[Doc HM]

So over here in the UK we are having a little enquiry about the hows and whys of the Iraq war. Which has resulted in Tony Blair admitting that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that they did not possess any WMD because it was just right to do so.

Which is a strange admission on several accounts. Firstly, we couldn't invade without the US so realistically he's just saying he would support US policy no matter what and secondly it is now fairly universally accepted that he DID know that there were no WMD's so he's just modifying his public position to align with the real world facts.

More interesting is the fact that this kind of admission by an ex PM, that he has been less than truthful to a huge degree about why we went to war, and just pulled the rug out from under the only legal justification for even starting the whole mess, is greeted with a giant collective shrug of the shoulders.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

So over here in the UK we are having a little enquiry about the hows and whys of the Iraq war. Which has resulted in Tony Blair admitting that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that they did not possess any WMD because it was just right to do so.

Which is a strange admission on several accounts. Firstly, we couldn't invade without the US so realistically he's just saying he would support US policy no matter what and secondly it is now fairly universally accepted that he DID know that there were no WMD's so he's just modifying his public position to align with the real world facts.

I don't think it's "fairly universally accepted that he DID know that there were no WMD's." I think it's fairly universally accepted that everyone did think that Iraq had a weapons program and hidden materials, even if it couldn't be proved. The US, UK, the UN and many other countries spy organizations all reported that Iraq was actively hiding something. Some say that what they were hiding was taken out of the country before the invasion, and some say that Saddam was stupidly playing possum to make people think he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the UN. Either way, there was reason to believe that Iraq's resistance to inspections wasn't being done just to be difficult and without an invasion, it would be hard to prove either way.

I do think it's fairly universally accepted that as Blair admits, the allies that attacked Iraq believed that them having WMD was only one of the reasons they thought it was a good idea to invade. I tend to agree.

[Dork.]

I'll back stupendousman here on this, to a point. We did not know for sure that there were no WMD's in 2003, all we did know is that the Iraqi government was hiding something. At the time, we all thought it was a WMD program, because that's what Colin Powell told us. However, for the folks who were for an invasion of Iraq in 2003, the WMD's were not the only reason to invade. There were a number of Security Council resolutions that Iraq was in defiance of, that stated that they could be enforced by force if necessary. Folks like Bush (and now we see Blair was clearly in the same camp) were convinced that we already had the authority to invade, WMD or no WMD, and that it was in the best interest of the International Community to remove Saddam from power, and soon.

But the WMD angle was the one used to sell the idea of an invasion to folks who were not convinced of the urgency of the situation. The fact that no WMD's were found was important to these people, because once that justification was removed they didn't see any credibility in the other justifications offered by those advocating for invasion. That's why Blair said what he said -- not because he is being cavalier about the war, but because he and Bush are certain that once the historical record is fully analyzed, we will see all the other reasons why war was so urgently needed. (For the record, I am not as confident as they are).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think it's "fairly universally accepted that he DID know that there were no WMD's." I think it's fairly universally accepted that everyone did think that Iraq had a weapons program and hidden materials, even if it couldn't be proved.

The invasion of a sovereign nation, simply because one thinks they have something, isn't justification enough.

The US, UK, the UN and many other countries spy organizations all reported that Iraq was actively hiding something. Some say that what they were hiding was taken out of the country before the invasion, and some say that Saddam was stupidly playing possum to make people think he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the UN. Either way, there was reason to believe that Iraq's resistance to inspections wasn't being done just to be difficult and without an invasion, it would be hard to prove either way.

I do think it's fairly universally accepted that as Blair admits, the allies that attacked Iraq believed that them having WMD was only one of the reasons they thought it was a good idea to invade [my emphasis]. I tend to agree.

The main reason being oil, and ensuring stable access to it for the U. S. [my emphasis in bold above]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The main reason being oil, and ensuring stable access to it for the U. S. [my emphasis in bold above]

No.

The US has plenty of oil. The main reason was to ensure that world oil supplies would continue to be denominated in US dollars, propping up the $'s status as world reserve currency. Saddam was going to go Euros.

[dcmacdaddy]

I have to agree with Doofy here. The decision to invade Iraq was much more about having control of the oil market than having control of the oil.*

The more I look into/research the textures of our political/military involvements in the Middle East the more I am convinced our involvement is not about access to oil but rather influence/control over the global oil market. Seeing some of the results of the recent financial meltdown has led me to believe that "the powers that be" have realized they have more control over a commodity by influencing/controlling the exchange/markets for a commodity than by direct ownership of said commodity.



*Notice I didn't say anything about Saddam Hussein being a threat to peace or WMD.
---I think for George W. Bush, the reason to invade was based on a desire to a) attack the man who "tried to kill [his] daddy" and b) play a role in bringing about the fundamentalist Christian ideas relating to the end times and the return of Christ. (See his "battle of Gog vs Magog" comment to French President Mitterand in 2003 for evidence of this or the Pentagon war briefings for the POTUS circa Fall 2003 which included biblical passages referencing the end times and fighting god's war.)
---I think for George W. Bush's puppet master (Dick Cheney), the reason to invade was based on a desire to control the oil market--As Doofy said, keeping Iraqi oil denominated in dollars instead of Euros.
---I think for Donald Rumsfeld, the reason to invade was based on simple bloodlust. He got to play a real-life game of Risk with American soldiers as his playing pieces. And if a bunch of them died in playing the game so be it. That is the price you pay for "going to war with the Army you have, not with the Army you would like".
Out of all the individuals in the clusterf*ck that was the Bush Administration, I would like to see Donald Rumsfeld punished for his cavalier attitude to the loss of life created by the Iraq War. I would be happy if he could be publicly flogged, stoned, and then left for dead in the deserts of Iraq for what he did to our soldiers and the people of Iraq.
---I think for PNAC, the reason to invade was a desire to maintain American hegemony in the 21st century through displays of military power. (Although, for some members of PNAC in the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush White House, I think they had multiple desires for invasion, desires involving a) economic control of the oil market and/or b) support for Israel's defense/safety.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The invasion of a sovereign nation, simply because one thinks they have something, isn't justification enough.

