http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
From speech detailing reasons for war, including:
1) Twelve years of U.N. resolution violations. - Check
Okay I'll give you that.
2) Threatening U.N. Weapons inspectors - Check
And that.
3) Deceptive practices, covert developments, spying - pending
The U.S. has been engaged in the same for decades. Don't know why it's a justification for war.
4) WMD's - pending, probably in Syria.
We have enough WMD's to go around and North Korea has random black outs and evacuation drills because they are
terrified that the U.S. will attack. I doubt there are WMD's in Syria but I can see this as being part of the rationale to invade the country. Which do you think is first Iran or Syria?
5) History of reckless agression in M. East - Check
Along side Pakistan, Palistine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon...
6) Protecting our sovereign national security - Check (see 1991 Gulf War and the assault on Kuwait(our ally)).
Sadam Hussein was complaining to the U.N. for months about the Saudi's stealing oil from his side of the refinery which spans the borders of Kuwait and Iraq. He was also angry that the U.S. abandoned him after funding his side of the Iraq/Iran (part of his reckless aggresion?) war which depleted both nations economies. Furthermore Sadam was told by the U.S. ambassador that the U.S. would not intervene in Iraq's affairs with Kuwait.
- If this was an imperialistic assualt, why exactly are we training their soldiers? The very nature of imperialism would suggest that we would turn them into a territory of the U.S. and they would pay us accordingly, that is not happening, sorry, wrong theory.
Well, I hope their efforts are not in vain. My fear is that we'll never withdraw from Iraq because there will never be a good time due to the fact that the Sunnies and Shiites will start a civil war... Both side will just happen to have U.S. trained Soliders. That said I think we're there for building contracts hence the capitalism.
-We are not acting as a global police force as you suggest,
I'm not suggesting that we are, the main question of this poll does though.
we are simply getting rid of an accomplice regime in the middle east and putting into motion the concept of a democratic government that would be an example to the rest of the region and possibly
A) Spread democracy to the region thus creating hope
Hope of what? Do the Iraqis really want our brand of freedom? I don't think so who's to say that their next elected president won't suspend their constitution and switch to a theocratic government as bad as the taliban.
B) This new feeling of hope would make joining a terrorist group seem much less appealing.
Supposing they don't start a new islamic extremist government.
C) less terrorists would be a good thing.
Not going to argue with you there, but the invasion of Afghanistan and the disruption of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda did nothing but create 5,000 new splitner cells of terrorists in the first year of the war.
D) with middle eastern allies, terrorists would have less area to run to, making them easier to find and capture, or preferrably kill.
Supposing they don't start a new islamic extremeist government.
E) eventually, if we can accomplish a more free middle east, terrorists would become and endangered species.
I'd rather have that and the imperialism.