I’ll engage you WC, not based on my own beliefs but in the spirit of truth seeking. I am one of those people that are relatively indifferent to the war due to the fact that I am looking at it from a perspective that doesn’t even come close to the reality that what goes on in the politics and on the ground.
The one think I find funny about this document is the lack of documentation and sitation of sources for these proofs. Any respected author will know to site his sources
1. Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.
Just because the administration says these things, does not make them fact. Yes, they were connections between the two groups, but it’s a matter of degree and level of collaboration. There are proponents that state that Saddam and Al-Queda were at odds due to ideological reasons. Many within Al-Queda viewed Saddam’s Iraq as too secular and preferred a more Islamic rule closely aligned with the Taliban Style. Cooperation was seen as relatively impossible, and now Al-Queda acts independently from or loosely aligned with former Saddam loyalists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
2. There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
3. The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion.
These two seem somewhat linked in lieu of the recent secret briefing record being released about a meeting between Bush and Blair about the realities of their quest for solid proof about Iraq. Showing that the main heads of the Coalition were already decided on this and were just making sure they covered all the legal areas.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1605157.htm
4. A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.
I will agree that this is an extreme view backed by many conspiracy theories. Its validity will never come too light until this becomes a history lesson. Although, I’ll bet the Israeli’s are pleased that a major financier of the Palestinian extremists is gone.
Yet here is some food for thought:
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131523.asp
For I am not well versed on this topic and will read up on this some more
5. Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government.
I like Chris Rock’s saying on this one. To paraphrase “Iraq was suppose to be the greatest threat to the U.S. then how come it only took three weeks to take over the whole place. Hell you couldn’t take over Baltimore in three weeks.”
Fifth, after the three-week victory of April 2003, we have now forgotten the earlier prognostications of millions of refugees, oil wells afire, and thousands of dead that were to follow in Iraq. Twenty-three hundred American fatalities are grievous losses, but must be weighed against three successful elections, and the real chance that such sacrifice might result in the first true Arab democracy emerging in Iraq, with ramifications beyond the Middle East for generations to come. Currently, tens of thousands of Iraqis are the only Arabs in the world who daily risk their lives to fight al Qaeda terrorists — something that just may be in America’s interest.
Successful elections do not hold that the government will succeed, it only means that there are indications of democratic tendencies within its people, (which I am all for). The real test will be the maintaining of this government, its constitution, and the enforcement of law and restoration of order. This also must be strengthened by its independence from American backing, especially on the last point. That will take time, its one of those wait and see things. This will be the testament to the true cost of this war.
6. The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetent”) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.
I mean come on; we are talking about politicians and reporters. One talks a lot of B.S. the other reports a lot of B.S. They are mutually dependent on the other’s fowl ups in order to succeed. We can all agree that a lot of mistakes were made on both sides.
Stop picking on Dan Rather, the guy apologized and resigned stop kicking a man when he’s down.
7. In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.
Again, it is a wait and see kind of thing. America wasn’t born in decade, its took centuries of a lot of turmoil and conflict both physical and political for it to come to its prominence. Plus those natives were in the way.
8. We cannot win.
History will be the judge of this. It may take centuries to see the actual ramifications of these actions. Here is something written about Vietnam that is used as a comparison to America’s foreign policy in occupation.
As "Cincinnatus," a U.S. officer who wrote an anonymous history of
the disintegration of American forces in Vietnam, put it: "The
United States Army faced a guerrilla war in Vietnam, a small
Southeast Asian country of some 65,000 square miles with a
population of about 16 million people. That nation fought to a
standstill the United States of America, with over 200 million
citizens--one of the largest nations on earth and, surely, one of
the most powerful."
"America's fighting men won every major battle, including such
crucial conflicts as Ap Bia...in the Au Shau Valley, Khe Sanh and
Tet 1968, yet they lost the war."
http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/4178.html
It seems to me the sticking point in this debate is how America got there, and not actually what is going on there. I concede that my knowledge is limited, but who mind you is not since all we do is discuss third of fourth hand information that comes our way.
