07-18-2005, 12:33 PM #1
My Essay on the Iraq War for School
The current Gulf war in Iraq is a controversial war, with hundreds of different opinions and hundreds of different views. These different views come from nations, unions, political parties, individuals, etc. And all of these different views on the current war are held with high regard, and people stand strong and firm behind their positions. There are various positions on the war; some wanted the war as it took place; some wanted the war, but they first wanted the UN inspectors to finish their job of inspecting Iraq for the infamous weapons of mass destruction; others were totally against the war, and felt it was unnecessary. Motives behind the war were questioned, methods used during the war and occupation were questioned, every aspect of this current war was scrutinized and questioned for the entire world to see, in a war that has basically been played out on the mass media. The final outcome of this war is yet to be seen, but there are concrete facts evident on the ground today, there are both positive and negative aspects to this war, although each side might want to convince you its either one or the other.
Underestimating the Al Queda Threat
It seems like from the beginning, the Bush Administration totally ignored Al Queda and the danger the terrorist group posed towards the United States, instead all the focus was placed on Iraq. Richard Clarke was President Clinton’s advisor on counter-terrorism, and was President Bush’s advisor on of online security, he in his book “Against all Enemies” states that the Bush Administration ignored the Al Queda threat, and he even says, a prominent member like Condalezza Rice, didn’t even know what Al Queda was. When he tried to explain the threat of Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda to the administration, they shrugged it off, when Clarke said, “We need to put pressure on both the Taliban and al-Qaida by arming the Northern ******** and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, we need to target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the Predator."
Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld's deputy at Defense, fidgeted and scowled. Hadley asked him if he was all right. "Well, I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden," Wolfowitz responded. (Clarke) It seems like Clarke was dumbfounded by Paul Wolfowitz’s comments and twists of the truth, in which he blames Iraq for everything, he says, “Wolfowitz turned to me.”You give bin Laden too much credit.
He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." I could hardly believe it but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that had been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue.” (Clarke)
Plan to Attack Iraq After the September 11th attacks
The justification first used by the Bush administration of going into Iraq was because Iraq posed an imminent threat to the world, with its weapons of mass destruction, and these weapons could be given to Al Queda or other terrorist groups, especially after the events of 9/11. The administration stressed that after the 9/11 attacks the world was a different place and things needed to be done, actions needed to be taken, to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil. But President Bush and his administration have had their eyes on Iraq and Saddam as soon as Bush was inaugurated, according to journalist Bob Woodward, who is a highly respected journalist who had inside information and contact with the Bush administration, “The first sign of the Bush administration's desire to attack Iraq comes days before Bush's 2001 inauguration. Dick Cheney asks outgoing Defense Secretary Bill Cohen to brief the president "about Iraq and different options." During the briefing, Cheney falls asleep.” (Woodward)
After the 9/11 attacks the focus on Iraq and Saddam strengthened even though it was declared Osama Bin Laden and his Al Queda group are the people responsible for the terrorist attack. The Bush administration wanted a two for one deal in which they would attack Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, “Hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld asks Pentagon colleagues about the possibility of striking Saddam Hussein. An aide records in his notes: "hit S.H. @ same time—not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]."(Woodward) Some people within the Bush administration felt it was ludicrous to attack Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, one major critic of this tactic was Colin Powell, “After Rumsfeld and others raise the idea of striking Iraq in response to 9/11, Powell tells Gen. Hugh Shelton, "What the hell! What are these guys thinking about? Can't you get these guys back in the box?" (Woodward) Powell also was a strong critic of Vice President Cheney, Cheney was a strong proponent of the Iraq war, when “Cheney tells a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Aug. 26, 2002, that there's "no doubt" Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Powell goes ballistic at the suggestion” (Woodward).
