DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 So getting rid of Saddam (a sworn enemy of Iran) and replacing him with a Shiite-dominated government on very friendly terms with Iran somehow helps to box them in Forget it, he's rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 So getting rid of Saddam (a sworn enemy of Iran) and replacing him with a Shiite-dominated government on very friendly terms with Iran somehow helps to box them in See your point, but I was thinking about the fact that there are now American troops on two of Iran's borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 More likely about removing a nasty, belligerent dictator who was the major contributor to regional instability. Which really was the only reason that was even remotely acceptable...and the single one that wasn't stressed by the administration. and the reason that this regions stability is deemed worth the cost paid is....oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 and the reason that this regions stability is deemed worth the cost paid is....oil. I'm not arguing. All Middle East policy boils down to two things: oil or Holocaust guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I'm not arguing. All Middle East policy boils down to two things: oil or Holocaust guilt. don't forget the fundamentalist christians who believe we need to be there to fulfill prophecy...a significant and influential chunk of the current republican party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 don't forget the fundamentalist christians who believe we need to be there to fulfill prophecy...a significant and influential chunk of the current republican party Give it a rest. Christians aren't out to get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Give it a rest. Christians aren't out to get you. Uh, I consider myself a christian and since birdog once ate some of my chickens that came home to roost I have him squarely in my crosshairs. You betcha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 don't forget the fundamentalist christians who believe we need to be there to fulfill prophecy...a significant and influential chunk of the current republican party The fundamentalists are no more a significant chunk of the GOP any more than PETA is a significant chunk of the Democratic Party. Don't confuse volume with significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) See your point, but I was thinking about the fact that there are now American troops on two of Iran's borders. Afghanistan and ? And aren't the Afghan forces concentrated on the Pakistan border? Edited February 21, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 To get this discussion back on track... I offer that NASA is the one that's vindicated. It's been what... a year? and already all the muslims love us and want to be us. Problem solved. These guys drove a car on Mars!... the Middle East was too easy for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 More likely about removing a nasty, belligerent dictator who was the major contributor to regional instability. Which really was the only reason that was even remotely acceptable...and the single one that wasn't stressed by the administration. I have to say I was always surprised that when confronted about their rational very little attention was given to the fact that Saddam was a direct material supporter of terrorism (i.e. money to Palestinian suicide bombers families). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 If this movement across the region takes hold and stays, I'd say yes, wouldn't you? More free > less free, is it not? I think we should have stayed out of Iraq, but the unrest would have happened either way. Instead of toppling Saddam and starting over, they will have unrest after we leave. I am just worried that someday will will get a hold of Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 For the 10000000000000000th time, it wasn't about oil. If it was, there'd be Oil-A-Plenty pouring out of Iraq by now. It ain't. If anything, it was really about boxing in Iran. That old rhetoric doesn't really matter anymore and only serves to cloud the issue. The Bush Administration's motives were likely never truly voiced by anyone official. In the end, no motive really justifies the loss of lives and resources. As righties like to say when looking to do away with all non-military spending, our grandkids' kids will still be paying for this one. To get this discussion back on track... I offer that NASA is the one that's vindicated. It's been what... a year? and already all the muslims love us and want to be us. Problem solved. These guys drove a car on Mars!... the Middle East was too easy for them. Without NASA you wouldn't be posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Give it a rest. Christians aren't out to get you. i sure hope not...idl have to check out the folks in the pew behind me every sunday. i'm talking about the "left behind" fringe that isn't really so small...pretty good sales of those books. and while volume doesn't always equate influence, they've effectively thrown their weight around before. what makes you think foreign policy is hands off? Uh, I consider myself a christian and since birdog once ate some of my chickens that came home to roost I have him squarely in my crosshairs. You betcha! i hope you're a better shot than she is. yum, chicken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Bush, Obama, any president you want to name- all I can say is "Heavy is the head that wears the crown" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 You all remember the theory...plant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East and it will spread. Well, now we have Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain all undergoing change in a democratic direction... I know it's a revolting thought, but was W right about the inevitibility of the spread of Democracy in the Middle East? And as a semi-related comment, why hasn't this turmoil spread to Syria? You'd think of all places that would be one place that would experience this kind of thing. Yes W has played a role in spreading democracy revolution but not the way you think, you can give him proportionate credit for these revolutions as you give him credit for our debt because it's the exportation of inflation that is one of the main motivators of these revolutions. I also note that both Tunisia and Egypt were poster boys for neo-liberal economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 That old rhetoric doesn't really matter anymore and only serves to cloud the issue. The Bush Administration's motives were likely never truly voiced by anyone official. With all the motives they DID voice, I'm sure one of them was the real one. The only motive I didn't hear them give was "We need sand". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) No Democracy, just one step closer to Caliphate. The US suffers from Batman Syndrome AKA BS. During WWII and through the cold war the US was everybody's dark knight hero. After the cold war was "won" no one needed a "Batman" anymore and people tuned on the US. Now that there is a wide spread Islamic Revolution people will need a Batman once more. Caliphate is a good thing for the US. Edited February 22, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 More likely about removing a nasty, belligerent dictator who was the major contributor to regional instability. Which really was the only reason that was even remotely acceptable...and the single one that wasn't stressed by the administration. I'll lob some support towards Joe. This was the biggest reason, but it was nearly impossible to put this reason front & center because it served a longer term goal and try explaining that to the ADD generation. It wasn't just getting rid of Saddam, but a longer term view of the region and what would Saddam's succession look like. I'm sure that no one was thrilled with Uday or Qusai in charge and trigger happy fingers. If you did absolutely nothing, you would oversee a resurgent Iraq freed from sanctions and back in an arms race with Iran. Surrounding them are a bunch of despotic and benevolent dictatorships which have to bribe their populations to stay in power. Then add the demographic change of the populations where the Mid East economies cannot support the new generations, then you'll be sitting on a powder keg, and you're looking at a very high probability that the US would be dragged into the inevitable mess down the road. Looking back, Bush didn't really care for nation building, but Cheney had a big beef with Saddam and thought that he singlehandedly would send Mid East into a downward spiral. After 9/11, Bush came around that he needed to be proactive in the Mid East. So to me the decision was, go in early under its own terms or go in later when it would be much more messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I'll lob some support towards Joe. This was the biggest reason, but it was nearly impossible to put this reason front & center because it served a longer term goal and try explaining that to the ADD generation. It wasn't just getting rid of Saddam, but a longer term view of the region and what would Saddam's succession look like. I'm sure that no one was thrilled with Uday or Qusai in charge and trigger happy fingers. If you did absolutely nothing, you would oversee a resurgent Iraq freed from sanctions and back in an arms race with Iran. Surrounding them are a bunch of despotic and benevolent dictatorships which have to bribe their populations to stay in power. Then add the demographic change of the populations where the Mid East economies cannot support the new generations, then you'll be sitting on a powder keg, and you're looking at a very high probability that the US would be dragged into the inevitable mess down the road. Looking back, Bush didn't really care for nation building, but Cheney had a big beef with Saddam and thought that he singlehandedly would send Mid East into a downward spiral. After 9/11, Bush came around that he needed to be proactive in the Mid East. So to me the decision was, go in early under its own terms or go in later when it would be much more messy. Or the decision could have been not go now and use that money to build nuclear power plants, develop coal to liquid fuels technology/capability, and basic energy Independence and then if the middle east went into a downward spiral stay the F@<K out of that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts