Asherman wrote:You lads are making me blush ... oh well
Anon, I wasn't confused, though it seems others were. The confusion may have been because my writing wasn't sufficiently clear. I hope that I cleared that up. However, Xingu still doesn't seem to understand that the Middle-East is the heart-land of radical Islamic terrorism. Iraq just happens to be located in the center of the Middle-East.
"So, because Iraq is situated in the heart of the Middle East, and the Middle East is the center of gravity for radical Islamic terrorism, it was ripe for direct action even when Iraq had little to nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism?"
You've really twisted my words and clear meaning in this statement. As you've restated my position it is a logical fallacy, ic hoc, ergo proper hoc. I didn't say that and for my position to be restated in such a manner really is a Straw Man.
What I said was that a state of War already existed with Iraq that had been suspended by a conditional cease-fire. Iraq violated the conditions of the cease-fire in major ways repeatedly for over a decade. Saddam fostered the belief that he had terror weapons in violation of the cease-fire conditions, or that he soon would have such weapons. A large part of the world with as good intelligence sources as were available, believed Saddam. Saddam openly supported terrorists and paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers. There was even some indications that Al Quida operatives were welcome and operations inside Iraq. Much of that intelligence turned out to be mistaken later, but at the time seemed plausible to reasonable analysts. Iraq was repeatedly warned to mend its ways, and was given numerous opportunities to forestall intervention. Saddam didn't believe that this American President might actually carry out his promises to intervene militarily. Wrong, answer Saddam.
Iraq's geographical location, and the potential to accomplish several objectives at one time, made it a military priority in the region. Saddam left unattended to would constitute a distraction from the larger effort to combat international radical Islamic terrorism. With Saddam eliminated, the Iraqi People could be freed of a brutal dictator. and his destabilizing threat to neighboring states and Israel would be removed. Any forbidden weapons could be destroyed and kept from the hands of terrorists. The possible benefits of helping create an open, tolerant nation in the midst of a region where the radical Islamic movement regarded themselves as invulnerable would be invaluable in the larger war against terrorism. A free Iraq would be a wedge would be driven between Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia ... and without ever violating any of those sovereign countries. I think the Administration underestimated how fiercely Iran, Syria and the radical Islamic Movement would fight to prevent establishment of such a government in the heart of a region they regard as their own.
I know that you don't agree with this analysis, and will dispute what I regard as the facts. I don't expect you to change your mind, but I would hope that you at least will leave your mind open to the possiblility that this analysis is possible, and that people who hold it are just as sincere in their beliefs as you are.
Like you stated, your writing wasn't sufficiently clear. It was confused. Therefor you, as being the writer of said writing lacking clarity (i.e. confused writing) were confused. But again, thanks for the clarification.
I believe you that you are sincere in your beliefs about the present US administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq. I do not believe that this administration is as sincere in its actions as you are in your beliefs thereof, however. The present administration has peddled its invasion and occupation of Iraq as being in the name of the good of Iraqi people, and at the same time in the name of the interests of the people of the US. In regard to the first, it was for their liberation. In regard to the second--and it is about this second purpose that you are completely silent--it was for their, the people of the US, security, to make Iraq the front in its war on terror so that the US itself wouldn't have to be a front. These are disparate and incongruent objectives. Taken together they are illogical. They are doublethink.
In some of the rationalizations you present in supporting the present administration's actions you make unsupported claims. In other rationalizations you present in supporting this administration's actions you refer to the misinformation disseminated by this administration. One unsupported claim is that "Saddam openly supported terrorists." You conflate this assertion by adding to this statement that Saddam "paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers." One thing is the assertion that "Saddam openly supported terrorists." Another thing is that Saddam "paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers." They are not the same thing. That Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers is pretty much an established fact. That "Saddam openly supported terrorists" isn't. Do you have references to this claim other than the misinformation disseminated by this US administration to sell its war to the US public? And, yeah, yeah, I know I can go look it up on google or whatnot. But, I am asking YOU; do YOU have references to this claim of yours?
You concede that much of the misinformation propageted by this administration was mistaken, but claim that at the time it seemed plausible to reasonable analysts. Since you are sincere in your beliefs concerning this administration's actions, we can only leave your beliefs to naïveté. It is a fact that this administration knowingly and deliberately relied on specious information and informants that were regarded by the general intelligence community to be untrustworthy and outright liars. Most of the pertinent claims made by this administration were questioned by reasonable analysts, and yet they were propagated by this administration onto a US public that was absolutely terrified and paranoid following the 9/11 terrorist bombings. To a large degree, this paranoia is what drives US policy regarding Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
Needless to say, you are right, I do not agree with your analysis. But, like I've already stated, I do believe that you are sincere in your beliefs regarding these issues.