Linking Iraq, Saddam, and Al Queda and Osama
Most of Bush’s administration went out of their way during the beginning stages of the war linking Al Queda with Iraq, Bush and Vice President Cheney mentioned the links between the two camps on various occasions, and mustered support for their cause to attack Iraq because of the intense emotions Americans felt after the 9/11 attacks. Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming." Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." (Washington Post, 6/22/04)
George Tenet who was the head of the CIA, on October 7, 2002, wrote a letter to Congress, which asserted:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
But after months of research and investigation by the 9/11 commission report, they concluded, “"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship, two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."(The 9/11 Commission Report) After the constant comments by the Bush Administration about the links between Al Queda and Iraq, it was eventually revealed that no working relationship existed, before or after September 11th, 2001.
Now that the War has started
Although the main justifications of going into war have basically been debunked, now that the US is there and in the middle of a war, the Bush Administration has switched focus, instead of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction, and the links to terrorists, they have switched the focus on promoting democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East. The search for weapons of mass destruction has almost ended, with some small finds here and there, and the links of working with Al Queda have been rejected, although after the war began, tons of terrorists from foreign nations streamed into the country, and some terror groups who were in the Kurdish controlled region, under the no-fly zone during the Saddam dictatorship, have reemerged. Now the main focus of the Iraqi war is to slow down the resistance fighters, and terrorists, keep Iraq secure, and let a free elections occur, the US military, has now basically become a police force in Iraq.
Positive Effects of the War
Saddam's human rights record is among the worst in the world and in history. Saddam runs a totalitarian regime similar to that of Josef St**** (who incidentally he considers his idol). He regularly tortures and murders political dissidents and anyone he arbitrarily decides is a threat to his power. Iraqi defectors have detailed such abuses as rape, torturing children in front of their parents, electric shock, mutilation of body parts, burning with acid, and starvation. Allegations have been made that he watches videos of his enemies being tortured as a form of entertainment. He has even used chemical weapons to poison thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq. In wars, he has used "human shields" to protect his military (e.g. by placing weapons and soldiers in mosques, hospitals, and civilian residential areas). Saddam has tested his chemical and biological weapons on prisoners, including Kuwaitis captured in the Gulf War. Do we really want to trust someone with such a low regard for human life with weapons of mass destruction? If you want to learn the true brutality and oppressiveness of a totalitarian regime, look no further than the former communist Eastern European bloc. People of these countries remember what it's like and not coincidentally are overwhelmingly in support of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Gordon, Shapiro, 1)
Saddam was a major threat to stability of the Middle East. Saddam is driven by power and conquest. He has attacked Iran and Kuwait in the past in an effort to monopolize much of the world's oil supply. These wars have led to the deaths of 1.5 million Muslims. During the Persian Gulf War he launched numerous Scud weapons at Israel in an attempt to draw Israel into the war. Since the war, Saddam has repeatedly made threats of invading Kuwait and attacking others in the region. He is obsessed with the pan-Arab movement, which is a movement to unite the Arab world into one power to oppose Israel and the Western world. He sees himself as a great king in history destined to destroy Israel or make some other great impact. Frequent Arab-Israeli wars have occurred since Israel was established by the British. The region always seems one step away from a large, destructive conflict. Saddam is just waiting for his chance to spark that conflict. (Gordon, Shapiro, 12) Imagine how much worse it would be if Saddam had nuclear weapons to blackmail the West. He could one day invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and threaten to launch if we retaliate. We're in a similar situation with North Korea right now, but our options are limited because of its nuclear deterrence. U.S. intelligence experts estimate Saddam would have had nuclear weapons in 1-5 years. It would be better to act before he does.
Taking down Saddam will send a forceful message to other dictators and would-be state sponsors of terrorism. One of the most important factors in fighting terrorism is deterrence. People all over the world hate us and will continue to hate us because of our success and superpower status. Nothing is easily going to change that. But hate and terrorism aren't necessarily threatening to us without rich state sponsors to provide finance, intelligence, and basing. Taking out Saddam would send a message to countries like Syria, North Korea, and Iran--if you sponsor terrorism, we will be coming after you! History has shown that totalitarian governments do not respond to "good intentions"; they only respect force or the threat of force. Saddam did not even given the hint of compliance with U.N. resolutions without the backing of U.S. forces.
