That is simply a reverse way of asking whether the war was for oil. The answer to your question therefore is...
Yes!, We would have gone in because...

No, the war was not about oil.

It simply doesn't add up logically, the war increased America's position with regards to oil not one bit..

Hobbes, I'll ask again:

"What benefit did we enjoy by removing Saddam when we did, as opposed to letting the UN weapons inspectors do a thorough inspection?"

I'd like to point out that this thread is meant merely to address what the war was about, whether we rushed into it or not, the reason was fear of Iraqi WMD.

Just because the Bush apologists keep repeating that does not make it true.

Saddam had no stockpiles of WMD and you'd have to be fairly delusional to hold out hoping for a discovery of them. Again, it's more than burying stuff in the sand or trucking them to Syria. It takes production facilities they said existed that were found to never exist.

There was no more an operational link between Bin Laden and Saddam then there was between Clinton and Timothy McVeigh. There was no link that had any meaning.

Our armed forces rolled completely over Saddam's armies with very little causalities.

Over 40,000 sorties were flown over the no-fly zone and not one aircraft has ever been shot down.

Sorry...Iraq was not even close to being ANY kind of gathering threat to anybody. The facts speak for themselves.

Just because the left keeps repeating there mantra does not make it true, either. Iraq was intimately, albeit indirectly, associated with many of the causes of the war on terror, and, as such, was definitely a threat to the security of the United States. Your refusal to recognize this doesn't change the fact. The ostrich can bury its head, but the lion is still there.



A good question, Snowonder, and very relevant. The answer is quite simple--the problems posed by Iraq were not due to WMD--they were due to Saddam Hussein being in power. Inspections offered no solution whatsoever to that problem, and in fact only posed delays to the solution, thereby making the real problems worse, not better. Which, I think, brings my question, still unanswered, back to prominence.

I tire of having to constantly repeat the ignored, but obvious. What were the reasons stated by OBL for the attacks of 9-11? Our troop presence in the Holy Land, and the persecution of the Iraqi's caused by the economic sanctions. Why were these situations present? Because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with UN resolutions. Diplomatic solutions to these problems had been tried, and failed, for over 10 years. Simple removal of Saddam himself would not be sufficient, for his regime would just sprout a new leader, quite possibly worse than Saddam. How were inspections ever going to solve this problem? They weren't. Therefore, two of the root causes of the terrorists attacks on the US were not going to be resolved, directly impacting the security of the United States. In addition, there was the fact that Iraq's continued defiance of UN resolutions and airspace restrictions was seen as evidence that the US would be hesitant to react when faced with resistance, providing evidence that terrorism could successfully change US policy. Diplomacy and inspections again offered no solution to this problem, and would only make it worse. Then there was the underlying social and economic conditions in the Middle East that fostered the unrest that led to the sentiments which terrorist groups used to incite their members. This, too, directly impacted the security of the US. Only a fundamental change in the politics of the area was likely to impact this. Inspections, again, offered no solution. Now, on top of this, add in the fact that Saddam had been known to have and to use WMD, was unable to fully account for their current whereabouts, and was known to have a deep hatred of the US. Factor in that there was a window of opportunity for a successful military campaign, given that a summer campaign would inflict a severe hardship on the military in the even of WMD being used against them, and that the underlying factors causing the problem in the first place were only getting worse. Further factor in that Saddam had been inflicting great harm on the people of Iraq. Finally, factor in that one of the reasons the attacks of 9-11 were not discovered and acted upon in time is that too many of our intelligence resources were directed at Saddam due to his failure to comply with UN resolutions. Factor in all of these things, and there seemed to be only one course of action. That is the action that was taken. Until someone proposes an alternate course of action that would have addressed these factors, and addressed them in a suitable timeframe, it remains the only viable course of action. Perhaps if more effort were focused on that, and less on criticism of the action taken, then we could get somewhere.

I simply wonder at statements like this.

As an american with family ties in New York City (brother, sister in law, niece), I have a VERY vested interest in the security of my country. Honestly, I could care less about George Bush and don't argue my opinion to bolster him. It just so happens I agree with what he has done. I want security as much as those who think it was the wrong thing to do. Call me wrong...label me a hawk...you can even label me right wing....but don't assume the reason we argue this point is because we need to apologize for George Bush. You would be wrong.



I'll take a shot at this...

Inspections were implemented for 1 reason only. To insure that Iraq was complying with U.N. resolutions. Hussein failed to do so time and again. Lets face it...the time for inspections was over simply because they were infeffective. They were ineffective because even if we had allowed the inspectors more time, they (we) would never have been completely sure he didn't have the weapons hidden away somewhere....or even that he would build them later after being given a clean slate. The problem (as Hobbes has repeatedly pointed out) was NOT WMD. The problem was removing Saddam Hussein.

In the post 9/11 age, weapons proliferation is unacceptable to the security of the United States for obvious reasons. The facts according to the 9/11 commission report just released state that the 9/11 attacks notwithstanding, there WAS a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. The threat was there. The costs of being wrong were/are unfathomable. President Bush decided if he was going to err, he would err on the side of caution where it involves the security of the people of the United States. The invasion also had the added benefit of removing a murderous genocidal tyrant and his corrupt government. The choice was easy even if the decision was not. Its as simple as that. Monday Morning Quarterback as you like....I did and still back the decision.

And thus ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the debate...

Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, New York City, or any terrorists threats. And everyone has a vested interest in the security of our country, so if I weren't so shallow, I'd be offended by that remark.

The problem is, you keep drinking the Saddam/911 koolaid to defend your point. But it just doesn't exist.

Let me repeat: Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or New York City. Nothing.

Two acts of international terrorism affecting us have been attributed to Iraq. And here's the tale of the tape - Iraq was never involved.

The WTC 1 bombing has been conclusively - beyond a shadow of a doubt - linked to Al Qaida. Ramzi Yousef did not steal Abdul Basit's passport as claimed by Laurie Mylroie, the white house crackpot advisor. Her theory held water until they matched the fingerprints. Yousef and Basit's prints were the same. Ramzi Yousef was Pakistani - not Iraqi. Funny how that never makes it into the mainstream media. A better dissertation can be found here

The second was the Bush assassination attempt. They linked ball bearings to Iraqi intelligence somehow (as if Iraq made special ball bearings for presidential bombs) and the evidence is incredibly dubious. But even if a person were stipulate that Iraq was behind it, attempting to kill what many would consider to be a military target (after all, he is the commander-in-chief) is hardly on scale with blowing up a bus full of kids or flying airplanes into buildings. Obviously, worthy of retaliation, but terrorism? Hardly, or we'd be terrorists because we've tried to kill several world leaders ourselves.

And if you want to roll paying suicide bomber families into the mix, then every country surrounding Israel is guilty - including some of our allies.

My point is, you've just linked New York City - just like Bush and Company have, to justify a war against somebody that had nothing to do with it. So, for the love of God, please stop. Most of us opposed to this invasion are very much FOR the war on terror. But the bad guys that HAVE attacked us in New York City and abroad are not in Iraq. They are still spreading out all over Afghanistan and Pakistan trying to get to us while we have all our resources tied up in Iraq.

And lastly, only 2% of "insurgents" we're fighting in Iraq are foreign. We're fighting - almost exclusively - very po'd locals. So, the "we're fighting Al Qaida in Iraq" plan isn't working out either. There may be a few, but it's very few. There are far, far more here in this country. And again, none of them had anything to do with Iraq.

