The ordeal of flouting weapons inspectors became apparent during Clinton's administration. It was then that the major diplomatic option had been exhausted. So, in my opinion, no.

The problem I have with regime change is that Iraq was the most secular country of them all. I hate to see that thrown away and replaced with another Taliban-like government. Plus they are likely to collapse into civil war once their common enemy (that's us) is finally gone...be it in two years or ten.

I would have been all for instigating a regime change if I had any confidence that a plan was in place that replaced Saddam with a less cruel regime. I honestly don't believe democracy in Iraq is going to be less dangerous for America and may very well be more dangerous. Nor have I seen any evidence that the Iraqi people are or will be any happier with a US occupation than they were under Saddam's regime. Not because Saddam was better than America (of course he wasn't) but because he was not a foreign agressor.

I think that they will continue to fight us until we have a clear policy and timeline for giving their country back to them. In the end I think we were better off with containment and Iraq should have been responsible for overthrowing their own government when they were ready and able. That's not to say we couldn't have offered assistance, only that it should have been their decision and their timing and done without ever needing an American occupation.

Pressing for regime change is different than taking charge of regime change. We have laid our prestige on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq and are at the same time involved in high stakes foreign policy negotiation in regards to North Korea, Iran, and Palestine.

Bush did not develop (or act on it at least) a policy of regime change on Iraq until after 9-11. He made the connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq as being the same threat. He claimed that Hussein was the equivolent of a terrorist who could not be trusted with WMDs. Yet Hussein was always a secular dictator looking after his continued power over his nation. Iran not Iraq has the decades long demonstrated history of supporting direct or indirect attacks against the United States. Hussein is an anti-Israeli indirect supporter of terrorism on behalf of the Palestinian people. (not that that is a good thing, but it is not an attack against our country)

We have not laid out a clear policy with a clear end (goal or end in sight)
The cost for that is mounting by the weekly or increasingly daily attacks against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clinton's case was laid out more honestly and directly and his actions, while not solving the problem of Hussein, did not leave the United States with a large bill and a potentially nightmarish occupation of a country.

This would have been possibly worth the cost had it really been connected to the so-called war on terror.

I think the chances of Iraq exploding into a civil war is slim because as long as their is an organized government that everyone can agree with is in place, then civil war is not a worry




Many tried to overthrow Saddam & many have failed & resulted in mass torturings of innocent Iraqis ratting out their friends and family members just so the torture would stop. The iraqi people were starved & i think i know the reason why now that i think about it. They were kept malnourished and weak because weak people can't fight a well fed, trained killer Republican Guard member if their were ever an attempted Coup.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!

I think that other than the question on lying, this is my favorite of all this thread's points. I think it has been made clear that GW is being held to a different standard than Clinton. Bush's motives is attacking Iraq are immediately called into question (oil, world domination, etc.) whereas Clinton has the question of Monica raised temporarily and then nothing. It is not simply because Operation Iraqi Freedom is more recent. I believe it goes to the heart of partisan politics in this country and around the world.

Danya,
WHAT ?!?!?!?! Are you trying to say that as long as the regime was secular it didn't matter if they had a tyrant. That is far from sympathetic to a people that were so brutalzed and oppressed. The only difference between the Taliban and Saddam was that Saddam didn't fall back on G-d when in need of a reason to torture people. On a similar note I know that Saddam used car batteries to burn the nipples and genitalia of children that didn't support him. However I never heard of the Taliban doing such a thing....it wouldn't surprise me. though.

I think that's a pretty horrible mischaracterization of Danya's comment. I interpreted it as a reference to the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is already our most serious threat, and that Iraqi secularism was - in and of itself, separable from the particulars of the Saddam Hussein regime - possibly an improvement. It's in our interest to foster secularism in that area, not contribute to an increased likelihood of a collapse into religious extremism as in Iran (right next door) or Afghanistan.

BTW, descriptions of Saddam's torture methods aren't really very enlightening or relevant. Nobody's saying that Saddam Hussein's regime was anything but evil. If you want to share graphic descriptions of human suffering to little or no purpose, please do so elsewhere.

Platypus,
Like it or not that is the conclusion she made. And though this radical Islaam is a very serious threat, they that do business with the radicals are also a serious threat. And for the record I believe that the torture of innocent people is pertanent when justifying the freeing of a caged people. I'll decide what I post thank you. Or if cornered I'll also let Jaime decide what I post.

Back to the point, no one here can tell me why Gephardt, Daschle, Kerry and a slew of other people backed Bill Clinton in his Gulf Crisis, but now demand Bush's head.

I think those descriptions are very relevant. Much more so that your own 'take it elsewhere' crap.

The specifics of the horrors in Iraq are part of the moral justification for the war. It was justified under Clinton but for whatever reasons we didn't do it. It remained justified under Bush and eventually we gathered enough political support to take care of business.

It has always been a matter of putting together an awful lot of pieces before war is justified. Maybe Clinton didn't think there were enough. Bush obviously did. Those who are so focused on WMDs are ignoring the fact that it was only one reason for the war.

They're only relevant to a point which is neither in dispute nor the topic of this thread. They're pure appeal to emotion, with no probative value whatsoever, but that's pretty much what I've come to expect.

PLatypus,
Since when did a thread topic ever stop you OR me from running off on a tangent? They were only one justification for the war. Partisan politics is the only reason for this debate. Had the war gone bad the Dems would have wanted to throw that in our face. It's just more and more evidence that the Libs want to see America fail or be condemned so long as we have a Republican in office.

Please, all I want is a viable reason for why so many Dems backed Clinton in his efforts but want Bush to be humiliated for his resolve to see this thing into conclusion. Why did Clinton himself say that Bush had no credible reasoning? Oh wait I can answer that one.....It's one more time Bush was solving a problem Clinton left for him to finish.....and don't say it was Bush sr.'s fault.....he was listening to the UN when he didn't oust Saddam. Isn't that what all the Libs were calling for this time around as well?

Thank you. And they also jump to the immediate conclusion that there were no other options. It also leaves out the fact that war itself is cruel and despicable. It also assumes that the next leadership will be any less cruel and won't be even worse which is it probably will be considering the rest of the region. Even if it's elected democratically.

If this was about security for the US it was not logical to get rid of Saddam the way we did.

If this was all about human rights we should have started where the worst examples are found...Iraq would be lucky to make the top ten. Congress and the people of America would never have agreed to go to war based on that alone and we all know it.

Which is why there is a huge difference between striking target's that may be a threat versus declaring all out war and occupation. That's why Clinton was right and Bush is wrong.

Oh Really?!
Clinton was right about the threat posed by Iraqi WMD, right about this?


I'm really interested in this answer...

After 12 YEARS, there were no other options. Clinton himself said he had exhausted all other routes.

As you can see by the lack of WMD's we don't know if Clinton or Bush were correct yet.

However, Clinton's response to dealing with what he percieved was a threat was more appropriate than Bush's and this is why millions of people all over the globe did not protest his actions like they did Bush's.

It's also why the 180 or so American soldiers that were alive then are dead now.

Oh? He said there was no other alternative but to declare all out war and occupation? I must have missed that part. Can you show it to me? I must have been mistaken when I thought he only targeted and destroyed target's that were perceived to be a threat.

Danya,
Correct....and when the targeted strikes didn't work we just ousted the problem.....what's wrong with that?

But the question that remains and no one in here can explain.....Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry and a slew of other Dems all signed off on Clintons proposal going so far as to say that Saddam was a threat that needed to be removed.....but have flip flopped on the issue. WHY???

Still the only good answer that makes sense......Partisan Politics.

