A little off topic, I guess, but I've never understood why he did that. The two countries couldn't be more bitter enemies, and he sends them his Air Force?? Maybe something that comes out of this nightmare will be an explanation for that, from someone who was involved in the details that was in Saddam's government or military. I've yet to see an explanation that makes sense, except that Saddam was mad and delusional, which we all knew anyway. That's never seriously be argued. Keep D&D Civil!!
Not sure why someone who supports the intervention is necessarily a Bush apologist. You can argue both that the intervention was just AND that the administration has done a poor job with it. It certainly seems that way. Not measurably much more than the intervention in Afghanistan did, which was already being heavily criticized in the Muslim world. However, numbers since have shown an increase in the support for the 'war on terror' which fundamentally denies your assertion. That's all speculative. Maybe next time the UN acts. Maybe next time Congress is a little more stringent and we avoid all these accusations of 'lying to the people.' Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, so that is somewhat of a 'discernable terrorism problem.' Nice assertion, but can we then assume that if Iraq stabilizes the intervention will boost democracy? What does this have to do with Iraq? All of these things were happening before the intervention. We've removed a genocidal dictator and removed sanctions that some estimate killed millions of Iraqis (although they'd now try and mitigate that since its a pro-intervention argument). And there is a huge upside of benefits still to accrue if the situation stabilizes.
Of course they do. The U.S. interferes in other nations without invading all the time. They do so even when they aren't telling the leaders to get out of the country or else. They've done so in Latin America repeatedly. Why would they be less likely to do so here? It makes perfect sense that they orchestrated the would-be departure of Saddam, and the govt would make sure that some one friendly to their interests would be in charge after him. That is exercising contro, and intervening.
If you remember, that is a lot like what happened in Iran in 1979. The Shah (a dictator) was kicked out, Shiite extremists led by Khomeini took over the country, and anti-American sentiment reached new heights.
HayesStreet; I haven't had a chance to read through much of this thread so you might've have answered this already. My question was much simpler than that. Most supporters of the invasion, like yourself, have justified it that Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions? If that is justification then do you think that the US should use force against every country in violation of a UN resolution?
The situation isn't quite the same because the Shah was put in power and kept in power almost solely by the US. Much of the hate of the Iranians towards the US was because the Shah was so closely identified with us.
