4 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyBut even if Iraq is deemed a "success", will terrorism abate globally?
How do you successfully defend the U.S. from the ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism without having to kill everyone in the Middle East?
That was the question Bush had to answer after 9/11. Ignoring it wasn't an option, and negotiating with an amorphous group of suicidal/homicidal maniacs wasn't an option. Bush's answer was to confront their ideology he answer, how do you answer the question that Bush had to answer as President after 9/11?
"W"'s assumption was that "democracy" is the cure for our ills. It often makes me scratch my head as to whether or not he ever considered the Palastinian situation. Here we also have a "democracy" that turned to Hamas of all people.
The most logical reason for taking out Saddam may have been that the man was a known aggressor. He attacked several neighboring countries and conquered one of them. He destabalized the region and was even a threat to his own people as he killed thousands with chemical weapons. However, now that Saddam is gone I think Iran now in a position to bolster its power in the region. As to which of the two represented the greatest evil to the region can never be known for sure, only speculated.
As for my own stance on Messopotamia, I think oppossing Saddam was a no brainer. I just question how "W" went about it.
As for how "W" should have responded to 9/11, I think securing the borders and focusing on building the economy should have been the top priority. This would include focusing on energy independence which is the main reason the US was there to begin with. I also kind of agree with those on the left who say that "W" let Bin Laden get away. He should have been a dead man.
Originally posted by generalissimoI wonder if part of the decision to go into Iraq was that tanks and stuff aren't very useful in the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of Somalia.
Regardless of the ins and outs of the war (and I agree it liberated the iraqi people from a dictator), this war was really a waste of money and a waste of lives.
If you consider the economic and human cost of the war you'll see it would have been better to just leave things as they were, the US didn't have the right to invade iraq even if there was ...[text shortened]... t cuba, zimbabwe, or any other dictatorship? whats so special about iraq? oh wait, the oil.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell, the US is fighting in afghanistan, despite the difficulties.
I wonder if part of the decision to go into Iraq was that tanks and stuff aren't very useful in the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of Somalia.
what about other dictatorships and rogue states? zimbabwe, cuba, etc Im sure the US could overthrown those regimes too if they put the same effort they put into their adventures in iraq.