The explanation lies in the distinction between ends and means. Yes, Clinton thought that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, but he was willing to work within the established international framework to achieve that goal. He didn't defy the UN to do it, he didn't alienate most of our allies, he didn't lie about the evidence for war, and he didn't commit hundreds of thousands of our troops to what is turning out after all to be a bit of a quagmire. He realized that even the greatest victory could turn to dust if achieved by the wrong means. "Memento mori" was a lesson he took to heart, but there's apparently nobody to whisper that in Emperor Bush's ear during his little triumphal display on board a carrier.

You probably won't accept that as an answer, but that's the difference I and many others see. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean it's invalid.

Platypus,
Actually the fact that I don't accept it may not make it invalid....but hows 'bout these arguments...

You say: Clinton worked within the UN parameters without "alienating" our "allies.
I say.....If you read the articles posted you'll see he alienated all the same people.

You imply: That Clinton achieved a goal....
I say: If he had achieved the goal the problem would not have been there for GWB to deal with, that should also highlite the need for removal thank you.

Just because you don't accept that, doesn't mean it's not true.

According to the cease fire agreements, lined out in UN resolutions I forget, if Saddam doesn't behave (interpertation: show us all of his WMD and provide proof of their destruction - NOT playing hide and seek with weapon inspectors) we can give him "serious consequences."

The big trouble over all of this is that, many people wanted UN clarification of "serious consequences" and Bush didn't go get it. Of course, considering that France had Iraqi oil contracts and had (by veto power) precluded any chance of a new, clarified resolution, that was an impossibility for Bush.

Well, I suppose he could have gone and gotten the votes, and forced France to use its veto, but that would just have given Saddam more prep time.

And for the rest, this is just pay-back for that rediculous inquest into the sexual escapades of Clinton.

-Robert

Platypus: I believe the post above is the one johnlocke is referring to when he mention's "articles" I think it speaks for itself...


Yet we already know they are irrelevant.

You yourself have admited that one (or "the") major reason for opposition to the war was innocent civilian casualties which Clinton himself admitted his airstrikes were sure to cause. Were these justified killing as a response to a threat you claim is not yet proven? Or do you wish to rethink that statement?

Unless you're Bill Clinton, right?

You have yet to prove the targeted strikes didn't work. Maybe they worked SO well that there were no weapons left...I guess we can discuss that if they ever find any.

Speaking of a high number of casualties this is another instance of the lies or hype I would like to see investigated. Rumsfeld repeatedly reassured everyone concerned that this time they had a majority of smart bombs where during the last Gulf war they only had a few which means we could expect even fewer civilian casualties than before. At the time, IMO, with my admittedly cynical mind it sounded like he was making a sales pitch.

"NEW AND IMPROVED"
"NOW WITH 70% MORE ACCURACY!" or maybe
"LESS WASTE THAN EVER BEFORE".

Yet how do they know this was true or not if they refuse to even try to come up with an estimate of casualties? There are, however, several groups trying to get a clear estimate. So far reports say:

*Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.

*Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings.

*Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone.

*The Iraqi authorities estimated that 2,278 civilians died in the 1991 Gulf war.

We can assume that Iraq would have more reason to puff up the numbers from the last war...so their estimate may even be higher than the actual figure.

So, estimates show the last war's total of 2,278 versus this war's number of 7,000 show the exact opposite of an improvement. I want to know what this administration has to say for itself about it's claims there would be fewer casualties...other than dodging the issue by not counting any casualties at all.

I'm not sure how many there were in the strikes. Care to compare them with the numbers above?

csmonitor
ABC
Guardian
edited to add links of sources

First off, I don't recall Rumsfield ever saying to expect fewer civ casualties. I believe the point made was that we had a far greater number of smart bombs this time around and could expect even greater accuracy than before. Some may have jumped to different conclusions.

Secondly, the majority of the first conflict was fought in Kuwait, and none of it in Baghdad. It's only natural that the count would be higher this time around. After all, we were fighting a war in a city of 6 million ppl. SH was hiding military targets in civilian centers. The bombs may be smart, but not quite smart enough to only kill the soldiers using a civilian structure as a base.

