It's this simple: come clean on WMD, or leave Iraq
 

Easterbook of recent-ESPN-firing fame comes up with a clear and succinct statement about WMD in Iraq:

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=894

I couldn't have said it better myself! It's not often that I agree with a conservative columnist in the National Review.

This would save the US tons of money a day. Just leave, no more useless expendatures.

Thanks for the post! It's refreshing to see that some Conservative idealogues aren't fueled by blind patriotism and hatred for all things Islamic.

we'll never find wmds cuz they dont freakin exist.

bush will never admit this and we will keep searchin forever.

We won't leave anytime soon. Having another ally/pawn in that region is too important for us the pass up, and is very much in our best interest, even if we lose a soldier a day to do so.

Thats right, lets leave Iraq to Saddam so he can come back in power and torture and murder all those that cheered when America came in. Or leave it to Al Queda, so they can make billions on the oil and make even more threating weapons to kill US ALL. Or we can leave the nation of Iraq to an Iranian style theocracy that will ensure a race war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Great Idea, Harmless Rabbit. You make me believe more and more that Coulter was correct when she said liberals always go against America's best interests.

By the way, you may want to mix it up a little -- you've said the last line verbatim in about six threads now.

What a dumb idea.

I agree with what you say, but not because saddam would come back into power or the taliban would supposedly take control, but because of many different reasons...

First let me say that I hate war, the only difference between you and the people you're fighting against is the geography they were born in. Now that being said, President Bush might have dragged the American image through the mud with this war, but imagine how we would look if all the peace keeping forces we have in Iraq were suddenly wisked away without leaving any sort of government structure behind after we nearly destroyed every bit of their old way of life. Do you think the Iraqis would be any better off now?

Whether we want it or not, Bush has left us a mess to clean up that will take more than 10 years to fix. If we pull out now we will only hurt Iraq more and even further damage our credibility and our percieved abilty to follow through with our goals.

People almost always die when any major progress is involved and some extremists are resistant to it.

LOL, yeah let's just pull out that would solve everything. Quite a strategy. The Iraqis would be SO much better off if left without an army or any security, you know how friendly Iran is, I'm sure they'll offer a helping hand.

Although I am tempted to say we should just pull out because that would screw over France, Germany, and Russia since Iraq owes them a ton of money and they would never get it then.

By your logic, we haven't found Saddam yet, so he must not exist either. :D

Saddam has to exist, who else did we ally ourselves with out of convenience and complete disregard for human rights? Oh yeah, the names pinochet, and the contras come to mind. Was donald rumsfeld hugging a ghost in those infamous pictures? Besides, i never saw no damn WMDs on TV shooting that rifle into the air in front of screaming loyal iraqis.

This is the second time, and if shoe fits.... Look at Everyone Of Harmless Rabbit's posts. I think the guy is really some Frenchmen who hates america trying to weaken us.

Actually, I suggest we pull out now and let a UN coalition run by Germany, Russia, and France jointly help the region transition to orderly self-government. I certainly never suggested that we *just* leave.

Also, this wasn't my idea, it was the idea of a conservative columnist at the New Republic. Feel free to attack my "liberal" ideas though, it makes me smile. :)

FEL: Whoa there, mighty Flame Warrior of Doom! For thine hast forgotten that the laws of war do not permit such activity in this here arena....

I don't think immediate departure is a good thing....leaving a power vacuum is the only thing we could do to make things worse it seems...giving it over to hte UN if they would take it would be the moral thing to do. Now that the damage is pretty well all done, staying to help fix it is the best thing i can think to do. but frankly, the fact that his father is now making motions of support for Ted Kennedy in public, is probalby a sign that Dubya has farked himself beyond beleif on this.

The un messes up most everything it touches. For each East Timor, there are hundreds of failures. Giving Iraq to the UN will do about as much help as the UN does to Africa. The UN's track record on nation building is abysmal.

