President Bush has never stated that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. However, Iraq IS the source of the problem and they have repeatedly attacked US aircraft in the no-fly zone as well as attempted to assasinate a former president.
It’s true the Wahabis are one of the leading problems, it is also true that they focused on the US because of troop deployment in Saudi Arabia. The troops are there because Iraq posed a permanent, worldwide threat to it’s neighbors. As the UN’s personal police force we could have stayed in the region forever a la South Korea. However, 9/11 changed that.
And I would chastise you for your parrot comments. Simply having the same thought process does not make someone a parrot. I could easily accuse you of seminar Bush-bashing when you use jingoistic words like “Bushista”. But I won’t. I allow you your opinion and will argue for/or against it on it’s merits.
How many of those planes did they actually shoot down?
Are you proposing that these incidences are examples of immanent threats to the US that’re worthy of the umpteen billion dollar war we’re fighting?
Sorry I haven’t been around to debate in my own OP… it’s been a long weekend.
Say what a terrific idea… let’s point the finger at Islam. That way not only are we unjustifiably stigmatizing 1 billion (with a ‘B’) people as current or potential terrorists, we are discrediting an entire religion. That shouldn’t piss anyone off. As for the oil, I’m not certain what your point is. We invented the use for it so therefore it must belong to us?
I agree with you that this is part of the admin’s plan. The other part being, I think, that we need to be proactive rather than reactive no matter how risky or ill thought out our actions are. Personally, I think it is far worse than just irresponsible. It’s banking our lives on little more than wishful thinking.
I felt the need to address those two posts right off the bat, and now that I’ve read the rest of the thread I want to add a few other points. First, as Desmostylus pointed out Bush did in fact ignore the threat of MENA terrorism intially, for crying out loud he all but promised not to get involved in any foreign affairs during his campaign. Second, the arguments that either Afghanistan or Iraq is somehow on the road to prosperity, peace, or democracy is highly spurious, which is probably why there haven’t been any cites posted to validate those claims. In fact, do a Google news search for either of those two nations and you’ll find plenty of articles about ongoing battles and an apparent dearth of heartwarming stories about two newly liberated nations striding bravely into a hopeful future. Lastly, as I mention in the OP I think that even if Iraq by some miracle is transformed into a democratic paradise it still leaves Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and a dozen other nations that are not just going to follow suit purely out of good will. Even if the masses are encouraged to revolt is the US going to support them? Is the US going to effectively declare war against every regime in the ME? Would we handle the situation like Cold War era Afghanistan, by arming and training guerrillas? We all know how that one worked out.
What exactly is the Iraq endgame? Where do we (or the Iraqi’s for that matter) benefit from all this?
What could be worse than being a US soldier now in Iraq ? You got no plan… no clear objective… no timetable or set dates. No training for dealing with civilians and peacekeeping… no Saddam. You dont understand the language or the culture… and whats worse… clearly the politicians arent into solving the problem.
No, but he sure as hell implied the living daylights out of it, by uttering “9/11” or “al-Qaeda” every time he mentioned the words “Iraq” and “Saddam Hussein.” How else would 69% of the American populace believe the two are linked?
As I recall, even the CIA didn’t buy that one before the war.
Also IIRC, last I heard the “Saddam tried to assasinate a US President” bit was bullstuff. Right up there with the plastic shredders and babies-thrown-out-of-incubator myths.
That has been the policy since WWII Roland. It was supported through every administration democratic and republican. What won WWII for us was the fact that we bled the Axis powers dry of all their resources to wage war. Learning from their mistakes the US has since always taken a conservationist view towards its resources so that when the next war happens we will not be without resources. There is nothing altruistic at all. Its more of a self preservationist thought. Don’t you want to have a government look out for your needs?
The policy was never to be used as an economic weapon. Rather as retaining the resources for that time when they were needed in the face of adversity. The reserves would not be sold to other countries but rather used here and abroad for our benefit.
Laugh all you want Roland but I would prefer to be with the haves and not the have nots.
So much for complaining about “Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.”