Okay this one is a fairly straightforward question.


Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?
Why or why not?

Edited to add

this is an attempt to provide a revision to distinguish this thread from another one
link

By knowing what we know now, I mean, what we know about WMDs, Iraq's roles in supporting or not supporting anti-American terrorism, the level of resistance to American troops, the cost of the war, and the debatable rise in anti-American sentiment as a recruiting tool for organization including al-Qaeda

Essentially, in hindsight, should we have gone to war in Iraq?

Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?
Why or why not?

Knowing what we now know about the supposed Iraq's WMD, it was a tragic and terrible decision made by an incompetent President who STILL refuses to say he made a mistake. Its getting kind of ridiculous and childish for this President to STILL say he did the right thing. This is no longer a political matter as much as it is personal. More so, this is about the mental state of our own President and Americans (Republicans or Democrats) really have to question whether they need to rely on a man who just can't seem to understand when he was WRONG.

Yes, most of us believed Saddam may have possessed these weapons. However, the UN inspections were NOT given enough time to finish the job as the Bush administration ordered (this needs more play in the media) them out of Iraq while declaring Saddam was deceiving them which wasn't the case.

Folks, partisans and politics aside, is it so hard to say I'm sorry?
Wait a miniute I'm sorry, that question is reserved for the President of the United States (and the Vice President). Its time for him to be the President for the people instead of one political party.

Cgorham, this is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the situation. First, WMD was not the only reason we invaded. Second, all of the reasons we invaded were due to Saddam's regime. Nothing short of removing the regime would address those problems. So, I ask you--how were inspectors ever going to remove Saddam's regime from power? They weren't...therefore there were going to do nothing to resolve the problem--all they could hope to do was prolong it. Prolonging it is what got us into the situation in the first place.

Look past WMD. For the security of the world, not just the USA, we need security in the Middle East. The world as we know it depends on a) not being killed, and oil. In order to bring about stability and peace to the region, a powerful and peaceful nation, much like the USA, must be created in the M.E. to police the area and to provide an Arab ally with whom we can communicate with regarding Israel.

Iraq was a nation of abused citizens, a ruthless dictator, terrorist supporters, and of potential power. To not liberate the country would be a massive mistake. For a moment, please think of the benefits of the war. We have liberated a nation, created a Middle Eastern ally, and made a huge stride towards establishing peaceful relations between Arab nations and Israel.

All of the reasons we invaded were related to Saddam's regime, but our stated purposes had to do with the threat caused by the existence of Saddam Hussein in relation to his WMD programs and the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that he would risk his control of Iraq by giving WMDs to al-Qaeda or a similar organization.

Prolonging a removal of Hussein seems to have kept Hussein from being able to develop his WMD programs after all.

Bush II's inability to follow the advice of Bush I is what got us into this situation.

Our goal of making the region a model for democracy seems likely to ensure only lukewarm support from many countries in the region when we will need regional support for any new Iraqi government. Are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt not to take this bold BUsh doctrine to mean that they will be expected to reform their governments? Does Iran not now have even greater incentive and means to continue to be a state sponsor of anti-American terrorism and push quickly toward becoming a nuclear power so they can be treated like North Korea and not Iraq?

My opinion should not be surprising on this, I didn't support this war when I believed Iraq had WMDs and was actively trying to put together a nuclear weapons program. I still don't see a connection to the war on terror. In that war I value police work more than military. I value intelligence gathering from people on the ground more than from satellite photos. I see their being less of a possibility of our recruiting an army of effective operatives when an American army occupies the fertile crescent. In that I see a new gathering threat that will strike this country at some time.

Hobbes, you are correct that WMD was not the only reason given by the Administration for invading Iraq. They also strongly implied that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. I believe that this was the main reason for public support. This has also proved to be false. Worst of all, this was something that they knew to be false at the time.

Prior to the war and after weeks of rhetoric from the Whitehouse regarding the 9/11 connection I watched an episode of Dr. Phil where he assembled an audience of folks for the war. The front rows were filled with families of soldiers who were being sent there. On stage, he had 3 women opposed to that war. They were boo'ed (spelling?), and verbally beatan up by Dr. Phil. At the end of the show one of the women asked for a show of hands from those in the audience who believed that Saddam was involved in that terrible day in September 2001. Everybody raised their hands. Around the same time, USA Today ran a poll asking how many of the Hijackers were Iraquis. The options were:

All
Most
Some
None

70% of respondents chose "Most", when the true answer was "none". In truth, most were Saudis.

When any country goes to war, their government produces many statements of why the enemy is a horrible country. Monsters. This is recorded in history over centuries. It helps reassure that the decision (already taken) was the right one. But let's never forget that we were given two reasons for this war; WMD and a hand in 9/11. The 9/11 connection was a deliberate lie, but I'll give the Whitehouse the benefit of the doubt over WMD.

Why did they not talk to Scott Ridder before reaching their conclusion? Surely, before one commits young people to death or maiming one would want to hear from anybody claiming that the they may be wrong?

Today there are many revisionist reasons for going to war with Iraq. But they were not why we went. I understand that many were for the war back then because of the two reasons. To have backed a war that turns out to be wrong must cause a terrible conflict within. Had I backed it, I would be clutching at straws now to find justification for it. Just for my own peace of mind.
I was against it then because I doubted that he had WMD. I had listened to Ritter and other Unscum inspectors who resigned out of protest. I also knew that Iraq was probably (after Israel) the least likely Middle-eastern country to support islamic fundemamentalism. Saddam used to cut these people into small pieces (and their families) because they were a threat to his dictatorship.

Being apolitical I am very saddened that belief in the war has been split along party lines. If I meet a Conservative then I do not want to hear why the war is justified. I know why. He/she is a Republican and favors Bush. If I meet a Liberal then I do not want to hear their reasons either. He/she is a Democrat and that's what they all do. If either person's party had chosen the opposite path, then I suspect hat the posts on here would be the same with the views switched. Kosovo anyone?

Jeez, now I'm sad. I probably annoyed everbody here and that is not what I wanted to do. At the beginning of this post I had hoped to throw some light and provoke some thought. Not going to happen though, is it? I doubt that there's a post that can convince me that the war was right (but I'm all ears).

Do we all just come on here to vent, and are we all unchangeable in our opinions?

I am not trying to be funny here, but, why on earth would you waste time
watching a blow-hard like Dr. Phil.



Yes, propaganda played a huge roll in our support of the war. The other
being the fear factor - scare us into believing we need to stand behind
any and every decision the administration makes.



Regretably, I was one of the supporters of the "War in Iraq." That was then,
this is now.




I feel the same way. Immediately following 9/11 we, as a country, pulled
together in support of one another. Here we are now, a few years later,
more polarized than ever. I have a sick feeling about all of it, and I guess,
I'm not alone.




Your post was very thought-provoking, and I appreciate what you have written.

Knowing what I knew back then, invading Iraq was not the right choice.

The Bush supporters can spin this all they want, but some facts simply cannot be denied.

1 - Iraq did not attack the US.

2 - Iraq did not attack the US.

3 - Iraq did not attack the US.

How many more times do I need to say this? We invaded a country on the premise that it *could someday* be a threat to us.

We invaded a country out of fear for the future, not in retaliation for a past act.

We were made fearful by all the talk of nukes getting into the hands of shadowy terrorists somewhere to be delivered Lord knows how, or maybe bio/chems. Or something. A mushroom cloud was an invoked image.

Irrational fear supported the invasion. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

I'll add something else: Blind patriotism supported the invasion, and a simply evil lust for blood. For those motivated by these things, I hope they've learned about being human, about being foolish. I'm also sorry that such lessons are so painful.

But ding dong the witch is dead. Yep. But that's just the beginning of the story, isn't it. We may have reached OZ, but the trip back to Kansas is yet to happen.

Edited Addition: Now that we know that Iraq would not have been a threat and could have been handled in ways that didn't cost so much, I feel no triumphant validation of my first assessment. This whole thing sucks.

This is a question that even a first grader would have no trouble giving the correct answer. There was no justification in invading Iraq.

There have been several individuals on AD that have suggested that WMDS was not the primary reason or only reason we invaded Iraq.

That is nothing but pure nonsense.I still remember that speech that Bush gave in Cincinnati and the speech that Powell gave to the United Nations saying that he was a threat and he had WMDS.

Do you actually think that the American people would have believed and agreed with invading Iraq, if those reasons were not given.

I can see it now. Bush appears on nation wide tv and asks for the American peoples support to invade Iraq because he is a bad man.

And Congress would have give the okay because he was a bad man. I don't know where you live but I wouldn't think it was the same as alice in wonderland.

Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?
Why or why not?

I believe it was the right choice.


Here is what I wrote in my first post on AD in March of 2003: link



There were more important reasons than WMDs for going into Iraq. Changing the dynamic of the Middle East was far more important. Rooting out Islamic terror was not going to occur with the status quo as it stood in 2002.

It has been US policy since 1998 that Iraq needed a regime change. Bush simply carried out existing US policy. We will see the benefits in the years to come.

I don't doubt for a moment that you truly believe that Amlord. And that's part of what scares me. What this last year has proven, through the 9/11 commission and now the final inspection report, is that the very straw man that the Bush Administration presented for annihilation of the sovreignty of another country has been burned in effigy.

Your argument is compelling. Another democracy in the Middle East could quite possibly serve as an example for other countries to follow. The problem lies in the means to achieve it. You see, the Soviet Union had similar ambitions. Show the world the remarkable experiment of communism and the workers of the world will flock to it in droves. Arguably the British had similar designs. It was called Imperialism.