While I appreciate you disagree with me, statements like the above do nothing to further the debate and are belittling and somewhat insulting.

Further, either you didn't read my post carefully enough or you just chose to intentionally mistate my position. In my previous post I stated....



Which part says that Al Queda and Iraq already attacked New York? I said the threat was there. Nothing more. If you choose to read more into this than I wrote quite frankly, I can't help that.

Is it really so much of a stretch for you to believe that Al Queda and Iraq might decide to work together? The conversation might take place something like this....Hey...we share a mutual hatred for a mutual enemy. I have the weapon...you have the means to deliver it...lets merge our efforts and give them a day of hell that makes 9/11 look like a picnic.



Your statement makes it seem like Iraq and Al Queda have as much in common as Al Sharpton and David Duke. I want to point out a comment made by one of the Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commision Lee Hamilton in a recent interview on The O'Reilly Factor, and I quote....



Your attempt to downplay the relationship between Al Queda and Iraq is curious. The Al Zarqawi connection has been ongoing with Iraq for quite some time. Just today I read another story on the connection here....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/03/...main/index.html

Maybe it would have developed into something more serious maybe not. I wonder though why you would want to constantly downplay this relationship. Are we not at war with terrorists and those who harbor them?

DR, please read my post a few back, for, as I said there, I am quite tired of having to state the obvious to refute this statement. Iraq was directly related to many of the issues surrounding 9-11. Ignoring this fact results in only one thing--failure to address the route causes of the WOT.



Allow me to repeat--this is completely incorrect. COMPLETELY.



No, I've linked him because he had quite a bit to do with it. Open your mind, DR. One doesn't have to be directly involved to be the cause of something.



Good. Then you must be for eliminating the root causes of the attacks. Iraq was very much a part of those, making the war in Iraq an integral, even imperative, part of the WOT. Glad that you're on board now, so that we can move forward.

If you're suggesting that invading Iraq to get rid of sanctions, and that OBL attacked us in part because of the sanctions, aren't you stating we needed to capitulate to terrorists?

Meaning, OBL murders thousands of us, so we invade a sovereign nation to take his issues off the table? Which is doubly-preposterous because we'd have given his "issues" credibility, but without an exit plan, only empowered him further.

But here's why you're very, very wrong on this.

Bush and company planned on taking Saddam out on September 10th, 2001 - not since September 11, 2001. It was no secret what their plans were regardless of sanctions, OBL, or the tooth fairy as soon as he took office.

Taking Saddam out was Bush's platform just like any other president had platforms of crime, education, or medicare. He was going to get this done regardless of what anybody said because he thought he'd be successful at it. And to a point, he was.

The problem was, 9/11 started a real war and Bush, being the hardhead he is, never wavered or adjusted his platform of regime change in Iraq. He may consider it flip-flopping, but I consider any person a dangerous person when they can't adapt to new realities.

If it weren't for 9/11, I would still disagree and possible look to make the best out of a horrible situation in Iraq. But with 9/11, it's sucked the life out of our military and resources to the point we can't fight the real war on terror.

Armlord said;

However, 25 million Iraqis are free today thanks to Bush's actions.

25 million Iraqis do not need to fear that Saddam's secret police will interrogate them by taking their wife and children to a rape room.

Now all they have to fear are night raids and torture from American soldiers???

[QUOTE] The problem (as Hobbes has repeatedly pointed out) was NOT WMD. The problem was removing Saddam Hussein.
[/QUOTE]Ok, so I have a couple of problems.....1)if it was, as you say, mainly about removing Saddam, why did Bush & Co. beat the WMD's argument until it was dead and gone 2) if it was just about removing Saddam, why not just snipe him? Its not like we really cared about upholding international law during this act of agression.

[QUOTE]Allow me to repeat--this is completely incorrect. COMPLETELY.
[/QUOTE]You know why I like you hobbes, because you always offer supporting info to back your arguments.

[QUOTE]I want to point out a comment made by one of the Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commision Lee Hamilton in a recent interview on The O'Reilly Factor, and I quote....


QUOTE 
But I want to be very clear that our statement with regard to Iraq — the contacts which you mentioned between Iraq and al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden, we think they occurred. We do not think there was a cooperative, collaborative relationship...With regard to 9/11. [/QUOTE]This has to be the funniest thing, you're solid proof is a guy saying "we think they occured". WTF, come on man, I'm sure all the Iraqi citizens that died are really glad that we "think" one of our reasons for invading was correct, I guess considering that a couple more of our "reasons" have been debunked.
[QUOTE]statements like the above do nothing to further the debate and are belittling and somewhat insulting.


[QUOTE]Now all they have to fear are night raids and torture from American soldiers??? [/QUOTE]Jamie, the problem with blanket rules like "NO ONE LINERS" is that sometimes one liners are great at illustrating the simple irony of a debator's point, such as this case. I think ikeaboy was trying to illustrate how iraqi freedom is far from free. Its a shame to feel punished for making a poinent, witty comment.

Snowonder...

Thanks for your interest in my post.



Well, if your looking for rock solid proof, I'm afraid i'm not the man who can provide it to you. Then again, rock solid proof is almost impossible to deliver, and quite frankly one man's rock solid proof is another man's flimsy evidence. For example, to many in the arab world, (even France for that matter) Usama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. You see, it all depends on what you are pre-disposed to believe.

Personally, I will go with the opinion of the Vice Chairman of a bi-partisan commission who spent over a year investigating the 9/11 attacks when he says they (meaning the members of the commission) believe their was a connection between Al Queda and Iraq.

Putting aside the idea you can't stand the Bush Administration for a moment....is it really so hard for you to see where a connection might be possible? Is it just impossible to you? If so what is your reasoning? Are you really so willing to put aside this experts opinion on the matter simply because it doesn't fit with what you have come to believe?



As I said, Hobbes has answered this question numerous times (which I basically agree with) and therefore I will not spend time answering it again. Look back over some of his posts on this subject matter and I think you will see what he/I am talking about.



First, Saddam Hussein was one of the most well protected men in the world. Body doubles, layers upon layers of security and a randomized travel and sleep schedule made it impossible to determine where he would be. Merely getting into Iraq was difficult, and getting close to Hussein was practially impossible. Hussein had also set in place a system of brutal vengence on anyone he considered disloyal and he terrorized everyone to the point that nobody dared think of helping in an assasination attempt for fear of reprisal.

Secondly, because he had 2 sons who were considered to be even worse waiting in the wings as his successor, a successful assasination might have led to an even worse situation and most certainly would NOT have addressed the proliferation issue successfully.

Lastly, although you did seem to dismiss it, we have a policy in place that denies attempts on the leaders of other sovereign nations. It is in place because assasination attempts on leaders of foreign countries are not tolerated among civilized nations AND it invites retaliation upon our own leaders.

Ringwraith, please support your claims.

First, a "connection" does not mean collaboration. With that definition, Janet Reno was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing because she was linked to Timothy McVeigh when she indicted him. I don't like Janet Reno, but don't consider her a terrorist.

Secondly, anything is possible. It's possible Cameroon had as much to do with 9/11 as Iraq. However, it's PROBABLE Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had more to do with 9/11 than anyone. But we didn't invade Saudi Arabia or Cameroon and lose 900 of our best citizens.

