use of WMD if that failed. These fields, spread from Kuzistan in Iran, Southern Iraq, Kuwait, and Northeastern Saudi Arabia contain a majority of the worlds energy supply currently.
The capture or destruction of this energy supply, regardless of how it is done, would be a global disaster. With more than 50% of the worlds supply of energy suddenly gone from the market, energy cost would skyrocket out of control worldwide. The average person, the average business, would be unable to live or do business if the price of energy jumped to these alarming levels. The Planet would fall into a Global depression worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Economic effects can be estimated, the human cost cannot be! Global depression on this scale intails far more than simply the loss of jobs and money, were talking potentially the loss of society and anarchy.
The USA and other countries have known how vital the energy from the middle east was since the 1940s. As time has passed it has become even more vital to the whole planet. It will continue to be well into the future if or until another cheaper alternative source of energy is found. But until that time, one must deal with the reality of today and doing everything to prevent the ultimate disaster.
Saddams past actions and Behavior + the possesion of various types of WMD, and potentially aquiring eventually WMD such as nuclear weapons , together, represented a threat to global security that could not be overlooked and had to be either 100% contained and disarmed or either removed.
The USA tried for 12 years to completely insure the containment and 100% disarmament of Saddam. This policy unfortunately failed, leaving removal of Saddam with military force, as the only option.
This is the chief reason why the USA and other member states of the UN had to act. There are a variety of other reasons as well, that involve WMD and terrorism, and of course Iraqi freedom and democracy as means to produce lasting peace and security for the Persian Gulf Region.
