Swank,
I do not understand your thought process. You seem to want to take facts, and twist them to meet your own preconceived notions.
>The gripe about the memo is that it clearly shows Bush was fully intent on war when at the same moment he was telling the American people that he wished to avoid it and considered it a 'last resort.' This was a clear manipulation.<
Bush was intent on regime change, removing the obvious threat. He gave Saddam and his family the opportunity to leave Iraq, and therefore open up the country. As always, Saddam made a bad choice. Do you honestly believe Bush wanted a war? You truly believe that? You think he wanted to sacrifice the lives of young men and women, if it was not needed?
>The war was supposedly waged almost exlcusively over the WMDs. As we can all recall, the WMDs and weapons inspections were nearly all we heard about at the time. This talk of having to remove Saddam and bring democracy and such were all remote seconds and thirds to the overwhlemingly hyped WMD threat.<
That is not correct either. There were many reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq. It was the media alone that concentrated on WMDs. Further, it was Saddam himself, and his proven negative capabilities which were the greatest reasons given for invading. Once again, what possible difference could it make if Saddam had readily available WMD, or that he could produce it within a short time. Both situations presented a risk that could not be taken. Common sense: If stockplies of WMD were a threat, then the intent and capability to produce that WMD is also a threat.
From the beginning till now, Bush has remained consistant in his stance on human rights and democracy in Iraq, and the benefits that could be acheived throughout the middle east by regime change in Iraq. The press was just slow on the uptake, or chose to ignore it.
>This is somewhat off topic, but I've recently heard a lot of chatter from conservatives over the importance of toppling the regime due to Hussein's human rights violations. I find the argumnet's about Saddam's atrocites and such to be fairly weak for the following reasons:
1) If it was so essential that he be removed for his human rights violations, why were we not all over him during the gassing of the Kurds and his own people? It is worth mentioning that we supported his regime financially and militarily during some of his worst phases.<
You must be joking. I saw, read and heard the hue and cry over all of Saddams actions over two decades. In fact, the entire world was centered on condemnation of Saddam many times within the last 20 years. It was not until France, Germany, and Russia began to profit from their Saddam relations that he became acceptable, to some, once again. Look at history in a bright light.
>2) There are many places and countries around the world that have exponentially more terrible losses of life due to violent governments and leaders. The recent terrors in Africa are a great example. Would Bush spend hundreds of billions of dollars and send the majority of our military in to occupy Sudan because of human rights violations there? Even though close to a million people have died recently due to genocidal efforts? The answer is no, as it is almost anywhere in the world where people are being killed senselessly by corrupt and evil men. So the notion that we deposed Hussein over his human rights abuse is, in my opinion, laughable.<
So, genocide for all? If it occurs in one area, it must be ok everywhere? That is absurd. The UN has great responsibility for inaction in Africa. Why do you lay all of the sins of the world at the feet of the US? The obvious answer is that there were many reasons to go into Iraq, most notibly, security concerns, and not just human rights violations.
But in my opinion, the US should have led a military contingent into the Sudan. And yes, the purpose would be regime change. But then, you would here the exact same critisism of Bush that you are hearing now.
>3) I believe the most recent estimate by our own people was that some 8,000 Iraqis had been killed by insurgent attacks in the last 6 months. Add this to the enormous amount of civillian casualties from our own invasion and you have a death toll that Hussein would have been hard-pressed to keep up with.<
Once again, you must be joking. Saddam's death toll was in the hundreds of thousands. Not only in Iran and Kuwait, but his own people. His atrocities were regular and consistant. The evidence is overwhelming. And not just deaths, but torture and other horrendous acts that did not lead to death.
>We created the insurgency, therefore their murders are partially on our hands.<
Within the last couple of days, I saw the stats of the number of Iraqi civilians killed by insurgents. It was less than 1500. But to attempt to put any of those deaths at the feet of the US is once again, absurd. The terrorists are targeting Iraqi civilians. They are attempting to incite a civil war, and to break the will of the Iraqis to pursue democracy. This is a fight for power, good vs evil. That alone is worth the fight and sacrifice of the Iraqis and the US. It should be obvious to all the results and consequences of success or defeat in Iraq.
>At any rate, as it is clear for all to see, I am always a bit irked when Hussein's cruelty is cited as a valid reason for our having gone over there. We know he had no real capability to attack the US (his military was laughably weak at the tiem of invasion and we had plenty of intelligence on this prior to doing so), and posed no real threat to the states.<
Your view is myopic. Why do you even consider the military of Saddam, when that was not the threat? As I explained before, the threat was from his desire and stated intent to produce WMD, using vast oil revenue to acquire anything he wanted. It would be a very simple thing to ship it to the US, and to distribute it using either Al Queda or his own Bathists.
On 9/11, it seems nobody considered a poorly funded terror organization to be a great threat to the US either. 3000 people died. Saddam had much greater resources to rely upon.
>Iran and Saudi Arabia are vastly more dangerous dimplomatically and financially, but we don't like to talk about that.<
Saddam had been a threat for twenty years. His thought process and intentions were well known. He had cost the world billions of dollars and countless lives before being taken out. The same cannot be said for Iran or SA at this time. As with Saddam, diplomatic means must be fully looked at before military action is taken in Iran. But make no mistake, if Iran continues as it has, they will be a military target. It will be interesting to see how events transpire after the recent election. I do not have great hopes.
>The ideas about fighting terrorism and linking it to 9/11 are equally weak to me, and appearently many others judging by the the poor reception of Bush's recent national address demonstrates, but that has all been coverd elsewhere and is far too detailed to get into here.<
As he has consitantly stated, from right after 9/11 till now, this war is a global war. It is being fought in many countries, and in many ways. As of now, the center is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The key to winning is taking the fight to the terrorists, not allowing them any respite. If you do, they will regroup, and strike at the west again. Over the last 25 years, police action has proven to be ineffective. Military action is proving to be very effective.
And yes, if the war in Iraq and Afghanistan tends to draw in people inclined to support terrorists, then it is being effective.
Bigger