Thirdly (and I could be wrong), I think the restriction on taking out world leaders we see as a threat has been removed. Which begs the question : Even though I thought the attempt against Bush 41 was despicable, it wasn't a terrorist act. So, if our laws have been changed, would that make us terrorists?

Anyhow, the problem with your argument, is you are searching for justification to invade a country when you shouldn't need to search. That's the problem most of us have. It was easy to point at the Taliban. It would be easy to point at Saudi Arabia - an ALLY of ours. It would be easier to point to Iran, Syria, or Libya. The possibilities go to the probabilities with those countries. But Iraq fits none of those molds. Saddam never used WMD outside his own borders and it was against an invading army (Iran). Unfortunately for the Kurds, they sided with Tehran and paid a price. They were never targeted as the spin meisters attempt to frame the debate. They make it seem as if Saddam dropped a WMD bomb in downtown Bagdad. Was this right? Of course not - it was horrific. But it was war and war IS horrific. And the kicker is, we supplied him with what he needed because he didn't have - and never has had - the production facilities to produce enough to be effective.

I can't imagine there is not one civilized person in the world that doesn't hate Saddam Hussein. I hate him as much as you. But invading the most HATED is not the same as invading the most dangerous. That's why we are no safer today.

We destroyed who we hated the most. Not the most dangerous. That's what this war was about.

Hey DR....

I agree....there are other nations in the world we have just as much to fear from regarding the proliferation issue (if not more). I think the reasoning behind going after Iraq first was multifaceted.

Among the non-stated reasons was a desire to show the leaders of the region the United States was dead serious this time and was not about to continue to take it anymore. Although you might believe that Iraq was not the most connected to terrorism in the region, they were the country who was the most defiant to international will in the region. In other words, they didn't exactly have their hands clean in the world of international terrorism, and they were daring us to take action with their continued refusal to follow the provisions of the cease fire agreements of the '91 gulf war.

Refusal to take action against them would have again shown the world the United States was nothing more than a paper tiger....even in the aftermath of the events of 9/11. If we were ever to get serious about terrorism, we had to show this region that we meant business and that state sponsored terrorism against the United States can and WILL lead to your downfall. You can argue perhaps that Iraq was not the highest on the urgency list but it doesn't mean it wasn't involved. You can't argue that Iraq was by far the most defiant nation in that region to international will and combined with its potential for proliferation made it the logical selection as the country that needed addresssing first.

All of the above spoke directly and almost exclusively to the current security needs of the United States first. And this...as it should be...was the first priority of out current administration. But the idea of a democracy in the area that we helped establish was meant to help with our long term security needs in the area. I won't continue on as the benefits of this are a whole other topic, but I will say that trying to boil down the reasons for invading Iraq to one reason...WMD is simplistic.

As we vote at the beginning of this topic, i am shocked to see so many people thinking that we created carnage for money. Despite what one wants to think, our government is not that corrupted. My dad is a Master sargent in the Air Force and they spend weeks on "war games". These are training simulations that can occur in real war. The Iraqi Terrorists have no mercy when it comes to human beings that are not with them, as that matter, the exact same mind set. The reason we are in this war is to help the unterroristic iraqis re-build their government after we did indeed destroy it. I brought up all these points for a reason. The military war games re-demonstrate how the terrorists will park a car on the side of the road to have military passer-byers blown up. Would we be so heartless to send our young men and women into that for oil and money? I say no. We did indeed start this but some one had to help them and as the most powerful (and you can't argue) country in this world it was our duty. Also, after 9-11 (and that has NO connection to this war) Bush HAD to use the support of Americans to do something or those Americans would be awful mad that nothing was happening. This war was already in the making but 9-11 gave Bush the support he needed. And, as you recall, we were all together in this war until we realized it wasn't an in-out deal and that people do die in war. Liberals that think this was a horrible idea, that it's sad that men die and that's their pollical view probably don't have men in the war. The armed forces are a CHOICE to join and once you do you sign up for war. It's your CHOICE. This is not like the World Wars...it IS NOT a draft. It is CHOICE! If you ask any service men they are proud to serve for our commander and chief. That's all i have to say right now...Also...Kerry-it's not just about "reporting for duty" it's about not being full of it! Ha!

Great - so we had to do something after 9/11, Osama is still at large, Americans are mad that nothing is happening... here we go, let's start a war!
One may argue that Iraqi Terrorists started to blow up cars only after we "preemptively" occupied their country... And don't forget juljen that in order to help "unterroristic Iraqis" (whose number was reduced today by approximately 300) we killed several thousands of them in the process. By the way, the fact that your dad is proud to serve doesn't mean that "any service man" is - I heard numerous stories of people being not happy at all being in Iraq, performing a mission which has nothing to do with "protecting a homeland".
Also, you don't have to bring up Kerry in every post in every thread (even in threads on totally unrelated topic), it just really not mature.

Response to Assumption One: We were not all together in this war on a nation that had not attacked us. I and my husband joined others in a candlelight vigil on the eve of the war. We opposed it.

Response to Assumption Two: I am a liberal. My 29-year-old son, a sergeant in an Army National Guard transportation company out of Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, has been stationed in Kuwait since January of this year.

This war was not at all about the attacks of 9/11/2001, even though Bush's administration was eager to find a connection between Iraq and the terrorists. This war distracted the military and the country from hunting down and capturing Usama bin Laden, who boasted of the WTC attacks and the attack on the Pentagon. This war was waged on inaccurate information, and it remains to be determined conclusively by the American people that this administration was misled, or it callously misused the information anyway as an excuse to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein. We screwed up.

After bombing the living daylights out of Iraq, and detaining Iraqis (some innocent of any wrongdoing) in Abu Ghraib prison and mistreating them in ways we would not countenance having our loved ones treated by someone out to "liberate us," our President has repeatedly emphasized that Americans are trying to "win the hearts and minds" of these same Iraqis. Is it any wonder that even among those who call us their liberators, there are Iraqis who cannot stress enough their desire for us to get the hell out of their country? Actions speak louder than words.

My fear is that as a result, we have made more enemies than we have made friends in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.

Although I agree with your conclusion, I think you are going about the argument the wrong way. For the purposes of debate we have to assume our leaders are capable of anything, since we can't read their minds.

So could they be so heartless? I really don't know, is the only reasonable answer.

It is in the realm of physical (rather than moral) possibility that the oil war theory falls part on examination. Namely, the dearth of evidence to support the claim that the US has maneuvered to control Iraqi oil.

...and the fact that such a scheme is nigh-unto-impossible any way.

Without a method to control the oil, this just becomes wishful thinking on the part of those opposed to the Bush administration.

This is where I think you are missing our point, DR. The situation Saddam had created in Iraq was making US the MOST HATED, at least to a large group of people from whom the terrorist threat was spawning. I have listed the reasons for this numerous times. No other country in the world had us in that situation. This hatred is what was affecting our security.

Now, the counter argument to this is that the invasion only fueled that hatred. I would agree, except for two points. First, nothing short of invasion offered the hope of any long-term solution to this problem. So, even if it did raise the hatred level short-term, I think that would have to be weighed against the removal of long-term cause. Second--I haven't seen evidence of any drastic raising of hatred towards us amongst Middle Eastern Arabs. Of all people who you would think might tend to be the most vociferous against our actions--they seemed the most willing to 'wait and see'. They know better than any of us how bad a person Saddam really was--and are also bombarded daily with anti-American rhetoric. Yet you didn't see any massive uprisings in any Arabs states against our action. In fact, you still haven't. If you look closely at the Iraqi perceptions, they are generally positive but frustrated with the lack of speed of improvements, mostly due to false expectations. The majority there, unlike here, are not against the war on philosophical grounds--even though they are the group most involved. Sure, there is a core group of Sunni's who are very upset at the prospect of losing power. This is a political issue, not a philosophical one. America is the force behind the change for them--that is where their issue is (name me one political group anywhere that willingly gave up power). For a better look at the political situation in Iraq, and how it affects many of the issues there, please read this

Perhaps it will help to understand my perspective on the issue if I share how I think the final decision was arrived at. I will agree that at least initial plans were made for a potential attack prior to 9-11 (as they are for a great many situations). This was due primarily to frustration with Saddam's refusal to ever comply with UN resolutions, which could possibly have justified invasion on its own. Then, I think, after 9-11, there was an initial 'fear' that Iraq had been the cause, which was quickly dispelled. However, fear like that sticks with you--you don't want to have to face it again if you can help it. Then the question still remained--could Hussein mount such an attack in the future? Evidence at the time indicated that he clearly could support such a terrorist effort, with devastating consequences. Then, the more it became clear who really was behind the attack, the more Hussein's name popped up (why do they hate us?--because of our sanctions; why does UBL hate us?--because our troops are there to there to contain Hussein; why didn't we have more intelligence sources devoted to UBL?--because we had to spend so much time monitoring Saddam; what will it take to really resolve the terrorist threat?--fundamental change in the area, which we don't see happening on its own; are other countries likely to try and openly thwart us in the future given our reluctance to deal fully with Saddam?--yes). So, in a great many ways, Saddam was indeed a threat to the US, and removal of his regime offered the only solution to that problem.

So, you see, I disagree with statements such as these:



No, I think this war was waged on very accurate information--WMD being only a small part of it. There is no disputing that Saddam was indeed a threat to the United States, regardless of his possession, or lack thereof, of WMD. The more information that was gathered, the more clear that was. Even for WMD, it was never necessary that Saddam absolutely had these weapons. It was enough that he seemed intent on getting them and would be likely to use them if he had them. Post-9-11, and with WMD, that risk was simply not one that could be tolerated. However, as Bush has recently stated, even knowing that WMD were not present shouldn't, and wouldn't, have changed the decision, because the other factors through which Saddam posed such a dire threat to our security were still present, and no other solution would resolve them. In fact, delay of any kind would only make the threat worse, since it was current conditions that were creating the situation in the first place.

Sorry...I don't believe that for even a second. Furthermore, the whole premise of that having anything to do with anything is seriously flawed.

The situation making us the most hated was not Saddam Hussien. It is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. By not capitulating to terrorists (the Palestinians) and supporting our ally (Israel), the majority of the Arab world had already turned on us.

So, what do we do? Change our policies, abandon our allies, and make nice with the Palestinians so they start blowing up Jewish busses for other reasons, but at least we're off the hook? Or show the world that we'll abandon our allies if you can kill enough of them with world sympathy?

My point is, we can't expect diplomatic results without diplomacy. Before 9/11, this administration was very clear in saying Saddam posed no threat and was adequately contained. This is an undisputed fact. No matter what Clinton, Albright, or the Easter Bunny had to say about Iraq and the perceived threat before Bush took office, this administration KNEW it didn't exist previous to 9/11. That changed with 9/11 even though it is very clear that their stance on Iraq before 9/11 was highly accurate. Didn't they have the same intelligence back then?

So, as bad as sanctions were, they were working. We can't modify our policies because our enemies don't like them. That premise is absurd.

UBL specifically cited this in his statements. There is also strong support for this sentiment in various polls and statements around the Middle East. So, you can believe or not believe, it doesn't change the fact of the matter. As to whether or not the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was an accompanying matter, that is of course correct. However, UBL didn't cite that in his statements, did he? Our troops weren't in Saudi Arabia because of the Israeli Palestinian conflict--they were there because of Iraq. It was our troop presence that infuriated UBL.

The link between Iraq and 9-11 in this regard is quite clear, and, given UBL's statements, beyond argument. I really don't understand why it is so difficult to accept. One could still argue against the war, although, as shown below, I think it would be a losing argument. Why is it so hard to see that there was at least a little justification in what Bush did?



Diplomacy had been tried, and failed. In fact, it was the effort to find diplomatic solutions that created the very situations for which we were being chastised, and that led to our continued troop presence and the sanctions which were creating such a crisis for the Iraqi people (uh-oh, there's that nasty UN scandal there too--another strike against diplomatic efforts, no?). There is a definition here that seems appropriate: Insanity is continuing to repeat the same failed processes, each time expecting different results. There was absolutely no reason to expect there to be a diplomatic solution to this problem. Saddam's regime was the issue--no diplomatic effort was ever, EVER, going to resolve that. When, in history, had a regime ever relinquished power voluntarily? That would be never, I believe. What on earth would make one think that, of all rulers ever in history, and given his track record, that Saddam would suddenly exhibit such a complete change and become the very FIRST ruler in the entire history of our planet to voluntarily abdicate his power and allow a completely different regime to step in? Someone who had routinely executed and exterminated thousands and thousands of people just to get and keep his power. Someone who was one of the most brutal dictators the world had ever seen. To think that this was even remotely possible is a fallacy of the greatest magnitude.




Hmmmm, now what event happened on 9-11 that might have led to a rethinking of that perception?



No, they weren't. They weren't working AT ALL. They were not driving any change in Saddam's behaviour, and they were being used to turn Middle Eastern sentiment against us. The false hope they presented for solving the problem was in fact exacerbating it, forcing us to continue with our troop presence (the source of UBL ire), requiring continued military and intelligence resources to be committed to the area, and doing nothing but permeating the feeling amongst Middle Easterners that we didn't care about them (why else would we continue to make the Iraqi people suffer so?). And this is without even considering the massive scandal within the UN regarding the oil for food program. No, sanctions weren't working at all--this is another fallacy, highly related to the previous one.



No, 9-11 indicated that their intelligence prior to then was based on false premises, causing many issues to be reexamined. Was our intelligence prior to Pearl Harbor flawed? No, it was very accurate--but incorrect assumptions were made. The events of December 7th caused that intelligence and those assumptions to be reevaluated to ensure a similar incident wouldn't occur again. The very same thing happened after 9-11, and justifiably so. If you followed the logic you were employing here, you would still believe UBL was not a real threat to the US, because that was the assumption before 9-11, wasn't it? Our intelligence on UBL didn't change; events forced a rethinking and reevaluation. The same occurred for Iraq. So, citing statements for either prior to 9-11 is pretty misleading, don't you think?



No, we take steps to rectify the situation, eliminating a brutal dictator, removing the source of many of the issues being used against us, freeing the Iraqi people, and demonstrating to the world that we will not tolerate countries that so belligerently act against us. Please tell me, DR, how were inspectors ever going to do that?

I fail to see how citing UBL's propaganda videos has any validity in this discussion. Just like any politically active person he formulates his comments in order to garner maximum benefit. For UBL a good speech connects all American actions with "oppression of Arabs". Simple as that.

So if the U.S. supports Israel's "new Berlin" wall then UBL tells the Arab world how we are against them all. If we go after Iraq he argues the slippery slope and tells Arabs that Iraq was the shining light of the Mid East and if it goes then they all are next...