Who ever said the UN was moral? Remember this is the organisation made up by dictators and repressors. They have Libya sitting as head of the Human Rights commission. UN and Moral in the same sentence is the craziest thing I ever heard.

I am satisfied with our policy even if the threat of WMD was needed to galvanize public and world opinion so that those who would have kept us from doing what was and is the right thing to do - given the geopolitics of the region and the need for security and stability in the world - were and are rendered sufficiently powerless to subvert the effort.

Moving our troops out is the wrong thing to do, whether you supported this war or not. Easterbrook and his ilk seem to think we can just remove our troops, pretend the whole thing never happened, and just go on to the next war. Like it or not, we have made this commitment to the Iraqi people and we must follow through or risk destroying our credibility even further.

By the way, I found this piece by another conservative, Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, to be a much better summary of the WMD debate:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-21-03.html

Speaking of east timor... Did you know that kissinger was there in indonesia, giving his approval mere days before indonesia invaded? How about all of the weapons that indonesia(btw, the most populous muslim nation in the world) recieved from us even after it was evident that they were commiting massive atrocites on that island.
For every iraq, there are many examples of places where the us has just sat idly by and watched a ruthless dictator commit human rights abuses against his own people. Including, oh, iraq.

That being said, we shit in this bed, now it is time we sleep in it. I'd be fine if the un took over, and we'd, as a country, might be able to work on reducing the national debt instead of cleaning up our messes on the other side of the world.

Would you have felt the same if the United States was invaded in the mid 1800's by some country who objected to the way the U.S. was treating it's native inhabitants?

Given the historical record of our government tolerating, even supporting, vile individuals who gave a wink and a nod to anticommunistic dictators this sudden grasping of the human rights straw makes for only straw men arguments.

2Wolves

If it were not for the French this country would not exist. Stillborn to be precise. That should cut them some slack and does with conservatives with any knowledge of history beyond the past 30 years.

2Wolves

So you are saying in the 1800's terrorists wanted to take over the nation so they could wage war globally and rid of the world of the infidel? That a nation wanted to save the US from factions that would kill each other?


And your forgetting that communists have killed well over 100 million people, I am glad that we supported the lesser of the two evils. It sucks, as you agree, but how much worse would the world be with MORE communist nations being supported by a still in existance Soviet Union?

Nice attempt at spin. Your justification, as previous stated, had to do with how Saddam was treating his citizens not how terrorists were even involved in anyone's imagination. There is no proven link between the secular former Iraqi government and bin Laden. None. Zero. Bupkis.

Not forgetting the millions killed by pseudo-socialism, but you've appear to have forgotten the dead nations of the American continent.

As I stated many of those dictators had only a passing glimmer of anti-socialism in thier programs; extracting maximum power and self agrandiziment (sp?) was much more important. Don't confuse the lable with the reality.

And don't try to spin what I write as I don't walk away from bushwa.

Now, how about giving me an answer to my question?

2Wolves

I am talking about now, you know HERE and NOW.

In the 1800's the world was treating people much worse. We have become a better place than it is now. That is why I am against Israel's treatment of Palastinians, and Saddam's treatment of his people. Had their been a nation like the US is now, and fought on indian rights, and won, the world would have been different. And its is a moot point as there was no such nation. The sad truth is only a few people cared about them at the time.
Why are you so mired in the past? My Romany family was slaughted by Germans. Do I hate them? Do I blame them? My uncle was killed in a concentration camp. My mother remembers him ( I dont obviously, he was dead before I was born). So I guess I should scream and talk about what if, or I should look at what his happening right now and say "People are getting killed in Iraq, and Saddam has the resouces to stymie the UN untill he is in a postion of powe to wage war on his terms, or we can stop it now with a minimum of loss to life."
THat is what I choose to do. I cant change the past, nor can you. But you can realise that we saved the most lives with our course of action in Iraq, but to do so you would have to drop your blind hatred of Bush, and some of you would rather hold on to hate than realse that we saved lives. Its rather sad.