Hi-

I'm new here, so be gentle:)

A few things.

The reason for going to war immediately, instead of letting the weapons inspectors do their job was because Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the US. The reasons behind the claim were three-fold.

1. Nuclear weapons program

2. Stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons

3. Direct links to Al- Quida

The claim of a nuclear program has been refuted, I do believe that it was misleading when it was in the State of the Union speech.

The claim of chemical and biological weapons was valid, no other countries disagreed. But, massive, 500 ton stockpiles?Defectors seemed to say that the inspections were working. http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf Powell quoted Hussein Kamal in his UN speech, but neglected to mention that Kamal also said that all chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed. This was misleading as well.

It has been shown that all Al-Quida top operatives in custody have said the Osama Bin Laden ruled out working with Hussein. Apparently, they were saying this at the same time that Bush was saying the opposite. It is again, very misleading, at one point 40-something percent of the population thought that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. Our population isn't THAT ignorant (I would hope), so I am assuming that it had something to do with the misleading information being provided.

Most recently, I have seen this poll, which says that 1/3rd of the population thinks that weapons of mass destruction have been found.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6086632.htm

This means:

1. Our media has done us a disservice

2. The administration was misleading

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0228-06.htm
http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/bias_pre...ce_bigotry.html

The most important effect I see will be our standing in the rest of the world. Think of it like the boy who cried wolf. Why will other countries believe us next time we claim a country is an "imminent threat", even if it really is (this time).

As far as the war being over. Not at all. The reason that Bush (41) didn't support the Shi'ite uprising after the first Gulf War was because he realized that having a fundamentalist muslim state would be even worse then the secular Saddam Hussein. Clinton followed with this. Having an Iranian style theocracy in Iraq would be a very very bad thing. The only way that this thing can sort itself out properly is if we can actually establish a democracy in Iraq that works. With 60% of the population Shi'ite, that is going to be very hard. I support the troops, but fear that they are going to be occupying Iraq for a long time to come, the aftermath of Afghanistan doesn't make me feel any more secure about it. With our economy the way it is, and our unilateralist foreign policy, I worry that this thing could get really bad.

I don't think that this will be a huge story in the US (as far as a "scandal"), Republicans are in control of congress, and the Democrats are scared to death of taking the president on in the defense issue, I think it will be bigger in Britain, and might cost Blair his job.

I do feel that if the situation were reversed (Clinton was in office), Republicans would probably be screaming at him about it. I wish the Democrats were representing more of an opposition on this issue, but Bush's strong poll numbers have them fearful, so it goes, but if they think that it will help them win in 2004, they are mistaken, just like they were in 2002.

Does anyone think that the weapons were hidden, we are talking about a dictator that constantly defied everything we laid out, no fly zone, they run through the no fly zone, don't fire on US military planes , they fire on US military planes , they were told UN inspectors are allowed where ever there heart desires , that was defiantly ignored and then they were told to leave.
Does anyone think he hid everything with every intention of 1 day just waltzing back in and taking over again , we are talking about a person that didn't want to be in another country even when it was offered to him to remove himself from iraq with no conditions other than living his life Saudi Arabia i believe offered this to him.
His people still fear him so how hard would it be to regain power in a country that still fears him, i do believe there is alot of stuff hidden if i was sadam i would have done everything possible to hide it including shipping it to iran or syria to make the US look bad in the eyes of the world , and i must say this, if i ever have to have someone looking for something im not supposed to have i want alot of you people looking for it because alot of you seem to believe if it's not in plain site it doesn't exist , this judgement is made by how some of you think things should just pop up at you and say here i am, also if i was sadam i would have destroyed any evidence of terrorist ties and there would be weapons buried in sand in places you would never think of looking.
Some things may never be found , here is something for you to think about, it's almost 60 years ago there still finding mines and bombs buried from WWII

Welcome, understandingpolitics and Sniper, to the Debate.



