Gonk posted:

---

I know how you're including this in order to describe Iraq to be like the other countries you mentioned, but there's a key point of divergence here between Iraq, Syria and Iran and, say, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan: their efforts with "terrorism" do not target the United States whatsoever. They target Israel, which also has no connection to 9/11. The 9/11 report's ties to Al-Qaida don't even deserve bothering mention because any connections Saddam had to al-Qaida were probably as much as, if not less than, his own neighbors -- Saudi Arabia being the biggest example where Bin Laden himself has met with the Royal Family before. This follows the anticipation you make below:

---

Gonk posted:

---

Ok, already you've entered into the key reasons of why the policy was likely to fail. You're already talking from the point of those in the Middle East reacting as the US would have them react, and taking the lessons the US would have them learn.

I've said this on many occasions before, warning about the folly of doing something to "send a message". First of all this is far too often used as a cover for someone doing what they want to do and excusing it. It "forms a picture" of how you want people to react to what you do. By this logic, the message was sent perfectly: Saddam fell and it was broadcast to people everywhere that the US wouldn't mess around. But if the message was sent, it didn't seem to help anything. It didn't give Al-Qaida pause, it didn't give Iran pause. In fact, performing the action to send a message has apparently made the international community react completely differently to how this policy intended them to react. Instead of projecting strength, the US has a reputation for rash decisions and in some areas, weakness.

There's a point in the movie, the Princess Bride, where Montoya the swordsman says to a fellow conspirator: "that word... I do not think it means what you think it means." This is perhaps a parallel situation. except that I would alter to to the following:

"That act, sending a message.... I do not think it does what you think it does."

---

Gonk posted:

---

True, and the invasion was meant to improve the situation by adding Iraqi reserves to the global market once again, presuming you could get them peacefully working. Of course, this underscores the need for the US to find an energy indepedant solution free from oil.

---

LordVader66 posted:

---

Lowbacca_1977 posted:

---

Again, I never said Iraq was the biggest player in state-funded terrorism, just that Iraq was the one we could argue for going into easiest. My point wasn't to say that Iraq was the worst at it, they're not. My point was that Iraq does have involvement in terrorism in general, and that the U.S. has said we're after terrorists in general, not just ones currently targetting the U.S.

---

1. Iraq was involved in terrorism in general? What were they doing besides the Palpatine family funding? Your statement appears to be stretching the case for Iraqi terrorism.

2. And when did the US say that they are going after terrorists in general, not ones targeting the US? Bush's whole rationale for Iraq is that were fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

LordVader66 posted:

---

Lowbacca_1977 posted:

---

We had an open door in Saudi Arabia, 15 of the 9/11 high jackers were from that country.

---

However, we had no basis to attack the regime in Saudi Arabia on those grounds. Carry that to extention. Can we invade Mexico because illegal immigrants from Mexico commit crimes in the U.S.? It would have been different if that was a military operation of Saudi Arabia.
Not saying it absolves Saudi Arabia, but just that that isn't an open door.

---

I'm not saying that it was a basis for attacking the Kingdom, but that it was a "door opener" in your words. We had more of a reason to attack Saudi Arabia, then we ever did for Iraq. After 9/11 I think the American people would have gone with anything the President said. If he had said, Saudi Arabia is working at every level of the terror chain (which they are) I think he would have had the full support of the American people.

LordVader66 posted:

---

Lowbacca_1977 posted:

---

In fact, as I recall, Saudi Arabia was one of those that did so, I believe in letting women vote at a low level.

---

Saudi Arabia had one local election in 2005 and women were not allowed to vote.

---

Yup, I didn't fact check this bit, so I put in the "I believe" because I wasn't sure. On checking, Saudi Arabia was that they actually had elections, period. Even though it was male citizens only, that was still an expansion of democracy. Offhand, I'm not sure of which country in the region I'm thinking of on women being able to vote... Kuwait would be too early, Qatar doesn't sound right, and UAE would be too late.

---

Mr44 posted:

---

Realizing that in 1998, the US/UK had been enforcing such resolutions for 6 years, and after 1998 when the final warning was given, it would be another 5 years until Iraq was invaded, at what time would it be permissible to "start cracking down on" Iraq?

---

"Although a radical departure in many other respects, the current U.S. grand strategy’s privileging of liberalism and democracy falls squarely within the mainstream of American diplomatic traditions. For reasons unique to the American political experience, U.S. nationalism—that is, the factors that define and differentiate the United States as a self-contained political community—has historically been defined in terms of both adherence to a set of liberal, universal political ideals and a perceived obligation to spread those norms internationally."

Democracy promotion is not just another foreign policy instrument or idealist diversion; it is central to U.S. political identity and sense of national purpose.