Comments on: Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
Add a Comment
- Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice. - Reply to this comment
- Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice. - Reply to this comment
- Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice. - Reply to this comment
- Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice. - Reply to this comment
- Senator Rockefeller is absolutely correct when he states that the world would be better off had we never invaded Iraq, even id Saddam were still in power.
By invadeing Iraq we have greatly destabilized the entire region. A secular Iraq was as close to a "liberal" government as there was(outside Isreal)in the Mid East. As a secular Sunni, Saddam had no love for either Iran or Osama and his buddies. He may be a thug, but he's not a fundamentalist. He probably sponsored his share of terrorists, but they were more likely to act on his interrests than some larger Pan-Islam cause, and therefore was unlikely to get recruits from around the world.
Had these fools taken the time to consult with Social Scientists before they went charging into Iraq they might have learned that there are more than one flavor of Muslem.
Had they listened to their generals instead of fireing them they may still have been able to pull their bacon out of the fire, but as none of them had any worthwhile or measurable millitary experience, they had no way of evaluateing the advice they were presented with.
In the end, it's our fault. We elected them..................twice. - Reply to this comment
- Am I supposed to believe that Saddam Hussein, whose army surrendered to us like a troop of Girl Scouts (not once but twice), kept al Qaeda out of Iraq? I'm sorry, but huh?
- Reply to this comment
- The New York Times is surely correct to point out that the United States is in dire need of a real world solution to the quagmire in Iraq. %u201CListing the sins of the Bush administration,%u201D they write, %u201Cmay help to clarify how we got here, but it will not get us out (NYT; 9/11/06).%u201D
The precipitous withdrawal of troops from Iraq would probably invite anarchy and civil war there, even if we leave behind a smaller military force as we have in Germany, from after World War II to the present day. One solution might be to install a United Nations multinational peace keeping force as a transitional authority, whilst the American military stands down from a full occupation of Iraq. Such a gesture would hopefully keep civil war from breaking out; it would introduce a more international mix of voices--and capital--involved in reshaping and rebuilding Iraq into a democratic society; and it would demonstrate that the United States is not in the business of Empire Building.
It would also demonstrate that the Bush administration is sincere about wanting to end the war in a timely fashion.
David S. Bommer
San Antonio, TX - Reply to this comment
- Finally, we have someone stand up and say what needed to be be said months earlier. Saddam did not pose a threat to the U S prior to the war. I only wish more of the elected officials who voted for this war would have the fortiude to say the same. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator, but he was Iraq's evil dictator. He had no WMD's, no ties to AQ, and no nuclear programs. All three were the reasons to go to war. History has shown that dictators will fall from within when the people rise up and take a stand. Now Mr. Cheney in his appearance with Tim Russert yesterday stated that is was all the fault of George Tennet and the CIA. I do not buy into Mr. Cheney's premise. In addition, now Iraqi government, less the Sunni members because they are boycotting the meetings, is moving to split Iraq into three autonomous regions. North for the Kurds, South for the Shiites and Central for the Sunnis. Oil in the North and South and sand in the central. Will this lead to move civil war and sectarian violence, of course it will.
- Reply to this comment
- The Bush Administration still misses the big picture. Sadam Hussein kept the terrorists out of Iraq for years, and the terrorists feared Sadam and his Red Guard. Iraq was no place for Al-Quaida terrorists prior to March 2003. They wouldn't dare step foot in Sadam territory. In fact, Sadam, our former ally, could have been massaged into helping us thwart off the Iranian threat with a little diplomacy that the CIA, since the 1950's, used so skillfully with other dictators around the world. Our intelligence, good or bad, had little relevance to taking out Sadam Hussein. We missed a golden opportunity to take out the 'clear and present danger' in Iran with the help of Sadam Hussein, and offering a couple of carrots in return.
- Reply to this comment
- ihtltd said-- "<b>The reasons for the war, as presented by our government was wrong and deceptive. Human Rights violations should have been reason enough to take such a drastic step.</b>
These are interesting ideas, but to put the ethic into practice, unfortunately, you would have to declare war on a considerable list of states-- some small, some large, some nuclear, some with other WMDs (real ones)-- and you would have to take on them all. That is, to be really consistent, which is, after all, the idea behind ethical principles.
You appear to be comfortable with relatively small, "ethical demonstration" programs like Iraq. Unfortunately, again, the intended lesson is not being widely taken even a few hundred miles distant, much less around the world. Is the next step to declare war on the world's miscreants, one by one, until they heel on your command?
This brings up another issue-- whose command and whose interpretation of the principles you cite? There are people in the world who consider the US invasion, itself, as a violation of the UN charter. There are some, surely, who applauded Abu Graib and Mahmoudiya and Haditha. This is not an argument for relativist ethics, but a suggestion the problem is embedded in the way the world presently works. Work peacefully for regime change, and drop the idea of "preemptive" war-- it's still a war. - Reply to this comment
