I think bin Laden especially is super sane. By that, I mean he understands so perfectly what must be done (from his POV) and the reaction it will provoke. The man may not be reasonable, but he is sure as hell rational.
I don't think Saddam was well on his way to acquiring anything other than tons of money until Bush began agitating at him. That's when he figured he needed to start building something up to deter an attack. But Saddam was content to sit with his millions or billions in various palaces and not pose any threat to the US. I mean hell, we used to be his buddy, ffs.
I don't think the Iraq war has been a blow in the War on Terror, but it has been a partial success with another component of the neocon strategy, democritization of the Middle East. Although, let's keep in mind they don't care about democracy so much as a market economy that they can dabble in.
I don't know if their hearts are in the right place, as I'm still not sure I can agree with the ends justifying the means, which is all this administration seems concerned about doing. Or justifying without ends, really.
Anyone who, by definition, seeks the eradication of an entire race of people - all people, in fact, that are not exactly the same as himself - is, by my definition, insane. The fact that he is totally rational about achieving these ends only makes bin Laden more terrifying.
I have to disagree about the whole WMD thing. No, Saddam didn't have any - yet. But there are increasing amounts of evidence that with one iota less pressure from the UN - something, by the way, the UN was about ready to do until the US stepped in unilaterally - Saddam could easily have completed a nuclear bomb, or even a nuclear missile. You should read The Bomb in My Garden by Saddam's chief nuclear physicist. The title is misleading; the thing in his garden was actually a fully prepared nuclear centrifuge, meant to refine uranium into weapons-grade material. It is by far the most intricate and complex part of creating a nuclear weapon, and it was all but finished. It was hidden in a barrel in the scientist's garden to wait for the whole weapons inspection thing to blow over, or even just ease off. Simultaneously, Hussein was in negotiations with the Dear Leader for an off-the-rack ballistic missile system all the way up until the Coalition military buildup immediately prior to the invasion cut off his communications. In other words, I have no doubt that at the first sign of easing UN inspections, Saddam would be nuclear-capable in a year or less.
But like I said, that doesn't necessarily justify a war, although it might. It depends on circumstances. I'm not sure the cirucmstances were ripe, especially in a diplomatic sense, but the invasion on those grounds makes sense to me. (The fact that the invasion was publically justified by saying Saddam already had the weapons is just one more reason why I generally dislike this administration. No need to lie, assholes.)
The Iraq war has been, in my opinion, somewhat of a blow to worldwide terrorism, but not a big one. Baghdad was the known address of quite a number of internationally wanted gangsters (including the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 WTC bomb), and Iraq in general stood as a safe haven for terrorists needing to flee authorities in surrounding countries. Still, like you point out, the real impact of the war is the democratization of the Middle East, which is all in all a good thing, but I'm not sure a war is the proper means for such democratization, and I'm absolutely sure that the war has been touted more as a measure against "terrorism" and less as a measure for general freedom and stability. Once again, our administration mismanages the facts to get the job done. The ends justify the means.
So I think we're mostly in agreement. By "their hearts are in the right place, sometimes", I only meant to say that I do agree with some of their ends, if not the means. All in all, though, this administration has been a failure.
And I still think putting bin Laden's head on a pike wouldn't really be bad for anybody.
I don't think Saddam was well on his way to acquiring anything other than tons of money until Bush began agitating at him. That's when he figured he needed to start building something up to deter an attack. But Saddam was content to sit with his millions or billions in various palaces and not pose any threat to the US. I mean hell, we used to be his buddy, ffs.
I don't think the Iraq war has been a blow in the War on Terror, but it has been a partial success with another component of the neocon strategy, democritization of the Middle East. Although, let's keep in mind they don't care about democracy so much as a market economy that they can dabble in.
I don't know if their hearts are in the right place, as I'm still not sure I can agree with the ends justifying the means, which is all this administration seems concerned about doing. Or justifying without ends, really.
Reply
I have to disagree about the whole WMD thing. No, Saddam didn't have any - yet. But there are increasing amounts of evidence that with one iota less pressure from the UN - something, by the way, the UN was about ready to do until the US stepped in unilaterally - Saddam could easily have completed a nuclear bomb, or even a nuclear missile. You should read The Bomb in My Garden by Saddam's chief nuclear physicist. The title is misleading; the thing in his garden was actually a fully prepared nuclear centrifuge, meant to refine uranium into weapons-grade material. It is by far the most intricate and complex part of creating a nuclear weapon, and it was all but finished. It was hidden in a barrel in the scientist's garden to wait for the whole weapons inspection thing to blow over, or even just ease off. Simultaneously, Hussein was in negotiations with the Dear Leader for an off-the-rack ballistic missile system all the way up until the Coalition military buildup immediately prior to the invasion cut off his communications. In other words, I have no doubt that at the first sign of easing UN inspections, Saddam would be nuclear-capable in a year or less.
But like I said, that doesn't necessarily justify a war, although it might. It depends on circumstances. I'm not sure the cirucmstances were ripe, especially in a diplomatic sense, but the invasion on those grounds makes sense to me. (The fact that the invasion was publically justified by saying Saddam already had the weapons is just one more reason why I generally dislike this administration. No need to lie, assholes.)
The Iraq war has been, in my opinion, somewhat of a blow to worldwide terrorism, but not a big one. Baghdad was the known address of quite a number of internationally wanted gangsters (including the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 WTC bomb), and Iraq in general stood as a safe haven for terrorists needing to flee authorities in surrounding countries. Still, like you point out, the real impact of the war is the democratization of the Middle East, which is all in all a good thing, but I'm not sure a war is the proper means for such democratization, and I'm absolutely sure that the war has been touted more as a measure against "terrorism" and less as a measure for general freedom and stability. Once again, our administration mismanages the facts to get the job done. The ends justify the means.
So I think we're mostly in agreement. By "their hearts are in the right place, sometimes", I only meant to say that I do agree with some of their ends, if not the means. All in all, though, this administration has been a failure.
And I still think putting bin Laden's head on a pike wouldn't really be bad for anybody.
Reply
Leave a comment