Good thing there was more than just that reason!

There was a guy who'd promised certain sanctions if he was allowed to stay in power, and then ended up not complying. That, plus having a strong suspicion that he was engaging in the behavior that lead up to the first Gulf War was more than enough to go in.

The main reason being oil, and ensuring stable access to it for the U. S. [my emphasis in bold above]

That's the stuff which has a sky high price because we don't currently have stable access to, right? I'm not sure how the "Saddam to Euros" conspiracy works, but there's this syndicate in the middle east called "OPEC". I'm sure you guys have heard of it. I'm guessing that Saddam didn't control it, and probably couldn't act alone on anything he wanted to do.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

think it's fairly universally accepted that everyone did think that Iraq had a weapons program and hidden materials, even if it couldn't be proved.

I think its been proved that while it may not have been absolutely positively 100% that there were no WMD's, Blair knew just how dodgy the intel was. While he was telling us that Saddam could launch within 45 minutes, he, the UK war cabinet and Bush, knew that this was essentially cobblers. They must have had a strong knowledge that Saddam's whole WMD program was a sham.

Strangely, while Blair may well have thought the war was a good idea despite this, he knew he could never sell it to the British public as such so opted to lie about the intel and what it showed.

I'm not sure I even believe he really thinks it was a good idea. In my mind there are other reasons. I'm not fully sold on the oil theory, it's a bit simplistic, but I can buy Bush wanting revenge for his daddy. Again, there's no proof, but I do always wonder if Bush may well have had "something" on Blair and a quick peek into a brown envelope supplied Blair with all the reasons he needed to agree to support the US whatever.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There was a guy who'd promised certain sanctions if he was allowed to stay in power, and then ended up not complying. That, plus having a strong suspicion that he was engaging in the behavior that lead up to the first Gulf War was more than enough to go in.

So if having strong suspicions and defying sanctions were reasons with any degree of weight, why does there seem to be absolutely no debate about invading North Korea? These *are* reasons, but weak ones not really worth being in the discussion.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So if having strong suspicions and defying sanctions were reasons with any degree of weight, why does there seem to be absolutely no debate about invading North Korea? These *are* reasons, but weak ones not really worth being in the discussion.

There you go again, pointing out the obvious.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No.

The US has plenty of oil.

Please share with us where it's at, and why we're importing well over 50% of it from unstable regions if that's the case.

[besson3c]

So, if the main reason is really about influence and control over the oil markets, the question of the day: was the prospect of somebody making more money worth the thousands of lives lost, both American and Iraqi? Especially with a source of fuel that we may be able to replace in the coming years?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Please share with us where it's at, and why we're importing well over 50% of it from unstable regions if that's the case.

North Shore has the largest field on the planet. You've found it and capped it.
Because every time you buy off the ME, your agreement with them means they buy your national debt off you. You get oil locally, your national debt goes mental and you're a third world country within months.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So if having strong suspicions and defying sanctions were reasons with any degree of weight, why does there seem to be absolutely no debate about invading North Korea? These *are* reasons, but weak ones not really worth being in the discussion.

I pretty sure that's because the leader of North Korea never agreed to the sanctions as a prerequisite to staying in power right at a time when we were about to knock on his door and take him away.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I pretty sure that's because the leader of North Korea never agreed to the sanctions as a prerequisite to staying in power right at a time when we were about to knock on his door and take him away.

So we don't have leverage over him... What happened to all of the justification about taking out Saddam because he was a madman that brutally murdered and killed his own people? Should this have included the caveat "because we can"?

The point is, a large number of Americans have never really gotten over the complete and horrendous bungling of the message as to why we should invade Iraq, and many of us *still* don't understand what the argument is.

I can understand the idea that there was not just one reason, but no one reason seems particularly sound to me either on their own or added together.

I can also buy the idea that many politicians and experts *thought* that Saddam had these weapons, posed a threat, this and that and the other. It seems really lame and embarrassing to call this an "oopss", although human. To say that despite everything that has gone on and we've come to know that invading Iraq was still a good idea, I have both some moral qualms with that, some qualms with how this has served us geopolitically, how it has helped deal with Al-Queda, and I have difficulty with taking people seriously who go on about spending unnecessary money who supported the war in Iraq and still do to this day.

I also have a hard time understanding why we don't shift our focus away from Afghanistan at this point.

[besson3c]

The other thing...

Dear Politicians,

if the war was really about security in the oil market, please do not bolster your political standings with rhetoric about brave soldiers doing necessary work to protect us from evil and allow us to live free from tyranny.

Sincerely,
People who are not douche bags

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So we don't have leverage over him... What happened to all of the justification about taking out Saddam because he was a madman that brutally murdered and killed his own people? Should this have included the caveat "because we can"?

All of the above. There simply isn't the same set of circumstances involved when dealing with North Korea.

The point is, a large number of Americans have never really gotten over the complete and horrendous bungling of the message as to why we should invade Iraq, and many of us *still* don't understand what the argument is.

I disagree. I think most get it. I don't think most need additional information. They knew who Saddam was, what he did, and what he was doing. Lot's of people thought he should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War and not have done the UN sanctions song and dance which ended up being a huge waste of time and resources. That's one of the criticisms the first Bush faced.

Though, some (particularly on the left) who have little support for any military action which isn't 100% defensive would probably like more information so that they can be confident in their pre-determined stand in this matter.

I can also buy the idea that many politicians and experts *thought* that Saddam had these weapons, posed a threat, this and that and the other. It seems really lame and embarrassing to call this an "oopss", although human. To say that despite everything that has gone on and we've come to know that invading Iraq was still a good idea, I have both some moral qualms with that, some qualms with how this has served us geopolitically, how it has helped deal with Al-Queda, and I have difficulty with taking people seriously who go on about spending unnecessary money who supported the war in Iraq and still do to this day.