There are very specific conditions that warrant the type of military action taken in May 2003. We had them in WWI and WWII and arguably in Korea. One could argue we had them in Gulf War I. 12 years later, we did not have them. Saddam likely needed to be tended to at some point in time. But in May 2003, we had a far greater enemy to contend with, and we chose to pick on the kid that posed little threat to anyone and least capable of putting up a fight.

I hope you're right Amlord, Iraq may in fact become a viable democracy, given time. But now was neither the time, nor place. And we are less safe because of it.

Doc

This of course highlights an important fundamental difference between our views of foreign policy and especially the limits of foreign power.

Imagine that the Tennessee/Ohio River Valley was under a fundamentalist Christian government that swept into power after William Jennings Bryan convinced the country that fundamentalism was the side most in touch with our national character in the Scopes Trial of 1925.

Let's say that people in that country chafed under years of economic hardship, brutal civil rights abuses, and corrupt sadistic leadership. Do you really think that you would respond to an invading Arab army that got rid of your government in a positive light as they came in and implied that your civilization had gotten it all wrong and you now had the opportunity to get it right?

Many people who fought in the Civil War, fought not to defend slavery but because their country was invaded. That has created a legacy of resentment that has lasted 150 years and the conquering force was a well known force of closely related ethnic and cultural elements.

The idea of using the United States army (not a democratic institution) to bring about democracy demonstrates in my mind a fatally flawed and arrogant view of American military, political, and cultural power. I repeat the point, how much do you really think that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait want our democratic experiment to succeed in IRaq? Those are our friends. Now how much do you think Syria and Iran want our experiment to succeed?

I further argue that it is nearly impossible to instill a stable functioning democracy in a country without a strong, large middle class. Democracy showed up in force with industrialization and seems to take effectively in countries that have fully developed. Elsewhere as in Latin America, Africa, and Russia for examples, it runs a much more tumultuous course.

I think Bush should be yanked from office for this concept of reshaping other nations in our image as much as anything else. It is overly ambitious. It is the stuff the is fraught with peril and extremely high bills. It would, if successful create quite a monument to the President who pulled it off. But the chances for success do mot merit committed the country to this course.

I'm not sure that will happen even if Bush is reelected. From Novak's article:


The "vision," the high expectations, the democratic phoenix rising out of the ashes of a despot dictatorship is wavering with numbers; reality crushing the overflowing optimism that was never tempered with hard facts Republicans as known for prior to invading Iraq. This is unfortunate because despite our circumstantial "reasons" I think it's our burden to fix the mess we created and provide the conditions necessary for stability to germinate, one such condition being continuous security. Whatever my politics may be I don't wish chaos on Iraqis.

If you cannot separate what was said (ie, the justification) from what the actual reasons were, then you would follow this thought pattern. Perhaps I can put it differently: are you stating, then, that you blindly believe everything that comes out of a politician's mouth? If not, then you understand the idea that what they say and their reasons for saying it are not always completely in lock step. Read the report...it specifically states that lengthy discussions were held on 1) whether or not to invade Iraq, and 2) which of the many reasons available they should use to justify the attack. WMD was simply the reason chosen, probably as much for taking it to the UN as for any other reason.

Hobbes, I would generally agree with you that people don't take everything a politician says to heart, and in some cases even expect to be lied to and vote for them anyway. On the other hand we're not talking about illegal campaign contributions or pulling the wool over our eyes with the Medicaid reform bill. We're talking about billions of dollars and more importantly, American lives. When a president beats the war drums he had damn well be certain his reason(s) for committing troops is not circumstancial. In a huge undertaking like this people will take a politician's word to heart and that is exactly what the politician is counting on. Hence why some people feel betrayed.

Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?
Absolutely not.

Why or why not?
Lie No. 1 - Saddam has chemical weapons Fox News 2003
Lie No. 2 - Saddam has biological weapons Detroit News 2003
Lie No. 3 - Saddam was trying to build nukes (G2 bulletin 2001, reports out this week)
Lie No. 4 - Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 Powell to Security Council Feb. 2003

Bush administration responses to the debunking of all of the above so-called justifications?

OK, so Saddam had WMD capability
Alright, well…then Saddam was thinking about WMDs
It was the intelligence agencies’ fault!
Saddam was a dictator…
Saddam was a bad, bad man!!
We needed to bring freedom to the Iraqi people

What a load of unmitigated horsepucky, codswallop, baloney and just plain old hooey he force-fed to the American public in order to keep them in fear and justify his warmongering administration’s determination to invade Iraq. Iraq did not pose any “urgent” threat. Invading Iraq was not going to “protect our borders”. McCain.

