Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I understand that. However, I have no faith or trust in the UN -either now or then.
|
I see no reason to have more faith in the US government than the UN. In fact, I'd say there's good reason to trust the UN in military matters over our own politicians.
You do have to admit that the UN was right about Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Adding to my confusion - Given PNAC or more specifically the membership and the connections with Bush - how can anyone who knew say they were deceived? Seems to me that anyone who had any knowledge of PNAC or its members had to know they were going to attack Iraq and use the US military to maintain US dominance in the world. I was not deceived because I supported the invasion of Iraq. So, who was deceived, who was "lied" to?
|
Congress was deceived (intentionally or not) about the defensive and offensive capabilities of Saddam Hussein. They were also deceived about Iraq's intent. We the people were also deceived. Or at least the attempt was made, some people did see through the false information.
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not seeking them. There were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq whatsoever, in fact the idea of Saddam supporting "radical Islam" ran contrary to everything we knew about his devotion to a secular government and military.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think our initial occupation strategy had a material flaw that was exploited. Although there was initial progress, thing took a turn for the worst pretty fast.
|
The only real success of the Iraq War (in 2003) was that our military knew what it was doing in the beginning. We had no business being there, but once ordered our military took the IRG apart piece by piece in a matter of hours. This is why I've continually said that our troops were victorious in what they were asked to do. The real issue is with an occupying force and a determined local population always has the same eventual result. There are literally thousands of years of military history that verified the eventual outcome of invading and occupying. That it was a surprise for anyone familiar with war is astonishing. Even a liberal, pacifist peacenik like me it's been obvious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
|
I'm afraid that's a bit misleading. Things were going badly only months after the invasion. Mismanagement of reconstruction was starting to surface in the world media, violence was on the rise, and the exodus was starting.