I think you're missing an even bigger picture. There are people in the part of the world we invaded who want all of us DEAD who have been putting together plots to further our demise. When we have them fighting us there - having to look over their shoulder every day to make sure a bomb isn't about to blow them up - it's a whole lot tougher for them to concentrate on plans to kill innocent American civilians. The fact that we haven't suffered any more losses, despite intelligence knowing they are stilling planning and trying, helps bear that out.

If removing a madman who thought it was a good idea to take over another country, then refused to comply with UN mandates he agreed to in order to keep him in power - which served to make us think he was compiling weapons of mass destruction - helps ensure Americans are safer, I don't think most Americans need much more info.

I also have a hard time understanding why we don't shift our focus away from Afghanistan at this point.

See above. I don't think anyone wants the Taliban back in power, helping Al Queda kill more Americans here.

[Dork.]

There are people in the part of the world we invaded who want all of us DEAD who have been putting together plots to further our demise. When we have them fighting us there - having to look over their shoulder every day to make sure a bomb isn't about to blow them up - it's a whole lot tougher for them to concentrate on plans to kill innocent American civilians. The fact that we haven't suffered any more losses, despite intelligence knowing they are stilling planning and trying, helps bear that out.

Go ask the folks in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, and London what they think of the notion that while we fight them there, it's a whole lot tougher for them to kill innocents elsewhere. If anything, our focus on Iraq over the past years (at the expense of Afghanistan) had probably made it easier for Al Qaeda to operate internationally. Why would they endanger that by attacking the U.S. (and reminding the American people where the threat really came from)?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Go ask the folks in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Madrid, and London what they think of the notion that while we fight them there, it's a whole lot tougher for them to kill innocents elsewhere. If anything, our focus on Iraq over the past years (at the expense of Afghanistan) had probably made it easier for Al Qaeda to operate internationally. Why would they endanger that by attacking the U.S. (and reminding the American people where the threat really came from)?

The United States military's first priority is the American people, on American soil. It might be just as easy or easier for them to attack the people in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, but that's what Saudi Arabia's military is for, right?

Really, it's not any easier for the terrorists who have fewer resources than we do, to fight two wars (home and abroad) and win. Especially when they keep getting killed over there. You can't train to fly planes into buildings when you are busy building pipe bombs and getting killed by U.S. rockets. You just can't.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If removing a madman who thought it was a good idea to take over another country, then refused to comply with UN mandates he agreed to in order to keep him in power - which served to make us think he was compiling weapons of mass destruction - helps ensure Americans are safer, I don't think most Americans need much more info.

I disagree. I think "most Americans [do] need much more info [than the possibility of threats to our safety]" before being willing to support our leaders and their decisions to send US troops into harms way.

I think that is the fundamental difference in the debate about Iraq:
Do we as citizens advocate for war against another country based on the possibility of a threat?
or
Do we as citizens advocate for war against another country based on the carrying out of a threat (i.e.: another country attacking us after threatening to do so).
I for one--and I think many other citizens in this country would agree--that we should only go to war in response to an attack against the US and not based merely on the possibility of a threat.

Unlike Afghanistan after 9/11, Iraq was a POSSIBLE threat to the safety of the US. Iraq was in NO WAY any kind of direct, immediate threat to the safety of the United States. And as a citizen I don't want our leaders deciding to send US troops into harms way based on the possibility of threats to our safety. I want our leaders deciding to send troops into harms way based on the actuality of threats to our safety. And I think most other citizens would agree.

After the attacks of September 11th, the actuality of threats to our safety came from Afghanistan, a nation that was host to the leaders of, and the biggest global supporter of, Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The United States military's first priority is the American people, on American soil. It might be just as easy or easier for them to attack the people in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, but that's what Saudi Arabia's military is for, right?

Really, it's not any easier for the terrorists who have fewer resources than we do, to fight two wars (home and abroad) and win. Especially when they keep getting killed over there. You can't train to fly planes into buildings when you are busy building pipe bombs and getting killed by U.S. rockets. You just can't.

Except the people training "to fly planes into buildings" were NOT overseas in foreign nations "building pipe bombs and getting killed by U.S. rockets". They were here on American soil. So your point is pretty much irrelevant about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

After 9/11 the group we should have been fighting "over there" was Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Except the Bush Administration got sidetracked and proceeded to invade Iraq--a country which at the time we knew had NO involvement with the 9/11 attacks--after a quick invasion of Afghanistan. We never should have invaded Iraq and instead should have committed the level of military effort in Afghanistan that we committed in Iraq. We should have sent several hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan and gone after Al Qaeda and the Taliban until they were gone. Instead, our leaders decided the battle in Iraq was more important than the battle in Afghanistan--Remember President Bush's statement about "not caring about where Osama bin Laden is" or something to that effect--and so we focused more military effort attacking a nation that was a possible threat to the United States than we did attacking a nation (Afghanistan) that was an actual, proven threat to the United States.

[dcmacdaddy]

Just to make clear my point I will summarize my argument for you.

1 - On September 11th 2001 the United States is attacked on American soil.
2 - The US government responds to this attack by attacking and invading the country (Afghanistan) that was host to and provided support for those who attacked us on 9/11 (Al Qaeda).
[I fully supported this military response. Most citizens of the US fully supported this military response. Most nations of the world fully supported this military response.]
3 - The US government then decides to invade another country that spouted anti-US sentiment, but had not attacked us on 9/11 and was in no way related to the group/nation that did attack us on 9/11.
3a - The US government decides that fighting the nation of Iraq was more important than fighting the nation of Afghanistan, the nation that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks against the US.
4 - Years go by as the US government devotes many more resources to fighting Iraq than to fighting Afghanistan.
[All you have to do is look at troop numbers and other military expenditures to see this discrepancy in focus.]
5 - Over eight years have passed since the attacks of September 11th and the US government is still a) devoting more resources to fighting Iraq than to fighting Afghanistan.
5a - Even after eight years the groups responsible for the 9/11 attack on the US (Al Qaeda and the Taliban) are still a dominant force in Afghanistan and have yet to be defeated.

