The first option is obviously ridiculous. I will agree with you about the second but disagree about the implications. I've outlined many times in the politics area why I know we went to war with Iraq. Often times, in politics, the case for action is based on things other than the "real" reason. You may disagree about the logic behind going into Iraq and some of the reasons used to justify it but can you put that aside for a minute and try to take the following perspective?

Let's say you believed that Iraq's defiance of abiding by the treaty to end the first Gulf War by hiding weapons programs (wmd or not he absolutely was increasing the range of his missiles), its refusal to follow UN mandates, and Hussein's continued control over billions of dollars (and most of Iraq) were a symbol to all states who sponsored terrorism that this was the worst the world could do to them should they continue to sponsor terrorists. Let's also say that you believed this situation would continue unchecked for another decade unless something else was done.

Further, one fundamental necessity in the war on terror (Al Qaida et al) is to deny them safe havens. With no real risk to the power of these states (as evidenced by Hussein's continued wealth and power) what alternatives were available to influence said states?

Iraq was WAY down the list of nations that support terrorism. Saddam was a secular tyrant and had nothing to gain from Al Qaeda et al. Hell, even Bush & Co. have backed off of that argument.

no kidding cthulu23. If we're going after terrorist-harboring countries, Saudi Arabia would have been a much more logical target.

Let's throw a little more realism into this argument shall we? How difficult was it to get world support to confront Saddam? Hell, just getting the UN to enforce already in place treaties was impossible.

Much of this difficulty was due to Saddam's ability to closely align economic interests of countries like France, Germany, Russia, etc. The Saudis have far stronger alliances and any attempt to confront them would have been 1000 times more difficult.

Onetime2,

If one accepts the idea that Saddam was not a large supporter of terrorism than it makes no sense to invade Iraq to "prove a point" to other state supporters of terror. This is precisely why this argument has been pushed to the background by most of the war supporters.

As outlined previously, he was a supporter of terrorism (large or small doesn't matter) and he served as an example of the "worst case scenario" for states who support terrorism or show aggression toward the US.

When making such a point you don't exactly create press releases that say, "Hey we're invading Iraq to show you what might happen to you if you continue to support terrorists and/or show aggression to US forces."

Especially when the aliances are directly with the Bush family and not the country.

Care to elaborate?

Thats partially wrong. The US has had a steady official alliance with Saudi Arabia since FDR. It was a "protection for your corrupt, oppressive regime for favorable oil contracts" deal.

Ummm, yeah it's the big secret Bush oil conspiracy again. Of course that doesn't quite explain Saudi Arabia's ties to other major trading partners like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China, Germany, UK, France, and Italy. I'm sure these countries wouldn't have any issues whatsoever with sanctions or military action against the Kingdom.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think its incredibly funny that they got caught for airing the documents. First of all, the guy that Dan Rather got the articles from was known for trying to discredit Bush for years (which I applaud him for doing so), so there's a hint right there. Second, it's their own fault that they allowed themselves to be a pawn in the game of dirty politics. The docs were obviously put out by the other party, or else why would they come out now?