You claim Bush did not cite terrorist connections as justification for invading Iraq. I proved this was untrue, using a letter from Bush himself on whitehouse.gov. You continue to dodge this in message after message. Do you have the integrity to acknowledge your mistake or not?
I will address this question in due time.
Moving on to your diatribe, once again you neatly ignore my key question, high-lighted above. No one questions that U.N. sanctions had an effect on Muslim feelings towards the West.
Nice try. Let's look at this "key question, highlighted above":
Can you offer any evidence -- i.e., a link or other verifiable source -- that the U.N. sanctions were "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent,<-- comma
That forms the basis of your "key question" as you have written it. You then make an additional request, as implied by your placement of a comma after "extent":
and more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion?
Had you meant the latter phrase to be a condition of the first, it would have been written like this:
...served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters" to a significant extent and, more importantly, to a greater extent than our invasion?
Skipped your High School English courses on those days the comma was taught?
A second way would have been to entirely eliminate the phrase 'to a significant extent,' and replace it with 'to a greater extent...'.
Further, you apparently didn't read any of the citations I've provided. There are no less than three which imply that our policy of containment as a way to address the Hussein regime was the true source of discontent over the Iraq situation:
"Explaining Arab Anger", BBC News (September 2001):
- While Gulf Arabs might have applauded the US-led war against Iraq, the subsequent sanctions regime has punished the Iraqi people while Saddam continues to build palaces.
There is a widespread feeling that the Americans have never been serious about unseating Saddam.
"The Roots of Rage", Newsweek (October 2001):
- Elsewhere, they look at American policy in the region as cynically geared to US oil interests, supporting thugs and tyrants without any hesitation. Finally, the bombing and isolation of Iraq have become fodder for daily attacks on the United States.
While many in the Arab world do not like Saddam Hussein, they believe that the United States has chosen a particularly inhuman method of fighting him - a method that is starving an entire nation.
"Roots of Rage", Time Magazine:
- America's detractors complain that the U.S. is impervious not only to Arab rights but also to Arab suffering. If the Palestinians are Exhibit A, the Iraqis are Exhibit B.
While most Arabs detest Saddam for his own brand of brutality and arrogance, they don't understand why the U.S. continues to insist, 10 years after the Iraqis were forced out of Kuwait, on worldwide sanctions that are devastating the Iraqi people.
---------------------------------------
This underscores a palpable theme running through sentiments of a significant portion of the Arab/Muslim world, which says (in essence): 'We support actions that target the Hussein regime, but the way this has been pursued is unconscionable because it doesn't hurt the Hussein regime at all, it is hurting the Iraqi people. If you're going to target the Hussein regime, then target the Hussein regime in a way that doesn't wreak devastation upon an entire population as a consequence.'
Had you actually been following World Affairs instead of only gleaning 'tidbits' which support your agenda to cast the Bush Administration as villians, you would know this has been the unavoidable message we have heard consistently from the Arab/Muslim world.
The important question, the one that matters is whether our invasion of Iraq made this better or worse. I contend that it's much, much, worse, and I believe most people agree. You offered many interesting quotes, but none address this fundamental issue.
So then ask questions, don't frame them in the context of your misrepresentation (or misreading) of my position.
Our former policy was to continue doing indefinitely what we had been doing. This became unacceptable for the reasons I've repeatedly cited and you repeatedly ignore. The sanctions had to go, our military presence on the Arabian peninsula had to go, two of the three grievances cited by Bin Laden. These are concrete conclusions which few would dispute (except perhaps you). Before either of those things could be addressed, the reason for their existance had to be addressed - Hussein.
What is particularly instructive, is that terrorism authorities and academics who study Islamic terrorism unanimously reason that Bin Laden cites three particular grievances precisely because he knows these are the issues that resonate most effectively within those populations Bin Laden is attempting to recruit. Yet you actually attempt to dismiss the validity of one grievance and its relationship to terrorism by advancing some wholly peripheral grievances that Bin Laden doesn't cite:
I also note that most of the quotes don't even link sanctions to terrorism, though they do reinforce that sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. Even those that do link sanctions with terrorism usually point to Israel and other U.S. activities in the region in addition to sanctions, thus supporting a contention of my first post.
There isn't a single article, report, position paper, essay, or scholarly paper which has been published on the face of the planet which resembles this opinion. You're pretty much it.
This would suggest your intent is to entertain any desperate argumentative tactic, going as far as to dismiss or discount even the most unimpeachable facts that
no one but you is willing to challenge, in order to wage a campaign of belligerent harassment of my argument.
That's ok, I'm very familiar with belligerent argumentative methods and am quite adept at exposing them as I just did above. I don't do this in hopes of accomplishing the impossible - convincing someone who belligerently refuses to acknowledge even the most irrefutable of facts. I do it for the benefit of those who are following along and are always willing to consider a sound argument, even if they don't like its implications.
I have provided support for the belief that, within the greater Muslim world, an effort to depose Hussein, provided it targets Hussein and lifts the sanctions, will not serve to fuel hatred for the West in any significant way as to - in the long term - cause greater support for terrorist organizations than if we continued enforcing the sanctions against Iraq and maintaining a military presence on the Arabian peninsula indefinitely.