And I am 99.9% certain God did not appear in a burning bush (heh) and give Dubya his mission in life-invade sovereign countries who didn’t believe in Him and bring them “freedom”. It’s the worst kind of egoism and lying to try to make that fairy tale fly.

In March of 2003, I was busy looking for a job, and wasn’t on AD, but what I said in response to the twaddle coming from Bush’s mouth on TV justifying his decision to invade Iraq can’t be repeated here.

So, to answer the question: knowing what I know now only justifies and confirms my opinion that Bush is a $#!@* %#!!* who has hoodwinked the American people in a most heinous way and will continue to do so if people don’t open their eyes and ears and start thinking about the damage this one man has managed to accomplish in the last four years. Damage at home, and severe damage around the world; it’s probably the one thing at which he has truly succeeded.

So far, the only thing Saddam was guilty of that we didn’t already know about before this war (I’m sure all of us knew about his horrible human rights violations) was his manipulation of the oil-for-food program. As for removing an “evil dictator”, one has to wonder why we haven’t gone in and deposed other “evil dictators” around the world, you know?



In conclusion, I’m going to paraphrase a headline I read recently that sums it up nicely:

That hammering sound you hear is the final nails being pounded into the coffin of the Bush Administration.

edited to fix grammar error

There is a distinct disconnect here between what the U.S. is trying to do, and where they are trying to do it. I've not really spoken up on the question of whether or not invading Iraq was the right idea for a couple of reasons.

For starters; regardless of whether or not the invasion was the "right" thing to do; it is pretty clear that the reason for invasion was 'regime change' (and I don't buy your distinction Amlord. Democracy is a flexible term, and as such it loses it's meaning when you talk about foreign invervention in governments.) Of course, that makes the Bush administration perpetrators of one of the largest propaganda campaigns in the history of the Western world, but hey, they had good intentions, right?

Regardless of all that, Iraq was invaded, with the goal of installing a stable, friendly, pro-west government. It won't work, at least not with anything resembling a democracy. Here's why:

In the past 25 years or so, every country in the middle East has seen a shift away from modernization and secularism to social and religious conservatism; with perhaps Dubai and Kuwait being the ONLY exceptions. The degree of movement varied from country to country, with places like Iran undergoing a religious revolution and Saudi Arabia experiencing the rise in authority of the umala in that countries political system. This shift was a direct response to the post-colonial experience which still characterizes the experience of the citizens of those countries. During the 80's and 90's the relationship between the states and the 'people' changed dramatically as well. With the collapse of the price of oil and aid becoming increasingly focused towards government the lower and middle classes saw the quality of their lives suffered. Ever since, the Middle Eastern countries, especially those bound by Lebanon in the West and Iran in the East, have moved away from Western models of civil society and governance.

Now, we are attempting to revert to a structure that people in the Middle East already tacitly rejected, and we're going to do it with guns and police officers? It amazes me that ANYONE can believe this will work. While the Middle East (with the exception of Turkey and Israel) has never had a functioning, transparent democracy, various countries in that region have had civil societies modelled on the West. These were utterly rejected, as they were incompatible with the region. Without such a civil society a western-style CANNOT in any way succeed; and no matter how many police the U.S. trains or how many carrots they offer, you cannot create a civil society (or reshape one) by force.

It is for that reason, and not the campaign of lies, or the removal of Saddam, that the invasion was wrong. The sad part is, all the information that I used in compiling my opinion was available to the people who decided to invade; and they just chose to ignore it.

Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?
Why or why not?

Since I opposed the war prior to the invasion this only further reinforces my beliefs. What follows is just one of the many reasons.


Here’s where I take issue with this argument. For what ever reason, beginning with pre-invasion sound bites and up until now, Dubya, his supporters and the talking heads claimed that we need to install a democratic government in Iraq as an ally to ensure peace in the Middle East.

Correct me if I’m wrong but before the invasion were we not allies with Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Turkey and we also had a military presence in Afghanistan to not only stop Al Qaeda but also to reform their government as well? I don’t have my world map in front of me but I believe that fairly much surrounds the Middle East.

And once we setup this democratic government in Iraq what’s to stop them from saying “Well, thanks for getting us up and going, we really didn’t like you from the beginning and will now cut off all ties with your lying/corrupt/underhanded government, please remove all of you overpriced military toys and get on with your lying self”.

If we expect to make them a true democratic country it would certainly include their right to choose their allies and who can park their war machines on their property. Anything less and it would be painfully obvious that Iraq is a puppet state for America, only furthering the contempt for our way of life and fueling the hatred in the hearts of terrorists.

The other side of this ‘setting up a democratic state’ excuse that I don’t understand is hasn’t anyone who believes this ever turned a page in a history book? You just simply can’t impose a government and expect it to work. It’s only the will of the people that can successfully determine their own governance; anything short of this is an exercise in futility. We, as Americans, should understand this basic premise.

