Originally posted by JaTo:
A bunch a radical kooks in Afghanistan and 19 certain Arab individuals weren't considered much of a threat to the US or it's interests on September 10th, 2001, either. Sorry, but I fully consider those that claim to HATE America and plot against her THREATS, whether of our own making or not. If anything, September 11th proved one doesn't have to have a division of tanks and scores of infantry to be able to cause harm to the US...


So we then procede to attack a division of tanks and scores of infantry. Ok.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Then please state where exactly this current administration has failed in it's stated aims and goals so far.


Would you rather I comment on "its stated aims and goals" or "its aims and goals"?

Originally posted by JaTo:
Hussein would have NEVER capitulated, hence the main threat would have never been removed without US infantry boots pounding the pavement in Baghdad. Are you suggesting we should have kept Hussein in power, and if so, why?


I am "suggesting" this, because again, I do not see him or his division of tanks and scores of infantry as any more a threat than any other country we have conflict with. I do not see his WMD as any more of threat than China's. I do not see his missiles as any more of threat than Iran's. I may be "pushing my ignorance of history" here but the last twenty years reaffirm this.

Did Saddam and Iraq pose a threat? Yes, if you were Kuwait or Iran.

Originally posted by JaTo:
I did. I have a question, then. What IS your opinion of the Regan administration's moves towards Iraq? A lack of an opinion can state an awful lot in itself, though this may be yet another situation to where I read too much into things...


I have little more than a basic grasp on the situation and events back then, so I will stick with my "lack of an opinion."

Originally posted by JaTo:
I would say that is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, as a Democratic Iraq can offer the US and it's allies FAR more than just oil. It would remove yet another regional threat against Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, as well as a long-term threat against us. In time, it can only bring about far less human rights violations against it's own population. It will hopefully give the Kurds a voice in the way that they will be governed. It will hopefully show other Arab nations that we have no interest in becoming a "colonial empire", especially when we get up and get the hell out of there, though given the current state of affairs, this will take some time (maybe a year or two).


In the years after the Gulf war and with American troops in Kuwait, I did not see Iraq as a regional threat. There was nothing that led me to believe they posed any threat to their neighbors. I have no reason to suspect the next ten would have been any different. You already know my opinion on Iraq being a "long-term threat against us" so I will not comment on it further. I do not know if the Kurds will get a voice or if countries like Turkey would even allow it. Until "we get up and get the hell out of there" we have done the opposite and shown other Arab and non-Arab nations that we have an interest in becoming a colonial empire.

Originally posted by JaTo:
...nor do I doubt the overall aims of our current leaders regardless of their oil ties. I would have respected Bush, Sr. a great deal more if he had followed through with his promises to the Kurds back in Desert Storm. Guess what, he has the same oil ties as his son does, for the most part and he didn't push into Baghdad...


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.



Originally posted by JaTo:
Ponder this:
If we waltzed into Baghdad in '91, removed Hussein and started to establish a Democratic government then, we wouldn't have had a need to place troops in Saudi Arabia in the fashion we did during Desert Storm (to protect Saudi from a potential Iraqi invasion). Bin Laden has ALWAYS stated that the placement of foreign troops in the most holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia, was a crime beyond reproach and repair, and it was this that finally pushed him to dedicate his time and efforts to waylaying America in any way that he could...


I have not heard bin Laden say this, but I have the feeling he would not have appreciated troops in Iraq any more. I believe bin Laden's true reason for his fatwa has to do with Israel-Palestine conflicts and our involvement in them.

I would have been supportive of pushing into Iraq at that time. I do not want to get into it, but there were many factors that justified it which are no longer present. As I have stated earlier, I do not believe it could have happened though. The same Americans who would have been against it because "What did Iraq ever do to us?" are now the same ones overreacting to an obvious terrorist attack and lashing out with support of this war. This administration has stated its reasons and justifications for the war many times, but the only reason they were able to start this conflict was because of September 11th. September 11th would have happened no matter how we had handled the situations in Iraq years ago. But this war would not have happened without September 11th.

-Giovanni One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.