Well we will definatley not agree on much but yes having to confront Iran would destroy all of the progress we have made in Iraq, if you call it progress. I am not a big believer in democracy in Iraq. Maybe we can agree there on that point. Whether we went in their for the right reasons or not we certainly dont have a visible plan of progress that I can see. The sooner we back off running security the sooner they can have theur civil sectarian war and hopefully they choose to have a country that supports some type of democracy/republic that at least allows their people to have a say in their government.
Actually, I agree with all of the above.
Not to get off on the Iraq thing but if Iran comes over to wipe Israel out then I am sorry it is more important to defend Iraq's sovereignty and our ally then building a "democracy in Iraq."
And, actually, I agree with that. However, it won’t happen. Meaning, if Iran is foolish enough to try and march through Iraq, rather than going around (which I find much more probable), I don’t see Bush abandoning his delusions concerning Iraq to fight a battle that should be fought.
See AR, maybe just maybe I can get an agreement here. I am very and by very I mean with every fiber of my being against 'nation rebuilding.' It was a bad precident set when we attacked Germany/Japan and I wish we would discontinue this train of thought and waste of hard earned tax money.
I think you mean “when we rebuilt Germany/Japan” – at least, that’s what I’m getting from the context, especially since we were attached by Japan, and ally of Germany.
To some extent, I agree – is does seem a waste of taxpayer dollars. But in the long run, it’s actually beneficial to the U.S. Japan is an ally now; so is Germany. While there may be instances of disagreement – there always will be between allies – for the most part they support us in many different areas. Much of that came from the good will that our efforts at rebuilding undertook.
We should destroy nations and leave them in shambles when we do have to attack them. This is what should have happened the 'shock and awe' that did not happen is one of the main problems we have over there. We looked like a weak country. We drove past army divisions and went straight for Baghdad. Those uniformed men were in civilian clothes setting up IUD's the next day. Not a great call if you ask me.
I would agree for those countries in which we feel there is no hope that they will ever become a democratic society – or to put it another way, for those countries on which we are certain will harbor and retain a populace-wide desire to harm the U.S. However, it is difficult to judge a country by the actions of its rulers – again, both Germany and Japan have proven to be allies when the populace was given the chance; a chance they got by our rebuilding of their societies.
Maybe with us having to stop being a police force in Iraq to counter the threat of Iran we could leave after that is settled. I am against being there. I was for blowing the crap out of them and toppling Sadaam but not for rebuilding their nation.
Iraq could well be one of those types of countries I mentioned above. Given that there has only been an “Iraq” through the totalitarian Saddam regime, and given the demographic make-up of that region, it is easy to see that “natural” democracy or even a unified government is nigh-on to impossible.
See the way I look at Osama is the same way I look at Sadaam. Both were agents of ours that turned on us and therefore must be eliminated.
I agree with that assessment of bin Laden – I don’t agree with the assessment of Saddam. It seems to have been lost in the mists of time, but the reality is we betrayed Saddam – not the other way around.
Now, before anyone goes ballistic, let me explain…
The U.S. both supported and funded Saddam and his regime, and practically invited Saddam to invade. In July 1990, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, indicated to Hussein that the Bush Administration would not object to an invasion of Kuwait. Iraqis took the U.S. at its word and sent its armies over the border, meeting almost no resistance. (At the time, there was a legitimate dispute at the Iraq-Kuwait border involving the Kuwaiti practice of drilling sideways under the border to extract oil from pools in Iraq. No one seems to remember that this was Hussein’s main gripe, although Iraqis never have regarded Kuwait, which once was part of Iraq, as a legitimate state in the first place.)
The Saudi Arabian Royal Family privately expressed fear to the Bush administration that Saddam (who probably was more popular in Saudi Arabia than the corrupt rulers of the royal family) would turn his military might towards them.
All of a sudden, the Saudis, among others, began to raise the specter of Iraq "controlling" the world’s largest single oil source. What happened next? Well, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush demanded that the Iraqis leave at once. Saddam, once our ally, all of a sudden was a demon, a threat to world peace and someone who was obsessed with obtaining and building "weapons of mass destruction."
Did we create both Saddam and bin Laden. Yes. Did bin Laden “turn” on us? Yes. But Saddam did not.
Am I supporting Saddam? No. His rule was corrupt and brutal. But the U.S. funded him, provided him weapons, and propped him up. We did so in the hope he would keep Iran under control.
