Finn d'Abuzz wrote:2) Like it or not we have significant strategic interests in the Middle East and virtually all of them will be advanced by the establishment of a truly democratic Muslim nation in the region.
Not necessarily. The more the Iraqis get the chance to vote, the more they elect a pro-Iran government.
A brief acquaintance with the history of the area-something it becomes increasingly apparent nobody with any say in the Bush policy had-knows that the Shiite/Sunni split occured at the the Massacre at Karbala, Iraq in 780 AD. There, Hussein, son of Ali and grandson of Muhammad himself, was en route to make his claim for the leadership of the Muslim world upon the death of previous leader, one of Muhammad's generals. He and 70 family and friends were surrounded by thousands of troops at the behest of the recently deceased general's son, and were slaughtered. Those who recognized Muhammad's bloodline as the rightful leader became Shiites. Those who recognized the legitimacy of the general and the leaders who came afterward became Sunnis. The Sunnis have always treated the Shiites harshly, barely recognizing their right to call themselves Muslims. This is from 780 AD to the present day.
Iran and Iraq ae the only two nations on Earth with a Shiite majority. Iran is the only country on Earth with a government set up to further the Shiite religion. Guess who the Iraqis are going to vote for?
It is just incredible that the Bush brain trust would commit the lives of so many Americans to supposedly establish democracy in Iraq, without ever realizing that once they get that democracy, they will embrace their Iranian brothers. Bush is sacrificing 2,000 young American lives so the Iraqis can set up a govrnment which thinks Iran is just great and Ayatollah Khomeini is a hero.
Incidentally, the Iraqi intelligence service does not report to Iranian government, it reports to the American forces. That is because we know that if the Iraqi intelligence service reports to the Iraqi government, they will soon tell the Iranians. Now, this is from the very same Iraqi government which owes it's very existence to us, and which knows we have 140,000 troops present in the country. If they act like this
now, how are they going to act when we have fewer troops than we do now? How much MORE pro-Iranian will they become than they are already?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:There was reasonable evidence that Saddam had been stockpiling WMDs.
There were international inspectors on the ground, with free, unfettered access to all corners of Iraq, to tell us if he had any WMD's. Bush ordered them out and invaded. There was no reasonable justification for Bush to invade to find out about the WMD's, since the inspectors were doing that for him before he invaded.
Bush wanted to invade Iraq, WMD's or no WMD's. He just didn't think he could sell the invasion to the public any other way. He ordered the inspectors out right at the time it was becoming apparent that Saddam very possibly did NOT have WMD's.
