Originally Posted by dorfman24
Thanks, Jim for bringing us full circle. I do not believe that we should (or will) invade Iran. As for black and white (your favorite catch phrase) I do not think that making moral judgements makes me a "black and white" adherant. Saddam Hussein (despite his charms in killing his own people, which probably earns him Elau's admiration) invaded Kuwait and raped its women, used chemical weapons on his own people and the soldiers of Iran, blew up the oil lines in his own nation, causing an ecological disaster, signed a ceasefire, broke it repeatedly, ignored the demands of the international community, paid suicide bombers' families in Israel, associated with terrorist groups (I'm not linking him to 9/11)...
Ahhh, but we were attacked on 9-11. Without the 9-11 attack it is highly unlikely a Bush proposal to depose Saddam, and no one is arguing Saddam was not a mean spirited, dastardly dictator who deserved to be deposed by his own people, would have gone very far. There is just not a color black enough to paint him with to have made the Congress go along with that idea.
So, we got into a posture of attacking Iraq in response to being attacked by Al-Qaeda on 9-11-2001, who was holed up in Afghanistan, kind of taking up residence there at the pleasure of the Taliban. We, in my opinion, should have taken several hundred square miles around the last known whereabouts of Ossamma on 9-12-2001, and applied an unrelenting, inescapable flattening and stirring of the first thirty or so feet of earth, from above and called it a day. I think a nuke was actually warranted, and that topic has been debated or ridiculed here in the past. I just don't see the difference in killing several hundred thousand people instantly or over 5 or 6 years. But a massive and continuous bombing episode with conventional weapons that was engineered to preclude Ossamma's escape the afternoon of 9-12-2001 would have likely got the job done. But, we got into the posture of invading Iraq by cherry picking intelligence data from all sorts of sources, treating them as equally credible when they supported the case, then not even mentioning the data that didn't even from the same sources or more credible ones, and thumping the war drum and posting the terror alert colors and talk of mushroom clouds being the imminent danger of not attacking that evil man, Saddam and his depraved sons.
Instead of making an effective attempt to vaporize Ossamma, and then, if we had evidence he escaped, following the retreat of Al-Qaeda mercilessly wherever it took us, since we had already declared from the lips of the Decider that if you gave Ossamma and his cohorts safe harbour, you just became an Al-Qaedista in our view, and therefore deserved to die, and capturing or killing him, we went off on a tangent. Iraq. And left Ossamma to live in the badlands on the Afghan-Pakistan border. For the next 5 years. Now the Taliban is back and we are in for another round of fighting there with a more sophisticated, suicide bombing and IED firiing, insurgent-like, fighter we trained in Iraq. It is not looking good for the white hats there.
So, if you want to advocate that America become the world's cop and depose bad guys as a favor to the local populations of such regimes, I think you should have the idea brought up in Congress, debated, and voted on, like it is supposed to be done. If Congress agrees we should be the world cop and we implement some evaluation process to identify who we will be deposing each week, fine, we go off and do it. But to purposely lie about WMD and hype all this stuff about how bad Saddam was to his own people, how he was an imminent threat to the US, all to get us mired in this mess so we can be manipulated into becoming that world cop, without having that up front honest and open debate on the subject, is, well, treason.