From UBL's point of view it is simply good politics to say so whether he likes Hussein or not.

I remember the discussions on the news as our military rolled effortlessly into Baghad, there was one common thread in the discussions: That the Muslim world was shocked by our rapid victory over what was supposed to be the most powerful Arab army. UBL would have been a fool not to cash in on that sentiment among Muslims.


Here is another view of UBL and a quote where he explains clearly his argument against the U.S.


Read the entire article, it is at very least interesting. According to this article Saddam Hussein would be the least likely reason Muslims would decide to hate the U.S. According to this opinion resentment was cause by our support of suppressive regimes AND our support of Israel. Being the main person to shake his fist at the U.S. in recent history Saddam Hussein(Husayn I just learned) clearly does not fit in that category. It is true that, in the late '80's there was probably a lot of resentment against the U.S. for arming Iraq with WsMD and other military equipment..but I think the '90's erased that ...



Popular attitudes of Muslim states

If you look at the enormity of peoples' misgivings across the board you can see that most Muslims simply don't believe that the U.S. is interested in coming to the table on many issues.
It is true we have supported (and installed) some pretty bad dictators in the past in the region (including the Shah of Iran). I think it is unrealistic to expect the people in the Middle East to believe us when we tell them that this time we really mean it when we say we have the right intentions. I think that is even a tough sell to Americans.....hence this forum.



As far as the argument that Bush and his people perceived Iraq as a possible threat because of its capacity to distribute WsMD...well, I think even the Neo-cons knew about Pakistan...


Supplier of "nukular" weapons

Ballistic missles from China
The CIA DID have an issue with this...

PDF file: Pakistan's nearly unfettered nuclear exchange with North Korea

There is ample proof available that A) Pakistan was spending lots of its GDP on military/weapons that they have been working to become a player on the international arms market and C) they had been trading with "rogue states" and members of the "axis of evil".

..and still Iraq is the threat for disbursing weapons to our enemies?

I'm sure they did... Of course the main differences are:
1. The strategic location of Pakistan with regards to the war on terror.
2. The fact that the Pakistani government responded well to diplomatic measures.

Are you suggesting that just because the US chose to deal in a different way with Pakistan, they couldn't have felt threatened by Iraq?

In that case, what was all that bombing Iraq about during the Clinton administration?

Why didn't he hit Pakistan too?

You fail to see the validity in the stated comments from the mastermind of the attacks against us? What could possibly be more valid? This occurred long before the attacks, and was consistent--why do you think he was evicted from Saudi Arabia? It wasn't just a current 'propoganda' ploy. It is more like his life mission--if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the enemy we face. Statements from other Arabs and polls also indicated this was becoming a popular sentiment. If one followed this logic--exactly which statements should we follow?--almost any statement from anyone is likely to have a propoganda aspect to it. No, these statements can not be so easily discarded.




UBL made these statements, and was consistent with them, long before we ever invaded, so your reference has no validity.



An excellent quote, that perfectly backs up my position. Note the reference to the troops in Saudi Arabia, there to contain Saddam? Thank you for the support. One would, of course, have to question the validity of a position whose evidence supports the opposing hypothesis.



Which is why they were so critical of our sanctions, which were in fact causing great harm to Iraqi's, but little damage to Saddam. Again, I thank you for supporting my position.


Let's take a look at some of the other statements in the article you reference:



Lending credence to the need to initiate fundamental change...



...which would be expedited by the creation of a successful democracy in Iraq, its neighbor.

Again, this article tends to substantiate my position.

I had a really interesting conversation with an Iranian woman working at place my place of employement as an intern. We talked about politics and specifically the war in Iraq. At first, she condemned the U.S. actions and felt bitter that we supported Iraq in their war against Iran. I then commented that the people in Iran would probably love it if we overthrew their government and got rid if the imams. She agreed with me. She said a lot of people in Iran wished we would do the same thing to their country. She said, the only thing which changed a lot of people's opinions was the Abu Grahib (excuse the spelling) scandal. How people view us in that region is not as simply as we are told by the media. To many there, we are heroes. We are liberators. We attacked Iraq because we could no longer trust Hussein's regime to make rational decisions. I told her I hoped we would attack her country if they don't stop posing a threat to our security by funding, housing, and supporting terrorists. While she did not want to see the people in her country hurt, particularly the innocent citizens that inhabit all countries, she understood. She didn't argue or feel an attack would be unjustified. She simply wished their was a peaceful way to change the Iranian government. She is a rational person. She understood the purpose of any government is to protect its people. She understood her country was risking the lives of the people in this country through its government's actions. While I believe it may be inevitable that we wage war against countries like Syria and Iran, I do not do so wishing for harm to come to innocent citizens. But, if they cannot force their government to make more rational decisions, then we have no choice for our own self-interests to be preserved. If an Iranian woman can understand that, I find it hard to believe that an American can't.

1. The war on terror is borderless, there is no real "strategic location" ...there are plenty of cells in the U.S. and most of Europe that are far more dangerous than any in the middle east..
2. The Pakistani government JUST passed a law pertaining to the trade of illegal arms and only recently has started coughing up important information. There is proof of major Al Quaida activity there but no way to link it directlly to the government. They have been quilty (if only through indifference) for years and only recently have started complying. I won't even start the debate about Saudi Arabia and their funding of terrorists including paying families of suicide bombers...

The argument is about the reason for going to war in Iraq. If, as people have been claiming, we went to war to prevent the proliferation of WsMD OR in order to strike Al Quaida...well, then there were probably MUCH better targets to deal with before Iraq.


Now to Hobbes,


UBL makes those public statements for the purpose of propaganda. He releases them for Muslims to hear not in order to allow U.S. analysts to get a clear psychological analysis of him. He says what he says for the same reason GWB said he was "a uniter not a divider" ..it is politics.
It is strange you demonize the man, claim he has basicallly psychotic visions of destruction, but then take his every statement as truth. I suggest you never do jury duty or work on a parole board because guess what, they are all innocent and can show you how they are the victim.


As far as what UBL says about the reason for his dislike of the U.S., the quote I gave seems to point at our political meddling in the Mid East and our suppport of corrupt regimes. The other article about Middle Eastern opinions that I linked to suppported that position.



You misunderstand the history of Saudi Arabia it seems. Saidi Arabis is made up of hundreds of rather long-standing clans. Much like Greek city-states they have made alliances and struggled for control of the region for a very long time. The U.S. supports those people in that country who, for years, have been willing to serve its economic interest. These people have thrived and become ridiculously wealthy while the rest of the clans have lived in poverty. Essentially, whether they have earned it or not, the "House of Saud" is perceived as a corrupt power being supported by the U.S. This has been UBL's problem...and it is consistent with the quotes I gave in my last post.



Hmm..so, because UBL has been using propaganda statements to sway Muslims for a long time the fact I point it out now is not valid? I imagine that his statements from long ago were no more useful for supporting a debate about Muslim opinions as they are now. Propaganda is propaganda....it will always use emotion, nationalism, and false reasoning to try to change opinions. I wouldn't try to support a cold cup of coffee on UBL's propaganda, nevermind an argument about opinions in the Miiddle East.



This is an unfair twisting of an argument. I was referencing the U.S.'s history of supporting despots in that region. Turning into a discussion about our "war" with Hussein is dishonest. In that situation we were CLEARLY not supporting a despotic ruler. I would enjoy a response to my point about our history of supporting such people..but don't bother quoting me out of context.

