FullonEdge2 said:
Diemen,
I agree with you that if the U.S. takes action against Saddam it should also be proactive in aiding Africa and other situations (even though I have a tendency to wish America was still isolationist). Simply stated, our nation is at a point in its history where it has the capabilities to help in other world situations. But just because the U.S. is not aiding those other situations as much as we would maybe like, would you still turn your head and pretend nothing is happening in Iraq?
No, I don't advocate looking the other way. What I do advocate, however, is looking first at the bigger problems. Saddam was not an immediate threat. The report released today by Charles Duelfer confirms what David Kay reported, that there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq at the time of our invasion, there is no indication that stockpiles will be found, and more importantly, that the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is extremely weak at best.
If we
really want to root out terrorism, we have to go after the sources beyond just the terrorists. We have to go after the conditions that might breed such contempt for human life and Western civilization. We have to go after poverty. Can you imagine the type of impact and respect the US would've gained if we committed $120
billion (Cheney's rather conservative estimate of Iraq costs to date) to the AIDS crisis and overall poverty in Africa? The rest of the world would be praising our humanitarianism and heroism in really making a bold move in the fight for equality and freedom.
And this in reply to your call for U.N. support for any action the U.S. takes: This may hurt, but it seems like the U.N. is corrupt. Sadly, I doubt any "league of nations" will ever work perfectly. How else can you explain the U.N. failing to take aggressive action against Iraq? Some nations--I'll mention France and Germany--are so biased against the U.S. that they'll do anything to keep any U.S. instigated mandates from taking any real effect. The reason for this, I think, is that they're afraid of Bush. They know that they can play Kerry like a...a...fiddlestick. It's all about power.
I knew this would be coming. And you are right in stating that the UN is not perfect and corruption is present. The same can be said of the US government and the current administration (though the extent can be argued). However, I would not be so quick to dismiss the rest of the world. Yes, we must always keep our interests in mind, but we cannot win this fight alone. And to go into a war unilaterally when it's justification is so hotly contested (and as it turned out, rightfully so) is not going to win friends. To not admit fault when errors have clearly been made is not going to win friends.
Also, I would like to know specifics regarding the U.S. helping Iraq to develop WMDs. I would be shocked if you could prove that statement.
A 1994 US Senate Report entitled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their possible impact on health consequences of the Gulf War" lists some of the chemical agents the US government allowed US corporations to sell to Saddam between 1985 and 1990. Among the list:
•Bacillus Anthracis, aka Anthrax
•Clostridium Botulinum - causes dizziness, vomiting, constipation, paralysis of throat muscles, often fatal
•Histoplama Capsulatum - symptoms similar to tuberculosis
•Brucella Melitensis - causes chronic fatigue, nausea, damage to major organs
•Clostridium Perfringens - causes gas gangrene
•Eschrichia coli (E. coli)
Now you might remember the Iran-Iraq War, and the US was firmly on Iraq's side. Not only did they provide them with agents necessary to create chemical weapons, they provided military intelligence and "closely moniter[ed] third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required." That quote is from a sworn affidavit from Howard Teicher, a member of Reagan's National Security Council and coauthor of a national security directive under Reagan that basically stated that Iraq's victory in the Iran-Iraq war was crucial and the US would do everything in it's "legal" power to ensure that outcome. Separate reports in the New York Times and Washington Post also corroborate this story. Now tell me, if you give someone chemical agents when they're at war, and then give them military intelligence on troop movements to help their side win, wouldn't you say that's both helping in the creation and use of WMDs?
And I just want to say this: Despite all the comments like "We've only made the world more dangerous by going into Iraq" I definitely feel safer. I truly believe that had we looked the other way over terrorist groups and such for a matter of years longer, something much scarier than 911 would have happened. So I guess even in that respect, I'm still glad we went into Iraq.
I'm glad you feel safer. I don't. Iraq is in chaos. Car bombings, suicide attacks, kidnappings and beheadings, large segments of the nation controlled by insurgents, and violence escalating, not decreasing. What was once a secular nation with a dictator who sought power and Glory for himself has become a breeding ground for Islamic extremism, and a rally cry to terrorists everywhere. Add to that the shame of Abu Ghraib, and the fact the top officials
knew about it for nearly 4 months and did
nothing until the media caught wind of it. Not only did we torture them, we chose to torture them in a way that was the most humiliating for their culture, by stripping them naked, forcing them to mimic homosexual acts while American men and women aped in front of the camera. Nice way to win the hearts and minds. And let me repeat that it has been reported that top officials in the administration
knew about this and sat on it until the media caught wind.
On top of that, we've had numerous warnings that terrorists are planning an attack and that an attack may happen at virtually any time, and then add the even more heinous insinuation by Cheney that voting for Kerry will cause another attack, and yeah, I'm not feeling all that safe.
