yesterday's problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:48 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
(deep breath)
I guess I have a few minutes.
1. As it turns out the US was not threatened. One could argue that
Bush perhaps thought it was. To which I would reply, given the reports
dismissed as "just guessing" do you really think he exercised due
diligence in finding out?
Hindsight. Everyone thought that he had them back then. A prudent person
would have to think he had them based on the evidence and his actions at the
time. From what I've read, he may have even thought he had them. I certainly
wouldn't want to have to tell him that we didn't have any.
2. Is oil a vital US interest or just a chemical it is addicted to?
Let's not even mention Haliburton. Does Israel represent a vital US
interest? Or is it just our long-standing policy to be its ally? These
were Kevin's reasons. What vital US interests do you feel were at
stake?
Oil is a vital interest, but I don't think that flow was threatened at this
time. Israel is not a vital interest, but a moral commitment. In my view,
the vital interest was the interest of law. The UN passed a law, then refused
to enforce it. That diminishes everything they do, substantially reducing
true peace. Creating a stable democratic Arab/Muslim state is also a US vital
interest. But that could never, ever, be the rationalization for an invasion.
3. Dubious, considering that we have not so far and the mood in
Congress was never promising.
There were no indications at the time that resources would not be available.
4. WMD no wait liberating the Iraqi people no wait attacking
terrorists before they attack us.
Enforce UN resolution. Clear, direct, unequivocal.
5. It is to laugh. Or perhaps it is to weep :)
Hindsight. And preventable. This was the result of bad decisions.
6. Why should they? At best public opinion is very divided.
I agree with you.
7. Well, let's see. We ordered the inspectors out of Iraq.....we
didn't bother to wait for the Security Council....
Yes we had. There we no expectations that Saddam would increase compliance
according to the resolution and there was no expectations that France, Germany
or Russia, singling or together would ever remove their veto. And while we
wanted, we paid for how many troops waiting to enforce UN actions at our
expense. How quickly would Saddams even meager compliance end once those
troops were withdrawn? I didn't see anyone else saying, Hay, lets wait. Here
is 30-40 million to help defray expenses.
Again, it really all depends on your perspective and which items you take as
"fact" and which as "guessing".
Andy
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Ousterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Is the US being seriously threatened?
2. Is a vital US interest at stake?
3. Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
4. Are the objectives clearly defined?
5. Will we sustain the commitment?
6. Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support
the operation?
7. Have we exhausted our other options?________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
