[marden]

September 26, 2006 6:42 AM

Fighting to Win

By The Editors of the National Review Online

A leaked portion of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — apparently drawn from a single paragraph — says that the Iraq War is being used as a recruiting tool by jihadis around the world. And so Democrats are screaming that the war has made us less safe. The NIE has existed since April, and the timing of its leak — just weeks before the election, and right after a series of effective Bush speeches defending the war — certainly suggests another political hit on the president by hostile elements within his own intelligence bureaucracy.

But the NIE’s finding on Iraq deserves to be taken seriously, even if we don’t know its full context in the rest of the still-classified document. We don’t doubt the contention that the Iraq War has propaganda value for jihadis. The question is what to make of that fact.

First of all, many things become jihadi recruiting tools, and that’s not necessarily a reason to forswear them. The war in Afghanistan is cited by terrorists as a cause of their rage. So are the Danish cartoons. This doesn’t mean we should pull out of Afghanistan or shut down the free press. We are facing a foe whose ideology is based on hatred of the West, and this foe will find “provocations” no matter what we do. It found reasons to hate us prior to the Iraq War (our presence in Saudi Arabia while we were containing Saddam, for instance), and it would have kept finding new grievances without the war.

On the other hand, we can’t be indifferent to the effects of our actions on Muslim opinion. Some war supporters have analogized the current conflict to World War II and asked what it would have mattered if, say, the Germans had been angry at our invasion of Italy. This is an inapt comparison. World War II was a conventional conflict in which we could destroy the German army and the apparatus of the German state, regardless of German public opinion. In the current war, we are fighting essentially a multi-faceted global jihadist insurgency, and it is self-defeating to create more anger toward us unless doing so also promises to produce countervailing long-term strategic benefits.

In Iraq, there are such benefits. If we prevail there, we will have destroyed a dictatorship supportive of terrorism and Arab radicalism and replaced it, we hope, with a government opposed to both of those things. That will be a significant step forward in the War on Terror. The short-term cost is that the war provides a jihadi rallying cry and that terrorists are flocking to Iraq. But they go there to hurl themselves against a U.S. military that is trained to dispatch them to the next world and very effective at doing it.

Of course, they also carry out attacks against the Iraqi people. That’s why it’s a mistake to think that our actions in Iraq are the only ones that matter. The extremists’ savagery toward innocents is a serious blow to their long-term goal of winning over Muslim hearts and minds. Ayman al-Zawahiri himself has worried about this. If we succeed in creating a stable, democratic Iraqi state, it will be clear that the terrorists are opposed not so much to the “crusaders” and “occupiers” as to the legitimate aspirations of Muslims in the Middle East. This would be deeply problematic for them, as even Abu Zarqawi — not noted for his subtle thought — recognized.

But this will happen only if we win in Iraq. In explaining that only selective parts of the NIE were leaked, director of national intelligence John Negroponte noted: “The estimate highlights the importance of the outcome in Iraq on the future of global jihadism, judging that should the Iraqi people prevail in establishing a stable political and security environment, the jihadists will be perceived to have failed, and fewer jihadists will leave Iraq determined to carry on the fight elsewhere.”

Winning, however, is something Democrats rarely talk about. The NIE leak was an occasion for even more defeatism from the party that, insofar as it offers any distinct policy prescriptions for Iraq, advocates a premature withdrawal that would only ensure defeat. That would be the ultimate jihadi recruiting tool. Terrorists would be emboldened by their victory — since they are always more aggressive when we appear to be the “weak horse,” in bin Laden’s phrase — and would perhaps control some or most of Iraq as a base of operations.

Properly understood, the NIE leak confirms President Bush’s argument that Iraq is an important front in the War on Terror, and that achieving victory there is essential.

The Editors on Iraq on National Review Online

We must win in Iraq. The Iraqi government must win. The Iraqi people wanting to live in peace and freedom are depending on us not to turn our backs on them.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

We must win.

Best Rule 8 compliance ever.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Best Rule 8 compliance ever.

[Dork.]

I'll agree with the assertion that not winning in Iraq will make things a whole lot less stable over there, But I have two things to say about that:

- If we define winning as "establishing a stable political and security environment", we may mever be in a position to win, because the area is inherently unstable right now and it can be argued that our presence is not helping. To go further, the war plan heading into this conflict was unrealistic and set us up for failure.

