Who Will You Vote For..?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'd like to know where the WOMD's are too. Can the Bush-backers at least admit they were dead wrong on that?? They went to war on assumed information.

Iraq is a complete mess. The insurgents are going to fight back for years and years, they're not going to give up, we're playing right into their game. We need to clean things up the best we can and get the hell out. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

If Iraq was such a "threat", why are we not going after North Korea with the same fervor?? They appear to be the much more viable and realistic threat. I guess there's not enough oil in that part of the world. LOL

Okay, getting in late and, as always, will never address everything everyone can possibly raise. But, I'll give it a go...

WMD's in Iraq: At some point prior to involving the UN, Bush believed that Saddam constituted a significant threat to the USA. After that point, war (for Bush) became inevitable and information/evidence that contradicted that conclusion was dismissed. Evidence which supported the WMD theory was subjected to little if any scrutiny. With that said, there was little doubt in the world community (France, Russia, Germany and Russia to name a few) that Iraq had WMD's. The debate was never really whether Saddam was developing them but, rather, at what stage of development were they and what should be done to stop Iraq from proceeding - In fact, during the lead up to war, the International Atomic Counsel asserted that Iraq could have nuclear capacity within (worst case scenario) six months.

After Bush accepted that he had to goto the UN, it was clear that the main european countries arguing for delay were the same countries illegally profiting from the UN's oil for food program (France, Russia). Also, rather than full disclosure and cooperation (which would have revealed the lack of WMD's and compliance with prior UN mandates), Iraq chose to delay and obfuscate. For anyone inclined to believe in the evil intent of Saddam, such actions only buttressed the idea that he was contravening UN sanctions and attempting to gain time.

Yes. Bush was dead wrong on WMD's. So was the world. At the time of the US invasion, no major country doubted their existence. Instead, many nations who were profiting from the status quo argued for its continuation. Bush disagreed with the UN's continuing appeasement of Saddam and acted to preempt the possible (and at the time, seen by all as likely) development and deployment of WMD's by a country that had:1) Demonstrated the willingness to deploy WMD's in a battlefield setting; 2) Had used the WMD's on its own population; and 3) Had demonstrated the willingness to launch unprovoked offensives on US allies and US interests.

I believe the war was a judgment call by Bush made based on his belief that SH would, sooner rather than later, become a threat to both the stability of the Middle East and to the US allies and interests (oil, Isreal, and strategic military bases) in the region.

As for me, I have mixed feelings on the entrance into the war. I believe Bush rushed into it and, rather, should have continued to try and get the UN to do more than talk about Saddam. I do not believe, however, that the war was entered into for the purpose of profiteering by Bush's corporate allies or for any other hidden evil agenda. Bush may have been rash but, IMO, he did not act out of malice or greed.

Postwar Iraq: In hindsight, it is easy to say we should have anticipated the million things that have gone wrong. At the same time, it does appear (to me at least) that their are enough reports of normalcy coming from Iraq to indicate that, for a country with little or no infrastructure, little or no history of secular democracy, and little or no history of true religious tolerance (i.e. not the Baathist tolerance which was basically intolerant to all religions), Iraq is making progress. This country is being built, literally, from the ground up. The rewards for a strong stable democratic Iraq in the Middle East are immeasurable.

As for the comparison - sorry, Iraq is not Vietnam. In that both involved an isurgent movement, they are similar. But that is about it. In Vietnam, the US backed a corrupt, anti-communist regime (which the US had essentially installed) that was in turn fending off an invasion from a neighboring country. The local insurgency was supported in part by the local communist party but received its main support from the invading army. Further, the local insurgency was effectively destroyed in the 1968 TET offensive and never again was a significant force in the war. The South Vietnamese government only lost the war after the political fall-out from the TET offensive forced US ground troops to be w/drawn allowing the North Vietnamese Army to defeat the poorly led and unmotivated South Vietnamese regular army. It was the NVA, not the VietCong that took Saigon.

In Vietnam, the insurgency failed in the field and lost its military battle after 3 years of significant US troop involvement.

The situation in Iraqis more akin to Post WWII Germany but a) without the backing of a truly powerful multinational alliance and b) with a much more diverse and divided population. In each case, the invading power (us) attempted/is attempting to build a nation. Post WWII Germany had been subject to tyranny for just only about one generation and did have a history, although nascent, of liberal democracy. Unlike Iraq, it was generally a homogenous population. Additionally, unlike Iraq, Germany's post war insurgents defended a discredited ideaology that had no foreign support. These significant differences create a more difficult nation building problem. Undoubtedly, some of these could have been better anticipated. At the same time, given the international community's lack of knowledge of day to day Iraqi life, the depth of the infrastructure problems could not be known by anyone until access was gained by ridding Iraq of Saddam.

It will be a long hard row in Iraq. Bush's decisions have made us responsible for the building of a nation. Regardless of how we got there, and at this point, failure would be close to catastrophic. I firmly believe that the failure to establish a solid secular democracy in Iraq will lead to the complete destabilization of the Mid East and terrorist attacks on US soil.

Finally, and although not its origin, the war on terror is now being fought in Iraq. It's an "away game" we need to unequivocally win.

I believe Bush understands these points and Kerry simply does not.

Korea - Unlike Iraq, N.Korea has only rattled its saber. It has and continues to use its nuclear capacity as a bargaining chip BUT it has yet to demonstrate its willingness to use them. Since the Korean War and unlike Iraq, NK has simply not demonstrated either the will or the economic power to create war on its neighbors. Different threats require different tactics. In that vein Bush has pursued the multi nation diplomatic course to diplomatically and economically isolate NK and force concessions from it without the need for invasion.

There are a lot of assertions contained in my post which I believe are backed up from primary source materials. As I am at work and needed to leave 5 minutes ago, I apologize for the lack of citation. But, bottom line, the boss (my wife) told me to get my ass home and, in THAT discussion, I have no vote.

Now with my disclaimer attached, blast away.