As far as the terrorists part, I was talking about leaving the nation now, as the thread was talking about. If we leave now, Al Qaida would have a decent change to take over, or at least set up shop. So in that context, I talked about it in the 1800's. If I was not clear, i am sorry.

Ok, one at a time:

1. Still dodging the original question. I asked how you'd feel about that possibility as that is what
the United States did to Iraq. You ran from the premise.

2. "Mired in the past"? Yeah, yesterday was a real iron clad bitch. Tomorrow looks like more of the same.

3. Germans.... Nuremberg.... Tell me, when was the last time a caucasian stood in the dock for killing an American native
or taking away their language, or ..... you've probably stopped reading already.

4. Wage war on his terms" The Republicans didn't seem bothered by this when the Iran / Iraq war was going on. What changed?

5. Saved whose lives? Not citizens of the United States. I worked with an Iraqi in the 80's, who's job it was
during the aforementioned conflict, to crawl into the desert at night with a one meter metal rod to find Iranian
land mines. His personal view? Vote against any and all Republicans he could find after getting citizenship.

6. Al Quida is not a governmental organization. They did not attempt a coup in the 'stan. They have not tried
to overthrow the Saud family. What G-2 do you possess that is not available to the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc, etc, etc?

2Wolves

But sir, we clearly have records and statements proving that he does in fact exist.

That's good logic, one of my favorites, not the only logic working for pro-war either. Everyone has heard it though I'm sure.

I guess people have forgotten that the reason Rumsfeld is so sure Saddam had WMD is because he sold them to him in the first place.
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UQAAAMIZ3EKRIDyEmjJuC1bFNf9RT7s93NXt90quQD*cMrJMERdIE5qk*wOp0AXs56qRJN0yXkUHxDTLRvz1wiWMzmqQroCvUE8aMpQZvPNCThckBNC6bQZxhpAWTYQb/Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.gif?dc=4675444508116214680[/IMG]

No way, the US smashed the system and destroyed the goverment. Now it is their duty to establish an new one. Sorry but you have to pay the bill.

Precisely. Saddam was our mess, and we need to clean it up.

I remember being glued to my television when the skirmish started. At one point (I was watching FOX news) a group of soldiers came across hundreds of steel barrels. I thought "wow that was fast; they found them". Nothing was stated. It almost as if the just brushed of the barrels as harmless products. I didnt hear anything more about that find until weeks later.

I was listening to a political talk radio show one morning and a journalist commented on the barrels stating the reason that that paricular find was'nt publicized is because of whose name was on the barrels.

There'e no doubt that in the past decade; the US along with many other countries supplied Iraq with technology and supplies for WMD. Perhaps the reason the confidence was so high in the adminstration is because of that fact.

Either way; whatever the reason for or for not going to war is secondary at this point. Perhaps if Bush would have made it a humanitarian cause by promoting the rape, murder, and probable secret preparations for attacks on the US or the country the US is protecting.

Ghad! Red letters on a blue background! My eyes are bleeding now....

Sorry

What amuses me so much about this response is what it says about you.

The author of that blog is the conservative columnist who previously was employed by ESPN. The point of Harmless Rabbit's post was clearly to demonstrate that not only "liberals" disagree with the current administration's handling of Iraq.

You are so mired in your battle of ideology that you have reduced yourself to a state where everything is black and white. There is no point in debating the issues with you because you will fight for your right-wing agenda on principle. Everyone who disagrees with you is anti-American. Which, ironically, is the most un-American thing I've seen in this forum to date.

Unfortunately it's a recurring theme among those who would defend the administration's policy under any and all circumstances. Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Food Eater Lad. Answer it honestly. What would the Bush administration have to do for you to disagree with it?