A model democracy could be set up in the Arab world, possibly leading other Arab governments to follow suit. Virtually the entire Arab world is ruled by governments where power is concentrated in the hands of relatively few. Democracy and freedom of speech & religion are foreign concepts to them. (Dawisha, 7) Most of the press in the region is controlled by the government. Indeed, perhaps the biggest cause of anti-American sentiment in the region is a lack of understanding of the U.S. along with fair & balanced discussion of U.S. policies. By unseating Saddam, we have a chance to set up a model democracy with elections, 1st amendment freedoms, and a free market economy. We can show the Arab world how successful such a system can be, and perhaps it will inspire the citizens of other countries in the area to demand similar reforms. In may be a stretch, but this could be the beginning of democracy throughout the one part of the world that has resisted it the most. A common complaint when the U.S. talks about Saddam's human rights violations is that many of our supposed allies like Saudi Arabia have just as bad or worse of a record. But unfortunately, we don't really have the luxury of changing regimes wherever we want. World opinion is already against us now, and we're going against Saddam. A model democracy and a subtle push for change in other countries is probably the best we can do.
Oil prices could dramatically drop with a short, successful campaign. Fundamental supply/demand rules of economics show that a short, successful campaign could lead to dramatically lower oil prices. U.N. sanctions and obsolete facilities have led to drastically low output of oil from Iraq. A new government with modernized equipment and free of sanctions would lead to a major increase in oil being pumped from Iraq. The U.S. would likely be first in line for most oil contracts because of the gratefulness of the Iraqi people. Lower oil prices would likely lead to lower unemployment, lower business costs, and another economic boom. (Gordon, Shapiro, 9)
We can remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and much of the Arab world if he's gone. Much of the Arab world, including Osama bin Laden, resents the continued presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, where the two Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina are located. (Dawisha, 19) Our continued troop presence in the region was mainly to protect from the threat of Saddam. By taking out Saddam we can eventually remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and perhaps the whole region. Not only would that relieve some of the anti-American feelings, it would also allow us to deploy troops to other regional hot spots such as the Korean peninsula.
We would have Iran and Syria, perhaps the biggest terrorist sponsors, surrounded by U.S.-friendly governments. One of the most fanatical, fundamentalist governments in the world is found in the country of Iran. Many of us remember the storming of the U.S. embassy and the taking of hostages in the 70s. In the Iran-Iraq war, fanatical soldiers, hoping to gloriously die in jihad, were sent in human waves to sacrifice themselves. Humans soldiers were sacrificed without regard, sometimes being sent ahead to die exploding mines (so the tanks would have a clear path). (New York Times, 4/4/91) The fear of the Iran threat prompted governments such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Britain, and the U.S. to actually provide arms and aid to Saddam. Nowadays Iran is still one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism, including the sponsor of Islamic Jihad. Like Iraq, the human rights record of Iran is one of the worst in the world. By taking Iraq, Iran would be surrounded by two liberated, U.S.-friendly countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). From such a position, we could exhibit a large amount of pressure to stop their sponsorship of terror. A similar position could be made against neighboring Syria.
Most Arab governments wanted Saddam gone; the public opinion backlash may not be as great as portrayed in the media. If you've been watching the news or reading the newspaper lately, you'll notice there are very few vocal protests coming from governments in the Arab world. Most of the public criticism for the war is coming from Europe. Saddam has completely lost credibility in the Arab world. His invasion of Iran, his use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, his scorched-earth policy in Kuwait, and the committing of other atrocities have turned public opinion against him. (Dawisha, 11) If so many Arabs didn't fear a U.S.-dominated Middle East more than a Saddam-dominated one, this would be a moot point. There has even been anti-Saddam protests in Iran (although these protests seem to be noticeably absent from the U.S. and Europe). About the harshest criticism you'll hear coming from Arab governments is that Saddam is a Muslim and therefore should be removed by Muslims. Of course, public opinion is what counts, and the governments don't necessarily reflect the attitude of the people. However, unlike the first Gulf War, Al-Jazeera is around now to get the message out of Saddam's atrocities. Muslims will be saddened by the loss of innocent Iraqi life, but they sure won't shed a tear for the loss of Saddam's government.