So, why is it that eight years after the attacks of September 11th the groups responsible for those attacks are still major players in Afghanistan? We had the whole world's support behind our invasion of Afghanistan. We could have done everything imaginable to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda and yet our leaders chose not to do so. Our leaders chose to focus the majority of our military effort fighting a country that wasn't a direct, immediate threat to the US.

So, why does anyone argue that fighting a potential threat (Iraq) was more important than fighting, and defeating, an actual, proven threat (Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan)?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think it's "fairly universally accepted that he DID know that there were no WMD's." I think it's fairly universally accepted that everyone did think that Iraq had a weapons program and hidden materials, even if it couldn't be proved. The US, UK, the UN and many other countries spy organizations all reported that Iraq was actively hiding something. Some say that what they were hiding was taken out of the country before the invasion, and some say that Saddam was stupidly playing possum to make people think he had WMD's because he was more afraid of Iran than the UN. Either way, there was reason to believe that Iraq's resistance to inspections wasn't being done just to be difficult and without an invasion, it would be hard to prove either way.

I do think it's fairly universally accepted that as Blair admits, the allies that attacked Iraq believed that them having WMD was only one of the reasons they thought it was a good idea to invade. I tend to agree.

Or not.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

By the way, there was a UN (read: US) invasion of North Korea- it happened in September, 1950.

It was repelled by the same threat that really prevents anything similar from happening today: China.

What remains today is merely a ceasefire of the same conflict which never ended. The same state of war actually still exists, and there's no chance of any military action against NK without calling off the ceasefire- in other words, it's not going to happen.

As usual, some actual historic perspective helps before making bad comparisons to unrelated things.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I disagree. I think "most Americans [do] need much more info [than the possibility of threats to our safety]" before being willing to support our leaders and their decisions to send US troops into harms way.

I think that is the fundamental difference in the debate about Iraq:
Do we as citizens advocate for war against another country based on the possibility of a threat?
or
Do we as citizens advocate for war against another country based on the carrying out of a threat (i.e.: another country attacking us after threatening to do so).

or
Do we as citizens advocate war against another country after that country has ALREADY engaged in threatening behavior, already acted on those threats and whose leader had broken the deal which allowed him to stay in power in the first place.

Saddam already took over a sovereign nation by force himself. We didn't make him do it. He used his weapons time and again on his neighbors and even fellow countrymen. When he was stopped from doing this, he promised certain things in order to stay in power. When you break your part of a deal, the deal is off. THIS ISN'T ANYTHING THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE NOT AWARE OF. IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS THAT THEY SUPPORTED REMOVING SADDAM EVEN BEFORE THERE WAS A CLAIM OF WMD'S.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Except the people training "to fly planes into buildings" were NOT overseas in foreign nations "building pipe bombs and getting killed by U.S. rockets". They were here on American soil. So your point is pretty much irrelevant about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

You are helping me make my point. Al Queada right now is focused on winning in Afghanistan and the Middle East. At the time before the war they were sending people to America to train for terrorist acts.

Planning to fight the military in Afghanistan (now)
or
Planning killing American civilans on American soil (then)

The majority of their resources right now are not available to planning and orchestrating successful terrorist acts overseas, as they were prior to our presence in the middle east. Their best and brightest aren't being sent to other countries to figure out elaborate plots to kill a few thousand innocent lives - they are staying where the action is and trying to figure out how to stay alive.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

or
Do we as citizens advocate war against another country after that country has ALREADY engaged in threatening behavior, already acted on those threats and whose leader had broken the deal which allowed him to stay in power in the first place.

Not unless/until that country acts on threats against the US and and actually attacks the United States. I do not believe in pre-emptive war and I think most Americans feel that way.

I think that if you asked most Americans whether or not they would be willing to support their leaders sending American troops into harms way because of a potential threat they would say no. Saddam Hussein and Iraq were a potential threat to the United States. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were a proven threat to the United States after 9/11.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are helping me make my point. Al Queada right now is focused on winning in Afghanistan and the Middle East. At the time before the war they were sending people to America to train for terrorist acts.

Planning to fight the military in Afghanistan (now)
or
Planning killing American civilans on American soil (then)

The majority of their resources right now are not available to planning and orchestrating successful terrorist acts overseas, as they were prior to our presence in the middle east. Their best and brightest aren't being sent to other countries to figure out elaborate plots to kill a few thousand innocent lives - they are staying where the action is and trying to figure out how to stay alive.

Your ignoring the point that diverting resources away from Afghanistan and into Iraq IS THE VERY REASON we are still fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban eight years after the attacks of September 11th.

It is shameful that we have not avenged the deaths of those killed on 9/11 by routing out and eliminating Al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan.
It is shameful that in many parts of the Afghanistan the power and influence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is as strong today as it was on 9/11.
It is shameful that our leaders thought it was more important to fight a potential threat (Saddam Hussein in Iraq) rather than a known threat (the Taliban in Afghanistan).

And people like you seem to think that this is OK. You seem to think that our leaders somehow were correct in invading Iraq instead of focusing all our military efforts on Afghanistan. So, tell us, why did/do you think it was/is OK to invade Iraq and divert attention away from Afghanistan?
Tell us why did/do you think it was/is OK to focus more resources on battling a potential threat in Iraq than a known threat in Afghanistan?
Tell us why you supported a war against a second country while a war against the country that attacked us was allowed to languish?
Tell us why you think it was appropriate to send US troops to fight two wars, against two different nations, on two different battlefields, when we were attacked by only one of those nations?

[dcmacdaddy]

Sorry for making that lost post seem so personal. It was not intended as a direct attack on stupendousman. What I would really like to hear is the following.

I would like to hear an advocate for the Iraq War explain why they did/do support that war knowing that Iraq had never attacked us directly.
I would like to hear an advocate for the Iraq War explain why they did/do support invading a country that has only threatened us and not actually carried out any kind of attack against us?

What was it about the potential threat from Iraq that made you willing to support attacking them before they even attacked us? that made you willing to support pre-emptive war instead of the more traditional defensive war?