I can see your point about how UBL turned our use of sanctions against us with his propaganda machine. We were evil for supporting Hussein in the '80's and then we were evil for going after him since. It's callled spin and I think you are aware of the concept. Still, I fail to see how UBL's spin on this subject has an validity concerning OUR leader's justification for the war. Unless you are saying we went to war hoping for goood PR with UBL .....well then UBL's statements would be important to the discussion.


The part you quoted spoke of "relations with other nations based on mutual understanding and respect" ..
You would have to show us how our unilateral war, our deck of cards manhunt, and our prison rapings somehow can be construed as "mutual respect" by Iran and its neighbors...
Again, of course it would be fruitful for our relationship with other countries in that region if we had (or do) set up a democracy in Iraq. But as I showed already, we have short history of doing humanitarian work in that region. I linked to some charts of Muislims' responses to questions about the U.S. in my last post...did you look at those charts Hobbes or ibelsd??

They show OVERWHELMINGLY that people in that area doubt our honesty when we say that we are there for humanitarian purposes. When we say we are there for Al Quaida they look at other countries and laugh at how far off we reallly are. Al Zarquawi(sp?) using a hospital in Baghdad is hardly more overwhelming proof than what we have on other countries...

It's clear to everyone in the world that there are unspoken reasons for why we chose Iraq so quickly...I honestly can't understand how anyone in the U.S., with free information and free speech, can still not see that fact.

Ok, what is the war in Iraq really about... as though it were about only one thing. Ultimately, it comes down to U.S. security. To say other places have terrorists with greater abundance, or that other places have WMD, is not the only issue. Ok. Great, North Korea has nukes. We know it. They have admitted it. Should we bomb them? Of course not. No one in their right mind would suggest that. Why? Well, for one thing, when is the last time North Korea has actually acted as an aggressor towards another sovereign state? Posturing does not count as aggessive. Second, what would be the political ramifications? Does anyone think China would sit still and let us occupy Korea? How about Pakistan? As strange as our relationship is with that country, we find them more useful as our semi-ally, then as an occupied country. And then, of course, when was the last time Pakistan acted aggressively towards another country (besides India with whom they have a border dispute). How about Syria, some people will say. They are certainly playing with fire, but, again, they haven't really shown an inclination to use military force outside their own borders. Iran is another country which is teetering on the edge, but what justification would we have to invade that country? When you fight a war, you take the battles you can win, both militarily and politically. This is why the President retains position as Commander in Chief during wartime. A military general can't be expected to take into consideration political aspects of a war. Can anyone dispute Hussein's attempt to invade Kuwait. Can anyone dispute his consistent funding of Palestinian terrorists? Can anyone dispute the Iraqi government and Al Queda had ties which were, at best, an expression of an interest to work together (of course, anyone who believes that is the limit of their relationship...). Can anyone determine exactly when he got rid of his WMD stockpiles? If so, explain where they disappeared to. They seem to magically have finished which is ok to those who want to pretend they were never there. Was invading Iraq really such a bad move? To me, it seems like a politicaly and millitary, excuse the pun, slam dunk. To those who wish to dwell on the prison scandal, dwell all you like. That is what makes America respectable. As much as people want to claim spurious conspiracies, no one's head has been chopped off as a result. The guilty are in the process of being served justice. Our media reported the event. How many countries would allow that type of coverage of a similar event? Anyone who doesn't understand why we invaded Iraq need simply to look at a game theory model using Iraq and the U.S. as the primary players. If you still have questions, you probably aren't qualified to even voice a respectable opinion.

You are simplifying the situation beyond a point of reason. Having a nuclear program is a more complex (and dangerous) thing than just being able to use nuclear bombs a la Nagasaki and Hiroshima. If a "rogue state" has a history of dealing with our enemies and has a robust nuclear program they are trouble in many ways. Combine the governments fragile economy (North Korea) and you have a situation where they can manufacture weapons grade uranium and disperse it out into the world for profit. They could supply our enemies with materials for dirty bombs or even simple things like normal explosives and ground to air missles.
In other words, they can supply terrorrists in ways that mainstream countries would never do.
George Bush, for the most part, has refused to even take part in talks with North Korea. It seems he is leaving him on the short list for more aggressive "diplomacy" for the future. This makes no sense if one os speaking strictly in terms of security. It is short term thinking at its worst. We should be doing something about Pakistan and north Korea now!



Agreed, the political situatiions in most of the other "axis of evil" countries would require more delicate diplomacy and could probably not be solved with unilateral war. The fact that they may have picked Iraq simnply because it was the easiest is scary to me. Picking on the enemy who is least likely to get help is not necessarily noble OR in the interest of our security in the long term.
Although it does sound a lot like playground bullying.


Iraq hasn't showed such an inclination to do that for more than a decade...oh wait, yes, their's was ALSO a border dispute. (I won't bother linking it..if you don't know Iraq's justification for the attack on Kuwait you can find it easily enough)
Yes, Hussein used WsMD...but we gave them to him and accepted their usage at the time it was done! Saying it is reason to attack him now is hypocrisy.


Everyone in the Middle East except Isrealis supports the Palestinians. The Saudis pay the families of successful suicide bombers. So this is a valid reason for war how?



No, no one can dispute that there are hints and mysterious threads of fact that hint at some sort of relationship between Al Quaida and Iraqi. However, hints and allegations are a lot less than we have on other countries. I'm not sure how they can make a good argument for war when we have solid facts about terrorrists receiving WsMD from other countries (Pakistan as I already showed)


Well, we DID systematically destroy his military facilities in the first Gulf War. Do you remember the famous videos of guided missles homing in on massive storage hangars...they get right up to the dooor and then go blank... Well that was us blowing up Saddam's weapons.
It was believed (assumed) that we didn't manage to blow them all up. Apparently we got them all..or just about close to all of them. For over a decade we enforced a no fly zone over the country, spied from outer space, and conducted raids on the ground looking for that which we may have missed. Did he screw with us? Yeah he did. It is likely the crocodile didn't want the world to know he had no teeth....



Now some military intelligence people are being implicated..only the claim is that they, too, were rogues. The jury is not yet out on this. It is coming out from Guantanamo to have been happening there also. Combined with the fact that a White House legal team (and Rumsfeld) set out to justify the use of torture last year is telling. Creating an argument for circumventing the Geneva Convention and THEN getting caught torturing people...hmm....must be a coincidence.



PDF about game theory and its limits

I'll have to assume you meant "a zero sum model" of game theory...because game theory doesn't rule out having the players work together...
Ok then, so you are justifying the war now based upon the fact that a theoretical series of mathematical equations shows that we have almost no way of losing against Iraq?
Of course you realize that game theory assumes ONLY two players (we must not really have that coalition) and it assumes that each player makes one move at a time in succession (like chess).
Also, this same theory is unable to account for trifling matters like other enemies, nationless terrorists, international weapons trade, and the opinions of some Iranian woman who now lives in the U.S.
While this might work to describe the way we compete in one on one games it in NO WAY can describe the complexities of international affairs. It wasn't difficult for me to find an article explaining the limits of Game theory and how it fails to account for human cognition...a WONDERFUL variable I might add.
Not surprising though, that Republicans would use a model that fails to acccount for cognition in describing George Bush's rationale for going to war....


