Quote from iceman1:
We bro, are over there because of the threat to world peace from WMD and nukes. Not to free the Iraqi people. Did you conveniently forget that after watching too much CNN on the tube?! Duh?
Who gives us the power or moral right to invade another country without being asked to "free them"...... and then do so by bombing their cities?! DO YOU NOT SEE THAT FLAW. Or does it not matter since it's not your country being bombed.
And what about when China attacks Taiwan now... or N. Korea attacks the South. WHO THE F*CK are we then to tell them to stop? Now..... after we relinquished most of our moral righteousness we heretofore claimed!
Think for yourself! We were told the invasion was due to alleged nukes, not freedom for an allegedly oppressed people . We don't live there. .. and any revolution is up to them.
We can help... but don't attack thereby setting a precedent that will live in infamy (despite how the media and politicians spin this one)!
Ice
Of course Bush dumbed down the reasons for invading Iraq. How could you expect the public to understand the remote goals of the invasion?
Freeing the Iraqis per se is incidental, but will be a good thing if a stable democracy can eventually be installed. Removing a tyranny is a first step.
What gives us the right to invade without an invitation?- That's an inherent paradox. You can't invade with invitation. But the Iraqi National Congress has been begging for an invasion for 20 years. Can we invade with legitimate national security concern without traditional provocation? Good question. If it works, we'll have our answer.
It would make a big difference were our cities being bombed (mine was in a way). You might feel differently had the Sears tower come crumbling down.
So why Iraq? So what's the connection? At first not much. But who else can we invade and get away with it and establish a military presence in the Middle East that is large enough to really effect reform? Syria? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain are already "friends."
I said it here months ago:
Saddam is:
1) the wrong guy - A tyrant with expansionist tendencies
2) in the wrong place - The middle East
3) at the wrong time - Post 9/11
Eliminating Iraq, and that is what we are doing, there will be a new Iraq, is step one in fighting terror, by giving a base of operations against extremism, which will give the US massive coercive power against forces that support Al queda, like the rich Arabs. A group whose philosophical core demands the death of non-muslims is bankrolled by some in the economic mainstream in the Arab lands. That is scary.
iceman1 - the Middle East plays by a completely different set of rules. And power is rule number 1. Power is legitimacy. They don't vote there, not yet at least. The Arabs and Muslims have failed to reign in their extremists and have tossed up Palestine as the Red Herring. their people are exporting terror which must be fought systemically.
Bush spoke at a university last month and was asked by a student why can't sanctions and inspections work. In what was an honest and unrehearsed reply, Bush said, 'I mean therapy is not going to change his (Saddam's) evil mind". The students laughed, but he is right. The Middle East responds to and respects power.
Your points about individual Nation actions in a global framework are valid, such as your China-Taiwan example.
I hate all this time and attention the Middle East is demanding, it's a drag on the world, economically, socially, politically, and emotionally.
P.S. The Untied States has indeed had a mixed record on intervention. We have removed dictators and have installed them. Why do the critics of our Iraqi policy only reference our past blunders?
