In article <467C1B80.166D12EB@yahoo.co.uk>,
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> John Rennie wrote:
> >
> > "John Rennie" wrote in message
> > news:yfidnaBkMNMuvubbnZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > >
> > > "Crusader Rabbit" wrote in message
> > > news:369dd410bb95a025b5862b12d2d37fbc@pseudo.borked.net...
> > >> In article <467AF0D7.90F59A76@yahoo.co.uk>
> > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>> > > Al Qaeda was always in the Middle East, that's where it came from.
> > >>> > > Iraq
> > >>> > > is about engaging that threat.
> > >>
> > >> Somehow, whenever you (or the Shrub) are askes about WHY the Shrub
> > >> invaded Iraq at the cost of a half million Iraqi lives, 25,000 US
> > >> casualties, and 4 million refugees in the region, 9/11 and al Qaeda are
> > >> invariably mentioned in the reply.
> > >>
> > >> Not Osama bin Laden.
> > >>
> > >> He's never mentioned.
> > >>
> > >> Not Weapons of Mass Destruction.
> > >>
> > >> The USA has them. Saddam Hussein did not.
> > >>
> > >> Even the Shrub has given up flogging that dead horse.
> > >>
> > >> So the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
> > >>
> > >> And America's punishment is to LOSE that war.
> > >>
> > >>> > Why? Al Qaeda were not in Iraq, as I keep on telling you. Are you
> > >>> > entirely stupid, Bill?
> > >>
> > >>> I think you are of limited capability because you can't address what
> > >>> I'm
> > >>> actually saying.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, he's entirely stupid.
> > >> He's simply here to provide amusement for his betters.
> > >> Kicking the retarded when they're down is a bit childish, but it's SO
> > >> satisfying!
> > >>
> > >>> Is it your contention that the US should've invaded
> > >>> Saudi Arabia?
> > >>
> > >> My position is that the USA should not have invaded Iraq, because there
> > >> was no justification for doing so and because doing so made the
> > >> situation
> > >> in the Middle East far worse than it was before.
> > >>
> > >> It didn't accomplish anything (other than to make George 'WMD' Bush the
> > >> most hated man on earth).
> > >> It destroyed America's influence in the world.
> > >> It cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American, than Osama bin Laden
> > >> could ever have dreamed of.
> > >> It destroyed the balanced budget Bill Clinton left to the shrub.
> > >> It has substantially eroded American freedoms.
> > >>
> > >> And it has destroyed the Republican Party.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > And now we all await with a certain amount of eagerness a repeat of
> > > Bill's
> > > 2003 post wherein he lists the 12 reasons for invading Iraq.
> > >
> >
> > Calling Bill. We are still waiting.
> >
> You have google, don't you? OK, fine, from 2003:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a12a95aa697f569c?hl=
> en&
> #begin quote
> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.
Since the invasion, US resources in the region have been completely tied
up. So much so that the USA is probably unable to effectively deal with
Iran, which poses a considerably greater threat than Iraq ever did.
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
Let me get this straight...
You think that the invasion of Iraq would be good, if successful,
because it would allow us to make a concession to Osama Bin Laden.
Lay off the crack, Bill.
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
Oil extraction and transportation is a process that is particularly
vulnerable to the kind of low level operations that Iraqi insurgents and
foreign terrorists in Iraq have proven themselves to be expert in.
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is possible.
Well I'd say that history has proven the above hope to be entirely
risible.
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
Agreed. It is almost universally detested in the Middle East and is
perceived by many as being hopelessly overextended.
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
Didn't happen. Almost certainly won't happen.
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
The politician's syllogism strikes again, Bill:
We have to do something.
This is something.
Therefore we have to do this.
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
Seems that they have supported it to the extent of aiding terrorist
groups inside Iraq. Another one of your "points" demolished ruthlessly
by history, it seems.
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
It seems that it is too late and the main beneficiary of the Iraq
invasion, Iran, will soon be a considerably greater threat.
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
Or it leaves us hopelessly overextended and unable to meet any threats
emanating from Iran.
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
Saddam was a cunt of the worst kind. Deaths estimated as resulting from
his reign over more than 20 years was between 300,000 and 400,000.
Deaths estimated as resulting from the US led invasion of Iraq now stand
at between 50,000 and 600,000 over a mere four years. WTF are we trying
to do here? Play catch-up?
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
> #end quote
There were other ways in which we might have achieved the above. As I
and others have posted elsewhere, the USA has not been afraid of allying
with and/or aiding some pretty repugnant regimes in the past and I feel
that Saddam could have been used as a secular ally in the ME. That's
realpolitik for you. It's not nice but it often works better than the
kind of idealism that your leaders would have you believe was behind the
invasion of Iraq.
--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!" |