Quote:
Originally posted by Minte
You forget the resolve of their population..we had "control" and strategic location in IRAN..remember the Shah? And it could easily be stated we have control in Israel.And then there was Turkey,prior to the Cuban missile crisis.So the concept of strategic location has little merit.
If Bush pushes congress to invade,it will be for more than one issue.And he still does need congressional approval to move forward,so you are correct..the president does NOT invade.
|
Well...actually I haven't forgotten Iran, and I am not sure what you mean in the case of Turkey. Turkey is still a member of NATO. Maybe you will educate me.
As I recall, Kennedy agreed to take missles out of Turkey as part of an arrangement with the Soviets, to remove their missiles from Cuba.
I have not forgotten the resolve of their population. The US is counting on the Iraqi people to welcome the overthrow of Sadam. If this is not the case then we will never have long term control in Iraq. The stated goal is to democratize Iraq. If this can be accomplished or something close to it, then we will have long term success.
Strategic location does have merit. In the case of Iran the Shaw was a puppet of the US for twenty or more years (as I recall).
War is always a crap shoot, in the sense that unpredicted consequences can occur.
I have already stated that I am not in favor of an invasion of Iraq, but I am in favor of containment. More than 700 targets have been identified, as possible assets for the production of weapons of mass destruction. We can take these targets out by air power in a few weeks time, thus Sadam is contained.
If we do invade and take control of Iraq and the poulation welcomes us, and we are able to set up a democratic government (or something close to it), then I will applaud the action.