Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Items 1 and 2 - The UN, Congress, and other nations saw Saddam as a threat. Former President Clinton saw him as a threat. Credible people like Colin Powell saw him as a threat and many others in the military, CIA, and members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I think reasonable people can disagree on how big of a threat he was and what would have been the appropriate course of action. Parsing the language regarding him being a threat but not a threat to the US because he could not deliver a nuclear bomb is problematic to me. Also, I believe real economic sanctions target innocent civilians more than it targets those in political power and the military. Also in my view real economic sanctions, being enforced using force if needed, is defacto - a declaration of war. I would not have supported economic sanctions. To me military force was the only real option to deal with the Saddam threat.
|
President Clinton and the UN didn't see Saddam as a threat in the same way you seem to suggest. The UN was concerned, so they sent in inspectors, and Bill Clinton supported that (unless there was a certain intern in the news, and then he'd inexplicably bomb Iraq). Neither of them wanted to invade Iraq. Why? I think that's obvious now. Moreover, Bill and the UN knew that so long as Saddam was declawed, he was only a danger to his own country (like hundreds of other dictators around the world), and that didn't require the US or UN to intervene.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Item 3 - I live in an area where we have hornets, In my view saying we were the instigator is like saying I am the instigator in removing a hornets nest from my back porch so my family won't be at risk. Certainly preemptive, but also the right thing to do.
|
I'll keep saying it until you get it: Iraq had no WMDs. There's no evidence Iraq was even seeking them out. Iraq could not have hurt the US in any way. We were totally safe from Saddam. Hornets can sting. Saddam had no stinger.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Item 4 - Our initial primary military objective was to remove Saddam from power, the force used was not excessive to accomplish that mission. Our second military objective, to bring stability to the country for political progress was impeded by insurgents. I would argue that the insurgents were primarily responsible for the Iraqi deaths.
|
The aggressors/instigators are responsible. Were they killing each other by the thousand before we invaded? Saddam was killing some, but no one in their right mind could compare that to what's happening today.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
So, again we come to the basic question was Saddam a threat. Those who don't think he was will think any action taken was inappropriate. Those who think he was a threat to others but not to the US, will think our actions were excessive. Nothing at this point can be said to change those views, just as there is nothing that can be said to change my view, because we will never know what might have been.
The data has been reviewed and investigated, if we acted inappropriate now is the time to address the issue. Those who have the power to address the issue either agreed with Bush or all their rhetoric was b.s.
|
All their rhetoric was BS.