People here actually standing up for Saddam Hussein.
I've lived to see everything.

This is just going around in circles. We are presented with a bunch of reasons to go to war and when those reasons are shown to be bogus, we are presented with some other reasons and the previous reasons are just ignored. Yesterday some idiot on TV was even saying that the war in Iraq was necessary because there are more terrorists in Iraq than in any other country in the world, conveniently ignoring the fact that the terrorists are only in Iraq because of the invasion.

What it boils down to is that Saddam was supposed to have presented a threat to the US, but no matter how long this argument goes on, not one credible threat has ever been produced. Missiles that can fly 200km are not a threat to the US. Paying money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is not a threat to the US. Violating UN Security Council resolutions is not a threat to the US and is hypocritical. Using the oil-for-food money to build new palaces and buy funky sound systems is not a threat to the US. And using an alleged plot to kill Daddy Bush as a justification, a plot that has never even been proven to have existed, is just not even worth going into. Although given that the US has made it no secret that they'd like to assassinate Saddam, I'm sure you'd be understanding if Iraq invaded the US in return.

So basically the US invaded Iraq because Saddam shot at their planes in the no-fly zone.

DJ Happy,

Don't you know that facts have no place in this argument. Saddam was a bad man (forget that we supported him during his worst massacres of the Kurds). Surely you don't like bad men? Besides, questioning the war in unpatriotic, no matter how many pretexts have disappeared or been torn to shreds.

As evidenced by the complete ignoring of my point about Iraq standing as a symbol of the "worst" that could be done to a "rogue" nation by the international community and the restatement of my post(s) into the succinctly inaccurate "So basically the US invaded Iraq because Saddam shot at their planes in the no-fly zone." :rolleyes:

This is one of those threads where I see I've responded to questions posted by someone that had absolutely no interest in the answer(s) or in discussion. Of course, if people who really don't want to discuss things stop posting in politics there would only be about 4 or 5 posters. So I guess we will just have to continue to take the loads of bad for the occasional good.

So you're now saying that Iraq was invaded so as to make an example of them? That is hardly a better reason, especially as before you were citing the threat they posed to the US as the reason fopr the invasion.

By the way, the "international community" didn't invade Iraq. In fact, the "international community" voted not to invade. The US and the UK invaded with some rag-tag forces from inconsequential nations making the sandwiches and orange squash for half-time.

You have this strange need to change my statements into DJ Happy speak. My position has remained consistent from the time of the invasion. Your interpretation of, not only my position, but the situation as a whole is sorely lacking in context and historical fact. I don't see a reason to continue it.

Even if we accept the fact that the invasion of Iraq was justified on some level, an argument that I happen to disagree with, I feel that the doctrine of preemptive attack has lost much of it's credibility with the American people. I don't think the public is quite so interested in policing the world any longer now that they've had a reminder of just what war is all about. The saber rattling from our dear leader has definitely quieted down. I haven't heard any Republicans advocating the invasion of Syria for quite a while, an idea that was getting quite a bit of play early in the Iraq invasion.

I don't think the doctrine has lost its credibility with the public but I do think they would be unwilling to continue into another country while we are still embroiled with Iraq.

You talk about my arguments lacking "context or historical fact," yet you present us with a reason for the war that I've not heard mentioned by anyone else and you talk constantly about the war being about making an example of countries that support terrorism. In fact, there is more credible evidence to show that Saddam refused Bin Laden's request for assistance than there is that he harboured and supported terrorists. Not even the Bush administration has tried to justify the invasion in this way, yet you present it as fact.

You say that any country that supports terrorism, regardless of the presence of oil, would be invaded, yet there are plenty of other countries (that don't have oil) that have been named by the Bush administration as being countries that harbour and support terrorists that were not invaded. And at least one of them has nukes. Yet the real problem were Saddam's missiles that couldn't even leave Iraqi airspace unless they were launched at the border and his refusal to help Bin Laden?

I'm sorry, I just see no logic or reason behind your justification of the invasion. So I would agree that maybe we shouldn't continue on this.

Although they did propose a resolution in the UN Security Council ordering Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon which was subsequently passed I believe. An attempt to get support for an invasion of Syria? Maybe. They probably won't want to do it alone again. Anyway, there's no oil in Syria so they might as well get someone else to do it.

Of course, the fact that Lebanon requested the presence of the Syrian troops to begin with matters not a jot to Bush.

So now I talk of it constantly when in the last post I was suddenly bringing this point up? Whatever.

This sums up why the topic of why it isn't being pushed as "the" reason we invaded Iraq...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=68583&page=5

Hmmm, I have a hard time believing that all of the WMD nonsense was just a smoke screen by the Administration. Why would they humiliate themselves in front of the world? This is the administration that coined the doctrine of preemption...would they really be coy about the "example" motive?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Don't forget who has profeted the most from this war.

Halburton!!!! And who gets lots of kickbacks from Halburton? Bush & Cheny!

That's not what I'm saying at all. The vast majority of countries believed that there was a high likelihood that Iraq had wmd's and they had a desire for nukes. Combining the two with terrorist support is not something you can gamble with. This was not the only argument to invade Iraq however. Making an example of this "rogue" was certainly on the list.

Can anyone give a reasonable example of how the US (and the world) could dissuade state sponsors of terrorism from such support with only the threat of economic sanctions in their bag of options?

Feel free to offer any evidence whatsoever of this Rekna.