Saddam continued to fire on U.S. and British planes enforcing U.N. no-fly zones. (Gordon, Shapiro, 14) After the Gulf War, areas of northern and southern Iraq were set up which prohibited any Iraqi military flights. These areas were set up to prevent Saddam from slaughtering the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south. Since then, Saddam has continually tried to shoot down Western planes enforcing the zones, even with the threat of war looming. In any other situation, this would be an obvious act of war. Most of the world, including Americans, have been dismissive, but one has to wonder if that attitude would change if Saddam actually shot down and killed an American.
The cost in lives and dollars of containment is higher than that of war. The sanctions imposed on Iraq due to Saddam's refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions has taken a heavy tolls on the economy and people of Iraq. Starvation and unemployment occur on a massive scale. Removing the sanctions would just give Saddam more money to spend on his palaces and weapons. Not only are the resources of Iraq being taxed, the U.S. military is also spending a tremendous amount of troops and money putting the pressure on Saddam. The cost of continuing these policies far outweigh going to war.
The credibility of President Bush and the U.S. is at stake. Bush has said "You are either with us, or you're with the terrorists" as part of a new policy some dub the "Bush Doctrine". The idea is to strike any nation that supports terrorism pre-emptively and discourage such actions in the future. We've spent most of the last year talking about forcing Saddam to disarm. If after all this talk and all this military buildup we decide to back down, no country will respect or fear us in the future. Osama called the U.S. a "paper tiger"(New York Times, 2002) Saddam himself has said that given enough time the U.S.-British coalition will surely fracture. It's obvious that Saddam would have never back down if we had pulled out in the middle of the situation.
Saddam deserves to be punished for the death & misery he's caused to the world. As we've detailed in previous points, Saddam's atrocities are every bit as gruesome and brutal as Hitler or St****. Beyond just freeing the Iraqi people from such torture, we should punish Saddam for his actions. Justice would not be served if Saddam was able to stay in power or go into exile somewhere.
07-18-2005, 12:34 PM #2
The Negative Effects of the Iraq War
Many soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed. No war is ever totally predictable, and in this case, the number of lives lost could be catastrophic. In addition to the number of potential soldiers killed, many unprotected Iraqi civilians could fall victim to the attacks. Saddam has never shown any regard for the lives of his people; thus, he is likely to put weapons and soldiers in crowded civilian areas. Saddam also is likely to try to draw U.S. soldiers into dangerous street fighting. He knows we'll do everything in our power to avoid killing civilians, so he'll use that in every way to his advantage. Saddam’s allies or rebels may even deliberately kill thousands of his own people and blame the U.S. in an attempt to turn world opinion even more in his favor. No matter how you look at it, things don't look good for the average Iraqi citizen. You also have to consider the lives of Iraqi soldiers. Many of them have been forced into service and will be slaughtered if they put up a fight (and murdered for treason if they desert). Although Saddam Hussein has been captured his allies and other groups keep the fight going.
The financial cost of executing the war may be prohibitive. Paying soldiers, dropping "smart" bombs, launching Patriot missiles, etc. costs an enormous amount of money. Unlike the first Gulf War when countries such as Saudi Arabia and Japan picked up much of the tab, the U.S. will bear the brunt of the cost. Estimates of cost have ranged from 30 billion to the 100’s of billions. (Dawisha, 11) And that's just the execution of the war. You also have to add in the cost of occupying & re-building Iraq. Then you throw in all the money we had to dish out to countries like Turkey to ensure their support. This is money that could be spent beefing up homeland security, improving education, extending unemployment benefits, and more. With record deficits already projected, we have to consider if we really can afford this.
Anti-American sentiment could grow in the world, creating new potential terrorist recruits. Anti-Americanism has been growing rapidly lately, as evidenced by the war protests and public opinion polls around the world. Any significant death and destruction in a war would likely be blamed on the U.S. Hatred of the U.S. has already led to numerous terrorist attacks. Many Iraqi civilian casualties could lead to thousands of little Osama’s being recruited around the world. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said on Monday the U.S.-led war on Iraq would produce "one hundred new bin Ladens", driving more Muslims to anti-Western militancy. (Reuters.com, March 31, 2003) The best way to end terrorism and ensure safety is to not make enemies. This war isn't going to help matters.
