(quote) Rebecca-654746 said: ... In a civil war, you can't guarantee that the people who come out on top are going good. ... Your not recognizing that there's a good chance that the rebel group who comes into power in Syria-is going to end up being just as evil-if not more evil than Assad. .... What's to stop eventually, the Iraqi government turning out just like Assad. This happens quite a lot in revolutions/wars. That the "outcome" can become worse than what was intended to be.
So your not addressing my point about that.
And I will sound my biggest reason why Iraq was wrong, wrong. The main argument was the weapons of mass destruction. And for me even if Saddam had them, that alone didn't justify us going to war unilaterially without evidence that Saddam had an IMMINENT attack on us. ...
By that reasoning then China could say well the United States has all kinds of weapons, they have bases here and there....
Fact is and what your recognizing is its possible the Iraqi people all on their own-would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves and assured in a government by themselves. Its not even a laughable idea. Look at the Soviet Union. It fell on its own without US bombs, bombing them "to freedom" Putin's not perfect but he's a kitty cat compared to the Soviet regimes.
Let's deal with a couple of propaganda points you are repeating here.
You repeat the amazing claim that we somehow acted "unilaterally."
First of all, that is a falsehood. I know you didn't invent the lie, the anti-Bush fanatics desperately pushed that lie for years. But I am amazed that you bought into it. There were over 2 DOZEN
other countries that were in there with us. That precludes it from being unilateral on its face. Period. Unilateral is not
defined as "France did not give its permission." As soon as one, single, solitary country joined us, it was not a unilateral action. This is not debatable. And there was more than one other country that sent in troops.
Second of all, it's completely and totally irrelevant. Morality has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the number of people or parties who happen to agree or act on a proposition. The morality or immorality of a war stands on its own merits, not the number of belligerents involved.
The next propaganda point is the claim that the "main argument" was WMD's. The anti-Bush folks always pretended for political purposes that there was only "One True Reason" for the war. It differed from group to group and from time to time. The really rabid folks still tell themselves the absurdity that it was to "steal the oil." The more practical folks changed their claim through time.
The reality is that the Bush Administration consistently gave an entire list
reasons why we were going to war with Iraq. The fact that its opponents only choose to recognize one of them at any given moment does not change that reality.
It is true that the press focused almost exclusively on WMD's. It is true that Bush was pretty inept as a communicator and let the debate be defined by his opponents. It is even true that the main argument to the UN Security Council was WMDs. But the U.S. did not
go to war on the basis of a non-existent UN go-ahead. The U.S. went to war for the reasons given to Congress, reasons which were much more extensive than just WMDs.
Moving off the propaganda, you are consistently expressing things that are nothing more than personal opinions as though they were facts.
"Fact is and what your recognizing is its possible the Iraqi people all on their own-would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves"
That is NOT a fact. That is conjecture on your part. The Iraqi people had repeatedly tried and failed to get rid of Saddam themselves. Ask the Kurds. Ask the "Marsh Arabs." There is zero reason to believe that the Iraqi people were going to get the job done all on their own.
a fact is that most successful rebellions require outside support. There are of course exceptions. Castro pulled it off. But these are the exceptions, not the rule. The United States is an independent country because of French assistance.
It is also possible that regimes will crumble without a rebellion. We saw this with the Soviet Bloc at the end of the Cold War. But for this to happen, you need a population that is fairly homogenous in its opposition to the regime and
a security apparatus that is identifying more with the population than the regime.
This is not the case with Iraq. The entire population was
not united in its opposition to Saddam; there were significant parts of the Sunni population that, while it did some suffering under Saddam, feared even worse suffering under the Shiites. We see the fallout of that to this day. And the security apparatus was still very much under Saddam's control.
You complain that I haven't been addressing some points about Syria. There is some justice in that complaint.
To be honest, given the current administration it's all just completely academic, and that's taken some of the interest out of it for me. There is almost no chance that Obama is going to take meaningful action of any kind in Syria.
In theory, we could certainly guarantee that the people who come out on top are going to be good ones. But that would require a level of commitment that I don't see the U.S. population as having. And even if the population were supportive, the Obama administration is not going to act on it.
So I've just kind of pursing the Syrian argument in a rather desultory way.
It is unlikely that whoever takes over in Syria will be worse than Assad. Possible, but not likely. It is likely that their evil will be different
than Assad's evil.
Syria is attracting all kinds of outside influence. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia just to name a few. A certain cynical part of me is rooting all for the Shiite Hezbollah terrorists and various Sunni terrorists to kill each other indefinitely there. But that's not a terribly nice attitude.
Our best interest would be to find a moderate Sunni group to back and make darn sure they won and won big. But I don't see us putting the necessary energy and resources into that. Given that reality, staying completely out of it does have a certain amount of wisdom.