What the hell is Bin Laden going to cite as a grievance three years from now, "Because the Infidel liberated the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator and restored hope that all people of Iraq will once again have freedom and prosperity, it is the duty of all Muslims to kill Americans and their allies - civilian and military."
Yeah, that would infuriate me, if I were a Muslim.
Furthermore, in three years (or less), we should be able to finish the withdraw of our military presence from the Arabian peninsula, which has already begun, eliminating a second of Bin Laden's main grievances.
You have not provided a stitch of support, other than your personal conjecture and an empty 'most people would agree', for your assertion that the effort to depose Hussein will serve to fuel hatred for the West in any significant way as to - in the long term - cause greater support for terrorist organizations than if we continued enforcing the sanctions against Iraq and keeping a military presence in the Arabian peninsula indefinitely.
You do understand the concept of shouldering a near-term but not insignificant cost for long-term benefit, right? You do also understand that in such a case, the long-term benefit may not be (and usually isn't) readily as apparent as the not insignificant near-term cost which it requires, right?
It is a lot to ask of a lot of people, particularly Americans, to 'see' a benefit which won't be realized for a number of years when they're bearing the costs necessary to produce that benefit today. Its called myopia or short-sightedness.
You also did not attempt to address my second, related question. (To your credit, you acknowledge this near the end of your reply.) Most of the U.N. countries opposed our invasion even though they are just as savvy about terrorism as we are. Why is that? If you were correct, they should have supported the invasion.
lol! Another 'prove the earth is round' question that could not possibly be asked by anyone who has followed World Affairs.
The UN has rejected the proposition of forced regime change in Iraq since Gulf War I. The UN has never accepted the proposition that its role should include 'regime changing' except in compelling circumstances. It has been particularly resistant to 'regime changing' when the degree of difficulty is high even though the circumstances are compelling.
The Clinton Administration and Senator John Kerry, among many other Democrats (when their party held the White House), had the vision to see there would come a time in the not-so-distant future when our policy of containment would no longer be acceptable, in sponsoring the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for the ouster of the Hussein regime.
Though some were openly advocating forced regime change, and many others alluding to it, the Clinton Administration knew there was neither the international nor domestic support for deposing the Hussein regime by direct military action, due in no small part to France, Russia, and Germany's financial stake in the Hussein regime, but also because they were rather enjoying the successful political game they were playing within the UN and international sphere which would have the US and Britain cast as the villian - not them.
Russia and France were the largest beneficiaries of the UN's Oil-For-Food program. They were the largest economic partners with Hussein's Iraq. They were not being blamed for the 'suffering of the Iraqi people' under the sanctions, since their sympathies lay with the Hussein regime...err...I mean the Iraqi people (wink wink). There was not a single reason France, Russia, and Germany would want to support a regime change in Iraq and every reason to oppose it.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, was entirely different. Not only did no UNSC member have any meaningful financial stake in the Taliban, but the Afghanistan problem was not one which threatened only the United States and Britain. Afghanistan served as a training ground, network hub, and safe harbor for many different terrorist groups, including those that have conducted terrorist attacks in Russia, Italy, Spain, India, and at least a half-dozen other countries. It was in their own security interests to support our action in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan was exporting terror to their own backyards.
Not so with Iraq. The Iraq problem threatened to inflame only anti-US sentiment and hatred. When you read the accusation that the US is deposing the Hussein regime for 'American reasons and interests', that accusation is exactly correct. No other country, except Britain and Israel, has an interest in deposing the Hussein regime because no other country is the subject of increasing backlash and hatred over the Iraq sanctions and military presence on the Arabian Peninsula.
How could anyone purporting to understand World Affairs need to have these irrefutable realities explained to them? Amazing!
Finally, let's be clear about the context of this discussion. You floated a "rationale" that we invaded Iraq because the U.N. sanctions had to go. You made the grandiose claim that your rationale "completely subverts all criticisms of the Bush Administration's stated justification for war with Iraq and ties-up all seeming contradictions" (emphasis yours). Frankly, the claim is pompous nonsense. All criticisms? All contradictions? Please.
I'm clear about the context, and my statement stands. Let's recap the desperate lengths to which you have already went in an attempt to discredit my argument:
- All terrorism authorities know less than you. Bin Laden's reference to Iraqi sanctions and US military presence on the Arabian Peninsula - two of three main grievances cited by Bin Laden - really aren't linked in any significant way to those central issues that motivate thousands of young Arabs to join terrorist groups
- Bin Laden knows less than you about what issues most effectively resonate with those disgruntled populations and circles he is trying to reach
- Inflating without substantiation the impact of the Iraq war within the Muslim world while discounting clear evidence that continued sanctions and military presence on the Arabian penninsula are substantially greater threats in the long run
- Feigning ignorance (maybe you're not feigning?) of well-known issues in World Affairs
- Feigning ignorance (maybe you're not feigning?) of well-known political wrangling that has been going-on in the United Nations for years now
Am I missing any?
Facebook
Twitter