That would work, if the US went after every scumbag who did the same thing. And we haven’t. Hell, in some cases, we supported and even encouraged them!
Saddam, in fact, was one of our guys during the Reagan administration.
As others have noted, we supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. And, while people make dramatic claims about how many people he killed, the fact is that most of these killings occurred either when he was being allowed to make war on his neighbors or before we had instituted the No-Fly zones to protect the Kurds. In other words, he was contained. He was still probably killing some people but one has to ask how many, given that the estimated civilian death toll in Iraq from the war is already 13-15,000.
As for the Bush Administration’s motivations: There are two problems with the theory that they did it because they really believed Saddam had WMD. First off, even if the intelligence led them astray at first, by the time February and March rolled around, the inspectors were already finding that the U.S. intelligence was “garbage upon garbage upon garbage.”
Second, even if they believed that Saddam had WMD, it is hard to believe that they were that seriously concerned about these getting into the hands of terrorists. For if they were, how does one explain how lackadaisical they seemed to be about securing potential WMD sites and even sites known to contain some nuclear materials that had been locked down by the IAEA. If you are really concerned about WMD getting into the hands of terrorists, you shouldn’t embark on a policy that makes this more likely (particularly given that your intelligence service is telling you that Saddam would be very unlikely to give WMD to terrorists).
The mass graves are either from 1991, or from the nid 1980’s.
Why did he go to war?
C’mon, haven’t you been paying attention?
-
Because if we let our guard down, Saddam might have developed the potential to possibly begin a program of rebuilding his capacity to theoretically develop weapons of mass destruction.
-
Isn’t the world better off without Saddam?
-
Why do you hate America?
furt, was that link serious? The tone of the discourse suggested it was, but the title suggested it was parodying those who presented such arguments.
In case it was serious, why weren’t those arguments presented before the invasion?
Yes, very much so. The title was just the self-deprecating name of the blog. Please note that I’m not interested in defending what’s in there (I don’t agree with all of it); it’s provided for those who sincerely say they don’t know.
- Some of the things on there were not things that administrations can productively say out loud. i.e. “The whole Arab world has to be dragged into the 20th century”
But Bush has talked many times about the root cause of Arab anger being opppressive governments (many historically backed by the US). None of this has been secret; which is not to say it’s been covered and explained by the news media, either.
- Whenever a multi-faceted rationale was offered, critics in the media (and on this board) kept saying that multiple rationales were confusing or contradictory. People didn’t want nuance or complicated arguments. WMD was settled on as simple, easily explainable and salable; i.e. for political reasons.
[http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/]This]( [url) has more from someone who’s no fan of Bush.
I meant this.
He also, many times, denied that “regime change” was the justification for the war, given the precedent it sets. That whole link seems to present justifications which, no matter how convincing (and I find them all highly dubious), simply were not proposed by the administration.
For an administration to lead its country into a war of invasion based on arguments which it does not explicitly present to its electorate is sheer, blatant deception.
This does not justify deception: heck, almost any issue requires the government to explain its policies in detail.
That link is a justification for hegemony. If th eUS invaded Iraq for hegemonic reasons, its government should have told its electorate so explicitly.
Whatever. I’ve no interest in debating whether they are good reasons or not, or whether the admin should have been blunter. It was presented as a fairly accurate answer to the OP.
Ah, remember when the Iraq situation started, the accusations of Imperialism, the - ‘no at best it’s hegomony !’ , the ‘Saddam is Eeevil and POTUS wouldn’t lie’ and the- ‘no, why do you hate America?!’
So, we were right, it is imperialism after all.
I wonder how much of it was to deflect potential election-time criticism that 9/11 happened on their watch.
I have no doubt that if Gore were president, he’d be hammered into a thin goo over 9/11 happening on his watch.
Modified version(changes in red):
We know that the POTUS pursued weapons of mass murder…snip…The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: GWB’s regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble.
Modified version(changes in red):
The threat comes from the US. It arises directly from the US regime’s own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. …snip…
First, some ask why US is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from US stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. US’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used all types of weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a country, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward those it pleases.
Hmmm…interesting! Very few changes to the original speeches by Bush. But they make a lot of sense, in fact even more than the original ones!
Your point? Because Saddam did it (with full knowledge of US offcials) it’s OK for the US to continue?
I’ll take your :rolleyes: and raise it :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Political madlibs!!!