As for me, I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan from the beginning.
I supported it because I wanted vengeance against those who attacked the US.
I supported it because I wanted to eliminate from power those who would support groups that attacked the US.
I supported it because I wanted to send a signal to the world that we could be attacked but not defeated.
I supported it because I felt one of the side effects of invading Afghanistan and eliminating the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have been restoring Afghanistan to a nation of self-rule.

[besson3c]

Because America is the greatest country in the world, and nobody gets away with messing with us?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because America is the greatest country in the world, and nobody gets away with messing with us?

Except "America is [NOT] the greatest country in the world". There is NO "greatest country in the world".

Such a notion that there is one single greatest country on the planet is laughable and only serves to reflect the narrow-minded jingoistic attitudes of those who hold such a notion.

[besson3c]

Take that up with the people that would actually say what I wrote and mean it

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Take that up with the people that would actually say what I wrote and mean it

I knew that the sentiment was not one that you embraced but I felt it needed to be criticized regardless of your intent. Ideas about national superiority and national preeminence are very frightening for what they can do to people's morals.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are helping me make my point. Al Queada right now is focused on winning in Afghanistan and the Middle East. At the time before the war they were sending people to America to train for terrorist acts.

Planning to fight the military in Afghanistan (now)
or
Planning killing American civilans on American soil (then)

The majority of their resources right now are not available to planning and orchestrating successful terrorist acts overseas, as they were prior to our presence in the middle east. Their best and brightest aren't being sent to other countries to figure out elaborate plots to kill a few thousand innocent lives - they are staying where the action is and trying to figure out how to stay alive.

Seeing as how there are only about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, according to our military's estimate, they'd have to be pretty damn good to plot anything, anywhere.

There is no reason for us to be there, and history will show that we were wrong.

There Is No Reason for Us to Be in Afghanistan -- Everyone Knows It, and It Spells Defeat | | AlterNet

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Not unless/until that country acts on threats against the US and and actually attacks the United States. I do not believe in pre-emptive war and I think most Americans feel that way.

During the first Gulf War, when did Iraq attack the United States? Oh yeah, they attacked another sovereign country and took it over, and we (and the global community) acted in it's defense. Based on that, Saddam agreed to cease fire terms. He reneged on those terms and we removed him.

I think that if you asked most Americans whether or not they would be willing to support their leaders sending American troops into harms way because of a potential threat they would say no. Saddam Hussein and Iraq were a potential threat to the United States. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were a proven threat to the United States after 9/11.

The American people supported the removal of Saddam Hussein prior to them knowing for sure whether he had WMD's or not. A large contingent wanted him removed during the first Gulf War. I understand that some shared your concerns, but I don't think the majority did.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your ignoring the point that diverting resources away from Afghanistan and into Iraq IS THE VERY REASON we are still fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban eight years after the attacks of September 11th.

It is shameful that we have not avenged the deaths of those killed on 9/11 by routing out and eliminating Al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan.
It is shameful that in many parts of the Afghanistan the power and influence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is as strong today as it was on 9/11.

I doubt it. Bin Laden is likely hiding in caves with reduced communication and a great majority of Al Qaeda leadership are dead. I believe they just rubbed out #3 (?) in the past couple of days with an unarmed drone.

While it's a shame we haven't gotten Bin Laden yet, he really hasn't been able to effectively carry out his goal of killing innocent American citizens while hiding and keeping his head down from falling bombs. The fact remains that even if he's dead, there are others who hate America and want to murder us that we need to keep a bead on. Keeping an eye on the entire Middle East with a military presence there helps keep Al Qaeda in check.

It is shameful that our leaders thought it was more important to fight a potential threat (Saddam Hussein in Iraq) rather than a known threat (the Taliban in Afghanistan).

No "more" important. Both were important. I think our goal should be to remove both, but you are right - it's hard. When the time comes to act though, you can't always pick and choose when you defend yourself and/or your allies. You have to "strike while the iron is hot." They'd already waited too long allowing Saddam to make a laughing stock out of the UN, hurting it's credibility in standing up to defend it's member countries.

And people like you seem to think that this is OK. You seem to think that our leaders somehow were correct in invading Iraq instead of focusing all our military efforts on Afghanistan. So, tell us, why did/do you think it was/is OK to invade Iraq and divert attention away from Afghanistan?

At the time, Afghanistan was relatively stable. People who were causing trouble there moved to other areas. Democrats were calling for all troops to be removed from the region and withdrew support for ensuring resources where available to get the job done. Those where all factors.

Tell us why did/do you think it was/is OK to focus more resources on battling a potential threat in Iraq than a known threat in Afghanistan?

See above.

Tell us why you supported a war against a second country while a war against the country that attacked us was allowed to languish?

See above.

Tell us why you think it was appropriate to send US troops to fight two wars, against two different nations, on two different battlefields, when we were attacked by only one of those nations?

See above.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Seeing as how there are only about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, according to our military's estimate, they'd have to be pretty damn good to plot anything, anywhere.

I agree. It shouldn't be too hard to keep 100 people in check with thousand of military members, ensuring that they can't continue to kill innocent American citizens.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Sorry for making that lost post seem so personal. It was not intended as a direct attack on stupendousman. What I would really like to hear is the following.

I would like to hear an advocate for the Iraq War explain why they did/do support that war knowing that Iraq had never attacked us directly.
I would like to hear an advocate for the Iraq War explain why they did/do support invading a country that has only threatened us and not actually carried out any kind of attack against us?

I already did all of that.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

During the first Gulf War, when did Iraq attack the United States? Oh yeah, they attacked another sovereign country and took it over, and we (and the global community) acted in it's defense.

The "global community" was mostly made up of countries in the Middle East/Mediterranean basin and they asked us to lead the effort to get Saddam out of Kuwait. We did not act unilaterally in deciding to invade and remove him from power. We were asked to lead the effort to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. We did not decide, on our own, to go into Kuwait and force out Saddam.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Based on that, Saddam agreed to cease fire terms. He reneged on those terms and we removed him.

