On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:41:13 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:06 PM 9/7/2004 +1000 Andrew Paul wrote: > >I still want someone to tell me what Iraq has to do with terrorism, > >Or 'had' to do with terrorism, as it may well have a lot to do with it > >in the future. I wish people would stop saying terrorism and Iraq in > >the same sentence, or else explain, with the addition of some evidence.> > > I've addressed this many times on the List, but here is a quick summary: > > 1) Following September 11th, it was clear that letting failed States fester > posed a threat to the United States. Back in 1994, it would not have been > obvious that Taliban-occupied Afghanistan was a threat to the United States > - but this country would go on to produce the most devastating attack on > the United States in 50+ years.
Standard meme now used to justify intervention in all small states not friendly to the United States. Also the "country" did not attack the United States. Gen. Thomas, who actually supports Bush, said that when we had the chance to go to war against the terrorists in Afghanistan and eliminate the threat this administration shut the war down to prepare for the not terrorism related invasion of Iraq. > > 2) Following September 11th, if terrorists were able to kill thousands > using airplanes, it immediately became worrisome as to how many thousands > could be killed through the use of WMD's. Saddam Hussein had twice come > within a year or so of building a nuclear bomb in 1981 and again in 1991. > Moreover, Western intelligence services had been previously caught > completely by surprises in 1991, again in India and Pakistans several years > later, again in the DPRK in 2001, and then again in Iran in 2003. Given > that intelligence could not be relied upon to predict when a nuclear bomb > would be imminent, pre-emptive action was necessary due to the tremendous > downside of letting Hussein go nuclear. Saddam was within a couple years in 81, he had a nuclear program in 91 but many years away from a bomb. So you are saying that given our intelligence is so bad the slightest possible threat justifies military intervention. > > 3) The primary grievance of Osama bin Laden was the permanent placement of > US troops in Saudi Arabia - a strategic necessity so long as Saudi Arabia > continued to supply the plurality of the world's oil and so long as Saddam > Hussein remained in power on Saudi Arabia's border. Eliminating Saddam > Hussein would permit the US to begin to defuse this grievance. After 91 Saddam was not a threat to Saudi Arabia, bases could have been moved and some were being moved to neighboring states. There were many opportunities to remove Saddam, none created the desired outcome of a US client state. > > 4) The September 11th attacks were carried out by a large number of Saudis > - apparently iun large part due to #3, and probably also in large part in > reaction to the tyranny in their own country. This necessitated working > for reform, if not regime change in Saudi Arabia - something that was > impossible so long as US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. Removing > Saddam Hussein would permit us to take stronger gambles with pressuring > Saudi Arabia for change. This is funny, there is no pressure on the house of Saud to change from the closely linked Bush family. This argument is funny, nuclear proliferation is the most serious threat facing the United States and no administration has paid less attention to it. This administration by its actions and policies is encouraging North Korea and Iran to go nuclear to create a balance of terror nuclear standoff. > > 5) Two of the primary sources of Arab outrage against the US are the > continued occupation of the Palestinian people by Israel and the > impoverishment of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein and UN Sanctions - > both of which are often blamed on the US. Removing Saddam Hussein would > eliminate a funding source for Palestinian terrorism - the single greatest > obstacle to peace there, as well as ending the UN sanctions on the Iraqi > people and leading to their eventual relative economic prosperity. First statement true. Saddam was not a funding source for Palestinian terrorism, to cultivate good will he would started providing money to families of dead Palestinians. Iraq has gone from being in your terms a failed Islamic state to a failed US client state with even less economic prosperity. > > 6) Removing Saddam Hussein and installing a semi-liberal democracy in Iraq > ala Turkey or Bangladesh would serve as a kernal for reform in one of the > most totalitarian regions of the world - which not coincidentally is also > the wellspring of most of the world's terrorism. I read the books before the war, this is liberal reverse domino theory hijacked by those who think the U.S. having half of the world's military spending is not nearly enough. Naivety and war profiteering, Uber allies. Gary " pull my other finger" Denton -- #2 on google for liberal news "I don't try harder" _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
