Excellent points, with exception to the gratuitious name-calling (just b/c there are annoying people on this list who throw out invective doesn't mean we should submit to our temptation to do the same vile practice back to them).
I'll add the following (despite the fact that it's grossly off-topic!). The Iraq war was more than just a follow-up to a UN resolution or two. It was a desire by neo-conservatives to re-make the Middle East. That desire is partly strategic and partly political. Strategic: eliminate the threat of WMD proliferation (including to Salafist groups like Al Qaeda) by scaring rogue-ish countries into thinking "they're next" if they don't behave (think, Libya). The strategic plan was to go beyond Iraq and is often referred to as a "domino effect" whereby other mid-east nations liberalize their political systems and economies. Political: free up huge oil fields in Mesopotamia, bringing down global oil prices. Also, empower Republicans, making them appear more responsive & pro-active in a post-911 world to threats posed by rogue nations & global terrorist groups. My focus is strategic, since the political side-effects are less important and less justifiable than the strategic argument. Result... Unforutnately, the nation-rebuilding effort is not going well (compared to the actual "war" which went well by historic standards, lasting only about 4 weeks; everything since has involved dealing with the war's aftermath). I can think of specific things that would have made the nation re-building campaign much more likely to succeed. Rather than a lengthy explanation on that, I'll say this. Think about what would have happened if the Bush administration weren't so inept and if Iraq had been a successful model of nation re-building. That model could be replicated to other nation-states that are arguably and egregiously bad, be it countries with a) too much government (dictatorships) or b) too little government (many African states, which are tribal & lack sufficient central governance). A "nation re-making" process that falls under UN legitimacy would be powerful, shifting the American focus from maintaining the "superpower status quo" to "making the world better." Sounds controversial (like some imperial colonial fantasy), but try living in the DPRK, Cuba, or Sudan, and tell me those nations aren't screwed up and wouldn't go for a "nation re-making" make-over, provided that it actually worked. The US (and others) will certainly engage in nation re-building again. If you don't believe that, then check out recent US history. It's really just a question of when, where, and to what extent. Next time, I hope the war's aftermath goes substantially better and involves broad international legitimacy, not to mention significant involvement in the post-war phase (where the US actually needs allies). - G ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq =========================================================================== On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > Actually, dummy... The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be in effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and nuclear/radiological weapons. After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and resumed hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals, final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this is because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current American administration or your opinion of their actions. However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job here. No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan People. THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. ============================================================================ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/