Originally posted by Low Orbit
1. To stop terrorism where it starts, the madrases(holy schools) If Islamic Leaders are able to preach hate about the west terrorism will never
stop. If we can stop these leaders from preaching it we will triuph over it, eventually.
This confuses me, as the madrases in many of the other middle eastern countires are far more radical. In fact, the Sunni faction spent most of its
time in Iraq trying to contain their Shiite majority, thus depleting their energies.
2. Personally I felt the motive before the war, was to create a democratic and peaceful middle east.
This is essentially the neoconservative vision as espoused by Dick Cheney's longstanding policy statements. At best, the middle east would become a
collection of democracies. At worst, it would be a collection of dictatorial pseudo-parliaments with favorable repression tactics. I think this is
close to the administration's loftier goals. But, in my opinion, the reason Iraq was chosen was that it was convenient and weak, not because of its
This would be done first by easing the tension between Israel and Palestine by diverting some of the Palestinian resources(money/equiptment) and
suicide bombers away from Israel and to make the new battle ground, Baghdad.
What if it works the other way around? What if the fanatical regimes in place and recently elected see this as the wolf at their door, thereby
investing more resources in terrorism and conventional military assets (nukes for Hamas) rather than new cars and palaces on the mediteranean?
This would give Israel and Palestine more or less a window in which they could negotiate free of conflict. So far it is to early to judge its
I suppose Cheney might have believed this, but I don't think he did. As for being too early to judge the results, I disagree. I think the results
played out recently, and contradict your theory. Perez is calling Iran "Satanic" and Iran is saying "We have nukes and by the way Israel should be
wiped of the map wink wink". That's just my opinion. I don't think this is just rhetoric.
I think this has escalated to the point where the Iranians and the Syrians are aware that the United States is succesfully digging in deep bunkers in
Iraq, and that they will be next. Where we go next will depend on whether we think nukes or certain terrorist sponsors are a more important catch.
Also remember, Iraq is in the center of the middle east so at first it will be a beacon of a battlefield for Arabs and Muslims to fight over, however
if we can ever control the violence it could turn into a beacon for democracy.
This seems logical. However, my assessment before the war was that the Baathists to the West, Shiites, and Kurds would not get along and that this was
unlikely. In particular, I was also concerned about the potential for violent organized crime in the central triangle, as that seems to be the
tradition there (for example, Sadaam Hussein's youth.) The kurds have been relatively well behaved because they are (1) happy and because (2) Turkish
special forces have been killing their more aggressive elements.
I don't believe the Cold War ever died I just believe it went dormant and morphed a bit, we are seeing the continuation of the Cold War play out in
Iraq and the rest of the middle east right now.
I agree with this. Its spot on.
I have faith in the U.S. and I believe eventually we will come out on top.
Ok, but as for me, I don't usually apply faith in determining the outcome of a war. Based on my assessment of the situation, I feel that chaos is
going to win in Iraq, especially if refugees start to flee the cities (yet to be manifest in mass).
Yet the US doesn't really care, as long as we can dig some deep bases and establish an efficient operations center.
In brief, the reason we invaded Iraq was to enact the Cheney doctrine. The reason for choosing Iraq was that it was convenient.
[edit on 19-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]
[edit on 19-4-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]