Counterpoint
- Thread starter Danoff
- 39 comments
- 1,452 views
- 2,093
Bush Sr. did a great job in the first Gulf War. He mobilised an enormous coalition including support from virtually all the countries in the Middle-East, to stop Saddam's aggression against Kuwait. But in hindsight, he made one error - he had the opportunity to relieve Saddam from office and bring him to justice. Instead, Saddam was left in power, and this allowed Saddam to start his whole shadow-dancing game with the UN.
Correcting his father's mistake, Bush rightfully seized the first opportunity to do something about it. There were many good reasons not to wait for the UN. First of all, it might last forever before Hans Blix would admit he really had no idea what he was talking about because Saddam was playing him like the Swedish fool he was. Second, the season of sand-storms would approach within a few months and these storms would greatly hinder the strategy of the armed forces, calling for more ground troups in the first wave risking many more casualties and giving the Iraqi military a distinct advantage.
The counter-argument that this would undermine the position of the UN was in fact a perk, because the US has long recognised that the UN is nothing more than a big money gobling piece of useless bureaucracy that runs its business a lot less efficient than the US military can do all by itself, which carries the largest burden of military operations anyway. In terms of other allies, the strategy of diplomacy assisted by the threat of use of force works better if your partner in negotiation is thoroughly convinced that you mean business in your willingness to use force. This show of force would send a clear signal to all that the US is not to be toyed with and that cooperation with the US government in hunting down terrorists is in the best interest of all.
Finally, the Iraqi people would be set free from one of the most terrible dictators in the region. This should also send out a clear signal that the US isn't conspiring with other dictators to help them stay in power and be partially guilty to the repression. And who cannot support taking out a man who was as bad as Hitler, and would abuse any kind of weapon, of which he had shown over and over again any kind of intention to develop, predictably at the cost of his own citizens, on which he would no doubt again test the weapons, as he has done before. This can never be allowed, and that in turn is another clear warning to any in the world who have such horrible intentions.
After all this, you'd almost forget that a direct threat to the US could have come from Iraq handing over nuclear and chemical weapons and any other form of support necessary to any terrorist who'd want to use them on the US. But this was a real threat, and it has now been taken care of. Despite the current increase in hostilities, a new government will rise in the US and the Iraqi people will come to appreciate and value the US for coming to their rescue, and out of loyalty will deal harshly all by themselves with any terrorist cell on Iraqi soil. The Iraqi people, like the Europeans, will remain thankful and faithful to the US for many decades to come, will provide the US with a new ally and base in the Middle-East, and last but not least will be a democratic nation that will be an inspiration to all its neighbours.
Amen.
Correcting his father's mistake, Bush rightfully seized the first opportunity to do something about it. There were many good reasons not to wait for the UN. First of all, it might last forever before Hans Blix would admit he really had no idea what he was talking about because Saddam was playing him like the Swedish fool he was. Second, the season of sand-storms would approach within a few months and these storms would greatly hinder the strategy of the armed forces, calling for more ground troups in the first wave risking many more casualties and giving the Iraqi military a distinct advantage.
The counter-argument that this would undermine the position of the UN was in fact a perk, because the US has long recognised that the UN is nothing more than a big money gobling piece of useless bureaucracy that runs its business a lot less efficient than the US military can do all by itself, which carries the largest burden of military operations anyway. In terms of other allies, the strategy of diplomacy assisted by the threat of use of force works better if your partner in negotiation is thoroughly convinced that you mean business in your willingness to use force. This show of force would send a clear signal to all that the US is not to be toyed with and that cooperation with the US government in hunting down terrorists is in the best interest of all.
Finally, the Iraqi people would be set free from one of the most terrible dictators in the region. This should also send out a clear signal that the US isn't conspiring with other dictators to help them stay in power and be partially guilty to the repression. And who cannot support taking out a man who was as bad as Hitler, and would abuse any kind of weapon, of which he had shown over and over again any kind of intention to develop, predictably at the cost of his own citizens, on which he would no doubt again test the weapons, as he has done before. This can never be allowed, and that in turn is another clear warning to any in the world who have such horrible intentions.