WMD's... How about the fact that saddam was NOT complying with any of the UN resolutions. How many chances were we going to give him?
If he didn't have any WMD's it sure looks as though he was on his way to getting them. No one has mentioned the oil for food program, and how that corrupt program brought millions of dollars to saddam to buy WMD's

OK. forget the WMD's what about the mass graves that were found of 1,000's of iraqis. He was committing genocide. Do you need more reasons?

If this were a legitimate and pressing reason to go to war, we would have invaded Sudan by now (hundreds of thousands slaughtered). There are mass murders and human rights violations in countries all over the world, and the US has not felt the need to invade and conquer them. Thus, it cannot be a valid excuse for the Iraq war.

In order for both conservatives and Liberals to debate on this subject without just flaming eachother we need to have a set of facts that we can all agree on.

Fact: The Bush Administrations only justification for invading Iraq that was valid via UN law was that Saddam had obviously not obeyed the disarming command given earlier.

Fact: Saddam as a ruler was a mixed bag, mostly an evil tyrant whom did bad stuff to his people and built palaces instead of hospitals. Overall he was a danger to his people and the surrounding countries.

Fact: Saddam was complying with UN resolutions for his disarming. He didn't do a very good job of proving this, maybe he didn't humor the UN resolutions as he should have, but he still disarmed. Saddam was a threat in that he intended to persue WMD's but since 1991 has been unsuccessful in doing so.

Fact: The US has invaded Iraq, set up a fledgling democratic state and continues to fight for ground control. The circumstances surrounding the conflict are worse than when we went in, and aren't getting better quickly.

Fact: Bush (in 2000 I believe? or 01?) gave the US a good sized tax cut. There is questions as to what proportions of this cut went where, but either way he gave us one. After this and since then the US economy has had a rocky time, mostly bad. There has been recovery, but nothing near what the administration estimated in various speeches.

We must find information we can agree on and stop squabbling over facts. The information above is pretty viable and I know there is lots of research to back it up. Please feel free to add anything else that you consider to be a plain fact the pertains to this debate.

The morning of 9.11 I was angry. I wanted to see vengeance for the dead. I was also a sophmore in high school, so that mentality isn't too unusual. After about a year I started reading and I discovered that the justification used by most of the terrorists for 9.11 was simply US foreign policy in the middle. So I examined US foreign policy in the middle east, starting with Israel/Palestine. I tried not to listen to one side over the other because I had already come to understand how stupidly partisan this country is. After reading several books on the subject, my favorite being "Why Do People Hate America" I came to the conclusion that if the US changed it's foreign policy then events like 9.11 would be much less likely to happen. When we invaded Afghanistan I could do little more than quietly disagree. I knew that just as I had, most of the country wanted vengeance and assuming we were only going in to take out the Taliban I figured it wouldn't be too bad.

And then Iraq happened. I never once believed that Iraq was a legitimate threat, I was already too suspicous of the government. I then knew about Halliburton and other such ways that the Bush administration and friendly investors like the Carlyle Group profit from war. The thought scared me. I went to protests and anti-war rallies, and conservatives, members of my family basically spit on me. I knew then that this war was for profit, for public opinion, for "American Justice" whatever that means, and for reasons I still don't understand, for Bush.

The fact that so many people are so indoctrinated into the "mainstream" thinking and reasoning attached to this war frightens me. The pass that the Bush administration gets from the half-ish chunk of the country that supports them frightens me. Who are we now? This country that invades on "principle" and not on reason. What have we, the people of the US got to gain from bloodshed thousands of miles away?

Don't say security... If you believe that you are lying to yourself and ignoring the truth.

Do we sleep easier knowing that Saddam is out of power? I don't. Saddam was a bad guy, but a day in the life of Saddam's regime was generally better than a day in the life at groung zero of a brutal illegal war. If we are not punished for this greatly I don't believe in justice.

No, knowing what I know now I would not support the War in Iraq. The only reason why I supported it in the first place was WMD, and so far, no WMD, if it can be proven that Saddam had them and moved them before we got there, okay. But that has not been proven yet, so for now, my answer is no.

CP

Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?
Why or why not?

I would have to say that the answer can be found here, in the text of the joint resolution that Kerry and Edwards signed. Kerry may want to re-read this when he goes off on the stump about voting for the authority "but what I really voted for was..." or whatever.



Lastly, I know that it's been a while, but does anyone remember that this guy lobbed scores of missles into Israel, and set half the freaking Persian Gulf on fire in 1991? "Greatest Environmental Disaster in History"

Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?

This may surprise more than a few of my AD peers, but I don't think it was the right choice...at least at that time.
I don't think I could have ever been characterized as an outspoken, ardent supporter of the war, but last year, I did support our actions as the right thing to do.

