What Costs More Per Year Than The Iraq War???

[Binky Bainbridge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

So what I extrapolate from all of that is that you think Iraq and the U.S. would be better off if Saddam was still at the helm?

Long before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US & the UK should have sent a strong message to him basically saying, "clean up your act or, (to use that quaint American phrase), we're come in and whip your ass!"

Before you rush to say it wouldn't have worked, let me remind you that it did in Libya, a country bombed by Reagan who described Gaddafi as "the mad dog of the Middle East".

Once Libya actually did have WMD, it actively supported the IRA, it was involved in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, it financed the Black September terror movement that perpetrated the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, it was involved in the 1986 Berlin disco bombing that killed & injured many US service personnel, it financed the international terrorist Carlos the Jackal, etc. In other words it was a truly active terror state, certainly more so than Iraq had ever been!

Today it is friendly with the US, it was the first arab state to come out firmly to denounce 9/11 and pledged its commitment to fighting Al Qaeda. The US have restored full diplomatic relations with Libya and removed it from the list of states that support terrorism.

So the question has to be asked, if the US could have achieved such a result with Libya, why not Iraq? The reason in my view is that Ronald Reagan adopted a policy of quietly building up pressure on Gaddafi until he finally realised he had to change his ways, which he did.

On the other hand Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and gang, decided on a less subtle approach in dealing with Saddam & Iraq, which could best be summed up as kicking the door down, and going in blasting at anything that moved! And we still live with the after effects of that today.

[Highwayman]

Please note that Libya only came around after 20 years when the less subtle alternative was demonstrated to Gaddafi in Iraq.

CNN.com - World welcomes Libya WMD move - Dec. 20, 2003

[Detector]

Personally I think taking the war to Iraq was a smart idea. Why should we attempt to fight the war on terror in many different lands when we could suck them all into one? We took the fight to a land already in need of cleaning, and drew the terrorists into our kind of fight.

[Binky Bainbridge]

Originally Posted by Detector

Personally I think taking the war to Iraq was a smart idea.

With respect, I'd say it was the dumbest!

Why should we attempt to fight the war on terror in many different lands when we could suck them all into one? We took the fight to a land already in need of cleaning, and drew the terrorists into our kind of fight.

By invading Iraq we created chaos and opportunities for the likes of Syria & Iran to exploit with their Sunni & Shia co-Islamists across the border. There is never going to be "a gunfight at the O.K. coral" so-to-speak with terrorists in Iraq, it's not that simple.

As I said before if we could get a real result from Libya, who was a very active rogue state, then why not try the same thing with Saddam & Iraq - unless of course there was another hidden agenda?

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Binky Bainbridge

.....As I said before if we could get a real result from Libya, who was a very active rogue state, then why not try the same thing with Saddam & Iraq - unless of course there was another hidden agenda?

You’re not paying attention Binky. You might have an argument if Libya had come around prior to invading Iraq. Gaddafi saw “real change” coming on the horizon and didn’t want any part of it.

[Detector]

By invading Iraq we created chaos and opportunities for the likes of Syria & Iran to exploit with their Sunni & Shia co-Islamists across the border.

OK I'm missing the logic? behind your concept. By invading Iraq we created opportunities? While it does sound impressive in a post, I'm failing to see the reality of the statement.

There is never going to be "a gunfight at the O.K. coral" so-to-speak with terrorists in Iraq, it's not that simple.

Agreed. I don't see where anyone was expecting it to be a walk in the park.

unless of course there was another hidden agenda?

Ah! the conspiracy theory. Which is it, Bush getting revenge for his dad, or is it the Bush just wanted to get the oil?

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Detector

Ah! the conspiracy theory. Which is it, Bush getting revenge for his dad, or is it the Bush just wanted to get the oil?

It's the oil he wanted...that's why the DEMOCRATS are not trying to take the oil to pay for the war....

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

It's the oil he wanted...that's why the DEMOCRATS are not trying to take the oil to pay for the war....

Think about how true that statement is...

Instead of letting Bush and his croanies keep their ill gotten gains, you take it away.

Iraq has oil profits and until we make them use that money for their own recostruction they will be happy to keep it as personal wealth. AS long as we empty our treasury for their benefit why shoud they empty thiers?

If it's as you say the Democrats want to use that money then Damned if they don't deserve a standing ovation and a pat on the back.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

...Iraq has oil profits and until we make them use that money for their own recostruction.....

If you believe that isn’t happening already, you aren’t paying attention.

[Binky Bainbridge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

You’re not paying attention Binky. You might have an argument if Libya had come around prior to invading Iraq. Gaddafi saw “real change” coming on the horizon and didn’t want any part of it.

Gaddafi had a taste of American "persuasion" with the bombing raids on Tripoli & Benghazi, which killed 45 Libyan military & government personnel as well as 15 civilians, including Gaddafi's daughter.

He "got the message" in 1986 long before the 2002 invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam. In a 2001 TIME magazine interview Gaddafi described a new world order in which the US and Libya were natural allies against Islamic extremism. He said Libya would be a much better and reliable friend than a certain oil-rich Arab monarchy - an obvious reference to Saudi Arabia - that encourages religious fanaticism. By this time he had given up sponsoring terrorist groups probably due to the fact that UN & US sanctions had cost Libya $30 Billion, and were finally taking their toll.

In 1999 Gaddafi offered to open up Libya's WMD programme to international inspection but the Clinton administration did not pursue the offer as they did not the regard it as a threat. That together with his public pledged commitment to fight Al Qaeda indicates a man who was ready to re-enter the civilised world.

The point remains that through a series of moves we brought Gaddafi & Libya back into the fold without the need to shed US blood and run up enormous debt in a long drawn out dirty war. And it was a success - why didn't we do the same with Saddam & Iraq? Only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz can answer that question, but of course they won't!