loborugger
11-01-2005, 05:01 PM
At the time we rolled into Iraq, I was against the war. I figured that we would have no problem rolling up the Iraqi army (which was only slightly tougher than the French army) and taking control of the country. Which, if you think about it, is an incredible feat. Our military forces went almost as far on the planet away from their home base as you can go, assembled, and then disassembled an enemy - in less than a month. I believe that to be unprecedented in history.
What concerned me was 2 fold
1. The building of an new Iraq, the justification of war (or therefore lack of), the insurgency, etc. The troubles there are well documented. Every talking head trying to score points off our country is piling on.
2. The second is this. The prez said in his speech following 9/11 (it was on 9/17 I believe) that we should bring justice to our enemies, or our enemies to justice. I figured that was good. He said we would work to eliminate terrorist supporting countries. That is right on.
At that point, we went into Afghanistan. No problem, that was the #1 power base of terrorism. Then we went off on the wild tangent in Iraq, a country not defined as a terrorism supporter and off the radar in Sept 2001.
However, had we waited, right now would be our golden oppurtunity to take out a terrorist nation.
As we speak, the world is lining up to condemn one of the 3 or 4 biggest terrorist nations on the planet - Syria. Syria has a LONG history of supporting thugs and evildoers of all kinds for 30 years. The country is run by a Central American like junta that has gone and whacked a Lebanese leader - a country they have long worked to destabilize.
Imagine, had we not gone into Iraq. Our army wouldnt be tied up, over committed, and run down. Instead it would be ready to take action against the gov't of Syria. Syria has a coast line we could land on, and it also butts up to Turkey - a country where we have bases. I believe that unlike in the Iraqi scenario, the Turks would allow us to use their country as a staging ground.
Undoubtedly, there would countries opposed to our intervention there. Those that hate us, and the other nations (N Korea and Iran come to mind) that are state sponsors of terror. However, they would be soon for what they were - malcontents who oppose us just cuz they can.
After beating up on any Syrian units that wished to fight (I imagine more than a few would be happy to surrender their arms), we would be able to incorporate aid from other countries on the planet (Europeans, hopefully. You never know, they have become Frenchified). to rebuild the country, while we prepared our troops to either act in a new place, defend an ally, or jsut be a force in presence - instead of a fully engaged occupying force.
I doubt we will be able to punish Syria (really its gov't, not its people) for the action it took in Lebanon. Instead, we will be left to sanctions in the UN (an org that the US has little use or love of)... and we have all seen how just and pure the UN is its enforcement of sanctions.
What concerned me was 2 fold
1. The building of an new Iraq, the justification of war (or therefore lack of), the insurgency, etc. The troubles there are well documented. Every talking head trying to score points off our country is piling on.
2. The second is this. The prez said in his speech following 9/11 (it was on 9/17 I believe) that we should bring justice to our enemies, or our enemies to justice. I figured that was good. He said we would work to eliminate terrorist supporting countries. That is right on.
At that point, we went into Afghanistan. No problem, that was the #1 power base of terrorism. Then we went off on the wild tangent in Iraq, a country not defined as a terrorism supporter and off the radar in Sept 2001.
However, had we waited, right now would be our golden oppurtunity to take out a terrorist nation.
As we speak, the world is lining up to condemn one of the 3 or 4 biggest terrorist nations on the planet - Syria. Syria has a LONG history of supporting thugs and evildoers of all kinds for 30 years. The country is run by a Central American like junta that has gone and whacked a Lebanese leader - a country they have long worked to destabilize.
Imagine, had we not gone into Iraq. Our army wouldnt be tied up, over committed, and run down. Instead it would be ready to take action against the gov't of Syria. Syria has a coast line we could land on, and it also butts up to Turkey - a country where we have bases. I believe that unlike in the Iraqi scenario, the Turks would allow us to use their country as a staging ground.
Undoubtedly, there would countries opposed to our intervention there. Those that hate us, and the other nations (N Korea and Iran come to mind) that are state sponsors of terror. However, they would be soon for what they were - malcontents who oppose us just cuz they can.
After beating up on any Syrian units that wished to fight (I imagine more than a few would be happy to surrender their arms), we would be able to incorporate aid from other countries on the planet (Europeans, hopefully. You never know, they have become Frenchified). to rebuild the country, while we prepared our troops to either act in a new place, defend an ally, or jsut be a force in presence - instead of a fully engaged occupying force.
I doubt we will be able to punish Syria (really its gov't, not its people) for the action it took in Lebanon. Instead, we will be left to sanctions in the UN (an org that the US has little use or love of)... and we have all seen how just and pure the UN is its enforcement of sanctions.