The same is true in Bosnia, but I'll bet that at the end of WWII Allied forces started finding those bombs, mines, etc. RIGHT AWAY, unlike their experiences looking for WMDs in Iraq.




But it does mean the propaganda machine is in full swing.

I would like to hope that before President Clinton invaded a country that hadn't attacked us, that he would have solid, incontrovertible evidence that the US was indeed in imminent danger from Iraq. If he relied on the same, bogus reports Bush did, I would protest it just as vehemently. Clinton would not have been justified, either.

There should have been much more evidence to change our policy of not attacking a country unless it attacked us first.

I see...

It has been discussed in this forum that Clinton did engage (with Britain under Tony Blair) in bombing a country which had not attacked us. Innocent civilians were killed. His reasoning was that that Iraq's WMD were a "clear and present" danger to our saftey as Americans. Was this justified?

I don't know. (I know it's uncommon to find that sentence in this kind of forum).

If I had been paying as much attention during the Clinton administration as I am now, I might be able to tell you whether the bombing was justified or not. Hindsight is said to be 20/20. The term "clear and present danger," to my mind, could only pertain to US military personnel stationed within range of missiles.

In principle, I see what you are saying. But I am also looking at the two situations as a matter of the degree of response.

What I would like to see is more people identified as Bosnian "war criminals" actually have their day in court. Rhadovan Karasditch (I know that's not the proper spelling) comes to mind. Clinton does seem to have left a lot of things undone by way of foreign policy. His motivation appears to have been to stay the course.

Dubya goes whole hog. The problem is that terrorists are accustomed to running, hiding, and regrouping. I don't think armies can ultimately defeat the terrorists.

Actually i don't think terrorists can hide from any army, i would also believe it would be easier for them being there is more manpower and resources for them to use in catching them, if you compare the mob to terrorists and go on a hunt for terrorists like you would the mob it would work, problem is alot of these countries allow them to exist and don't cooperate.

I'm not quite sure that you caught my reference, the bombing I was referring to was not Bosnia, it was Iraq (Operation Desert Fox)

Clinton announces Iraq strikes: Full text
Clinton and Bush (according to their own words) attacked the same country for the same reason.

Clinton's statement on end of strikes: Full text
Here Clinton lays down the criteria for another attack, which is exactly what Bush did. The two are closely linked. The question is was Clinton justified in his attack on Iraq?

Yes he was. Iraq had been uncooperative with the UN inspectors & they knew the consequences & Clinton knew he had to punish them for disobeying the cease-fire agreement/UN Resolutions.

As previously stated, I see a difference in scope and specifically a commitment to the inspection process here. Clinton's actions stopped at a certain point and failed to acheive the continued presence of inspectors.

Bush not only went back to the American demand for inspectors but made an ultimatum that Hussein may not have been able to bow down to and still keep his dictatorial hold on the country. Bush's actions did get inspections back on course with world support behind them.

But the goal seemed to be war. And his justification was not simply enforcing the Gulf War agreements. He waged this war inside the context of the war on terror. Not only would Hussein need to posess these weapons but he would have to be prone to giving them to terrorists.

The country that does that that is on track to develop a nuclear weapons program a la North Korea is Iran.

So Bush and Clinton did not attack Iraq for the same reasons.

The latest war was definitely not justified. The Clinton attacks were possibly not justified.

How exactly does this upport the view that Clinton was more supportive of the inspection process, or is this statement in Bush's favor?



If Hussein was unable to cooperate fully with inspections and keep his hold on the country, well then one of those two had to slip, I think the choice is clear.



1. How exactly did Iraq's WMD pose a threat to the "the safety of people everywhere" (as Clinton claimed) unless this was through terrorism?

2. If these weapons existed (as Clinton claimed they did) then the fact that they could be given to terrorists was at least a possiblity. It is to be expected that the possibility would be highlighted given recent events.





The only major difference is the reference to the freedom of the Iraqi people which is a nescessary addition due to the difference in the scope of the campaign which itself (as previously discussed) is irrelevant to the question of whether of not the strike (Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom) where justified to begin with.

