America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

BY CHRISTOPHER LAYNE

when it comes to the bush administration's foreign policy, there certainly is much to criticize -especially with respect to iraq. we now know - and should have known a year ago - that iraq did not have weapons of mass dectruction and posed neither an imminent or a "grave and gathering" threat to the united states. we now know - contrary to repeated intimations by senior administration officials, including president bush and vice president cheney - that there was no alliance between al-queda and saddam hussein and that baghdad had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

the reason the bush administrtion went to war without multilateral stamp of approval is simple.
washington perceived - incorrectly in my judgement - that US interests required a regime change in baghdad. other states - notably france, germany, and russia - saw the world differently. they believed that saddam hussein's iraq was effectively contained and could only become a threat, if ever, many years down the road. they believed that their interests would be undercut by the US invasion because they presciently feared chaos in postwar iraq and greater instability in the middle east. the same dynamics explain why other states have not exactly rushed to bail the us out of its postwar problems in iraq. and we should not hold our breaths expecting them to do so, because their view of things is pretty much "you broke it, you buy it." the US broke iraq by going to war unilaterally and now we own the geopolitical equivalent of marvin gardens.

saddam had to go.

i don't like the way we justified making that happen, but he had to go. yes, he was "contained," but contained in there with him were men and women and children who were being tortured, raped, mutilated and killed at the whim of this prick and his two sagging sons. that had to stop -- it SHOULD have stopped a decade before this. we had the ability and as far as i'm concerned the justification to ruin his sorry ass for invading an ally of ours. we didn't boot the nazis out of france and then go home. we kept going and made damned sure there was no hitler left to try the same stunts again.

we failed the iraqis once. i'm glad that we're not going to repeat the error.

no, i don't like the reasons (excuses) we've been fed for his ousting. imo, it was unnecessary and muddied the water. that didn't have to happen. the fact that the man was slaughtering his own citizens by the hundreds is reason enough to liberate iraq.

if i had my druthers we'd do the same thing to a healthy handful of other countries, starting with syria and putting a Made In The USA boot up north korea's ass next, and rounding off with a swift "F.U." to china while we're in the neighborhood.

"hey, china. our economy called. it wants to come home now. oh, yeah, and quit executing your slave workforce and kicking pregnant political prisoners in the gut and making them kill their own babies if it should survive to birth."

ugh. i don't want to think about my thoughts right now. :P

I still don't know how everyone can claim we went into Iraq 'alone'. Ok, so having 35+ nations helping us in some way is alone??? Please explain this to me.

About weapons of mass desctruction. Even though the world KNEW he had them for over 20 years (including the wonderful UN), it's now all President Bush's fault for acting on it and not finding them. People now claim Bush has lied about the wmd. I'm pretty sure I heard about the wmd BEFORE Bush was in office. I'm also sure Clinton and his administration viewed Iraq as an extremely dangerous threat to OUR national security because on the same wmd. But some people have short memories, don't they. Here come's the argument 'but Clinton didn't act on it'. No, he believed something to be a dangerous threat to the US and DIDN'T act on it. Great leader...

Just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean they aren't or weren't there. We recently dug up several F-15 fighter planes in Iraq that were burried in the desert. We didn't know they'd be there until local residents told us. Did these fighters not exist until they were found? Which do you think is more difficult to burry in the sand, several airplanes or several barrels?

One final thought about wmd. To those who now say they were never there, they never existed because we haven't found them, I have a question. Do wanted criminals not exist until they're finally found? Is there really a difference? We knew both had existed at some point (in the past they both did something bad in order to now be 'wanted'), but since both can't be found do they not still exist? After all if we're looking for something that can't be found (wmd), by your arguments it MUST not exist. Just wondering.

I know it's really easy for people to know better and judge everyone (especially those they don't like), but I have little doubt that weapons of mass destruction WILL be found (maybe not in Iraq now, but belonging to the former Iraq regime). And I'n not saying that from any political view either, just based on the facts of the prior 20 some years in Iraq. Each to their own though.

Actually, the most troubling statement I heard was from the second post:

“Seems like the PALESTINIAN suicide bombers will be turning their attention to US soon.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

To me, this sounds like that doing the right thing is not important, but appeasing terrorists is. While I don’t want terrorism in the United States or anywhere for that matter, I don’t F’in care what a suicide bomber thinks… in fact, if they don’t like it then it must be good for the world.

xrundong, I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on Sharon’s policy is right now, but if fear of a Palestinian suicide bomber is the only reason to not like the policy then to me that’s foolish. Terrorism’s main purpose is to change foreign policy through fear of killing innocent civilians… women and children. Sounds like they’ve bullied some people here in America and that’s a shame.

I prefer the wrapper on as well ... removing it has a drastic negative effect on the taste of the cigar