The post-Saddam Iraq situation could be unstable and destructive. You have an independent Kurdish minority in northern Iraq, the ruling Sunni minority in Baghdad, and the Shi'ites in the South. Iraqi exile groups agree that Saddam must go but haven't decided how to rule the post-Saddam Iraq. The Iraqi people have never known democracy. It's very risky to assume they'll be able to form a functioning, efficient democracy. There's always the potential for civil war, power struggles, and other problems. Many in the country will probably want retribution against anyone who remotely supported Saddam, which opens up the potential for more violence. All in all, the situation is extremely complicated and likely will take an expensive, long-term effort by the U.S. to straighten out.
A pre-emptive attack is against what the U.S. stands for. In past wars, the U.S. has usually been able to claim the higher moral authority. We've attacked only after first being attacked by others. A new doctrine of preemption would give credibility to those that describe the U.S. as an aggressive, imperialistic nation. Granted, if you wait to be attacked by terrorists, you risk the lives of thousands or millions as well as great economic damage. However, this is a dangerous precedent when you're the most powerful nation in the world. Other nations such as India and China may use the doctrine of preemption to attack their enemies of Pakistan and Taiwan, respectively. A peaceful world can only be assured if sovereign nations never attack each other.
Saddam could have been neutralized without the brutality of a war. With constant threats of force and a large number of inspectors in Iraq, we can keep Saddam from expanding his weapons and power. The cost of keeping the forces in place is great, but probably are nowhere near the costs of going to war.
With the economic and domestic security problems we have, this is a bad time to go to war. The stock market is close to its lowest level in 5 years, unemployment is relatively high, and we will soon be generating record deficits. We also are on high alert for terrorist strikes from Al Qaeda. One has to ask if this was really the best time to go to war, especially when Saddam doesn't seem to be an imminent threat to the U.S.
Rebels could torch more oil fields, leading to even higher oil prices, world recession, and an environmental disaster. During his retreat in the Gulf War, Saddam's troops set fire to numerous Kuwaiti oil fields. There is every indication that Saddam’s allies, rebels, and terrorists will do the same thing to Iraqi oil fields this time. The Kuwaiti scorched earth policy led to large economic losses and fires that raged for years. (Dawisha, 12) The environmental damage from the fires is still being calculated. Now, Saddam may be setting fire to even larger deposits of oil. This time we're better prepared to handle the fires, but the price of oil could skyrocket. As we saw in the 70s and early 90s, high oil prices can contribute significantly to world recession.
Retaliatory strikes from Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorists could occur. It's very doubtful that Al Qaeda would refrain from attacking us again if we didn't go to war to Iraq, but this may give them a reason to immediately attack. The bigger problem is organizations like Hamas that have only attacked Israel in the past. Hamas has already threatened to unleash suicide squads against the U.S. if we attack Iraq, and they usually follow through on their threats. Aside from the loss of human life and economic damage caused by such attacks, a Hamas attack and U.S. retaliation could lead to a large cycle of violence similar to the one going on between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists, which would do nothing to help an already anti-American Middle East.
U.S.-friendly Arab governments could become unstable. Governments such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all friendly to the U.S. and considered "allies". Unfortunately, the sentiment of the citizens is very different. Fundamentalists in all the countries want to take over the government and impose Taliban-style Islamic regimes. Support from allies or simply their silence could anger the people even further, especially if the war doesn't go as planned and tens of thousands of Iraqis die. That anger could lead to an overthrow of a U.S. friendly government, possibly creating another terrorist state. If this seems far-fetched, look no further than the country of Iran and it's Islamic revolution in the 70s.