Hey HR, my comments were directed at the idea of the post, not you or your liberal philosophies. Funny how I didn't even mention anything about liberalism yet you still bring it up.

If you meant that it should be taken over by a coalition then you should have said that in your comments instead of just agreeing that we should pull out. As far as the reality of such a coalition occuring, they'd never do it.

Oh, I guess I should state my opinion on the matter. I don't think the question here is whether we should pull out of Iraq or not. Obviously we cannot do that, nor do I think we should.

The statement that sparked this debate was a rhetorical device. What I would like to see, which was reflected nicely in a conservative's column, is for the administration to come clean on our reasons for being in Iraq.

The entire thing has been handled through a veil of misinformation and manipulation of the public opinion. Non-existant "weapons of mass destruction" (I'm getting so sick of that term), the subtly implied (and also non-existant) link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. People who supported the war befor we went in said nothing about liberating the Iraqi population. The average American thought we should "nuke em all" in fact, not even understanding that Iraqi civilians were being oppressed by a cruel dictatorship. The stated reasons for going to war was that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. We now know this to be patently false, and evidence dictates that the administration knew this and played it up anyway to the public to gain approval for its actions.

The administration has played the general public like a finely tuned instrument. It makes me angry. Do I think there may be good reasons to overthrow an oppressive dictator? Of course! But if we are going to discuss this honestly, the first step is to admit that we didn't go into Iraq to liberate Iraqis. If that were our goal, there are many other countries whose leaders are guilty of human rights violations that far exceed those of Saddam's.

Nizzle this was a strange engagement all the way around. The Nukes in Africa issue, the irony in the questioning of whether he had WMD when the US participated in the development of them. (along with other nations)

The point you make is what I thought as well about the liberation. The most interesting aspect is what the name of the war was. Pyschologically strategic.

I disagree with how Afghanistan was abandonded. I think the best way to show the fundies that the American way of life is not so bad is to make Afghanistan a better pace due to American influnce. The biggest error the Bush Adin did was leaving the job before the quality of life was risen. True its better than under the taliban, but not as good as it could get. Nothing will show the fundies that they are wrong then a damn good lifestyle.

Afghanistan still exist?

I second that motion.

Interesting wording. Let me get this straight. What you are saying is, "I don't mind that we were lied to, because if people were told the truth, they might not agree it was the right thing to do."

I just want to be clear on this. Is that what you are saying? Perhaps I misunderstood. I really hope I did, because that's outright insane. If you can't sell the truth to the general public in a supposedly democratic society, maybe it isn't the right thing to do.

We elect our officials on the basis that they will represent our beliefs. It is not their job to then subvert the wishes of the electorate through outright deception and distortion of reality. If the Bush administration could not get public support for an invasion by telling anything but the truth, then by golly, he has no business going in there.

To suggest that our leaders do not have to adhere to the beliefs of the populace that elects them is to advocate fascism, pure and simple. I am not okay with that, thank you very much. I love this country and I am becoming increasingly disturbed with the trend of some conservative pundits to openly embrace the principles of fascism, and then to my utter astonishment turn around and accuse their detractors of being un-American.

Again, whether this war was just or not is one issue. The fact that we were lied to is another, and it is an important one. Supporters of the war need to stop tying one to the other. Yes, we overthrew a cruel dictator. But that was not the stated reason for the invasion -- it was a side effect. And a convenient one for those who would like to derail the debate with rhetorical devices such as "Saddam was a bad man, to not support the war means you support him."

I did not support his dictatorship. And I do not support Bush behaving as a dictator for the same reasons. Yes, Saddam is guilty of much more evil than Bush. But by that logic, Bush could do anything short of murdering thousands of his own people and still be a saint. Sorry, but being less evil than a really evil person does not make you good. It may be a cliche, but it's a fundamental truth: the lesser of two evils is still evil.