These were terms agreed to with his neighboring countries and the UN and NOT terms agreed to with just the US. So, why do you think it was right for the US to take it upon itself and decide to unilaterally remove Saddam Hussein from power? Our second invasion was not done at the request of the "global community" nor at the request/suggestion of Iraq's neighbors, nor at the request/suggestion of the UN. (Remember how Bush had to be talked into letting Powell go to the UN to make the case for invasion.) So, what made it appropriate for the US to unilaterally decide and unilaterally act to remove Hussein from power?
[There is no doubt a large portion of the world community thought Saddam was dangerous; No doubt at all. But that same large portion of the world community did NOT think Saddam was dangerous enough to justify an invasion to remove him from power. And that is the key difference I am trying to understand. If the rest of the world thought Saddam was dangerous but not worthy of removal from power, what was different about the US and its leaders that made them decide that Saddam was dangerous AND worthy of removal from power?]
What was it that made the US decide Saddam was so dangerous that we had to go in and remove him from power even if the rest of the world did not think he was that dangerous?
Did we know something they didn't? Did the US intelligence community have secret info about Saddam that we wouldn't share even with our allies in Echelon (UK, France, Canada)?
Did the US have a lower threshold for what was considered "dangerous AND worthy of removal form power"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The American people supported the removal of Saddam Hussein prior to them knowing for sure whether he had WMD's or not.

I disagree. The majority of American people were initially opposed to the removal of Hussein. The majority of American people--and it was a slim majority--eventually supported the removal of Saddam Hussein only because of the US government's hype surrounding WMDs and the US government's insistence that he had had--without a doubt--WMDs and "weapons producing capabilities". [I believe that quote was from Colin Powell.] The point being that the majority of American people were not in favor of the invasion from the beginning like the Bush Administration was and the majority of the American people had to be convinced the invasion was the right thing to do based on the assertions that Iraq undoubtedly had WMDs. Contrast this with the First Gulf War where the majority of American people were in favor of the US agreeing to the request from the Arab nations to take a leading role in removing Iraq from Kuwait.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A large contingent wanted him removed during the first Gulf War. I understand that some shared your concerns, but I don't think the majority did.

Some Americans "wanted [Hussein] removed during the first Gulf War" but they were most definitely NOT in the majority. All you have to do is go back and review various news sources to see this statement is completely false. Pick news sources with a liberal or conservative bias, it won't matter. You are simply wrong with the statement that the majority of Americans during the First Gulf War supported removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait AND supported removing Saddam from power in Iraq. The majority of Americans during the First Gulf War supported removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait only.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

While it's a shame we haven't gotten Bin Laden yet, he really hasn't been able to effectively carry out his goal of killing innocent American citizens while hiding and keeping his head down from falling bombs. The fact remains that even if he's dead, there are others who hate America and want to murder us that we need to keep a bead on. Keeping an eye on the entire Middle East with a military presence there helps keep Al Qaeda in check.

Again, the only problem with your argument is that there weren't Al Qaeda in the Middle East before we invaded Iraq. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaeda was isolated to Afghanistan and small parts of Pakistan and was nowhere to be found in the countries of the Middle East.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When the time comes to act though, you can't always pick and choose when you defend yourself and/or your allies.

What was it about Iraq in 2002 that made the Bush Administration decide "the time [had] come to act"?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You have to "strike while the iron is hot."

Again, What was it about Iraq in 2002 that made the Bush Administration decide to "strike while the iron is hot"?
The iron was hot for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan as they had attacked us on 9/11.
The iron was not hot for Iraq as they had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 and had not done anything to directly attack the US.
[Again, my argument is based on the presumption that a nation goes to war reactively and NOT proactively. My argument is based on the presumption that a nation doesn't decide to invade another nation and remove its leader from power unless it has been attacked first by that nation.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They'd already waited too long allowing Saddam to make a laughing stock out of the UN, hurting it's credibility in standing up to defend it's member countries.

Who is "they"?
Who "waited to long"? and what did they wait too long to do?

(And since when did the US care what the UN thinks? We have a long history of doing what we want to do militarily with or without the approval of the UN.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Leaving aside the issue of the US and Iraq for a minute, anyone care to answer the general question as to why you think it is acceptable for a nation to engage in pro-active or pre-emptive war against another nation?
[I am working on the assumption that a nation doesn't just up and attack/invade another nation unless that second nation acted as an aggressor and initiated an attack on the first nation.]

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Leaving aside the issue of the US and Iraq for a minute, anyone care to answer the general question as to why you think it is acceptable for a nation to engage in pro-active or pre-emptive war against another nation?

I'm really short on time but I'm going to try to get to all the other stuff, but it's easy to poke a hole in this argument, so I'll go ahead here....

As it's been explained, no one engaged in a "pro-active or pre-emptive war against another nation" EXCEPT Iraq. We and other allies where at war with Iraq because they where a threat to Kuwait, which they forcibly took over. We essentially stopped fighting under the assumption that Hussein would agree to terms and abide by them. He decided not to, so the pause in fighting ended and we brought Hussein to justice.

Your argument is based on the false idea that the only reason why Hussein was captured was because we thought he might have WMD's. Lot's of countries have WMD's. Hussein was the leader of the only one I can think of that had them, used them on another sovereign country, then agreed to terms to stay in power then backed out.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As it's been explained, no one engaged in a "pro-active or pre-emptive war against another nation" EXCEPT Iraq.

Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1991 AND the US when it invaded Iraq in 2002.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We and other allies where at war with Iraq because they where a threat to Kuwait, which they forcibly took over.

Correct. Iraq forcibly invaded Kuwait.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We essentially stopped fighting under the assumption that Hussein would agree to terms and abide by them. He decided not to, so the pause in fighting ended and we brought Hussein to justice.

WRONG!