Although there are many positive aspects to the current campaign in Iraq, this war will not be a good strategic move in a long run. The war was started off incorrectly, the justifications used were incorrect, and the occupation phase seems like less than a clear success. Instead of capitalizing on the success of capturing Saddam and ending his regime, the U.S forces are in a situation with harsh realities ahead. The New York Times reported, as of December 7th, 2004, that “the situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency” (New York Times, 12/7/04) So the latest news from the U.S government paints a bleak picture of the future, although at times, President Bush and Interim Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq, say that things are running smoothly in most parts of the country. The minorities are infighting like Kurds and Turkmen, Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Shiite’s etc. Terrorist groups are cropping up all over the country, north and south; rebel clerics like Muqdata Al-Sadr are running wild with no one controlling their militias. Plus various large minorities like the Sunni groups are threatening to boycott the elections. Even if the elections are successful, there will still be major terrorist acts and rebel attacks. If the Shiite’s win the Sunni’s will cause problems, and if the Sunni’s win the Shiite’s will cause problems, not the mention the fact the Kurds might want their independence. The most popular party in Iraq today, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), who is an Iranian backed Shiite group, if elections were held on January, this party would probably win the most seats and even the leadership. And this party is the same ruling party as Iran. Now instead of Baathist Iraq allying itself with Baathist Syria and Arab states, the future Iraq might ally with Iran and their party. And this is not in the United States best interests, because we view Iran as an enemy and because the Sunni extremist groups like Al Queda, might use this justification to attack the new Iraqi government. We might see a similar situation of the Iranian Situation in the 1970’s replay in the new Iraq. There was a quote that said, “Is Iraq the way it is because of Saddam Hussein, or is Saddam Hussein the way he is, because of the people of Iraq”, only time will tell.
07-18-2005, 12:38 PM #3
I wrote this in December 2004. My major source was this site.
And I had to speak from an American point of view in this essay. Because I was in an American school and the teacher was very Conservative and pro-war. So I had to be fair for a good grade.
Last edited by CAUSASIAN; 07-18-2005 at 12:40 PM.
07-18-2005, 12:47 PM #4
nice work causasian
07-18-2005, 05:45 PM #5
Saddam could have been neutralized without the brutality of a war. With constant threats of force and a large number of inspectors in Iraq, we can keep Saddam from expanding his weapons and power. The cost of keeping the forces in place is great, but probably are nowhere near the costs of going to war.
essay was an informative read since you explained both points.
Just wondering, since you know alot about this, are sunni's and shiites always fighting or is it just in iraq. And do you think iran is happy that USA got rid of Saddams regime, or are they threatened by the American presence? And wouldn't it be better to have a party with sunnis, shiites, and kurds (or does that just sound impossible) then one ruling class. From reading the essay the future doesn't look so good for the American presence, what do you think USA should do know to clean up the mess?
07-18-2005, 09:08 PM #6
Bush and Cheney love war.....as long as they aren't the ones fighting
07-18-2005, 10:36 PM #7Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
take off liberals.
07-19-2005, 05:01 AM #8Originally Posted by geoneo
I think Iran is very very very happy that Saddam is gone. Iran has more influence in Iraq now, than any other country has. They got a friendly state in the first time, for centuries. Before they had mortal enemies - The Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. Now they have two friendly states.
And they know there is no way Iraq can be used as a launching pad for a war with Iran. Iraq has already said, it wont let the US use Iraq as a base to launch a war with Iran if it came to that. The party that won the most seats in the election in Iraq was the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution In Iraq, which is Iranian based, same as the Iranian Party - Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution In Iran.
It would be better to have one Iraq, instead of different parties. If Kurds get any sort of autonomy. Iran, Syria, Turkey will be furious. Turkey said it wont let that happen. If Shias get autonomy - Saudi Arabia, Jordan will be furious. Its better to have a one party state, under one rule.
I dont know what the US could do. If they leave the terrorists will win, and spread chaos all over the Middle East and the world. If the US stays, the terrorists will have a field day and attack American forces and create more terrorists. Its a no win situation for America right now.
The first breed of foreign terrorists were created after the Afghan war with the Soviet Union, people like Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawhiri, Abu Musab Al-Zaruqui, Khattab, and thousands of others. After winning the Afghan war, they had experience and spread their skills to others, creating al-Queda and other groups.
Now the veterans of the Iraq war, will be the next leaders of terrorism in the world. Its not a bright future.
07-19-2005, 06:25 AM #9
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)