Comments on: Strategic Imperative of Iraq – A Special Report

By: Larseld87

Larseld87 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:12:48 +0000

1.) Iran- Iraq under Saddam was as good a counter to Iran as any. The CIA could have played their divide-and-maintain-balance-of-power for half that cost. America has enough problems in Iraq itself, let alone ‘influencing’ Iran. A coupl of Nimitz Carriers in the Gulf would have done nicely.

2.)Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq in the first place. There was no love lost between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, or any other terror agency for that matter. America has, essentially, invited AQ and is now trying to kick the obnoxious guest out.

3.)Try telling me that Saddam refused to sell oil to America. The Arabs are businessmen too. Saying that the Presence ensures oil security is preposterous.

4.) Only the Americans say Iraqis are happy. Look, democracy works in the west; no doubt about that. Iraq is a different story. At the slightest pretext, they start a civil war. Only Saddam’s iron hand kept them down. Barging in to throw him out never helped anyone. Iraq is free now, but at what cost? If i were an Iraqi, i would say,”Atleast under Saddam, we were able to walk on the streets without looking back; as long as we didn’t say a word about Saddam. I’ll take that anytime.” An average mid-east Joe wants peace at a bargain, not freedom at an unacceptable price. The ‘hope of future’ is a pipe dream; what is the average life expectancy of an iraqi?

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:06:16 +0000

J.R. so you are in support of a war based on lies that has killed thousands of our troops and up to a million Iraqi’s? We aught to send you over there. D. Winton show me proof there were WMD in Iraq. You can’t and even if there was Saddam probably bought them from us. There is mountains of proof that the Iraq war is a furtherance of the neoconservative chickenhawk agenda. Do a little research guys before you post drivel.

By: D. Winton

D. Winton — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:58:59 +0000

Um stefano how do you know there was not al Qaida or weapons of mass destruction. For all we know they were laying low there and and when we got there they used them as decoys to save the nuclear weapons, though my story isnt perfect nor true i doubt yours is eather. you were probaly supporting bush goin there and then slowly started to hate his decision and turn against him. Why? the Media.

By: stefano ciaramelletti

stefano ciaramelletti — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:33:58 +0000

…before bush invasion no Al Qaida terrorist was in Iraq. No Weapons of mass destruction…no link with Osam Bin Laden. Only oil…and a bloody regime (like Egypt or Algeria or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan). Today Israel have the atomic bomb, had spy in US and control from 1967 another country, but is not a danger.Tomorrow war to Syria after Iran and after…may be Russia? Do you remember the Monroe doctrine?

By: J.R. Riggins

J.R. Riggins — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:14:48 +0000

I understand the strategic importance of following through with this mission and I am in support of it. My occassional sparring with those who see the Iraq war as illegal and nothing more than President Bush getting even with Saddam sickens me.

How does one effectively explain strategic goals and, just as importantly, America’s responsibility to those Iraqi citizens who have placed their faith and well being in our hands as a result to those people who have no sense of history, strategy or the dynamics of international politics?

Perhaps any effort to make a reasonable argument is simply a waste of time on them?

This article, along with many others, makes a reasonable argument. Unfortunately, you’re probably preaching to the choir. Would articles like these be more effective if they were slipped into medium sized newspapers around the US?

Thank you.