Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

09-18-2004, 04:34 PM

I'm not sure exactly what the motives of the Bush administration are - they very might well be part of the world domination conspiracy theory you have spoken of, or the Halliburton "controversy", but I take all conspiracy theories with a large dose of salt - and sometimes I don't agree with how the war is conducted (read: certain bombing campaigns in Fallujah, failure to appeal to the people of Iraq, or Abu Ghraib), but my own rationalization goes something like this:

(this was written by me for another forum, and has been cross-posted)

America has been engaged in Iraq for eleven some odd years before 2003.
During this time, America has nearly occupied, shot cruise missiles at Iraq under the pretense of destroying weapons of mass destruction facilities, established joint no flyzones over their territory with France and the UK, and conducted controversial bombing campaigns. We have denied them aid and then provided money directly to Saddam Hussein to give us oil in the Oil for Food scam. This problem was inherited and had to be solved by the Bush administration.
This occurred during the previous two presidents terms of office, and Clinton left the Oval Office convinced that Saddam still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden somewhere (possibly out in the mountains bordering Iran, where they could be kept indefinitely and possibly used at some later date). The most liberal estimate of the destruction caused by airstrikes against Saddam's weapons capacity was in the 70 percent range. Clinton also believed that regime change was the only possible solution.
Saddam deceived weapons inspectors, shipped equipment and possibly the weapons away from chemical weapons facilities that inspectors visited.
Saddam shot at around 700 planes in the no fly zone.
Saddam had made contacts outside Iraq for slipping past the sanctions.
He used the Foodscam money to pay for palaces and new weapons while his people starved and the infrastructure of Iraq fell into disrepair.
Surveillance showed Saddam always rebuilt weapons facilities after attacks.
America and the so-called civilized world is responsible for the deaths of Iraqis that starved under the sanctions, which were put in place to force him to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
Osama bin Laden used the Iraq sanctions as his primary motivator in his "kill all Americans" speech in the 90s.
Connections to Al Qaeda are tenuous but warrant investigation. I am not convinced that they have been fully investigated and that early dismissal is foolish.
Needless to say, Saddam is one murderous tyrant, and his sons, who were likely to inherit the place, were worse. Saddam at least gave moral support to terror in Israel.
Iraq is situated geopolitically in a favourable position to disrupting the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East. It has vast quantities of fresh water that could be provided to parched Iran in exchange for concessions. It borders on Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which puts it in a position to pressure them into cracking down on the terrorists that ferment within their borders.
This, by the way, is the only means of preventing terrorist training in the Middle East that I have come across and am open to less violent suggestions.
Iraq was frankly an easy target to begin with. Iran, North Korea and dictators in Africa and such places are both harder to get to and harder to defeat than the flood plains of Iraq, which are easily accessed from Kuwait.

War is not pretty, but isolation is not the answer. Neither are half-witted sanctions that prey on the people of Iraq, but not the regime that controls it. I would have preferred a slower invasion, but that would have provided Saddam with even more time to bunker down.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Maybe the Bush administration are not good men, but what were they to do?

09-18-2004, 04:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
jconnolly Guest	I'm not sure exactly what the motives of the Bush administration are - they very might well be part of the world domination conspiracy theory you have spoken of, or the Halliburton "controversy", but I take all conspiracy theories with a large dose of salt - and sometimes I don't agree with how the war is conducted (read: certain bombing campaigns in Fallujah, failure to appeal to the people of Iraq, or Abu Ghraib), but my own rationalization goes something like this: (this was written by me for another forum, and has been cross-posted) America has been engaged in Iraq for eleven some odd years before 2003. During this time, America has nearly occupied, shot cruise missiles at Iraq under the pretense of destroying weapons of mass destruction facilities, established joint no flyzones over their territory with France and the UK, and conducted controversial bombing campaigns. We have denied them aid and then provided money directly to Saddam Hussein to give us oil in the Oil for Food scam. This problem was inherited and had to be solved by the Bush administration. This occurred during the previous two presidents terms of office, and Clinton left the Oval Office convinced that Saddam still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden somewhere (possibly out in the mountains bordering Iran, where they could be kept indefinitely and possibly used at some later date). The most liberal estimate of the destruction caused by airstrikes against Saddam's weapons capacity was in the 70 percent range. Clinton also believed that regime change was the only possible solution. Saddam deceived weapons inspectors, shipped equipment and possibly the weapons away from chemical weapons facilities that inspectors visited. Saddam shot at around 700 planes in the no fly zone. Saddam had made contacts outside Iraq for slipping past the sanctions. He used the Foodscam money to pay for palaces and new weapons while his people starved and the infrastructure of Iraq fell into disrepair. Surveillance showed Saddam always rebuilt weapons facilities after attacks. America and the so-called civilized world is responsible for the deaths of Iraqis that starved under the sanctions, which were put in place to force him to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Osama bin Laden used the Iraq sanctions as his primary motivator in his "kill all Americans" speech in the 90s. Connections to Al Qaeda are tenuous but warrant investigation. I am not convinced that they have been fully investigated and that early dismissal is foolish. Needless to say, Saddam is one murderous tyrant, and his sons, who were likely to inherit the place, were worse. Saddam at least gave moral support to terror in Israel. Iraq is situated geopolitically in a favourable position to disrupting the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East. It has vast quantities of fresh water that could be provided to parched Iran in exchange for concessions. It borders on Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which puts it in a position to pressure them into cracking down on the terrorists that ferment within their borders. This, by the way, is the only means of preventing terrorist training in the Middle East that I have come across and am open to less violent suggestions. Iraq was frankly an easy target to begin with. Iran, North Korea and dictators in Africa and such places are both harder to get to and harder to defeat than the flood plains of Iraq, which are easily accessed from Kuwait. War is not pretty, but isolation is not the answer. Neither are half-witted sanctions that prey on the people of Iraq, but not the regime that controls it. I would have preferred a slower invasion, but that would have provided Saddam with even more time to bunker down. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Maybe the Bush administration are not good men, but what were they to do? Last edited by jconnolly; 09-18-2004 at 04:41 PM.. Reason: Editing.