After all this, you'd almost forget that a direct threat to the US could have come from Iraq handing over nuclear and chemical weapons and any other form of support necessary to any terrorist who'd want to use them on the US. But this was a real threat, and it has now been taken care of. Despite the current increase in hostilities, a new government will rise in the US and the Iraqi people will come to appreciate and value the US for coming to their rescue, and out of loyalty will deal harshly all by themselves with any terrorist cell on Iraqi soil. The Iraqi people, like the Europeans, will remain thankful and faithful to the US for many decades to come, will provide the US with a new ally and base in the Middle-East, and last but not least will be a democratic nation that will be an inspiration to all its neighbours.
Amen.
- 3,425
I think everyone should vote for kerry because he will bring all the troops back and let the french and the UN guys deal with Iraq. And Kerry will let the government take care of us with health care because we all know that the government is the best at making sure we get stuff like health. kerry will also make sure that the rest of the world aggrees before he attacks anyone. Because we all know the rest of the world knows best when to attack somebody except the French but they can help us learn how to get attacked or learn how to surrender. He will also be more sensitive to the terrorist and the countrys that support them because they have needs too. kerry will also take care of homeland security because he said he will. Please vote for Kerry because he's a Democrat and its thier turn and he's not Al Gore or George Bush and he went to "Nam.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,109
- Mile High City
Saddam Hussein was placed in power by America how hypocritical that then when he doesnt want to do exactly what they tell him to they immediately want him gone. Kuwait had been stealing oil from Iraqs Rumaila oil field and overproducing oil costing Hussein $14 million dollars. That was what lead to Husseins annexation of Kuwait - which the US shouldnt have tried to force their way in to.
The bottom line is that the US wanted to reduce oil prices so they could fill up their huge SUVs and so they couldnt handle it when one of their major oil suppliers might be under control of someone who didnt hand over control to the US.
Thats exactly right! He seized the very first opportunity he could to move in on Iraq and steal their oil. He made no attempt whatsoever at trying to solve the problem diplomatically Im glad youve admitted that. He used 9/11 as an excuse, and doesnt seem to care that thousands of innocent Iraqis died and thousands of US troops have died in the process.
Except that now we know that the UN sanctions on Iraq with respect to weapons of mass destruction were totally working! If they werent how come we cant find any over there? The bottom line is that Saddam was not a threat whatsoever all due to the UN sanctions and inspections. Bush couldnt give any solution that didnt require aggression any chance though.
Well if theyre so useless how come they were able to prevent Saddam from having WMDs? And if theyre so useless, how come the US is strapped for troops and money and is begging Britain for help? Wouldn't the US have been much better off if they had gone to the UN for more assistance and tried to use a more intelligent approach?
It sends a clear message to other countries that the US is hostile and that they must band against us. It sends a clear message to the terrorists that the US is evil and must be destroyed. The only way for the US to have any real hope for diplomacy in the world is if we embrace our neighbors rather than pushing them away.
Any WMDs Saddam might have had have now been leaked into the hands of potential terrorists. Invading Iraq may have caused a massive proliferation of weapons that can be used to attack the US and cause 10 times the damage of 9/11. Those weapons were safer when they were in the hands of a dictator who would certainly not give them up to terrorism since he needed all the weapons he could get to protect himself from other aggressive nations and groups in the region.
No way! There is no way the Iraqis are going to stamp out terrorism on their own. They dont need to because the terrorists arent interested in attacking Iraqis theyre interested in attacking the US. The only thing that Iraqis will come to appreciate is how the US is willing to brutally murder thousands of their innocent women and children in an effort to secure oil and make Bush look good for launching an attack on somebody in response to 9/11.
The bottom line is that Bush should have been going after Bin Laden rather than Saddam. He still doesnt seem to have figured out that it was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. Heres a quote from a fox news article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136114,00.html
...I feel all icky now...
Similar threads