- If we never went into Iraq in the first place, but concentrated all of our efforts in Afghanistan, we would still have suceeded in the goal of "establishing a stable political and security environment" in the Middle East, and would have done it with the support of most of the world (including the Muslim world).

So, why are we in Iraq again?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I'll agree with the assertion that not winning in Iraq will make things a whole lot less stable over there, But I have two things to say about that:

- If we define winning as "establishing a stable political and security environment", we may mever be in a position to win, because the area is inherently unstable right now and it can be argued that our presence is not helping. To go further, the war plan heading into this conflict was unrealistic and set us up for failure.

You and I and most of us have no real idea of the progress that's taken place there. So how can you make those statements? I'm not trying to be unkind, I just want you to recognize you are making value judgements based on old and incomplete information.

How much of the country is under control and there is no terrorist activity?
How many Iraqi military units have totally assumed responsibility for certain areas of Iraq?
How many new schools are there?
How many new hospitals?
How are the utilities coming along?
What is the situation with the local government and the local police forces?
What is being done to address the issue of sectarian violence?

These and other answers would better prepare us to know where we stand. But no matter what the situation is, we must not withdraw from Iraq.

Originally Posted by Dork.

- If we never went into Iraq in the first place, but concentrated all of our efforts in Afghanistan, we would still have suceeded in the goal of "establishing a stable political and security environment" in the Middle East, and would have done it with the support of most of the world (including the Muslim world).

So, why are we in Iraq again?

We thought there were WMD's and no one and no thing could tell us with sufficient certainty whether they were there or not.

Were you so confident that there were no WMD's in Iraq that you would have bet the existence of Israel on your belief?

Thats what was at stake.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

These and other answers would better prepare us to know where we stand. But no matter what the situation is, we must not withdraw from Iraq.

So what do you propose to do? The situation is getting progressively WORSE in Iraq. Not better. The American troops are less and less active as the country becomes less and less safe for them. Do you think, like Bush, that just blundering on with gradually diminishing troop numbers, that somehow it's all going to come right? I think you have two stark choices in Iraq. Pull out and hope that your absence removes a major source of the conflict OR draft in another 300,000 troops and send the numbers into Iraq that Bush was told from the start were needed.

Originally Posted by marden

We thought there were WMD's and no one and no thing could tell us with sufficient certainty whether they were there or not.

Nonsense. All of your allies were telling you that it was more likely that Iraqi WMD posed no threat to the US and there was indeed a way of telling with sufficient certainty whether they were there or not. It's called inspections. UNSCOM said it needed a few WEEKS and a few thousand dollars to provide that certainty. The reason they never got those weeks they wanted is because the whole Iraq invasion was conducted arse about face. The decision to invade and a timeframe for the invasion were made before the evidence was manufactured.

Originally Posted by marden

Were you so confident that there were no WMD's in Iraq that you would have bet the existence of Israel on your belief?

Thats what was at stake.

What absolute bloody nonsense. First of all, Israel would have had Iraq for breakfast. Iraq had been subjected to years and years of sanctions. It was a shadow of the army that the Iranians had beaten and a shadow of the army that had invaded Kuwait. Israel would have wiped out Iraq in days. And Israel knew that Iraq wasn't a threat. If it had thought Iraq was a threat, it would certainly have done something about it. Besides, even if Israel had fought and lost a war with Iraq, Israel would not have ceased to exist. Just as Iraq and Afghanistan fought and lost wars but continue to exist.

And finally, don't you think Israel is big and ugly enough to fight its own battles? Why do you treat Israel as a 52nd state?

[sek929]

So I guess ban evasion for Abe is ok, eh?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929

So I guess ban evasion for Abe is ok, eh?

The IP is different, so that might be holding things up.

[sek929]

Rob's IP changes as well, he seems to get banned fairly quickly.

[Dakar]

I'd say that's an apples & oranges comparison.

[sek929]

Rob has been "skirting the ban" for much longer than Mojab I know....but that still does not make the situation any less hypocritical.

