JDG wrote:
After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter
So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf War I, as
US troops were no longer necessary to defend these countries from Saddam
Hussein?
A big part of why he was not a threat was our presence there, but I do think that it may have been possible to remove to Kuwait alone.
That's legitimate, although the inspiration US troops in Iraq provided to pro-independence demonstrators in Lebanon seems like an important counterpoint to your view.
Time will tell. I'm certainly happy that Lebanon seems to be sheading its Syrian occupiers.
This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the resentment against the US in the Arab World for deposing Saddam Hussein,
occupying Iraq, and setting up an independent government there outweighs
the sum of resentment for US troops being stationed in the Muslim Holy
Land, plus the resentment felt against the US for the plight of the Iraqi
people under Saddam Husssein and Oli-for-Food, *and* the resentment felt
against the US support for its tacit support for the totalitarian Saudi
regime. Is that right?
Yes. The Iraq war has been fantasticly successful for Al Qaeda and the enemies of the U.S.
I have discussed in other threads the requirements for justification for war:
1) There must be a threat
Was/is the S.A. funded terrorist organization al Qaeda a threat?
2) Other options must reasonably have been exhausted
The Saudi's were immediately and automatically exonerated, therefore there was no need/chance to explore any other options.
3) The war must be likely to do more good than harm
Why wouldn't your reverse domino theory work if we took over S.A. and installed a democracy there?
4) There must be a reasonable chance of success
S.A. has a much more homogonous population than Iraq, thus the installation of a democracy would stand a greater chance of success. I'm also guessing that they have a smaller standing army than did Iraq, and they also have a much smaller population on which to draw for an insurgency. Etc. etc. etc.
Dave Land has argued that Gulf War II did not meat the first critera - that Iraq posted a threat. You don't seem to have answered whether this
particular example of Iraq's actions constituted a threat. In any case,
while Saudi funding of terrorists is also a threat to the US, the proposal for an invasion of Saudi Arabia does not, in my mind, meet the other
criteria for justifying a war.
My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A. than it does to attack Iraq, a country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever and that, due to international sanctions, the U.S. military presence enforcing no fly zones over most of the country, and invasive WMD inspections, posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else.
I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a
connection between 9/11 and Iraq? If so, what was that connection?
The connection was that Bush said there was a connection.
Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever.
This is ex post facto reasoning. The question, however, is knowing affirmatively that Iraq at one time had large stockpiles of anthrax, and knowing that at that point in time that Iraq was not providing an affirmative account of those stockpiles, did this consitute a threat?
A question that the inspection teams were busy answering prior to the invasion.
This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other
biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had
provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States?
Inspection teams + U.S. presence + sanctions = No
This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other
biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had
provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States?
No.
The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same.
Again, this ducks the question as to whether or not Iraq constituted a threat.
No, they did not pose a threat.
So, to summarize, Dave Land argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. I asked 11 questions regarding whether Iraq did indeed actually pose a threat.
Your answers, so far appear to be:
1) No - Iraq was not going to attack its neighbors
Iraq didnât have the wherewithal to attack anyone.
2,3,4,5a) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat
_Has_ exacerbated the proclivity of Arabs (and many others in the world) to look upon us as the enemy.
5b) <No Answer> - on whether funding terrorists constitutes a threat
Funding terrorists in the Arab/Israeli conflict poses a threat to the security of the Middle East and Israel, but does not pose a direct threat to the U.S.
Funding Al Qaeda poses a direct threat.
6) No - there was no chance of sanctions being lifted
Correct. In the post 9/11 climate those nations interested in lifting sanctions would have been unable to do so.
7) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time
8) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time
9) <No Answer> - based on information available at the time
10) <No Answer> - on whether the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon from the DPRK constitute a threat
Inspection teams + U.S. pressence + sanctions = No threat.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
