| sethnintendo said:
How would you like it if some Arab nation started putting bases in Mexico, Canada or USA? I can see why there is USA resentment throughout the world and especially in the Middle East. Pretty much Osama wanted Americans to leave the Middle East and I have to say I agree with him on that aspect. We acted like the world police when we invaded Iraq based on pure bs propaganda spewed out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush. Even when they were proven wrong by other intelligence they kept saying the propaganda. There was zero reason to go into Iraq besides Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and a few others wanting to. It distracted us from Afghanistan and prolonged that war. We've interfered with many nations and usually that nations turns out worse than before we interfered.
|
I'm glad I saw this before I had to leave, I'd be able to give you less time otherwise.
I'll start off with a throat clearing then; there are some countries that I too cannot understand why the US is there, I wrote a piece recently and then saw it repeated later on, on the relevance of NATO. (Which I am in support of for various reasons holding true to it's original mission.) But I can't see why we have a base for instance in Germany.
Well your second paragraph was poorly phrased, I can take a guess that the spirit of the paragraph was to give a human perspective on what the general train of thought is in the middle east. I'm sorry then I don't like arguing against psychological mistakes, these people don't 'all' (at least) think like you do.
You made four assumable points in this paragraph (one from another paragraph) though.
1. That the US put Saddam in power.
2. That the US should have ignored Iraq for Afghanistan.
3. That the US should have pulled out of Iraq
4. That the peoples of Iraq (the middle east all uniformly are at least offended by our troops being there.)
If any of those points aren't fair to represent the respective parts of your argument then feel free to let me know.
Firstly, the US did not put Saddam in power, the grammar of the statement is very wrong, we supported his regime under the Reagan administration and this was not the same as keeping him in power. If you care to know at least some of the story it goes like this in cliff notes.
Saddam worked with the then Socialist Baath party (1960's)to the assassination of Abdul Qassim who prior to that had successfully assassinated King Faisal II the result was a vice president of Iraq in the form of a ambitious Saddam Hussein, this was already a dictatorial presidency. During this time (1970's) Hussein put up various safe guards to support his next move to become President and over throw the already sickly Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, with him out of the way Saddam was then exercising his iron grip over the Iraqi people. It would be a turn of phrase to say the US put him in power but a slanderous one at that.
The second issue is why I can't argue that the US kept Saddam in power - he used weapons not of U.S. make. I remember that the White House was in arms at the gassing... I guess I'll do a quick refresher on this as well.
Up to Kuwait Saddam Hussein had US support it comes as no surprise that at the end of the Cold War he would pull a move like that, all the while claiming the US gave him authority to annex Kuwait. It's well recorded that the US impression was Saddam wanted to square his border which it turned out his intent was to annex Kuwait all together claiming curved drilling from Iraqi oil supplies. US policy after that point had always been to wait for him to start the show, and note all the proceeding sanctions and boo on the US for trying to stop the killing of Kuwaitis with American dollars and blood. The point is the proxy was a megalomaniac and his people generally feared reprisals those that didn't were killed or exiled.
Now with that said, the worry at the start of the war was that he still had weapons that we knew he used already on Kuwaitis and on American soldiers during operation desert storm. It is a fact that even up to his hanging he refused to let UN inspectors see if he did have WMD's. The nonsense argument being the US had them, while ignoring the pragmatic difference of the US not wanting to use them. As I said before; up to that time the US had not engaged Saddam's regime first and honestly his removal was a long time coming anyway. The threat of another unexpected move by Saddam was too much to risk when war resources are already in play in Afghanistan.
"The best defense is a strong offense." Might be the most concise and apt way to put it. There is a strategy here that I hope you can appreciate.
The third I posted before on this forum on why we couldn't leave without securing the stability of Iraq, while Afghanistan may not have been a result of US policy on it's own the US didn't help the situation by leaving or even engaging without the intent of stabilizing the region(1970's), but it does serve to show how a country can become a nest for barbarism and Iraq had all the early symptoms. If your a guest in someones home I'd hope you'd fix the bed before you leave, it may never be the same as before you slept in it but at least you gave it a shot.
For three you can search my posts on Iraq, it's not too far back, but I don't feel like looking for it or even worse typing it again. (I'm in a rush now)
The fourth is something that has to be broken down on when we pulled out hypothetically.
If we pulled out before Saddam was removed or before Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed then the death toll would have been higher, the international cost would of been far more devastating. Again I've played this scenario out in another post already.
Now note, that the US had every legal right to invade the country of Iraq by international law. The Geneva accord which is meant to protect a nations sovereignty has four mentionable cases that sovereignty can be revoked. It's should be noted that all except one of these cases require diplomacy and do not call for offensive military action at least not on their own merit, one of them demands immediate military action though.
1. The illegal invasion/annexation of a sovereign country
2. Crimes against humanity
3. The usage of unsanctioned WMD's
4. Genocide
Now of all of these Genocide is the only that requires immediate action taken to prevent or stop the crime using military force if need be. Saddam was guilty of all of these.
Now to say Iraq was in no way tied to our efforts against bin Laden/ Al Qaeda and believe such nonsense would demand you ignore:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: Who had been protected and encouraged by Saddam's regime and after the reign of Saddam Hussein and his two sons decided to champion the cause of terror that Saddam had exported to western countries around the world before the words "Iraq War" may have been a notion in the mind of Clinton or Bush. He and most of his senior Baath party cronies were killed by the US Army.
Ramzi Yousef and Eyad Ismoil: Both arms the Iraqi government Yousef who received shelter by Saddam Hussein himself.
The endorsement of terror in monetary sums by Hussein supporting the attempted poisoning of Britain's water supply with rice. (I can't remember who the conspirators were.)
And do not forget these things when you write that the US should not have engaged Saddam Hussein, or else then you tell me that I should accept a logic of sadomasochism as my truth most absentmindedly.
I wish I could continue but I have to get going, I'll respond to the rest later if you want me to.
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