That's called "poisoning the well". You can say you don't understand how we don't see it...but insinuating that someone is deficient if they don't see it your way is poor argumentation at least...
However, considering how flip you were in tossing out nonsense about "Game Theory Modeling" without backing it up, explaining it or making sense of the statement I won't take it seriously.
If it was an attempt to show that winning that war was a no brainer..well, no duh! Unfortunately we have burned bridge after bridge to get where we are and the situation only gets more and more complex.

Not really true.

Although there may be small-scale terrorist infiltration in many locations, we do know that there are "centers" of terrorism in regards to training, planning, finance, arming, and recruiting. These are largely in the Middle East and parts of South East Asia.

Pakistan is one of these centers and is located next to another, hence it is in fact a "strategic location".

Of course there has been a recent upswing in Pakistani cooperation recently (likely due to repeated assassination attempts)...

This ignores the fact that Pakistan has been offering significant cooperation ever since the fall of the Taliban, likely that is why said assassinations were attempted.

Saudi Arabia has also been open to talks including a number of visits and arrests of terrorists as well as intelligence.

Iraq never lived up to its diplomatic obligations, its cooperation was never really necessary, so it was dealt with differently.

Throwing out these (forgiveness...) Red Herrings of other nations does little to prove that the US government did not fear Iraqi WMD as successive Democratic and Republican administrations have said for years.

That would be the objectivity talking...

What exactly do you think these "unspoken reasons" are?

Rouge, it is sort of funny... You actually agree with me point by point as you take each sentence and attempt to refute it, on most issues. Finally you come to the conlusion that it is logical we went after the easy target and that somehow scares you because it makes us a bully. We went after Iraq because it was practical. We had justification. Game theory is a model which does look at only two states. The key here is that cooperation is preferred until one party is unable to trust the sincerity of the other party to continue negotiating. While you feel it is safe to assume we destroyed Iraq's weapons in the first gulf war, no one really believes that theory. So, the view going into the war against Iraq is that they did have WMD and they have shown they are willing to use them. How they originally acquired their first stock piles is largely irrelevant. What matters is the here and now. When was the last time N. Korea used WMD to attack a soveriegn state? I think we also agree that China wouldn't allow us to waltz into Korea as an occupier. Does that make us a bully or prudent? I think the plan of this administration is to go after terrorism one state at a time. You can choose two methods. You can go after the strongest kid on the block and knock him off, or you can pick off his friends so he is isolated and vulnerable. I am not sure Iraq is really the weakest, but it is certainly not the main host of terrorism. It is one of the friends. Correction. It WAS one of the friends. Just like Afghanistan WAS one of the friends. Just like Libya WAS one of the friends. Recently, Jordan has shown an inclination to work with Israel to solve the Palestinain problem. Suddenly, countries like Iran and Syria are looking increasingly vulnerable. The region is going through a paradigm shift right before our eyes and people who oppose Bush will do anything not to see it.

So is there some kind of cut off timeline as far as being an aggressor to another state? N. Korea was an aggressor back in the 1950's, we went over there to fight and technically we only have a ceasefire with them right now.

Iran was involved in a little altercation with Iraq in the 1980's.

Iraq invaded kuwait in the 1990s, but they have not taken any military action since they were crushed in the first Gulf War.

So is it your reasoning that the war was justified because they were an aggressor 10 years ago? Do you draw the line somewhere after 10 years so that the aggressions of Iran and N. Korea don't count?

Your theory here doesn't really hold up under scrutiny as far as justifying why we were in Iraq.


Also false, as several people on this thread and others recently have proven. To sum up:
- Hussein's secular regime did not play well with Osama Bin Laden's brand of militant islam, for all intents and purposes they were enemies.
- There was not one single person who participated in 9/11 that was an Iraqi.
- Iraqi's are not constantly setting off suicide bombs around the world.
- As far as financial contributions to terrorist groups go, Iraq was near the very bottom of the list for every group.

Make no mistake, Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was also not a terrorist nor did he freely associate with them.

Arguably by removing Hussein we have actually made the terrorist problem worse because now some of the radical clerics in his country can now act. When he was in power they were in hiding and didn't attack anyone.

Should we still fear Norway for the brutal pillagings of the Vikings? By the way, who did North Korea invade in the 50's. In essence they were trying to unify a nation which was split up by the two super powers at the time. The effort was being made to unify the two sections of Korea, but due to North Korea's communist leadership, they refused to particpate in the U.N. A little different situation from Iraq which was aggressive in the 80's, in the 90's, and appeared to be trying to rearm in the 00's. I simply disagree with your premise that Hussein didn't freely associate with terrorists. I think the evidence has shown he did freely associate with them. The evidence also shows he was actively attempting to acquire plutonium. He was more than a brutal dictator. He was a threat to our security.

Saying that I agree with you does not make it the truth. I agree with some points but not with others. If the reasons you promote ARE the reasons for the war then we are presently in the middle of an unjust war. Attacking someone out of expedience is not, I hope, in the framework of the morality of the United States of America.

So far ibelsd you have basically just repeated the talking points of GW's website. I suggest you back up some of your positions AND define your version of "practical" and "justification". You say these things freely but don't qualify them or show HOW they are true.
None of these things are evident, especially on a board such as this one.


Explain these two things please. Let me explain the confusion:
When I go out to eat and realize the bill is way more than I can afford it is "practical" for me to run out of the place without paying. If you don't worry about the rules, the way people view you and your record or the well-being of those from whom you steal it is a no-brainer. However, at what point does practicality fall prey to reason? Is it practical to charge into a war for which we aren't prepared? And when the enemy is already contained is it more practical to charge in so fast? And without the sanction and help of other powerful countries?
If "practical" means "we take out the easiest, if not most important, bad guy just because we can do it now"... well, I'd like to see some concrete REASONS why that is practical. I'm sure the arguments against the practicality of that are easy to come by. Mind you, just saying, "He was a threat...he used WMD before...he was in cahoots with Al Quaida..etc..." are all still in question and have been talked about in this thread. If you choose to use those reasons as evidence then you need to respond to the points made about them because they have been brought into question by many in this discussion.

I would like a response to mine and CJ's points about IRaq being a threat for an old offense. I imagine anyone could make a long list of countries with questionable ties to terrorists and a recent history of violence against neighbors....


That is just not fair argumentation..it is facetious. But to answer you:
1) If Norway still had armed Vikings and they were unimpeded in their ability to wage war on others then yes, we should fear them. 2) If Norway still has vikings but they are surrounded by U.S. bases, surveilled by spy satellites and constantly inspected by an international organization then NO, no need to fear them. 3) If Vikings no longer exist then we can fear them in our dreams if we have the inclination to do so.



Agreed, there are "centers" however, if these were overcome they would simply find others.
The only way to completely stop all terrorism is for the U.S. to have a hand in the goings-on of every country on the planet. Hmm..isn't that the Neo-Con platform since way before the war on terror (Wolfowitz wrote his manifesto in '92)? It's handy that they now have the mandate of a war on terror in order to see their agenda through.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that we need to ferret out the virus (in my opinion the cells S.O.P. closely fits the way a virus survives). However, as many others have said, it seems there is another way beside global hegemony.



Good one! Believing Iraq has WMD's is VERY different from fearing that they will use them. I think that the entire world community was comfortable with the fact that Iraq was well contained by the U.S. and UN. I think plenty of people have shown with quotes from multiple sources, including the White House, that there was no expectation that Iraq had the ability to attack anyone.



