Quote:
|
The insurgents in iraq are are very small percentage of the populace. If the majority of folks wanted an islamic state they could have voted one in.
|
They DID vote one in; the citizens of Iraq overwhelmingly elected a Shiite Muslim government...one that will undoubtedly rule with religious influences. So while the "insurgents" represent the violent portion of this sentiment, it is quite widespread, except in the case of the Sunni minority, who now have serious representational issues in the new government.
Quote:
I would like to know where this warped definition of terrorism comes from. Involvment in the 9/11 attack is not a prerequisite to be a terrorist. A regime that uses murder, rape, abduction, genocide etc. is a terrorist regime, even if they aren't direcly affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
Just because Saddam wasn't flying a plane or funding the attacks doesn't exclude him and his supporters from being terrorists. He was able to use the means and weapons that these psychopaths employ to take over a whole country. He was a perfect example of what all the little terrorists would like to achieve. Taking him down from his throne was a message to all terrorists that we will not tolerate terrorism no matter how successful they are or how many followers they have.
So taking out Saddam was right in line with a war on terror.
|
You bring up good points frogza, except the pretenses for the War on Terror were based on the attacks on our homeland. Regime atrocities have been around for ages; hell, we've been some of their biggest supporters not very long ago. So to tell the American people that we are engaging in a new, widespread War on Terror as a result of the attacks in NYC and then use it as an excuse to fight oppressive regimes is a bit misleading, and not in-line with its original purpose.
Perhaps if the Bush Administration had given us the role of liberator from "regime terrorism" from the get-go, it wouldn't be an issue. But they didn't. They based the case for war on the false pretenses of WMD and terrorism, substantiated by warped intelligence and used as a method to further global ambitions. So you're argument is just a cop-out, in essence. You can't attempt to justify the war based on argument created after the primary goals of military action were proven to be fabricated and/or falsely justified.
You could argue that the mission to free Iraqis from regime oppression was always there, but I think that is bullshit. That line was parroted as a sort of whipped cream on the desert underneath. Given our political history with oppressive regimes - including now with our ridiculous relationship with one of the most oppressive regimes of all, that of Saudi Arabia's royal family - we clearly did not go to war to deliver the "armies of compassion".