So, can we put the question of whether this war was just or not aside for the moment, and address the fact that the administration intentionally misled the public by playing off the lingering fear and anger caused by the bombing of the World Trade Center to gain support for a war it might otherwise be reluctant to wage? We cannot go back in time to change this. What's done is done. But I think it is high time that the administration come clean to the public about this.

Nizzle your taking the discussion into the larger spectrum. Not within the logic its not OK that the public is lied to. The flip side of that is would a government that had the same situation as Jim Carey had in the movie Liar Liar where dishonesty was impossible would the US be better off? There are past events in Americas history that create generations of conspiracy theories because of facts or lack there of, and theres events that have taken place that everyone knows the government has lied about (or most), but as always bills are more important, who won the super bowl, that was a good episode of Hannity and Combes--whats up next, and the it eventually disappears into history. THis has been going on for a long time on both sides of the political parties . . . and, is it OK were lied no, yes, ? Grab a gun, picket a store, write a congressman who wont listen anyway? Vote--- no comment. . .

IMO the middle east doesnt hate America because of its freedom (there are many people that come from the middle east **not counting terrorists** to attend American Universities. They are coming here; were not going there; and yet in a general sense they hate America; why? Once you answer that question it goes beyond whether you agree with it or not. At the will of others actions the realization occurs that supporting what may be the truth is most likely going to be against the power that has crafted the progression of where not only America is; but those that now dispise it. THen the consideration becomes an awareness if anything a person or persons were to do that would effectively counter the increasing pace of what I see as "the quickening" they therefore invite they're own safety to be compromised.

What do you want to keep you up at night: the feeling of living in an unsafe environment because of retaliation in methods the attackers deem justified; or let politicians and a few others do actions that no one is going to stop anyway in the name of protection but feel it being wrong?

Sun Tzu - I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I haven't seen the movie Liar Liar.

I'd like to point out that Iraq was not a terrorist nation by the definition you are using here. They didn't blow up the World Trade Center. So, no, I don't feel safer. In fact, I am worried that the growing tide of animosity towards America because of our actions in Iraq might ignite a new unprecedented wave of violence against Americans, possibly on our own soil.

I wouldn't be so sure of that assesment Sun Tzu. Look at Saudi Arabia where you have the Wahabi's (most of the Islamic world can be used for this example). You have a theocracy running the show. They keep their people oppressed and stupid. In the land where the religion is king, and the religion is run by the government you have big problems. Going to the mosque is mandatory, and what they teach in the mosque's is hate. The state appointed clerics tell the masses that the woes of the Islamic world is the Great Satan (thats America if you didn't know). They preach death to those who won't convert, and that is everyone even other Muslims of different sects. Osama Bin Laden is a Wahhabi, 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were Wahhabi's. But it's not limited to the Wahhabi's. The Taliban is popular in Islam, Hamas is popular in Islam, Wahhabism is growing in the Islamic world (its the main school in England, and it has schools all around the world), the Iranian theocracy is Islam and as I write this they are pushing for the same thing in Iraq. What it comes down to is that the religion of Islam abuses its masses to retain its power, it tells people that America is the problem along with the Jews and the only way to get rid of us is Jihad.

Long story short thats one of the big reasons this war was waged and why it was necessary. Islam is a growing threat to American security, a stable Iraq fucks with those who would destroy us.

Also Nizzle Iraq might not have had a role in 9-11, but it definently supported terrorism. Saddam let many Palestinian terrorist organizations operate out of there. He granted people like Abu Nidal safe haven there, not to mention groups like Ansar Al- Islam.

This is utter nonsense on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I think you're just trolling. I urge the other contributors to this thread not to feed the troll and stick to the point at hand -- that the administration lied to us, and that is not okay under any circumstances.

Thanks.

Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The fact of the matter is that Saddam did have weapons. But those were just a way for us to get in the door to rattle the cage.

Which is why "Old Europe" did not lend you the support.

