If I remember right the US just fought a war to prevend Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction. OK, the old regime was oppressive to its people and overall evil but at least it wasn't cooperating with islamist terrorists (Yes, I know some people want us to believe they do). So, what's the situation now. The regime is gone, control is gone and the weapon's of mass destructions are gone.
Hmm, where might they be? Maybe, somebody already found them.
Just imagine. You used to be a member of the iraqi government. Now you are unemployed. You need money. You know where the wmds are. A friend of a friend has ties to alquaeda. What's the reason again you lost your job?
It's clear to me there's lots of evidence that Saddam Hussein was working with terrorists now, and more comes out daily.
I'm more comfortable with control of the situation whether than just guessing who and how the terrorists are being supported.
Since Saddam had not given up his expansionist goals, Iraq was building up their military at the expense of their people and continued to reaffirm their claim to Kuwait (in violation of the armistice signed in 1992, btw), I was very concerned that Iraq hoped to force the US out of the region with devastating terrorist attacks.
The fact that 9/11 required only a $500,000 investment, but cost the US $700,000,000,000 in economic damage could not have been lost on Hussein.
Re:Not cooperating with Terrorists?
malte on 2003-04-24T21:02:26
$700,000,000,000?
Yeah, without 9/11 we'd probably still be buying Yahoo stocks for $100+
You really think you're safer now. Just because the terrorists can't stay in Iraq? Well, they're gonna move somewhere else. The US won't stop them with force before they either colonized the whole and I don't think that's anyone's plan.
Ok, I admit I think that is Bush's plan but his mom said she'd be mad if he did it.
Re:Not cooperating with Terrorists?
jordan on 2003-04-24T21:38:45
Yes, $700 Billion in economic damage.
Remember it closed the US Stock market for almost a week. The World Trade Center was in the heart of the economic district. The insurance industry is still very shaky. Airlines and the travel industry in general took a huge hit. It did a great deal of damage to the overall economy.
- You really think you're safer now. Just because the terrorists can't stay in Iraq?
Yes, I think I'm safer when we go out and actually do something about the problem rather than just quivering in our basements and hoping they won't hurt us again.
What's the alternative? Giving in to every Al Qaeda demand? Lifting the sanctions against Iraq and letting them build Nuclear bombs? Or, if you are not for lifting sanctions, allowing Saddam Hussein to fritter away the oil-for-food money on his palaces while he starves and deprives his people which results in the deaths of 10,000 people every month? Is that what you would prefer?
Look, I'm all for trying to address the regional problems and I think getting rid of oppressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan that support terrorists is a good start.
The US should put strong pressure on Israel for peace (and, of course, the World should put strong pressure on the PLO, too), but if we only addressed the problems without actively attacking the terrorists then the terrorists would be emboldened that they could their concerns addressed through terror.
Re:Not cooperating with Terrorists?
chaoticset on 2003-05-14T04:05:48
'Something', in this case, has yet to be seen as effective. Simple economics dictate that -- currently -- it's cheaper for a 9/11 than a War On Iraq. It's cheaper for someone to become a banana republic dictator and crash a plane into a building than it is to build the building, or build the infrastructure that produced the building, etc.Yes, I think I'm safer when we go out and actually do something about the problem rather than just quivering in our basements and hoping they won't hurt us again.If it's cheaper, and there's any motive, it'll probably happen. How many people on Earth is it currently cheaper to attack us than cooperate -- a few billion?
On the other end of the spectrum, when everyone is living in fear of your government, you have an empire state. Neither is happy, but one is secure (until your empire state is destroyed (see Rome, French Revolution, American Revolution)).
There's no alternative. Social whores here run the show and buy extremely expensive killing machines, social whores there have small power trips and have to improvise their death-dealing. The difference is scale and class, I suppose.What's the alternative? Giving in to every Al Qaeda demand? Lifting the sanctions against Iraq and letting them build Nuclear bombs? Or, if you are not for lifting sanctions, allowing Saddam Hussein to fritter away the oil-for-food money on his palaces while he starves and deprives his people which results in the deaths of 10,000 people every month? Is that what you would prefer?I have a really hard time believing words that come out of the mouths of those that I feel are wholly incompetent or rewarded for taking bribes. I have never seen -- and never will see -- an honest politician. Neither will you. Stop trusting them, stop trusting their information, and don't bother with the news. It's always the same and it's always utterly horrible -- why bother?
Re:Not cooperating with Terrorists?
Maezeppa on 2004-03-23T17:54:04
Sigh. Any Al-Qaedaish operations in Iraq were occuring in the Kurdish territories over which Saddam had no control owing to the US-imposed no fly zone.
Saddam did not have expansionist goals, per se. Learn your history about the Iraq/Kuwait border and learn something of the circumstances surrounding Iraq's post Iran war economic plight and what the dispute with Kuwait entailed.
So change the regime in China, Burma, Zimbabwe too
TeeJay on 2003-04-25T09:44:38
There are many regimes as bad and worse than Iraq. The US and UN did nothing for Indonesia's people under the old regime there.And the war was about Weapons of Mass Destruction, not human rights. WMDs have not been found and the UN could have continued (at least the atomic agency said they could work with or without the support of the Iraqi regime). But now Blix and those qualified have been pushed aside so some CIA and other dubious agencies for the US can 'find' WMDs.
Re:Sickening
malte on 2003-04-25T10:45:09
Oh, you completely misunderstood me. I'm not afraid at all of being struck by terrorism. I feel completely safe.
I'm just saying that those people who thought that say'd be safer now should get a clue.