I've been downright rude many times in my years here, and still I have yet to be banned. I've only been warned ONCE by 'hood a couple years ago when I got a hot head in a Jesus discussion.

To me, getting several nicks banned in a couple months should insure than somebody can not just show up again and continue their behavior. Just look at Marden, 550 posts since Sept, that's insane! He sure does come back with a vengance.

[Nicko]

[Dakar]

I don't think Mojoab was banned from all the forums. Different situation.

[itai195]

We 'must' win, but I don't think I personally believe the war 'winnable' any longer. And please stop dragging Israel into this. What bugs me endlessly is how many people predicted this scenario would unfold, yet were ignored by all the hawks in the lead-up to the war.

[marden]

Originally Posted by sek929

So I guess ban evasion for Abe is ok, eh?

I know you THINK I am your evil nemesis. What did "I" do to you in a past incarnation, anyway?

I certainly haven't broken any rules here, despite the repeated attacks and attempts to provoke me. If you are the law abiding peaceful soul you portend, why are you going out of your way to harass me?



The other day you made it a point to break into a thread out of the blue and lecture me about how you'd never been banned.

Well, if you keep harassing me you may have your record broken.

Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.

Please just go your way and I'll go mine.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

We 'must' win, but I don't think I personally believe the war 'winnable' any longer. And please stop dragging Israel into this. What bugs me endlessly is how many people predicted this scenario would unfold, yet were ignored by all the hawks in the lead-up to the war.

If you know the detailed operational situation in Iraq and the situation with the government and the people and all, then maybe you could authoritatively decide that you don't believe Iraq is winnable. Knowing how unreliable or biased the press can be in portraying a situation how can you be sure? On what basis do you say you believe it's not winnable?

Why shouldn't Israel be included in the War on Terror? The radislamics want to conquer the WHOLE WORLD. Israel is part of the world. Even if we put aside the issue of whether the Palistinians have a legitimate gripe over the issue of Israel's legality, the fact would still be that the radislamics HATE Jews, whether they are in Israel or Europe or America and they are instructed to kill them when a rock tells them to or a tree tells them to. They want to wipe Israel off the map.

I'd say that qualifies as global terrorism BIG TIME.

And if you aren't moved by the fact that they want to kill the Jews, I'll make it ten times more objectionable to some of you...

The radislamics are RACISTS!!!!

The accusation of racism seems to energize most people who aren't motivated by the global terrorism thing.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

Why shouldn't Israel be included in the War on Terror? The radislamics want to conquer the WHOLE WORLD. Israel is part of the world. Even if we put aside the issue of whether the Palistinians have a legitimate gripe over the issue of Israel's legality, the fact would still be that the radislamics HATE Jews, whether they are in Israel or Europe or America and they are instructed to kill them when a rock tells them to or a tree tells them to. They want to wipe Israel off the map.

As regards the war in Iraq, I don't like seeing Israel dragged in as an argument in support of the war. Israel can take care of itself, and I don't recall them asking for our help with Iraq.

I don't know the detailed operational situation in Iraq, but I know enough to have an informed opinion. I think we've gotten into a messy situation that simply cannot be resolved via military means.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

As regards the war in Iraq, I don't like seeing Israel dragged in as an argument in support of the war. Israel can take care of itself, and I don't recall them asking for our help with Iraq.

I'm glad we had a chance to address this, then.

Remember in the 1991 Gulf War I when the USA was desperately trying to prevent Israel from retaliating to the SCUDS Saddam was firing into Israel?

Why would the US want to keep Israel from responding to those attacks?

Originally Posted by itai195

I don't know the detailed operational situation in Iraq, but I know enough to have an informed opinion. I think we've gotten into a messy situation that simply cannot be resolved via military means.

Well, it's certainly messy. But how much messier could it be if we leave? And we have been working at the NON-military aspects of resolving the conflict ever since we got there. The military aspects are the stories that are emotionally provocative so they get more air time. But I bet if any of us looked for signs of progress on the non-military front we'd be surprised.

Pleasantly.

But we don't get those stories much. And when a reporter or producer or editor or network has a certain agenda they can make simple, actually innocent, unconscious decisions that over time present a picture that may not accurately reflect the situation.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

Why would the US want to keep Israel from responding to those attacks?

