Iraq...the REAL reason for our actions...(again)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Jul 12, 2004.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    From wash. Post
    So the new "reason" is that left alone, Iraq might have developed weapons and given them to terrorists. It is possible, I suppose...but a case for war?

    If that is the standard, however, then why Iraq?

    Why not China, who sells weapons and WMD technology to many countries around the world, including the ME.

    Why not Iran, which has a history of supporting terrorist movements(to a degree that Iraq has not), and has relatively advanced military capablities and a Fundamentalist Government.

    Why not N. Korea, which has Nuclear capabilities and is desperately short on cash, making it attractive for them to sell weapons or weapons technology?

    And so on...

    It is also interesting to note his comments on Libya (which I could've included above), in which he notes our success in getting them to dismantle their weapons program. This was done by diplomacy, and although GW alludes to the fact that our attack on Iraq gave us leverage on the bargaining table, it is still intersting to note, that diplomacy, so often eschewed by the Administration, got the results we say we need. In my mind, this futher undermines the force of the argument for Military invasion...

    Also, Pakistan was mentioned (in the transcript) as a former enemy and supporter of the Taliban...who now have become friends with the US and are working against terrorism. This was also acheived through traditional diplomatic means...which begs the question of why we could not have pursued that avenue w/ Iraq, if we were merely interested in curbing weapons proliferation. After all, Pakistan has a documented history of supplying weapons to what we might call "terrorists".

    The above also applies to Saudi Arabia (also mentioned in the transcript of the speech). So what gives here?

    I know this is almost old hat, but what say you?
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    I say they're grasping at straws. If stopping proliferation was the aim, why didn't they guard the nuclear sites in Iraq? If stopping proliferation was the aim, then Pakistan and N Korea were the obvious targets.
     
  3. Flex macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    #3
    Iraq signed an agreement stating among other things that they would show proof of the destruction of their WMD's. They did not do so, thus resumption of the war was warrented since they refused to honor to the peace treaty or surrender agreements that they signed. No other reason is necessary even though plenty of people like myself have other reasons as well.
     
  4. Flex macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    #4
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
    or in other words
    http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/013490.html
    the unbiased mainstream media that is.
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  6. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #6
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    Can you see our Slytron in them?
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Just a hint :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page