highnote
09-11-2007, 12:03 PM
In 1998 the then GOP Congress passed -- and President Clinton signed -- the "Iraq Liberation Act", making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy and promoting an Iraqi insurgency.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_analysis;_ylt=AlmRXOJbW6mbUUOMITUavcl2wPIE
So here we are nearly 10 years later. Is Iraq a liberated country?
In some ways it seems like the reason Bin Laden ordered an attack on the U.S. is because at the time the middle east/Iraq and Afganistan were all relatively stable. I use the word "relatively" lightly. There were still major problems.
When the Soviets were fighting in Afganistan it gave the terrorists something to fight for. Once that ended there were a lot of restless souls.
Those restless souls staged an attack on the U.S. So we invaded Iraq, per official U.S. policy.
After Saddam was removed chaos ensued. But there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since then because all the fighting is "over there".
If the U.S. ever manages to get stability in the middle east then insurgents or terrorists will probably keep on attacking -- either U.S. controlled areas in the middle east or here in the U.S.
If some kind of booming economic activity were to happen that would probably help lessen the number of attacks. Employed people probably won't have as much reason to fight -- and certainly less time on their hands.
Bin Laden and Saddam would have done the world a big favor if they would have tried to build their economies' rather than start wars.
In the meantime, it seems that the best way to prevent an attack on U.S. soil is to maintain a high level of chaos in the middle east. That would give people with terrorist inclinations a target that is located geographically close to them.
Simulataneously, their economies' need to be jumpstarted. If people are making money they will have less reason to fight. And if they're making money they will fight those who are preventing them from making their living -- not the ones helping them make a living.
I guess my point is that it seems like the Iraq invasion was inevitable. If middle easterners didn't attack us first we would have eventually invaded Iraq. It is and was bi-partisan U.S. policy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_analysis;_ylt=AlmRXOJbW6mbUUOMITUavcl2wPIE
So here we are nearly 10 years later. Is Iraq a liberated country?
In some ways it seems like the reason Bin Laden ordered an attack on the U.S. is because at the time the middle east/Iraq and Afganistan were all relatively stable. I use the word "relatively" lightly. There were still major problems.
When the Soviets were fighting in Afganistan it gave the terrorists something to fight for. Once that ended there were a lot of restless souls.
Those restless souls staged an attack on the U.S. So we invaded Iraq, per official U.S. policy.
After Saddam was removed chaos ensued. But there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since then because all the fighting is "over there".
If the U.S. ever manages to get stability in the middle east then insurgents or terrorists will probably keep on attacking -- either U.S. controlled areas in the middle east or here in the U.S.
If some kind of booming economic activity were to happen that would probably help lessen the number of attacks. Employed people probably won't have as much reason to fight -- and certainly less time on their hands.
Bin Laden and Saddam would have done the world a big favor if they would have tried to build their economies' rather than start wars.
In the meantime, it seems that the best way to prevent an attack on U.S. soil is to maintain a high level of chaos in the middle east. That would give people with terrorist inclinations a target that is located geographically close to them.
Simulataneously, their economies' need to be jumpstarted. If people are making money they will have less reason to fight. And if they're making money they will fight those who are preventing them from making their living -- not the ones helping them make a living.
I guess my point is that it seems like the Iraq invasion was inevitable. If middle easterners didn't attack us first we would have eventually invaded Iraq. It is and was bi-partisan U.S. policy.