For one thing it would've been completely unnecessary. But as I recall, primarily because it would've endangered the unity of the coalition that the US had put together.

But I bet if any of us looked for signs of progress on the non-military front we'd be surprised.

I don't know, this is the area I find especially depressing whenever I read about it. Increasing sectarian violence, lack of working infrastructure after all these years, etc. I'm not sure these problems would've been as bad if we'd had a larger force there to begin with.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

For one thing it would've been completely unnecessary. But as I recall, primarily because it would've endangered the unity of the coalition that the US had put together.

Right. Because the Arab & Muslim coalition forces would have sided with Saddam in that event. We didn't want the cause of peace to be derailed by the anti-Israel, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitic sentiments that existed.

In regards to Israel and the invasion of Iraq, if Saddam DID have WMD's and lobbed a few in the direction of Tel Aviv theres a good chance ALL our lives would be much less pleasant right now. If Saddam had any kind of weaponized WMD's mounted in missile warheads and launched them, our Patriot Missile batteries might have caught and exploded the missiles in mid air thousands of feet above the ground before they hit Israel. But a nuclear or biological or chemical airburst is virtually the same as having it hit it's target because everything is so close together over there. There are some things that you just can't let happen. If EVERYTHING else goes bad AT LEAST don't let such and such happen!

The entangling trip wires of WWI would be child's play compared to what would happen if Israel is attacked with WMD's.

The Israelis WOULD defend themselves and then ALL the Arab states would jump in. And ALL the Muslim nations would send support and then any and all of them who were looking for a reason and a way to create world wide chaos and attack the Great Satan would be in their glory!

Just think what would have happened if we were busy in Afghanistan searching for bin "Waldo"
and Israel was blown off the map.

And what would we be able to say? We didn't think it would happen? Please! We knew that was the ultimate danger and President Bush made SURE the worst case scenario did not happen by going into Iraq and making sure. It's only bad luck that the WMD's weren't there.

But at the time we THOUGHT THEY MIGHT be there. And unless you know for sure, you'd need pretty big balls to bet that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's and that he WOULDN'T use them.

Originally Posted by itai195

I don't know, this is the area I find especially depressing whenever I read about it. Increasing sectarian violence, lack of working infrastructure after all these years, etc. I'm not sure these problems would've been as bad if we'd had a larger force there to begin with.

You're preaching to the choir, there.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

But at the time we THOUGHT THEY MIGHT be there. And unless you know for sure, you'd need pretty big balls to bet that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's and that he WOULDN'T use them.

Israeli intelligence is pretty damn good. If they thought Saddam had these weapons, I think they would've taken out his capability without a second thought.

You're preaching to the choir, there.

Glad to hear it. But at this point I don't think it's practical or helpful to send in a larger force. Enlarging our footprint would just embolden the insurgents, and we'd have to put down a massive insurrection that's already entrenched, which IMO will just create further problems. Plus it seems pretty clear that Bush and Rumsfeld don't even consider this an option.

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

Israeli intelligence is pretty damn good. If they thought Saddam had these weapons, I think they would've taken out his capability without a second thought.

I don't recall exactly what Israel was saying or doing leading up to the invasion. My impression is they were lying low and talking like constantly with Washington. Did they know there were no WMD's? I dunno. But, again do we want Israel attacking a Muslim country unless there is no other choice?

Originally Posted by itai195

Glad to hear it. But at this point I don't think it's practical or helpful to send in a larger force. Enlarging our footprint would just embolden the insurgents, and we'd have to put down a massive insurrection that's already entrenched, which IMO will just create further problems.

You might have a point. I'll have to convene a meeting of all my conservative websites and find the best point of view to adopt/support on the matter.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by marden

Please just go your way and I'll go mine.

I have no question in my mind that you weren't already planning on doing so anyways.

Though, cutting down on heavy political posting in the Lounge might be a good way for you to go.

[DBursey]

I like marden's posts. I disagree with almost all of them, but I appreciate his prespective. He has a good mind. Not necessarily healthy, but good nontheless.

Also; I believe Spliffdaddy is actually Jimmy Carter's bastard brother.

[Kevin]

Love the ad-hominems.

