VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:08:26 04/01/03 Tue
Author: "Vince From Villanova" (I love this... it's making my brain sweat!)
Subject: You're partially right, but...
In reply to: Sam (Bucks County) 's message, "My point is not whether we should be fighting those who attacked us, my point is where we should be fighting them... (more)" on 18:07:42 03/31/03 Mon

Sam, you said, "There are those in the world with as much will to do us harm as Saddam, and who are much more capable of doing it than Saddam."

That is correct.

"That is where our focus should be."

In an ideal world, that would also be correct.

Too bad we're not in an ideal world, huh?

Much of the rest of the world has now shown us beyond a doubt that they think the only legitimate reason for war is when you've been attacked first. We know that quite clearly now, but we already had a partial view of that last year, when the Iraq debate sprang to the forefront.

Now, you keep mentioning that there are other enemies who are more dangerous than Hussein. So let's travel back in time, shall we? President Bush is looking at the nations in the Axis of Evil, as well as at other nations and organizations that pose a threat to us, and trying to decide who to target next.

Of course, there's Al Qaeda, but we're already doing something about them and have pretty much decimated them already.

There's Iraq, where no weapons inspectors have set foot for several years, who still had chemical and biological weapons when the inspectors left, and who is not likely to have destroyed them on his own. But Hussein's military is still crippled, and his secular nature makes him unpopular with the fundamentalist terrorists, which explains why he has so few terrorist allies.

There's Iran, breeding ground of radical Islamic groups, yet also run by President Khatami (I think I'm screwing up his name, but I'm close...) who is actually moderate and progressive and struggling against the radical elements within his government.

There's North Korea, flaunting its nuclear program before the world, but with a history of doing so for the simple goal of extorting financial and trade considerations out of the USA.

There's Saudi Arabia, also a breeding ground of radical Islam, with a government that pays off terrorist groups to leave them alone but also employs moderate policies within its borders.

Among Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, only Iraq had a years-long record of invading neighboring countries, using weapons of mass destruction, and ignoring United Nations resolutions. And we barely got any international support to take them on. Iran has been behaving itself lately. Saudi Arabia isn't perceived by anybody as a bad guy, except for a slice of right-wingers here in the USA. And North Korea is probably just playing their same tired old extortion game and is unlikely to attack its neighbors.

Personally, I am more worried about North Korea and Saudi Arabia. (I'm optimistic that Khatami is making progress in Iran.) Now, considering the lukewarm support we've been able to land for Iraq, how much international support do you really think we could've gotten to take on North Korea or Saudi Arabia?

None. I guarantee you, none at all.

The only target that Bush had any chance of getting international support about was Iraq. So, he went for them first, tried to rally that support, and mostly failed. But although Hussein is not the biggest danger, he is still a serious danger in his own right and needs to be taken out. And since it's foolish to throw away months of military preparation, Bush made his move.

The other targets will just have to be hit later, unfortunately, and without international support. But it's clear now that we never would have gotten such support anyway. So although Iraq was not the most dangerous target, it was still logical to go after him first. If we HAD been able to build more international support, then success in Iraq would've made the rest of the world more receptive to taking on the rest of the targets.

And even the diplomatic failure on Iraq has its upside, since we've effectively reduced the UN to irrelevance. Is anybody on the Security Council lifting a finger to stop our "illegal" war? Nope, because they know they couldn't stop us if they tried.

Was Hussein the most dangerous target? No. Was he the most logical target to go after first? Yes.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.