InvisibleBlack
Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ninebelowzero Serious question to all you USA chaps. If the Bush administration didn't invade Iraq because of WMD's then what was the real reason. I happen to think they were shitting bullets over the risk of them falling into terrorists hands & hit the panic button. I'm interested in your take not jerking you all off. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq as it seemed to me to make no strategic or tactical sense, nor did I see any valid exit strategy once Saddam Hussein was toppled. I'm not certain I can explain the reasoning behind the invasion but I can try. I believe the invasion of Iraq, at a strategic level, occurred not because of WMD or Saddam's alleged involvement with terrorists, but because of the underlying precepts of what came to be called the "Bush Doctrine". To wit, that greater stability and global safety can be achieved by the pre-emptive intervention in autocratic non-democratic states to foster and/or impose democratic institutions, including the use of military force to achieve these aims. The fascinating part is that with the end of the Bush presidency, this policy has not only continued but multiplied. As far as I can see, President Obama has only continued and expanded the Bush Doctrine - we have now removed Muammar Gaddafi from Libya and there is a great deal of discussion around regime change in Syria and Iran, potentially through force. I do not believe in pre-emptive war and I think that this course is a mistake.
_____________________________
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
|