I guess this place hasn't changed.

[paul w]

I love how people need to link to other people's writing rather than make their own arguments.

[Kevin]

I love when people only complain about such things, and the rule 8 violations when something is posted they don't agree with.

Otherwise nothing gets said.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I like marden's posts. I disagree with almost all of them, but I appreciate his prespective. He has a good mind. Not necessarily healthy, but good nontheless.

Sure it is fun when he posts, but he usually just copy/pastes articles. I like his original stuff way more. Can't be bothered to read all the op-eds.

cheers

W-Y

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by DBursey

(snip)
Also; I believe Spliffdaddy is actually Jimmy Carter's bastard brother.

Whatever happened to Billy Carter?

PS, I like marden's posts, too.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I love when people only complain about such things, and the rule 8 violations when something is posted they don't agree with.

Otherwise nothing gets said.

No this goes for everything. I didn't even read the article or the subject other than the words "Editors of...".

But if we're talking about a linked source of unbiased facts that's one thing (as if we could all agree on an unbiased source here). Having to back up your opinion with a linked editorial article is another.

I'll be happy to read all of your opinions, regardless of whether I agree with them. Just don't shove some article down my throat.

[DBursey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Love the ad-hominems.

I guess this place hasn't changed.

You talkin ta me?

I miss the '80's

[marden]

Originally Posted by sek929

Mojo, I'm a pot-smoking, anti war, Democrat voting 22 year old and I haven't been banned from any part of this forum ever.

Take a second to think about that, really think about it.

Originally Posted by sek929

I have no question in my mind that you weren't already planning on doing so anyways.

Though, cutting down on heavy political posting in the Lounge might be a good way for you to go.

sek929, I'll think about it. I'll really think about it.


Once again, let it go and let's this be the last.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I like marden's posts. I disagree with almost all of them, but I appreciate his prespective. He has a good mind. Not necessarily healthy, but good nontheless.

Thanks, DBursey!

[marden]

Originally Posted by paul w

I love how people need to link to other people's writing rather than make their own arguments.

I am one of the people who links to other people's writing. Why? Because if you are uninformed on a matter and I am uninformed on a matter and I find someone who is an expert on the subject who has written on that subject, I might incorporate the expert's knowledge into my argument.

However, the issue will always boils down to which one of us has facts to support our opinion.

Why do we constantly see someone asking for links or for somebody to prove what the other person is saying?

There is to much opinion posing as fact already. Posting links is good, I think.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I love when people only complain about such things, and the rule 8 violations when something is posted they don't agree with.

Otherwise nothing gets said.

I agree.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Sure it is fun when he posts, but he usually just copy/pastes articles. I like his original stuff way more. Can't be bothered to read all the op-eds.

cheers

W-Y

Thanks, Weyland-Yutani!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Whatever happened to Billy Carter?

PS, I like marden's posts, too.

Thanks, Spliffdaddy!

(I feel like I'm attending my own eulogy. But it's a nice feeling! No wonder Bill Clinton did so many opinion polls. It's nice to know people appreciate your work. )

[marden]

Sadly, Billy Carter died a few years back. He was a colorful character, alright!

*Resists urge to post link.*

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden

The entangling trip wires of WWI would be child's play compared to what would happen if Israel is attacked with WMD's.

The Israelis WOULD defend themselves and then ALL the Arab states would jump in. And ALL the Muslim nations would send support and then any and all of them who were looking for a reason and a way to create world wide chaos and attack the Great Satan would be in their glory!

Just think what would have happened if we were busy in Afghanistan searching for bin "Waldo"
and Israel was blown off the map.

If Israel is attacked with a WMD they would respond with the total anhiliation of the attacking country using their nuclear weapons. It would be a good thing if other Middle Eastern nations piled on in the ensuing attacks on Israel as they could be attacked in return by Israel. Hopefully the whole region would turn into a nuclear waste-land and we in the West could sit back and forget about it for the hundreds, if not thousands, of years it would take for the place to become habitable again. I say that those who thirst for violence and death should be given violence and death. Let some nation just *try* and attack Israel with a WMD and see what happens in return. I don't think it would be pretty.