I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam needed to go, that he was a threat to world peace (and his own citizens), and that he would have provided WMD's or the technology to create them to terrorists organizations, whether they be AQ or Hamas, when sanctions were lifted, as I believe would have happened in a few years.

That being said, I think there were just as many specious and incoherent arguments not to go to war as it turns out that there were for the war.

Now, in thinking this, don't presume that I'm voting for Kerry........but Bush made the right decision at the wrong time.....and no matter who is to blame, there are around a thousand of my brothers that aren't coming home.

Yes.

Without invading Iraq, we would not have the luxury of questioning whether we did the right thing or not. Invading Iraq answered once and for all the question that everyone, including John Kerry, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, and the United Nations thought they knew the answer to...they all thought that Hussein had WMD's, they all spoke out against his threat, and the dangers he posed to America and the world in general.

You see, there was never a question of whether Saddam Hussein had WMD's...we knew he had them, he told us that he had them. The unanswered question was whether Saddam had gotten rid of the weapons that not only he had admitted to having, but that indeed he had used against his own people. Saddam completely failed to prove to the United Nations and the world that he had disposed of them as he had agreed to do, and Congress...including John Kerry and John Edwards, gave President Bush the green light to go and settle the unsettled question once and for all.

President Bush did just that.

What is Iraq in the scope of the larger war on Muslim extremist terrorism?

Iraq is a beach head, Iraq is a staging area, and perhaps most importantly, Iraq is the seed of Democracy in an area where the spread of Democracy, and the dislocation of Muslim extremism is the most potent weapon against global terrorism.

It was no coincidence that eleven fairly well-educated, middle class men hijacked airplanes with the intent of flying them into buildings, it wasn't poverty that drove them to these actions, it was resentments growing out of the absence of representative institutions in their own societies, so that the only outlet for political dissidence was religious fanaticism.

The Bush strategy addresses one of the great unfinished tasks of the last century...it goes about the task of making the world safe for Democracy by introducing Democracy to the Middle East; the grand Wilsonian strategy left the Middle East out, and now we're paying for it. There is a compellingly realistic reason now to complete the idealistic task Woodrow Wilson began more than eight decades ago: the world must be made safe for democracy, because otherwise democracy will not be safe in the world.

Yes, Bush was right by going into Iraq, and he will be right when he goes into Iran, and Syria, and Sudan, and even into Saudi Arabia.

Like Ronald Reagan took on Communism, and brought down an Evil Empire, President Bush must now rise to the challenge of the day, and bring down once and for all the terror mills of the sands of the Middle East, or the West will not long stand the onslaught of Muslim extremism.

I'm not going address the rest of your post as it is either factually incorrect or devoid of evidential support. However, one question I have: when did Reagan invade the Soviet Union? I seemed to have missed that part of history.

Iraq is one front to a larger conflict. We, as a nation, are resolved to hunt down and kill Islamo-terrorists and the nations that support them.
Iraq popped up on the radar in the support of terrorism, either by direct support or providing an environment for their promulgation. Do you remember Saddam had a mural painted in one of his palaces of the planes flying into the WTC? And now we find files on the access to our schools in his intelligence. Saddam was the best opportunity to show the US means business. After all, who is going to stand up for Saddam? There is an old Arabic proverb that says, "If a man has no friends kick him" We have determined we must have a safer, more secure world. A democratic Iraq ruins the whole flow of jihad or at least sets it back twenty years. And we demand that it must have cheap oil to drive Suzy 8 miles to karate.

For the world we all demand, conservatives and liberals alike, there must be war. We just will have different roles in the conflict. Some will be the aggressors in their philosophy, some will dissent and reap the same benefits. (The former is much easier on the conscience.) And there will be mistakes in any war. What do we think war is, anyway? The bombers of D-Day overflew their targets, we had bad intel on the hedgerows, the casualties were horrendous.

I think Iraq is more a matter of choosing which mistake to make. Personally, I may live to think that buying tennis shoes made in China was the biggest mistake I ever made.

Remember the words of Bob Dylan:

Let me draw your attention to CNN's October 8th INSIDE POLITICS Report


And regarding weapons plans:


And yet, Bush supporters cling for dear life to claims that have been disproven: Links Saddam allegedly had to al Qaeda (as if a megalomaniacal dictator would want to share power with others in his country while bin Laden called him an "infidel"), a "grave threat" to the U.S., "yellowcake" sought from Niger, etc. Case in point:

No proof was found linking Saddam Hussein with a terrorist network, other than his thumbing his nose at the non-Islamic world by pledging to support the surviving families of Palestinian "martyrs."

No evidence of terrorists in Iraq until after the United States and Great Britain "liberated" the country and the occupation began. Read Paul Bremer's statement above on how not having enough U.S. troops there really botched things up.

A mural about the WTC attack? Big deal. Would you like a country that continued trade sanctions against your country to the point that only the people in power had enough food and medical care? Would you not place part of the blame for your circumstances on that country whether or not you liked your ruler?

