Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraq: The Wrong War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraq: The Wrong War

    Iraq: The Wrong War
    by Charles V. Peña

    Executive Summary

    President Bush asserts that U.S. military action against Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. But even if Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, the U.S. military does not exist to enforce UN mandates. It exists to defend the United States: its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the population, and the liberties that underlie the American way of life. So whether Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. The real question is whether Iraq represented a direct and imminent threat to the United States that could not otherwise be deterred. If that was the case, then preemptive self-defense, like Israel's military action against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in the 1967 Six Day War, would have been warranted. And if Iraq was not a threat, especially in terms of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, then the United States fought a needless war against a phantom menace.

    In the final analysis, the war against Iraq was the wrong war. Not because the United States used preemptive military force—preemptive self-defense would have been justified in the face of a truly imminent threat. Not because the United States acted without the consent of the United Nations—no country should surrender its defense to a vote of other nations. And not because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—none has been discovered and, even if they existed, they were not a threat.

    The war against Iraq was the wrong war because the enemy at the gates was, and continues to be, Al Qaeda. Not only was Iraq not a direct military threat to the United States (even if it possessed WMD, which was a fair assumption), but there is no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda and would have given the group WMD to be used against the United States. In fact, all the evidence suggests the contrary. Hussein was a secular Muslim ruler, and bin Laden is a radical Muslim fundamentalist—their ideological views are hardly compatible.

    Ironically, President Bush provided his own indictment of the Iraq war when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in September 2003: "No government should ignore the threat of terror, because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and recruit and prepare." But that is exactly what the United States did by going to war against Iraq. To make matters even worse, the American taxpayer is stuck with the bill for the war and postwar reconstruction.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-502es.html
    Full 23 page text: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa502.pdf
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    I thought it was a war against terrorism, not AQ alone, and every tyrant is a threat.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #3
      Al Qaeda attacked the US because we had troops in the Saudi Arabia (Islams holiest cities being Mecca & Medina). We had troops in Saudi Arabia because we were enforcing UNSCR's on Iraq. So to say that AQ and Iraq aren't connected is a blatant untruth.

      The liberals and the mainstream media can try and paint whatver picture they want but if they can't even get the small details right they certainly aren't going to see the big overall picture.

      The US flexed it's muscles and sent a message to the world not to allow or condone the spread of the extremism that leads to terrorism. This is what will happen to you if you proliferate WMD or allow terrorism to set root in your country.

      Comment


      • #4
        The article was from the Cato Institute. They are Libertarians. I would take what they write with an Aircraft Carrier full of salt. They like to avoid the fact that we are fighting a philosophy that stretches far beyond Al Queda.

        The US flexed it's muscles and sent a message to the world not to allow or condone the spread of the extremism that leads to terrorism. This is what will happen to you if you proliferate WMD or allow terrorism to set root in your country.
        If we wanted to flex our muscle, we would have sent in 500,000 troops and soked Iraq with their blood. Instead we go in with 150,000, and appease them everytime we blow up a Masq or get a peice of dirt on their sacred book.
        Last edited by Praxus; 22 May 05,, 20:15.

        Comment


        • #5
          The Cato Institute: The Wrong Conclusion Yet Again.

          -dale

          Comment


          • #6
            What? How can you connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? Current evidence indicates that there never was such a connection.

            And Praxus, please tell me what philosophy we are fighting in Iraq, because I haven't even heard our president enunciate it clearly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Praxus
              The article was from the Cato Institute. They are Libertarians. I would take what they write with an Aircraft Carrier full of salt.
              Cato Institute is considered a conservative think tank group..

              Comment


              • #8
                Praxus...I thought you ARE a Libertarian.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by barrowaj
                  What? How can you connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? Current evidence indicates that there never was such a connection.
                  Originally posted by InfiniteDreams
                  Al Qaeda attacked the US because we had troops in the Saudi Arabia (Islams holiest cities being Mecca & Medina). We had troops in Saudi Arabia because we were enforcing UNSCR's on Iraq.
                  ...
                  No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                  I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                  even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                  He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by barrowaj
                    And Praxus, please tell me what philosophy we are fighting in Iraq,
                    Tyranny...
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                      Praxus...I thought you ARE a Libertarian.
                      I am as well, but I break from them in support of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.
                      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                      I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Praxus...I thought you ARE a Libertarian.
                        Libertarianism is a political movement, completely absent of a philosophical backing, that is doomed to failure.

                        What? How can you connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? Current evidence indicates that there never was such a connection.
                        When did I try and connect Iraq and Al Qaeda?

                        And Praxus, please tell me what philosophy we are fighting in Iraq, because I haven't even heard our president enunciate it clearly.
                        We are fighting Islamic Fundamentalism; several differing interpretations (that differ according to sect and tribe to a lesser degree) of the religious teachings of Mohammad and the writers of the Quran. I think we can both agree on this.
                        Last edited by Praxus; 23 May 05,, 00:03.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by barrowaj
                          What? How can you connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? Current evidence indicates that there never was such a connection.
                          Incorrect. There was a connection. But I'll give you this: there is now a much stronger one.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bluesman
                            Incorrect. There was a connection. But I'll give you this: there is now a much stronger one.
                            When you say there was a connection and Cato Institute (and everybody else including CIA) says there wasn't, obviously you are right and Cato Institute is wrong?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              Tyranny...

                              I am confused now. We are fighting tyranny of Saddam Hussain in Iraq but supporting the tyranny of Karimov in Uzbekistan ?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X