Turnea,

I agree you ask a valid question. It is especially valid if the only justification for attacking Iraq was the existence of WMDs. They both acted to reduce or remove Iraqi WMDs.

However I don't think support for the war would have existed except for the inclusion of the connction to the war on terror.

Your quote connecting the attacks on Iraq to world safety from Clinton look to me like an extension of the contain Hussein school of thought. That when he has the strength he will be a threat to his immediate neighbors. That an unstable Middle East is a threat to world stability.

I believe that the reason a war was supported was that the Bush adminstration convinced the American public that Hussein was a terrorist threat to America. He had had ample time to use his weapons in a terrorist act against the United States and he had not. We had time to work this through through more diplomacy backed up by the air strikes that became so common throughout the ten plus years following the Gulf War.

Now as a consequence of the rush to war, American soldiers are subject to terrorist attacks on a daily basis by people who can justifiably call themselves freedom fighters.

I guess the justification depends on just what the UN inspectors had found before. It seems to me that there were WMDs found and known about at the time. At least on that level, Clinton would have been justified in what he did.

But I still do not think that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the United States, then or this year. I have lost faith in our Commanders-in-Chief.

It's that Wendy's commercial again, "Where's the beef?" Maybe there was some to show during the Clinton administration.

It's a hard question.

So you are saying we should have waited again and let him go on some more, kinda like living next door to a child molester and saying well he hasn't done anything to me yet so i'll just let him bother everyone else and get the capability to get to me also, then you will worry about it.

When you hold the power to right things you should use it, obviously clinton didn't he never once pushed for the un inspectors to go back in, that was years of time to hide and plan.

But clinton did nothing, so as the next president steps into a pile of unfinished business should he turn away and say you know i lost the twin towers on my watch because some other president decided to let the man responsible of carrying out these attacks free when he was offered to the US by saudi, so now he still has the iraq problem that was just pretty much walked away from and the korea thing just waiting to explode and syria and iran is no playground either, all of these countries pose a threat to your country you just don't want to see it or rather ignore it till it's to late, maybe watching 2 planes from your own eyes kill a few thousand people in your town, your friends, and erasing them from your site and land will make you think differently.
So you lost faith in your present commander in chief for taking on evil and trying to make a peaceful world, you would rather a former commander and chief who undermines your country.

If you check, Sniper, I wrote Commanders, meaning plural.

Yes, I do have plenty of criticism for Bush. But he doesn't get all of it.

I still do not see a direct connection between Iraq and the destruction of the Twin Towers. Care to post a link with conclusive evidence?

Our continued air occupation of Iraq has enraged the Middle East. There are people violently opposed to our soldiers, and that anti-American spirit didn't start when we took over. I have a link on one of these topics where an Iraqi is telling a reporter he will turn his six daughters into living bombs to kill Americans! (actually, I think it was a link I stole from you ). The point is, I don't think there's anyone for or against this war that can't see a very direct relationship between our longstanding actions in Iraq and terrorism against the US. The intel is pretty much word of mouth, with no 'hard' evidence, as far as I know. That means no recorded messages, but we don't know all, so there might be those as well.
I am not in favor of our actions over there. It is a disaster. But, it has also been a boiling pot ready to explode for over a decade now. I think we just turned the heat up with our actions, rather than removing the pot cover.

iraq a country with murals of the disaster that took place here in the US in there govt buildings to show rejoice and homage to terrorists.

In their government buildings? I didn't see those. I saw a mural that was painted on the outside of a building, not a government building. Is there a picture somewhere on the 'Net? I'd like to see one, or however many are posted.

Do paintings constitute "conclusive evidence"? I can paint the side of a building with a scene here. It doesn't mean I am connected to the scene, just that I wanted to paint it. I'm sure those particular murals were more popular to Muslims who hate pro-Israeli America, especially due to the fact that the US had a trade embargo slapped on them a long time ago that was still in existence prior to the invasion. (That does tend to hurt a nation's economy.) Did the murals say anything like "Dedicated to Rashid al-Whatever, an Iraqi martyr, who did this on 11 September 2000 (or however Muslims write their calendar)?" I doubt it. It was probably done by somebody who was tired of seeing Saddam's mug on every wall.