The second Gulf War was in NO WAY a continuation of the fighting that had begun in the first Gulf War. There was NO "pause in fighting" between Gulf War I and Gulf War II. They were two separate wars. (If referring to them by two different names--even the military had two different names--didn't indicate that they were seen as two different wars.) The first Gulf War was a reactive war and was initiated by Kuwait and its neighbors asking the US to help remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The second Gulf War was a proactive or pre-emptive war and initiated by the United States only and was not done in concert with any neighbors of Iraq or with the UN.

We (the collective we that was allied to push Iraq out of Kuwait) were at war with Iraq only while they were in Kuwait. When we (the collective we that was allied to push Iraq out of Kuwait) pushed the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and left the battle we (the collective we that was allied to push Iraq out of Kuwait) ended our war with Iraq. We (the collective we that was allied to push Iraq out of Kuwait) did not agree to a temporary armistice or a temporary pause in the fighting. When we (the collective we that was allied to push Iraq out of Kuwait) pushed Iraq out of Kuwait the war ended and the collective we that was allied to push Iraq out of Kuwait was disbanded. As if you needed more evidence to indicate the separateness of these two wars, how many of the original members of the coalition that forced Iraq out of Kuwait came together to support the US invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your argument is based on the false idea that the only reason why Hussein was captured was because we thought he might have WMD's. Lot's of countries have WMD's. Hussein was the leader of the only one I can think of that had them, used them on another sovereign country, then agreed to terms to stay in power then backed out.

No, my argument has nothing to do with the assumption that WMDs were the motive for the second Gulf War. My argument as to why *I* think we invade Iraq--what our motives were for invading--are stated above in my response to Doofy.

And as for your point about Saddam agreeing "to terms to stay in power", he agreed to those terms with the UN, acting as proxy for Kuwait and the coalition assembled to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Saddam NEVER agreed to "terms to stay in power" with the US alone. At no time during the first Gulf War was there ever a context where the conflict was between just Iraq and the US. It was ALWAYS a conflict between Iraq and the coalition.


As for my argument about WMDs and Iraq, my argument is that the US government sold American citizens of the necessity of the war based on the threat of Iraqi WMDs. I didn't think there were WMDs in Iraq and the Bush Administration didn't (honestly) think there were WMDs in Iraq. But telling people Saddam Had The Bomb was an easy way to convince Americans of the necessity of the war.

Of course, the fact that the US had to try do hard to convince its own citizens of the need to invade Iraq tells me that US citizens didn't see the second Gulf War as merely a continuation of the first Gulf War after a "pause in fighting". If all the Americans who support US actions in the first Gulf War--and they were definitely in the majority--supported the second Gulf War we wouldn't have had the whole circus of lies regarding WMD, Nigerian yellowcake, and Colin Powell's scary speech at the UN. The American people would have simply said, "Hey, our president wants to restart the war that has been paused since 1991. Since a majority of us agreed to support that war then we should naturally agree to support this war now since it is the same war." Except, none of that happened. The American people saw correctly that the second Gulf War was NOT a natural extension of the first Gulf War but rather a separate war driven by different motivations and desires than those that drove the first Gulf War

(I was among those American citizens who supported the US pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, who thought this was the right thing to do, and I said so at the time. Not here obviously but to friends and family when we discussed the matter.)

[kido331]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for my argument about WMDs and Iraq, my argument is that the US government sold American citizens of the necessity of the war based on the threat of Iraqi WMDs. I didn't think there were WMDs in Iraq and the Bush Administration didn't (honestly) think there were WMDs in Iraq. But telling people Saddam Had The Bomb was an easy way to convince Americans of the necessity of the war.

Since you believe the Bush Administration was making up reasons to go to war, why wouldn't they just say they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad? If they had, you would have presumably fully supported the war.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Since you believe the Bush Administration was making up reasons to go to war, why wouldn't they just say they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad?

I don't know. You'll have to ask them.
(Although the fact that Osama bin Laden was a known threat to the US since the time of the USS Cole bombing, and was known to be hiding out in Afghanistan, might have had something to so with why the Bush Administration didn't "just say they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad".)

Originally Posted by kido331 

If they had, you would have presumably fully supported the war.

if they had what?
Said "they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad"?
or
Actually had "intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad"?

For the first question I would answer no. I would not have "fully supported the war" against Iraq simply because our leaders said they had proof because there could never be any proof of such a thing. Saddam Hussein was violently secular and killed anyone in Iraq that attempted to promote any kind of insurgency or any kind of religious fundamentalism. He never would have allowed Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda to setup shop and function in Iraq.

For the second question I would answer yes, absolutely yes. I would have "fully supported the war" against Iraq IF Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network has been hiding out in Iraq and getting support from Iraq instead of Afghanistan. If Saddam Hussein was a dictator interested in supporting Islamic fundamentalism and had a track record of doing things to support fundamentalist Islamic groups, then yes, I would think it likely that he would have supported someone like Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
(Except that was not the case. Hussein wanted nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists--they were a threat to his hold on power--and had NOTHING to do with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the attacks of September 11th.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Since you believe the Bush Administration was making up reasons to go to war, why wouldn't they just say they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad? If they had, you would have presumably fully supported the war.

The problem is that our leaders tried to associate a war against Iraq with the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the umbrella of a Global War on Terror*. Except that Iraq was NOT a supporter of fundamentalist Islamic terror groups. Our biggest oil buddy in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is, in fact, a supporter of fundamentalist Islamic terror groups. (Don't forget, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.) If we were really fighting a Global War on Terror they should have been the second nation to invade after Afghanistan. But somehow they were not magically included on the list of enemies in the war on terror. You ever wonder why our Global War on Terror ignored the single largest supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror groups?



*This ignores for the moment that you can't fight a technique or method (terrorism) but rather you must fight the groups that use the technique or method of terrorism.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

WRONG!

The second Gulf War was in NO WAY a continuation of the fighting that had begun in the first Gulf War. There was NO "pause in fighting" between Gulf War I and Gulf War II. They were two separate wars.

No, he's right. Gulf War I never ended - just a conditional cease fire.

(Still doesn't change why II was undertaken).

