The Connection Between Sept. 11th and Iraq

Getting rid of Saddam militarily was always the right thing to do, and was something that had to be done ever since he first rose to power.
But there was no willpower to oppose him then. And since his rise to power happened in the middle of the Cold War, the thinking was that it was better to have a megalomaniac dictator in power, rather than a communist.
Saddam Hussein’s rise, like any Stalinesque figure, culminated in his invasion of neighboring Kuwait.
Now there was willpower to oppose him. The Cold War was over and there were no Soviets to mess with the situation.
But Iraq War I was aborted mid execution. We stopped his takeover of Kuwait, and then quit before we finished the job. The tanks were rolling non stop towards Baghdad, but because there was no popular or political will to accept the sacrifice of men and money, it was cut short.
After September 11th, there was suddenly that popular and political willpower. Better for hundreds of body bags coming out of Iraq, rather than thousands of body bags in New York City or Los Angeles.
The Iraq War II was just the twelve year finale of a prematurely aborted Iraq War I.

The same applies to any place in the world where an evil military power is in rule. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba.
Evil madmen must be opposed. They are like cancers: they grow and spread.
But the willpower to stomach the cost to oppose them isn’t always there, so they are first opposed in fits, appeasement, and “diplomacy”.
Just look at the Western attitude of appeasement towards Hitler before World War II.
Did any of that work?
No, because military madmen only understand and respond to one thing: the application of force.
Evil Stalinesque madmen still exist in this world, and in great numbers, simply because the populace and the politicians don’t really understand what is in jeopardy. Things like September 11th wake the populace and politicians up. Action becomes acceptable all of a sudden.
Osama bin Laden is a madman. The madman does what madmen do. BOOM! September 11th.
The U.S. goes: “Shit! Did he really just do that? What other madmen do we have to worry about?”
Saddam Hussein comes to mind.
The U.S.: “Well, hell if Osama didn’t remind us that we have to clean house.”
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the connection between September 11th and Iraq.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ Seth Yantiss

    Nice Post LikWid!!

  • Seth Williams

    Paul wrote:

    Wouldn’t this same logic say that we should remove the totalitarian dictators of RED China?

    Sorry Paul, no. One doesn’t follow the other.

    If you accept the logic that it’s wrong to have free Iraq because we haven’t freed China (which seems to be the implication), then you may as well argue that Roosevelt was wrong to overthrow Hitler without overthrowing Stalin as well. Or the Irish were wrong to accept a state when part of their island was still occupied by the English. Or Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves because they weren’t perfectly free afterwards.

    In a perfect world we would have the will and the power to commit to every action everywhere. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world; should that imperfection paralyze us from any action at anytime? Of course it shouldn’t. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

  • Jadegold

    Kids say the darnedest things.

    Here, I was hoping the link between Saddam and 9/11 would finally be revealed–alas, we are once again left disappointed.

  • James

    Heh. Bravo. There is some truth in this post. Brave of you to post it.

  • Paul

    Wouldn't this same logic say that we should remove the totalitarian dictators of RED China? Think we'll ever have the political will to do that?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Wouldn’t this same logic say that we should remove the totalitarian dictators of RED China? Think we’ll ever have the political will to do that?

    Yes. And no, I don't think we'll ever have the political will to go in there. China is big, their army size huge, and I don't believe that America or the West would take them on unless absolutely forced.

  • Gary Gunnels

    likwidshoe,

    After September 11th, there was suddenly that popular and political willpower. Better for hundreds of body bags coming out of Iraq, rather than thousands of body bags in New York City or Los Angeles.

    Well, there went that hypothesis. After all, its more than hundreds coming out of Iraq at this point.

    Saddam Hussein’s rise, like any Stalinesque figure, culminated in his invasion of neighboring Kuwait.

    Many of the Stalinqesque figures haven't actually invaded other countries. After all, Reagan's friend in Romania – Ceausescu – wasn't prone to invade other states.

    Anyway, I understand your Trostkyite call to perpetual war. I just don't agree with it.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Seth Williams wrote, "If you accept the logic that it’s wrong to have free Iraq because we haven’t freed China (which seems to be the implication)…"

    I didn't take it that way at all. Nothing in his comment would suggest that he was taking it down that road. Could have just been an honest question. Let's give Paul the benefit of the doubt unless he shows us reason not to.

  • Seth Williams

    Well…no, he didn't explicitly take it that far, but that is the implication of that thinking. I'm all for benefit of the doubt; however, whether he meant to make that implication or it was genuine wonderment is really beside the point, the answer remains the same. [Besides, there really wasn't anything ad hominem in my response to him.]

  • Seth Williams

    We don’t need to actually go out and look for that kind of argument. It will find us.

    That's so absolutely true.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    I see your point Seth. I'm certainly tired of getting steered into the false logic of, "why didn't you go here and here and here and here? and because you didn't go here and here and here it must mean that you're a hypocrite! *sticks tongue out*", but I don't think Paul did that. At least I hope he didn't. I'm tired of that false logic.

    Anyways..benefit of the doubt. We don't need to actually go out and look for that kind of argument. It will find us.

  • Paul

    Sorry I didn't have time to get back in to this site yesterday to discuss my "implications". I'm not the type of guy to make implications. If I want to say something I just say it. I just wish we wouldn't cozy up to these types of regimes in the first place despite whatever the immediate and temporary advantages may be. Our trade policy with RED China and dependence on them to finance our deficits is a mistake.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ Seth Yantiss

    YAY!!! I got my Gravatar back… sheesh..

  • http://Array Seth Williams

    Paul:
    OK, fine if you don't mean to imply that the invasion was wrong…but then what exactly is the point of mentioning China? Surely we can agree that the connection between China and Islamic terrorism is tenuous (at best).

    I'm not disagreeing that the Chinese regime is an odious one; I'd love to see it (and a whole host of others) changed. However, the practical considerations aren't the same, and it's just not really relevant to the topic at hand: Iraq.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development