The Pre-emptive strike concept doesn't feel very safe to me, since it effectively gives China the right to drop a bomb on my head whenever China wants to. Taiwan definetely pose a threat to China. Taiwanese army-boots are marching all over Formosa already.

Tibet could be demolished on the basis of the War on Terror alone.

Hey you know what, do what you gotta do. Like I've said in the past regardless of if you think that Iraq was a good example for pre-emption, it is necessary in this time and place. Your a fucking fool if you wait to get hit first. Why should America let some punk bitches get the jump when it comes to our security?

Let me ask you Xenu, does Taiwan posess WMD's? Because thats what the Bush Doctrine addresses.

I'm sure China could find a few if they wanted to find them.
Why should China let some punk bitches get the jump when it comes to their security? They don't even need WMD's as an excuse. The Taiwanese are already in China.

I hear what your saying, but I think it is completely different context in regard to the Bush Doctrine.

That's true. But China could point at both the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine if they felt like it. It would be difficult for the US to say anything about it. Taiwanese forces pose a much bigger threat to China than Iraq did to the US.

That's why I believe that Iraq was a bad precedent to set. People outside of the US didn't oppose the war because they thought Saddam Hussein was a nice guy - it's more as if it opened a Pandora's Box of international politics.

Does not the U.S. back Taiwan as far as that whole fiasco goes?

The official policy is that the US wants a peaceful solution.
While the US is clearly leaning towards Taiwan, the current situation is very comfortable for the US.

For continued support, the US can pull that card whenever it wishes. Taiwan continues to be valuable when it comes to negotiations with China as well. So the best thing for the US would be if the current situation continued.

I think that if China becomes a more valuable ally in the future, Taiwan would be negotiable.

As for the governments - the Chinese government today is quite similar to Taiwan's government 25 years ago. Neither country has had a nice history.

Out of a neocon perspective, backing Taiwan will only be profitable for 20 to 25 years more. After that, China will be depending on either USA or Canada for food, if the current population growth continues. Then, of course, supporting China taking over Taiwan would be more profitable for the US.

While typing this I just realized that I have committed myself to living in Taiwan. Should probably stock up on canned food and ammo... :D

1How would I feel? I dont know, as I wouldnt be born as my Gypsy parents would have no safe place to flee to and the nazis would have been turned them into a lampshade like my uncle. Had it happened the world would be vastly different, and mostly likey living under horrid communisism. Its not a dodge its what would have happened.



2 Bitter is as bitter does,


3 So you are saying that you disagee with archeolgical evidence? Can you provide any prove that PRe Columbian America was a utopia and not a place full of wars, torture and fighting as it really was. Cant blame whitey for natural human behavior. I await your documentation.

4 thats right, cause that was OUR terms. I see your knowlegde of international politics is quite limited.

5 And I still say that the free Iraqis can safly vote how they want in the next election, as can your friend. What a wonderful country.


6 LOL again, your hatred for white men and the US government, plus your feelings that you are entitled to anything because of your ethnicity has blinded you to the fact that Al Queda, as well as other islamic fundie terrorists groups are working in Iraq.

FEL, you are making less sense with every post, and I think everybody will be much happier if you could stop trying to label anyone not agreeing with you as anti-american or hater of white men or whatnot.

I'm still confused with what the significance of WMD's are. The whole deal prior going to war was that Saddam Hussein had to prove that he didn't have them. Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to avoid being attacked. I think my timeline's right:

Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, with the UN kicking and screaming the whole way. Untill Bush convinced them of the importance of making sure Iraq had no WMD.

The deal was if Saddam didn't comply fully with the weapons inspectors and "prove" to the world he didn't have weapons - we'd kick his ass out. It was said over and over - we don't have to "prove he does", it's up to him to "prove he doesn't."

Saddam was fuckin with them the entire time making no effort to cooperate - doubtfull he would have been so comfortable doing this if the UN had some balls, but Saddam knows they haven't any sort of spine.