I disagree with your assertion that "Saddam was the best opportunity to show the US means business." We damn well should have finished the job in Afghanistan and gotten Osama bin Laden and his "doctor." As it is, they are still alive to tape videos and inspire new "martyrs" and just plain nasty fanatics to join al Qaeda. This was one big flaw in President Bush's debating point: While most of the playing card radical Islamists have been caught, so many more have been recruited to the cause! Our rangers could have gotten bin Laden in Tora Bora if we had sent our best troops instead of these tribesmen who all too recently had been on the other side.

(This is in small print because it is off-topic, but of all that you wrote, this I found very dismissive and untrue:

QUOTE

And we demand that it must have cheap oil to drive Suzy 8 miles to karate.

Now Mom or Dad wouldn't have to use the car to look for work or to drive to work, would they? No, they just take the kids to soccer, karate, whatever, right?

But in an even larger sense, the higher cost of oil means anything made of plastic will cost more (think: milk jugs), every trucker on the road will have to pay more for gasoline to get the nation's goods to the stores, heating oil will cost more and will pose a real hardship to the poor and the elderly and anyone on a fixed income, etc.

It's not just the drive to Suzy's karate lessons that is at stake! Higher fuel prices will affect anyone who has to budget carefully to get the bills paid and still have fuel for transportation, warmth, and household goods.)

Now I haven't even mentioned yet how many American casualties and life-altering injuries sustained by our troops wouldn't have happened had we not invaded Iraq, nor the fact that our children and grandchildren will still be paying for this foolish and arrogant side trip our President took.

In retrospect, no, no, no--the attack on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us and was later found to have no weapons of mass destruction, no aluminum tubes suitable for building nuclear missiles, and no demonstrable ties with al Qaeda was not worth it.

Confused



I have changed my opinion. Originally I was in favour of invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I was uncertain whether or not Blix had been able to do the job correctly since it was said Saddam Hussein was running rings about him. I just didn't know how much validity Blix had.

Then when Tony Blair stood in front of the house of commons and made his claim that Iraq was capable of deploying WMD's within 45 minutes, then I saw no further reason for the west not to remove Saddam Hussein.

I knew Blix was asking for an extra three months, and frankly if the decision had been mine to make, then I might have ignored the request as well due to the nature of fighting a war in the Iraqi summer.

However, I know now that my trust in Blair and his 'credible intelligence' was misplaced.
I never believed GW Bush, ever. Nor Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. Even a brief examination of the back ground of these men is enough to display their unsuitablilty for government and their extremely biased and aggressive world view.
But, never in my wildest imagination did I see Tony Blair as a man who would send Britain into war without a very good reason. And I can honestly say now that I was wrong. Tony Blair lied, deliberately, of that I am sure.




I was not annoyed by your post at all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Amlord



The problem is, what you, and others like you said in March 2003, matters not. What matters is what the US (and coalition) governments of March 2003 were saying, and I never heard any western leader use the justification you did. For public consumption, this war was billed as being about 11 sept, and WMD's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Eeyore



Thank you Eeyore! It is for observations of this character that I continue to follow debates on the internet. I only wish more people had thought of this in the way you do.

I wish I'd had that clarity of thought back in '02/03.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


carlitoswhey



No. I didn't forget. That was a part of why I supported the war in the first place.

But I have to recognize that Saddam Hussein was left in place by Bush snr despite all these previous crimes.
Its no good coming back after the war has taken place and trying to justify it by examples of Saddam Hussein's criminal record and punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam Hussein's crimes is certainly not justified. As Daffygrl has pointed out, the people of Iraq have their own culture and its wrong of us to impose our idea of what is right for them upon them, even if we believe our idea of democracy to be right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Knowing what we know now, was invading Iraq the right choice made by President Bush in March of 2003?

No it was not.


Why or why not?

Because containment was working. Because Saddam Hussein did not have any WMD's and was not a threat to the western democracies.

Whilst it is true that he was subverting the UN sanctions against him. I believe these sanctions could have been toughened, and those companies and individuals in the west who had dealt with Saddam Hussein could, and should have been named and shamed and possibly charged with criminal activity.

That would have set the tone for the future and thwarted any further designs Saddam Hussein may have had regarding WMD's.

Also, because the people of Iraq have had to pay the burden of Saddam Hussein's crimes. It is the men, women and children of Iraq and the coalition soldiers who are paying for Saddam Hussein's crimes. He himself is sitting in a prison, reading books and gardening by all accounts.

Presumably at some point he will be executed or sent to prison for life, but by the time that happens I don't doubt the body count will have doubled.


I should have listened to those around me. There is no justification for striking first. Violence begets violence, and we are now guilty of more deaths than the terrorists.

