Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lothar5150
Yes, I do think that was a major reason. I also think that we thought Saddam had WMD and he was in constant violation of the UN and cease fire agreements.
Liberating the Iraqis was part of the a policy you will not hear on the news but if you look at the issues of Foreign Affaires right after 9/11 you’ll see quite a few articles on it. It is also outlined in the National Strategy. Honestly, it is called Pax Americana. The basic premise is that democratic nations have the best chance for stability and that by establishing stable democratic nations we will ultimately create long-term international stability and peace. Yes, it is a policy to establish some degree of hegemony throughout the world. However, unlike previous world powers attempting hegemony we have no interest in grabbing land or subjugating the population. Quite the opposite is the ultimate aim. The best example of this policy in action is post WW2 Western Europe.
I also think that we honestly thought Saddam possessed WMDs. If you talk to most people who have any experience as an intelligence consumer they have no problem with the idea that we received bum scoop. Intelligence analysis uses many assumptions and in many cases, the assumption is based on indirect observation. Honestly, weathermen have a better track record.
|
OK, I'll grant you that its very possible that we did indeed believe that sadam had WMD's
However, i still doubt that Iraqi liberty was verry high on the list. If it was, why would they beat arround he bush the way they did. First it was terrorism connections, ten WMD, then when that didn't pan out they started tooting the liberty horn. Just sems very shady to me.