Why the war on iraq ?

[Black Dog]

I think maybe we are just more aware of the Jihadi's work since 9/11, they have been busy committing murder of the infidels for 1400 years.

And Christians have killed Muslims, Christians have killed Chirstians, Jews have killed Muslims, Hindus killed Muslims etc etc etc. Religious extermism is not a one-way street. Hell, I'd wager that, in the 20th Century alone, secular states have been responsible for more deaths than Islam during its entire history.

[Argus]

Tsk. I'm really going to have to keep this in a file and simply re-post it every time someone gets into this. I'm sure some of you have read it before as I've posted it on this web site at least a few times. Curiously, no one has ever disputed it.

It can be said that Islamism is, in part, an outgrowth of the miserable conditions and lack of freedom in the Muslim world, particularly the Arab world. There are no other outlets for political expression, and Islam has always been a religion which not only teaches personal values but also includes an entire framework for government. Thus with no other political options it's clear why so many would embrace radical Islam as an opposition to the reigning tyrants of the middle east.

Invading Iraq could be a means to address that, to get to the "roots" of the problem, as so many have demanded. If the US can turn Iraq, a miserable dictatorship of oppression, into something resembling a stable, representative democracy it will be something like a beacon in the Arab world. Iraq is perfectly positioned for this, right smack in the middle between Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Their citizens could not possibly fail to notice such a form of government if it functions well. And we've already heard the cry in Lebanon "If Iraqis can vote why can't we!?" which led to an election there.

And that's with the current mess in Iraq. Imagine how effective the message would be if Iraq was stable.

In addition, having Iraq as an ally allows the US considerably more leeway in putting pressure on Saudi Arabia - the true centre and origin of Islamist terrorism in the world. Having control of Iraq oil would allow them to put intense pressure on the house of Saud to reform and stop subsidising radical Islamic schools and clerics around the world, or face the consequences.

Now maybe this won't work. But you can see that it certainly could be a strategy for curtailing Islamism as a growing phenomenom, and Islamic terrorism, which seems otherwise certain to grow and spread and become more powerful. It won't work in the short term, of course, but in the medium to long term it could be highly effective.

So you can see why the Islamists are fighting tooth and nail to make sure Iraq does not become a democracy, and why neighbouring dictators are turning a blind eye to border incursions, to groups of foreign radicals passing through their territory on their way to Iraq.

Now would anyone care to dispute the logical basis behind any of this, or suggest an alternative strategy short of surrender which seems more likely to do more to address the "root causes" of Islamism?

[Black Dog]

*Sigh* No one is disputing that democracy and such would be beneficial to the region. What is in dispute is the tactics used to accomplish that strategy (if indeed, democracy is the end goal and not simply a happy byproduct: I personally don't accept the view that the invasion of Iraq was predicated on spreading democracy). Invading their countries, killing their people and handing the radicals a new cause on a silver platter is going to do nothing to curb the spread of anti-western sentiment in a region that still harbours grudges from the 9th century.

[Argus]

*Sigh* No one is disputing that democracy and such would be beneficial to the region. What is in dispute is the tactics used to accomplish that strategy (if indeed, democracy is the end goal and not simply a happy byproduct: I personally don't accept the view that the invasion of Iraq was predicated on spreading democracy).  Invading their countries, killing their people and handing the radicals a new cause on a silver platter is going to do nothing to curb the spread of anti-western sentiment in a region that still harbours grudges from the 9th century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You misunderstand. I never claimed the Americans and Brits are trying to spread democracy in the middle east for it's own sake. They're trying to spread it to defuse the growing attraction of Islamism, to provide another outlet - one which would hopefully be less hostile to them. I'm not suggesting for a single instant they're acting out of altruism and nobility here. I don't think they particularly care what happens to the people of the middle east, just what happens to their own people.

Which really is pretty much as it should be.

[Black Dog]

You misunderstand. I never claimed the Americans and Brits are trying to spread democracy in the middle east for it's own sake. They're trying to spread it to defuse the growing attraction of Islamism, to provide another outlet - one which would hopefully be less hostile to them. I'm not suggesting for a single instant they're acting out of altruism and nobility here. I don't think they particularly care what happens to the people of the middle east, just what happens to their own people

I understand perfectly that they are acting in their own interests. But I don't believe are acting in the intersts of the security of their own people, otherwise they wouldn't have undertaken a strategy that greatly increases the threat to their security. And I also think that, given the way the raq situation has panned out, that all bets are off as to how this will bear out.

[Trial-and-Error]

It is not irrelevant when it was one of the major supporting points for the invasion of Iraq. Which turned out to be total bull. I read that article, and you can come up with other credible sources? Look where Powel is now. Retired and totaly distanced himself from the allegations of the Al Queada-Iraq-911 connections. Also you may want to note what Powell was telling the world in 2001, before the WTC attacks. Then after the attacks, all that starts to come out that he DOES have WMDs. Why the change of speech?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm Watch the little video.

Also the other reasons for war, was the WMDs and chemical weapons. Hans Blix found nothing in Iraq. And since then the US has stopped the hunt for WMDs in Iraq. If that was a major reason for war, why just give up?

When you have a podium of Al queda links, WMDs, chem weapons, the threat to other neighbours ect, and they turn out to be all lies. The invasion of Iraq was wrong. Regardless of Saddams past history.

Why was he not just taken out in the first Gulf War? Why was he even given the chance to build up WMDs and links to Al Queda. Tell me that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please note that I didn't link Saddam to Al-Qaeda in my "podium". I said Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, which he most assuredly did. That Saddam supported terrorism, pursued WMD, had not verified the destruction of his WMD stockpile, and posed a threat to neighbouring countries are verifiable facts, not lies.

Saddam was not taken out during the first Gulf War because George Bush Sr. chose to play by the rules mandated by the United Nations, stating that the mission was to end when Iraq's armed forces had been removed from Kuwait. This was undoubtedly a mistake, but it's a nasty double standard on your part to ask the question, in a thread where you've done nothing but defend the inviolability of Iraqi sovereignty.

I've given you my own take on what I considered important facts before the war, and why I believed and still believe that the war was the right thing to do. If you and every other anti-war type want to keep kicking a dead horse, concentrating on the missing WMD issue and doggedy insisting that only a positive Iraq/911 link could justify the invasion, to the exclusion of all other issues, then there's nothing more that I can offer to you. If you choose to limit our debate of the rightness of the war to two as-yet unfinished topics, then congratulations.

I hope you feel as fully justified in your convictions 20 years from now. I know I will. As for the present, I can't be bothered to go any further with this thread.,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, thank gawd for small mercies--and while you're at it, stay away from the other threads too. You bring absolutely nothing to the table except Bushco talk. Hell, we can get that crap direct from the Ass himself.

And don't be so disingenuous as to claim that you can't be bothered to go any further with this thread. You were a non-starter from the beginning. Naturally, you can't go any further. You have exhausted your repertoire of Bushco mumblings and now you're stuck.

Don't try taking on GostHacked and Black Dog--you're simply not their match.