A lot has been said about what WE know now. Yesterday's Doonesbury Strip however re-iterated what a lot of us have learned since the invasion of Iraq, what George H. W. Bush felt about invading Iraq, and why he chose not to. George W. Bush, as President, is only the second man in out history to have a President as his father; and is the first man in that position who could have picked up a telephone and asked his father's advice...

What we know now is that "intelligence" was being edited to fit the scenarios outlined in the Republican Platform 2000.


At the time, I was probably most sold by Colan Powell's presentation to the United Nations. He was still a credible figure in this administration. Then we listened as UN inspectors said that the U.S. was not willing to furnish them with any of the supposed intelligence that we had. Then we invaded, and found that those trailers in the desert were apparently being used to launch weather balloons. Even if the weather balloons were being used to gather military intelligence, that would have put Iraq's intelligence gathering abilities on a par with the United States' abilities during the Civil War. We were effectively, I understand, enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zone. I suspect that Iraq's naval threat to the United States was also of a Civil War Era, if it existed at all.


Hostages are being taken, held, and then beheaded. This administration is trying to argue that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq so that terrorists don't come to America, take hostages, and behead Americans on American soil. Perhaps the $200 billion dollars being spent on this war would have been better spent on Karate lessons for Americans.

So do a lot of countries, our friends the Saudis included.


While this is true, it is not a reason to go to war. A this'll show 'em we're serious war is a waste of human life. I don't think that many countries in the world thought that we "weren't serious", and if they're were some, that shouldn't be the basis of a war.


Analogy:
So America is walking the halls of a school and someone trips him. The perpetrator's friend starts laughing. America then gets up and pops the laughing kid in the mouth. That's no way to defend a country. We shouldn't go after a weak enemy, just to make an example of him and show the real guilty party that we're serious.

Agreed .

CP

From Time magazine: What Saddam Was Really Thinking



Saddam felt that WMDs were the key to his future. There is little doubt now that, left to the course we were following in 2001, the sanctions against Saddam would have eroded to a point where we would have little chance of keeping them in place. With the sanctions gone, Iraq would even now be ramping up its WMD programs.

We can't stop Iran now from developing these weapons, what would we have done to stop Saddam?





In the end, Saddam's elaborate hoax worked--and it was his ultimate downfall. We didn't know then what we know now. We can now confirm that Saddam would certainly have been a much larger threat in 2004 than he was in 2001 if left to his own devices.

Was it justification enough? To some, the answer is going to be no. To me, the threat Saddam posed, coupled with the opportunity to change the equation in the Middle East, would have made it the height of folly to leave Saddam in place.

It took him a decade to procure the materials necessary to get his operation running in the 80's. He may have had some of the technical expertise available, but clearly the infrastructure was no longer there. Building any sort of nuclear capability takes years, and an end to sanctions would not mean unfettered access to the tools of the WMD trade. Without the invasion odds are the sanctions would no be dissolving and Saddam would be slowly but surely struggling. If it took him the better part of the 80's to build any sort of nuclear technology when he was an ally of the west, don't you think it's a bit silly to think that he could simply get things up in running in a matter of months or a couple of years?

Chemical weapons are not as difficult. Saddam already had the technology (if not the components) to manufacture chemical weapons. The Time articles says he had abandoned biological weapons as an option.

So we are down to chemical and nuclear.

A true nuclear war head would take years to develop. A dirty bomb, a radiation bomb, would not (provided he could procure the materials necessary--not too difficult considering Iran got the yellowcake it needed).

It all depends on how you plan to deploy such a weapon. With many of them, it is the delivery system which is the tricky part. For chemical and biological weapons, you need a delivery system that will not burn up the cargo (the WMD). For a nuclear weapon, you need a sophisticated electronics array as well as the difficult to procure raw materials. The technology of exploding a nuclear bomb isn't new, after all.

With willing terrorists, Saddam could really cut his costs on a deployment system. Human deployment, with wackos who don't care about dying after landing their payload, is alot cheaper than sophisticated rocketry.

The original R&D was done on these weapons. The scientists were all still in Iraq. The sanctions were on their last legs, and Saddam was circumventing those that were in place. The French had pledged to block any vote in the UN Security Council involving the invasion of Iraq.

The situation was untenable. It had to change.

Knowing what I know now ?

Reguardless of the WMD's, Iraq was a threat... But aside from that, lets look at what we had on hand befor recent data-point-outs:

Now, assuming Iraq aint had WMD's since 1991, why did Iraq not comply with the UN that clinton orderd missile attacks in 1996, 1998 and 1999 ?

There was nothing to account for the WMD's(when we attempted diplomacy, and then invaded iraq), and on top of that, Valdameir putin, president of Russia warned befor (attempted)diplomacy with Iraq, that Iraq had plans of attacking the United States...

Unaccounted for WMD's, and this information form Russia, I say we had no choice with Iraq.