Bill Tuthill

Typed in Message-ID:


Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most
murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to
countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or
recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow
them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada
actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know
why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a tie
between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory in the
Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the response
was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct.

I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West. If we
in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against countries
that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose.
Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis
Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide
bombings and terrorist murders.
Even Iran is softening its hardline stance.
IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to operate
openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East.

Do you think that the Germans or Japanese loved us when we occupied their
countries?
SYOTR
Larry C.

Larry Cable wrote:

Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think...
(and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth).

The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most
murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to
countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or
recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow
them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada
actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know
why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a
tie between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory
in the Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the
response was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct.

Glad I asked! I thought you were going to mention the strategic importance
of oil. Hard to say how many Saddam killed. Excluding wars, which maybe
I shouldn't, it was probably fewer than Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda.

It seems to be true that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers.
That "terra" justification implies we are fighting a proxy war for Israel.
Such a thing would not seem advisable on grounds of US national interest,
unlike the quest for cheaper oil. Is it worth killing (what is it now,
almost 800) American soldiers to protect Israel? Not to mention tax $$s.

I saw a webpage claiming Iraq was behind the first WTC (van) bombing, but
there was never any follow-up. Another conspiracy-oriented website said
Iraq was behind the Oklohoma City bombing although that's even less likely.
Bottom line: Iraq supported terror, but probably not against the USA.

I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West.
If we in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against
countries that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose.

However it's worth nothing that Islam, especially fundamentalist Islam,
is by no means modern. These guys are not exactly going to make scientific
discoveries and exceed the west in knowledge of and capability for warfare.
It's almost like we're fighting old men. Islam is an imperialistic religion
however, so maybe what scares western elites is its strangely strong appeal
and rejection of modern global-trade values.

Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis
Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide
bombings and terrorist murders. Even Iran is softening its hardline stance.
IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to
operate openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East.

I recuse myself from further comment, being partly of Armenian heritage
and a Tashnak sympathizer.

Bill Tuthill

typed in Message-ID:

Glad I asked! I thought you were going to mention the strategic importance
of oil. Hard to say how many Saddam killed. Excluding wars, which maybe
I shouldn't, it was probably fewer than Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda.

I don't deny the importance of Oil. Saddam would have been of much less concern
if he wasn't in a strategic location and had the oil money to finance his army.

The killings in Rwanda were well under way before the West had any concept of
what was going on there. It would have been difficult for the US to support a
mission there logistically, we are not a big presence in Central Africa. The
French did intervene, just late and probably helped the wrong side.

It seems to be true that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers.
That "terra" justification implies we are fighting a proxy war for Israel.
Such a thing would not seem advisable on grounds of US national interest,

The PLO trained terrorist from everywhere during their heyday. Groups as
diverse as the IRA to the Shining Path. Do you really think that there isn't
still a connection between radical Islamist Groups? Al Quada has made several
attacks on Isreali interest outside of Isreal, so I don't know how to seperate
the two groups. The Islamist are the biggest impediment to the peace process
now. Why negotiate with the PLO when they are unable to provide you with the
basic security from bombers and attacks from these groups.


However it's worth nothing that Islam, especially fundamentalist Islam,
is by no means modern. These guys are not exactly going to make scientific
discoveries and exceed the west in knowledge of and capability for warfare.

You are mistaking Islamist, as in the Radical fundamentalist groups such as Al
Queda and Hamas, with Islam. Even in the first case, Al Queda and Hamas seem
pretty good at using modern technology to further their cause.
SYOTR
Larry C.