Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LoBlo
Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).
Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.
If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.
|
In looking at this from another angle, this house of cards comes toppling down in the face of facts:
a: The cease-fire accord permitted Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and imposed no restrictions on their use;
b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;
c: Iraq's attempts to defend its skies were therefore justified under international law.
Your position therefore boils down to this: the US invaded Iraq because Iraq exercised its legitimate right, under international law, to defend its skies. Not a good case to base the invasion and occupation of a country on, which is perhaps why it was never made.
By the way here is the source for my own assertions on the NFZs:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html