As far as I know, mainly Saudi "martyrs" were identified as those who crashed the jets into the WTC towers. And we haven't connected terrorism with the Saudi government--yet.

Please show me the link about the murals in the government buildings. I would appreciate it.


(Mrs. Pigpen: Yes, you got that link from me! Scary, huh? )

(Edited)

If you go thru CNN's stories it's in there toward the end of the actual war itself, there were quite a few govt buildings , and no it wasn't graffiti on the outside of the building it was clearly on the inside of the buildings, sorry but to me any building with a mural on it that represents terrorism and it's on an inside wall of a govt building means alot more than just tired of seeing sadams face

The mural of the towers was probably commisioned by Saddam himself. No one doubts he must have been happy to see it happen. We really don't know who or when or why it was painted but I have no doubt someone there was glad to see the US hurt. Maybe someone was sick of hearing the threats for the last year and when war became imminent felt it was inspirational to show the US at a vulnerable moment. Maybe it was to serve as a reminder that their attackers were not invincible. You can assume alot of things from a painting but the fact is we had already attacked before we ever saw it and it proves nothing. The recent poll showing a majority in the Middle East trusted Bin laden to do the right thing before Bush is basically saying the same thing.

For the year leading up to the war I read all I could get my hands on and watched every special and news report I could about Iraq. Prior to the attack the people there did not show any unusual amount of animosity toward America...actually they showed much less than you would expect considering our interference in their lives going back to the last Gulf War. But they didn't seem to hold it against us. They didn't begin to hate us until we killed so many of them with our bombs. Followed by leaving them with little or no electricity, water, sanitation, and phone service. Followed by looting which is now being followed by night raids and heavy handed occupation. Saddam's oppression has been replaced with the same from heavily armed foreigners who don't even speak their language or know anything about their culture and customs.

These people never wanted to fight...if they had they would have been doing to Saddam and his Baath party what they are now doing to our soldiers. This situation was forced on them.

Ask yourself what you would do if this happened to your country?

It isn't our soldiers looting, Danya.

As far as them wanting to fight, anyone previously dissenting the government was shot on sight, tortured, or imprisoned. Family members were held hostage. That kind of squashes dissent fast. These people are more personally empowered now, although their lives are awful, I'll admit. No running water, electricity, and a dearth of medical care is a huge problem. I wish our support units were as efficient as our operations.

Interesting conclusion. Any proof?

The question that still only greenring seems to be able to answer honestly: Why are those dems (in government) calling for Bush's head after they (daschle, kerry, gephardt and on) themselves said that Saddam was a threat to world peace and had weapons in 1998.b Please read the articles first....I find it so enjoyable that Bush's arguments parallel Clintons to a "T". It's just hard evidence of the Dems partisan politics.

Any attempt to make war is a crime against humanity. Whether partisan politics has a hand in it or not. I don't care wether or not all those Democrats voted to go against Iraq in 1998 or not. They and the Bush administration should be held up for war crimes. There is no justice in war of anykind.

Nope, no more proof than the rest of you have for your theories.

This is not 1998. Five years is a long time and anything could have happened to the weapons since then. Clinton did not declare war while inspections were going on and showing results. He did not invade or occupy Iraq. What he did do is strike suspected weapon sites he felt or was told were a threat. Bush could have done the same and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We now see how bad the intelligence really was and still is and may very well question whether Clinton had good intelligence for what he did. But that doesn't change anything for Bush.

Anyone that can't see the difference between targeted strikes on alleged weapons facilities compared to invasion and occupation (over global protests and objections) than there is no point in trying to keep explaining it. We might as well be comparing apples and oranges.

How's about WW2?