by Rob Dacosta

Created on: February 02, 2007   Last Updated: April 29, 2007

Any answer for Iraq that includes further interference from the United States looks doomed.

I find it both interesting and tasteless that Americans - in particular - are writing answers to this question without so much as a scrap of historical understanding or insight. (I haven't written the previous line to be unfair or rude. It's my honest reaction after reading the opinions that others have submitted. More chanting and flag waving. Little else.)

If anyone among this group had spent half as much time looking at the long history of Iraq as they had in submitting empty answers to what would be best for this country then maybe they could see why a continuing American input is pointless. But of course this isn't likely to happen. Typically many Americans will shoot the messenger and disregard anything that isn't deemed 'pure American'.

Honestly, what gives you people the right to send your military into another country and unleash the ugliness of war?

Was it the events of 9/11? If so then you CLEARLY are in the wrong place.

Maybe it predicated on an Al Qaeda connection? Wrong again. Al Qaeda has only become active within Iraq after the U.S. showed up. Bin Laden is still missing and no connection has ever been established between him, Al Qaeda and the Baathist party which had been ruling Iraq.

Was it for WMD? That 'drum' was beaten long and loud, but it turned out to be empty! Is it just strange, or coincidental that this core justification is no longer mentioned? But it was the first and primary reason during the build-up to war. Every speech harped on it. Every newscast mentioned it. And still .... NOTHING.

Removal of a dictator? Really? With so many to choose from the American government simply pulled Saddam Hussein's name from a hat? The American population appears rather selective on this issue too. What about any of the following people: Enver Hoxha, Kim Il Sung or his son Kim Jong Il, Nicolai Ceaucescu, Lawrence Taylor, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, Robert Mugabe, Baby Doc Chevalier, Slobodan Milosevic, Umar Hassan Ahmad al - BASHIR, and so on. Well, the point is clear. It seems as though Saddam Hussein must have been a 'special' dictator, tyrant, despot. His crimes single him out, apparently.

Perhaps it was the fight against the spread of Islamic militancy? Big whoops here don't you think? After a decade of massive weapons sales throughout the 1980's where every military contractor on earth got rich equipping the Iraqi armed forces to support an eight year

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next Page >>