You got me on that one too! I was being subjective in the spirit of some earlier posts

As far as the other reasons, that is the point of this thread.
I think it is a combination of many things. I'm sure there was pressure from energy lobbies to get a stronger foot in the Middle East (they have been asking since 1998 for regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq). I also think there is a seperate Neo-Con agenda that focuses on making the U.S. the world police and such...there are links to it offered by Wertz I believe in this thread.
I saw a History Channel special (i believe it was them) about the lead-up to the 2000 election.
It was all about the battle for the mind of George bush as Wolfowitz and Powell began visiting him in Texas as early as 1998 to prepare him for the situation. There was apparently a lot of tension between the two camps...
I also think that GW truly thinks this is the most prudent path to take. If you look at GW's fiscal policy (tax cuts during a time of war are unprecedented) then you will see that he doesn't tend to look long term when he makes policy. He did it with the steel tarriffs, "Clear Skies", his tax cuts...so why should we expect him to think long term with his war on terror.
He says that he plans for a long war on terror, but then again three months ago his administration was saying that deficits don't matter...and now they are talkign about reducing the deficit...
So I wouldn't support a complete conspiracy theory...but I bet when GW was looking at all the benefits to himself and his benefactors he thought it was a "slam dunk"

Just a little pet peeve. When you decide you will refute someone by arguing sentence for sentence, you are not doing so in a spirit of debate, but one of slander. Herring, the Viking comment was made within the context of someone else's statement. Standing alone it appears silly, and, indeed, it was meant to be a little silly. Pulling it out and making it stand alone takes it out of context.

My point, is essentially, the same as yours. Time since someone's last conquest is part of an overall picture which determines another state's threat towards our security.

Telling me my points mirror GWB's talking points doesn't refute their accuracy. You are simply telling me your own bias.

You made a claim that most everyone, including Washington felt satisfied with the level of containment surrounding Iraq. This claim would certainly need some sort of evidence to hold true. If this were true, why did the U.N. vote on giving Iraq a deadline to fully disclose its WMD program? If this were true, why did Washington push for military sanctions pending Iraq's failure to comply? If you wish to use a conspiracy theory, please, make sure you don't use wild accusations, but provide evidence. Forget what you think you know now. What did we think we knew then and what helped us to our conclusions? You may find, most of the conclusions made then hold true today.

The only conlclusion still in doubt concerns stockpiles of WMD. Frankly, I am upset we didn't find them, because this increases the likelihood that if they ever existed they are in unknown hands. If they never existed, color me purple and too bad Hussein felt he had to hide his own compliance.

Ok, here is just one report from the CIA that details the WMD status of most of our perveived enemies. The main page with links to all the reports is HERE

In the reports prior to 9-11 there is a common thread of Iraq's (and everyone else's) desire to seek out nuclear and or chemical weappons systems... read it here

I readily admit that Iraq was posturing and TRYING to rebuild its might against UN rules.
However, after suggesting what Iraq "could possibly" convert into CW production and what they "may" intend to do with possible "dual use" products they acquire the report finishes with:


So essentially they were trying but generallly failing....This is good reason, for sure, to be cautious and continue with the interventions which had stopped in 1998...and that IS what was originally tried...

On the other hand, if you read the same document on the topic of other countries you will find that they DID have chemical weapons and the DID have robust nuclear abilities and were actively building more...

Here is a study done in 2003 that looks at the length and breadth of pre-war intelligence and determines that we had the intel to know that Iraq was not an imminent threat.

Here is a large 4 MEG PDF file which is a defense department report which similarly talks only about the possibilities of misuse of "dual purpose" components in Iraq..Big Dload
On the other hand, their details of some of the other nations mentioned in this thread are much more menacing. Pakistan, Libya, Iran, etc..all had nuclear and/or chemical systems fully functional... Once again, more proof we knew who was who before the war...

It's clear that we had some questions about "possible" misuse of industrial chemicals by Iraq but they all turned out to be Red Herrings. The authors of the 2003 report claim that it should have been put together prior to the war that there was only a spectre of threat from Iraq..

There ya go, some pre-war intel on our views of Iraq. If you look into the post 9-11 "reports" you can see the sudden change in focus of the intel community....

edit: fixed a messed up link

Yes... and no.

Still pushing the non-partisan nature of this war, let's hear a different opinion.


Clinton announces Iraq strikes: Full text
I know, it says nothing about striking America...

and of course the nice recent quote in my signature.

If was fear of proliferation of Iraqi WMD that was the major concern, since direct attack was indeed impossible.

Stronger foothold how? The presence of troops in Iraq couldn't be expected to increase oil output, certainly not more than simply dropping the sanctions...

Yep, some theory about controlling the oil flow. Frankly, its credulity is little. How, exactly to they expect to do so?

It seems to me that the so-called "hidden agenda" is a assumption ridden guess work, resulting from an overly-simplistic idea of how the oil industry really works.

I think that all the Oil people wanted was to have a government in those countries that is open to trade, foreign companies, and desperate for money (that would make lucrative deals easier to get) Simply put, an environment ripe for their type of business is what they wanted.

I undertsand that the oil situaion is often simplified but let me put some light on how I see it.
It is believed that th area of the Caspian Sea is home to 10% of the world's untapped oil reserves which were opened up with the fall of the Soviet Union. Caspian Oil Outlook

Before the war the deal we wanted, to run the oil from Afghanistan to Pakistan (and potentially to Turkey) was thwarted by the Taliban. Famously, Unocal, a U.S. led oil consortium pleaded for regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Senate (it has been linked multiple time already in old threads). In 1998, after asking for regime change, they backed out of the deal.

This was a problem for the U.S. NOT because we wanted our Oil companies to get fat on Caspian oil but because we want to have say in WHERE the oil flows from. If the oil goes into Russia or China then we lose control to either of those powers.
The chessmatch for oil is bigger than Bush and his special interest cronies! It is about control of the world's energy reserves for the next half century.
The Great Game

I think that our desire to control the flow of oil (and our subsequent insistence upon friendship with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) is all about keeping the oil away from Russia and China.


So, the Neo-Con agenda is bigger than controlling oil for profit. It is about controlling the world's source of energy for power.

DUNE: "He who controls the worm controls the spice. He who controls the spice controls the world" ...or something like that

This, and this alone, violates all the UN resolutions, and justifies the use of force--as this 'attitude' was inherent to Saddam's regime, only regime change would resolve it, and only invasion would bring about regime change. Any other reason or justification, at this point, would be unneccessary. Especially when you consider the ramifications off allowing them to continue to TRY.

1. Risk that they might eventually succeed. (hmmm, do I really need to go past this one? Inspections might have reduced that risk, they had no chance of removing it.)
2. Cost of continuing the containment.
3. Increased negative attitudes towards us for continuing the containment.
4. Draining of intelligence resources monitoring the containment.
5. Perceived reluctance to ever move beyond the containment phase.
6. Continued atrocities in Iraq.
7. Continued troop presence in Saudi Arabia, thereby continuing terrorist sentiment against us.
8. Inability to ever use those same troops elsewhere, creating a manpower and equipment drain, especially important given the troop buildup in the area required to simply get Hussein to consider the renewed inspections (and the cost of maintaining, or repeating, that buildup).
9. Reduced chance of fundamental chang