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If Israel is attacked with a WMD they would respond with the total anhiliation of the attacking country using their nuclear weapons. It would be a good thing if other Middle Eastern nations piled on in the ensuing attacks on Israel as they could be attacked in return by Israel. Hopefully the whole region would turn into a nuclear waste-land and we in the West could sit back and forget about it for the hundreds, if not thousands, of years it would take for the place to become habitable again. I say that those who thirst for violence and death should be given violence and death. Let some nation just *try* and attack Israel with a WMD and see what happens in return. I don't think it would be pretty.

Your proposal does not reflect the reality of what would happen.

I'd ask you to explain how I would be safe from the violence or the nuclear fallout or the ecological nightmare that it would create.

Please explain how a nuclear exchange would not affect us all, for the worst and forever.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by marden

[Spliffdaddy]

Are people living in Hiroshima?

There's your answer.

There have been thousands of nuclear blasts and we're still here.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Your proposal does not reflect the reality of what would happen.

I'd ask you to explain how I would be safe from the violence or the nuclear fallout or the ecological nightmare that it would create.

Please explain how a nuclear exchange would not affect us all, for the worst and forever.

Iraq never had nuclear weapons so this is irrelevant. But here's a partial answer - does Japan still exist?

[D. S. Troyer]

Gotta sex this thread up a bit...

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

Iraq never had nuclear weapons so this is irrelevant. But here's a partial answer - does Japan still exist?

Clinton thought they did. So did Bush. Maybe not 100% certain but what in life are you 100% certain about? And what are you willing to bet your life on? What are you willing to bet the millions of Israeli lives on?

The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. It was first advanced at the end of the 1990s, at a time when President Bill Clinton was trying to facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and was hardly seeking assessments that the threat from Iraq was growing.

In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community's conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Are people living in Hiroshima?

There's your answer.

There have been thousands of nuclear blasts and we're still here.

Well, I guess we should go ahead and wipe Iran off the map, right?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Clinton thought they did.

Nonsense. Clinton has never said that he thought Iraq had nuclear weapons. And if Bush believed it then he's a fool because the IAEA, UNSCOM and a lot of other countries told him that there was no chance that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by marden

And what are you willing to bet your life on? What are you willing to bet the millions of Israeli lives on?

See, now you've changed your tune. Before you said the existence of Israel was threatened. Now you're saying the lives of millions of Israelis were threatened. Not the same thing. And I still don't understand why you insist on the US doing Israel's bidding for it. Israel is a nuclear power with the fourth most powerful army in the world. It's more capable than most countries of protecting itself - probably as capable as the US of protecting itself.

What I find amazing is how you guys started justifying Iraq on the basis of the threat it posed to the USA. When that was revealed as hogwash, the justification shifted to improving Iraqi lives. When that was revealed as the farce that it is, the justification became human rights. When the US was bust violating human rights the world over, the justification has now shifted to protecting Israel from a threat that we know was never there and suspected wasn't there at the time.

The lives of millions of Israelis are threatened right now. There is a chance that Egypt or Syria or Lebanon or Algeria or Greece or Turkey MIGHT have nuclear weapons now or in 5 years' time and there's a chance that they might decide one day to attack Israel and there's a chance that Israel might not know in advance and might not defend themselves and that the attack might actually succeed. Is that a reason to invade all of those countries? Presidents can't make binary decisions because, as you point out, nothing is certain. We elect Presidents because we trust their judgement; because we believe them to be more capable than most of quickly assessing the situation and responding appropriately. Bush screwed up because he either purposefully or through gross incompetence and negligence failed to properly assess the danger Iraq posed. If there was a danger to Israel's security, that danger was PROVOKED by the US invading Iraq. And if there was a danger to Israel, it was big and ugly enough to deal with the threat itself.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Dork.

So, why are we in Iraq again?

You're unamerican, and possibly a communist. Don't you realize that WW3 has already started?

[ink]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

Gotta sex this thread up a bit...

Oww, my eyes.

You said something about sex??

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Nonsense. Clinton has never said that he thought Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Clinton talked a lot about Iraq having nukes and nuke programs.

Just one example.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Tell me, if Clinton didn't believe such a thing, why did he order people to attack said nuclear programs?

Come on Troll, lets see that spin.