[kido331]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I don't know. You'll have to ask them.
(Although the fact that Osama bin Laden was a known threat to the US since the time of the USS Cole bombing, and was known to be hiding out in Afghanistan, might have had something to so with why the Bush Administration didn't "just say they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad".)

First, bin Laden was a known threat since the first attack on the WTC in 1993. Second, why do you put such faith in the reports of his whereabouts in Afghanistan? Aren't these reports from the very same intelligence agencies that said Saddam was working on WMDs? Why do you believe them when they say they knew where bin Laden was? The simple fact is that we invaded Afghanistan without clear evidence that bin Laden was even in the country. He might have been in Pakistan or any number of other places. The closest we got was that the Taliban said they would turn him over to an islamic country for trial if we presented evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9/11. They never had him in custody or had an exact location for him, so the real reason we invaded is that they had been providing material support to al queda and they defied a UN resolution to turn over terrorists.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

if they had what?
Said "they have intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad"?
or
Actually had "intelligence placing Osama bin Laden in Baghdad"?

For the first question I would answer no. I would not have "fully supported the war" against Iraq simply because our leaders said they had proof because there could never be any proof of such a thing. Saddam Hussein was violently secular and killed anyone in Iraq that attempted to promote any kind of insurgency or any kind of religious fundamentalism. He never would have allowed Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda to setup shop and function in Iraq.

Oh, really.

The problem with your position is that you are cherry picking intelligence to fit a good war/bad war paradigm. You reject any intelligence linking Saddam and bin Laden, but accept any intelligence placing bin Laden in Afghanistan or Tora Bora. The Taliban are bad to their people, especially women, and support terrorists, so they should be removed. Saddam is bad to his people, supports terrorists, was in defiance of UN resolutions, plus might be working on WMDs, but we should have left him alone. Invading Iraq is a recruiting tool for terrorists, but the sanctions on Iraq which were killing thousands of iraqi children every year was somehow okay. bin Laden himself declared a fatwa on the plight of Iraq on February 23, 1998, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi:

"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

In addition, you somehow believe that the Bush Administration would lie about WMDs so they can start a war for fun or profit, but trust Saddam to never seek out WMDs or deal with terrorist who might do harm to the very people who are slowly starving his country to death. You think Saddam was contained, like there was some wall built around the entire country and check points every other mile which would prevent bad people from doing harm. Thousands of fighters and hundreds of tons of munitions flooded across that same border after we had complete control of the skies and our army right in the heart of the country. It never occurs to you that Saddam was lying about possessing WMDs and that we simply believed the stakes were to high to ignore it.

The real irony to the Iraq war is that the justification for it was never hidden. Bush wanted to put a Pro-US democracy in the heart of the middle east. He wanted dictators who defied UN resolutions to face stiff consequences. He wanted to make sure that a brutal thug was not allowed to create or obtain WMDs that might somehow find their way into American cities. And now that all of those things are very near to being accomplished, we are told by people opposed to the effort that it should never have been done, or that it was for oil, or just the pure pleasure of watching people die, or whatever fits the idea that the Iraq war is bad while the Afghanistan war is good.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by kido331 

First, bin Laden was a known threat since the first attack on the WTC in 1993. Second, why do you put such faith in the reports of his whereabouts in Afghanistan? Aren't these reports from the very same intelligence agencies that said Saddam was working on WMDs? Why do you believe them when they say they knew where bin Laden was

Because Bush isn't trumping up evidence to start a war on false pretenses this time? A lot of intel is pretty OK; the WMD intel was made out to be stronger than it was because it justified what he wanted to do anyway (as you point out later in your post).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by kido331 

The real irony to the Iraq war is that the justification for it was never hidden. Bush wanted to put a Pro-US democracy in the heart of the middle east.

When was this attitude ever publicly disseminated?
(Not saying I disagree with you. Quite the contrary, in fact. But NO ONE in the Bush Administration ever talked about the reason for invading Iraq was to "put a Pro-US democracy in the heart of the middle east". Many in the Bush Administration frequently mentioned an Iraqi democracy as an outcome of our actions but no one ever mentioned having a democracy being a reason for the invasion. It was always due to Saddam being a threat to the US.)

Originally Posted by kido331 

He wanted dictators who defied UN resolutions to face stiff consequences.

Really? The President who wanted nothing to do with the UN in his plans for war suddenly feels the need to defend the oversight imperatives of the UN? Nice try. The only reason Bush had anything to do with the UN was because Colin Powell pushed him to approach the UN as an act of deference/appeasement. And then Bush made Powell tell outright lies while Powell was giving his infamous "45-minutes" speech before the UN Security Council.

Originally Posted by kido331 

He wanted to make sure that a brutal thug was not allowed to create or obtain WMDs that might somehow find their way into American cities.

Sorry, you fail. Heck, just look at stupendousman's posts to see that not even he is buying the WMD justification.

Originally Posted by kido331 

And now that all of those things are very near to being accomplished, we are told by people opposed to the effort that it should never have been done

Correct. It never should have been done.

Originally Posted by kido331 

or that it was for oil

Correct. Although not so much for the oil proper as for a controlling influence over one of the biggest suppliers of oil and the overall oil market.

Originally Posted by kido331 

or just the pure pleasure of watching people die

That was opinion on my part regarding Donald Rumsfeld only. And it is an opinion I stand by.

Originally Posted by kido331 

or whatever fits the idea that the Iraq war is bad while the Afghanistan war is good.

Yup. You got it. War against a nation that didn't attack us is bad while war against a nation that did attack us good.
Or more generally, I think the US should go to war only to defend itself in response to an attack from another nation. If Iraq had succeeded in attacking us with a WMD I would have fully supported any and all US actions in response. But not until after an attack has taken place. That way you know for sure your enemy is serious and not just bluffing. As it stands now, George Bush called Saddam Hussein's bluff and found out Iraq didn't have WMD. So, the blood of the thousands of dead US soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens is on Bush's hands for taking a big gamble (on WMD) and losing.