Bush said "fuck you guys", we're goin in cause you're inspectors suck ass and your putting no pressure on Saddam. They cried for more time, Bush gave it to them, made a case for why he "believed" they had WMD, and the UN reluctantly agreed. Their are two constants here - Bush always stands firm and the UN are whining fuckin babies. Had Saddam simply done what he'd been given every opportunity to do, their wouldn't have been any question about whether or not they existed and none of this would have happened.

Now that it has - everyone who disagrees with the war throws in the disclaimer that (yeah it's probably a good thing Saddam's gone). Whether or not you agreed with the war before is irrelavant now - you'd have to be a total idiot to think the best thing for that region would be for us to pull out, but Jesus Christ did anyone here some of those idiots during that prostest yesterday yelling to "bring our sons and daughters home immediately." Ignorance at it's finest - you're hatred for Bush getting in the way of common sense and what really is at this point best for the world. AS much as I love Bush I'm tempted to vote against him just so I don't have to listen to another 4 years of the biggest fuckin bunch of crybabies yelling in my ear whining about him.

Matthew, It seems that that people are choosing to forget the facts. Thanks for reminding them.

Nice personal attack. Its easier than debunking my posts i guess.

No, you're just not making sense.

Cheers.

Again, nice personal attack. I can sure see how you shredded my claims.......

I feel quite the opposite. There are very important lessons the US taught the world in Iraq.

#1 - You can only push so far before we call your bluff.

#2 - You don't stand a chance.

Do you think that the other Arab national governments, be they kings, dictators, or elected , will want to even HINT of being a terrorist supporter, at least while a Republican is in office?

I know these people as well as any outsider, I have several friends from Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and I always like to get their opinion on these issues. The one thing they say their governments respect is strength. In 1980 when the hostages came back, you know the main reason they were released? It wasn't some magical secret deal by Reagan/Bush to make Carter look bad, Carter was good enough at that on his own, it was because they were scared SHITLESS of Reagan.

We ARE safer, because the terrorists can only get very limited help from any government, can only seek sanctuary in a few places, and can only travel under deep cover.

Sure we may well have another major terrorist attack in the US, we all know how open we are, and no one is really willing to take steps to prevent it, so we watch and we hope, but you can be damn sure no government is going to allow ANY ties to it.

Surely you're not saying the war was the result of merely a technical issue about iraq not conforming to the un. Israel does that too.
If WMD's are so unimportant, why was the idea of iraq as an imminent threat built up so much? Why all of the deception about why we needed to go to war? Why the implied links to al quaeda? Why all of the flip-flopping? Either it was about liberation or looking out for our security, the administration just chooses whichever reason is currently most convenient.

ustwo
You left out
#3- It is acceptable to invade and occupy a country with no more justification than the fact that they might attack you in the future.

To quote the title of this thread, it's this simple: Iraq has WMD, Iraq doesn't hesitate to use them. Being that it was unclear whether or not he did, and made no effort to prove to the world he didn't - he was an imminent threat.

Inspectors hadn't been there since 1998, and to quote President Clinton at that time: ""If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." I guess noone reacted to this in 1998 because noone believed what the hell Clinton said anyway, but we all know Bush means what he says.

Not to mention 4 years had passed with nothing having been done since Clinton made this statement - do you really think Saddam was of his own volition adhering to UN sanctions, or do you think the situation was becoming more volitile?

One more quote from Muhammad Mansour Shihab Ali, now captured: "Killing is something I did. I killed. This was for the Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda."

To suggest that the reasons the Bush administration laid out for removing Sadam are at best gross overstatements and at worst bold faced lies I think is nieve (that was more of a general statment and not directed at you in particular filtherton).

Well, whatever opinion I muight have on Iraq2, I don't really support pulling out of a country after destroying infrastructure. The war is won, the fight for peace and stability has hardly started at all. The precense of the US in the region to maintain stability is needed for many years to come.