An open rebuttal to pocebokli..... [Originally posted by pocebokli] Well, I know that I shouldnn't waste my time responding, but I am going to. This will serve me well in the future, seeing that your attitude seems pervasive in the realm of internet message boards. 1>Let me first state that your anger is a direct result of your own selfimage. You view yourself as unable to control me and it angers you that I will not see things your way. I hope you will learn tolerance. Maybe you will respond to this later on 2>Do I? How about I let you know what I actually think, instead of you telling me. As far as the Iraqi people overruling their dictator, I don't believe it would happen soon enough. It's already been too long, and there was no end in sight. No one can argue that. 3>Yes they are. And soon they will be a free and prosperous nation. 4>I'm not sure if you are aware of what geezer means, but it is odd that you talk about how old their country is while referring to me(personally or generally as an american?) as a geezer. To respond, they were there, but your country chose democracy. If dictatorship is a better route why did you not choose that as a model when your country developed? 5>Extreme capitalism? No offense, but the US, while a practicing capitalist nation, is far from being unfettered. I'm not sure how I can say anymore on this, except you are wrong with that implication. Dictatorships don't end with one death. Saddam's sons were willing and able to continue the rule. Again, no forseeable end. As for a revolution - why do you suggest we prolong the rule under which those people live, if you believe a revolution to be the best course? Besides, it's a moot point. Saddam easily crushed the uprisings after the first gulf war (yes I know, I know with the helicopters that the UN allowed off the ground when they shouldn't have), and has fended off the kurds for decades. Some how this is going to end all of a sudden? 6>I guess I'll go ahead and address the reasons now for future reference, and because I am simply tired of you telling ME why I believe we went there: Keep in mind that even David Kaye says that there was evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but they had been slowed dramatically by sanctions. The intent was still there. WMD or not, the questions have to be - How long would it take before a system of containment, funded primarily by the US, take to break Saddam, or future leaders', resolve to develop WMD? On a longer timeline would containment have worked at all, considering programs were still being developed and only time was against them? Is containment (over a democratic Iraq)better or worse for the Iraqi people? Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the United States? Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the rest of the world? Is the refusal to go to war worth the possibility that WMD are being developed, or already are developed? After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with: -a liberation of an oppressed people -a new trading partner -a new security partner -the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions -the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines -a catalyst for democracy in the region The only other real alternative put forth thus far is containment and inspections. After 13 years this accompolished none of the above, not even the original goal of simply knowing that Iraq is, in fact, in compliance with the original ceasefire agreement. 7> refer to 6, instead of putting words in my mouth. 8>refer to 6, I've given plenty of reasons. 9>Yes, and WMD. Are you aware of the UN's policy on weapons inspections and how the process is intended to work? (hint: It's not for the inspectors to go poking around in the sand) 10> 15,000?? Not in many many years, and at that time, Russia had even more than we did :) http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm That link is accurate as of 2002. Both Russia and the US have about 10,000 total with about 8,000 active. Also, as for external politics, I guess this is a bad move to?? The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) follows Bush's November 2001 agreement with Putin in calling for a reduction in the United States' strategic nuclear arsenal from 7,000 to 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed weapons by 2012 . Perhaps, in your eyes, we are really looking to trick the Russians, even though we've been more open about our nuclear arsenal than any other country on earth. 11>Are you aware how close Saddam was when we went in in '91??? It was MONTHS, not the 5-10 years we had assumed. And if Saddam had a nuclear weapons, the fear isn't it being launched by him against us.The fear is proliferation to terrorist groups or other rogue nations. 12>How can us having close competition be considered a monopoly?? 13>But unlike Saddam, our leaders have to be held accountable to the people. If not election (or armed revolt) will be the answer. Dictatorships do not allow for dimplomacy. 14>You'll have to put this one in a complete sentence. 15>The fact is, one nuclear weapons is not enough detterance to stop an invasion force. Air superiority alone would easily allow us to remove any launching site. If one were enough, we wouldn't waste the money maintaining thousands in a nuclear triumvirate. 16>Do you really believe that? Russia lost more men fighting Germany than they would ever lose with a single nuke. 17>Yes there would. You simply start infighting in a region and let the dictators, who are accountable to no one, waste their wmd on each other.