Well, that or just go apply to be a producer at CBS. ;)

Many analysts in the CIA and other branches of government knew that the WMD claims the Powell made before the UN were a product of wishful thinking. Josef Wilson himself debunked the uranium claims. The terrorist connections were also internally contested prior to the invasion. All in all, invading Iraq had little to do with security.

This is a tough question, but it can be argued that the sanctions had successfully contained Saddam. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both made statements prior to 9-11 confirming that Sadaam's threat had been contained. This all changed after 9-11 when the administration realized that the public would now support an invasion, allowing them to fulfill that long-simmering neocon fantasy (a stable foothold in the Middle east and oil...what could go wrong?).

What we appear to differ on is whether or not the invasion of Iraq has done anything to make us more secure or the world more stable. I would argue that we've badly damaged our global credibility and steeply worsened our position in the Middle East. We certainly provided lots of fodder for Islamic extremists as we have confirmed all of their rantings about American imperialism.

What's the best way to deal with terrorist states? There are no easy answers, but sanctions or engagement with moderates within those countries probably wouldn't cause as much global angst.

Its irrelevant to me who takes care of the logisitics of managing the war, of feeding and housing soldiers, rebuilding projects, water supplies, etc. Somebody's got to do it, and Haliburton is one of only a few (the only?) companies that has the experience and infrastructure to handle such an undertaking. The war effort is obviously massive, with what, 130k some soldiers over ther, so it stands to reason that some service-oriented company is going make big bucks. But, really, its like attacking Wal-Mart or Target.

I disagree. I think the threat of a US invasion of rogue states/sponsors of terrorism is now much more credible. I know that's not what you mean, but I'm 100% certain the worlds leaders now know US foreign policy is different after 9/11.

I doubt the extremists really care about Iraq. It's just an excuse to them. They would have used Afghanistan if Iraq wasn't there.

I don't give a crap about global angst when it comes to state sponsors of terror. Sanctions and engagement is not any way to deal with terrorist states. There is only one way: the Afghanistan way. If you are a state sponser of terrorism then you don't get a state anymore. Period.

State sponsors of terror can not be allowed to exist. I believe there is pretty much global agreement on THAT point.

The predominant thinking in all intelligence services at the time of the Iraq invasion was that there was a high probability that Saddam was hiding wmds, had the desire to build nukes (as evidenced by the neatly tucked away programs found since the invasion all set to be started again once international focus faded), and violating the constraints of the deal that ended the first Gulf War.

Whether it was "wishful thinking" or not is kind of a ridiculous argument IMO. Do you really think that Bush wished it to be true when he was about to invade the country? The prospect of embedded reporters detailing the grisly deaths of young Marines overcome by biological and chemical agents is hardly a rosy election picture. A more accurate statement perhaps is "feared it was true" or "couldn't risk the chance that they did exist or were being developed".

My whole point about sanctions is that they were not discouraging to state sponsors. Hussein retained power. Retained control over Iraq's oil. Continued to enrich himself and his cronies. Did pretty much whatever he wanted. Engaging "moderates" or others opposed to the regime in power resulted in how many dead in Iraq? The solutions you outlined have been tried for 30 years in the face of terrorism against the US and they have failed to limit its spread or remove terrorist minded leaders from power.

I find it interesting that you have changed position from protesting the sanctions to saying that the sanctions contained Saddam when it suits you.

cthulu protested the sanctions based on humanitarian reasons--not because they were ineffective.

Besides, pointing out that Powell and Rice argued that sanctions had been effective in containing Hussein is not arguing for their appropriateness.

I watched a documentary called "Uncovered" that dissected the build up to war in Iraq and featured career analysts from the CIA and State Dept who ridiculed the WMD "evidence" used to justify invasion and detailed the pressure that was brought to bear on intelligence agencies to come to the "right" conclusions. The White House formed the Office of Special Plans to cherry pick their own intelligence to justify the invasion, so obviously they felt that the existing intelligence wasn't good enough. Dick Cheney made multiple trips to Langley to pressure the CIA into massaging the data that they had. All in all, saying that the WMD threat was conventional wisdom in our intelligence agencies is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that Bush & co did believe that the WMDs existed, and they weren't going to let a little thing like a lack of evidence dissuade them.

So far preemptive invasion hasn't done much to stop the spread of terrorism, turning a former terrrorist cold spot into a global focal point. Do you feel any more secure? The old methods may feel inadequate, but they are far more attractive than eternal war. Furthermore, Iraq was NOT a major sponsor of terrorism...Afghanistan was, but we've bungled that invasion in the rush to grab Iraq.

Doesn't it seem suspicious that a current administration official co-authored a document calling for the invasion of Iraq a decade ago, for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism or the "threat" of Saddam? Is it just a happy coincidence that we turned our attention to Iraq so soon after 9-11 gave Bush a blank check with regard to foreign policy? Why did we put 10x the amount of troops into Iraq than we did into Afghanistan, where we knew the terrorists were? It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to start to put the pieces together here. I, for one, think that history will take a very dim view of this administration and it's insanely arrogant doctrine.

What Smooth said :)

Although I do not like the effect the sanctions had on Iraq, I think that this war has been even worse. As I said before, I hope for the best but things are not looking good. We'll be lucky if that coutry doesn't devolve into a 3 way civil war.

OK, so let's list the coutries that were sponsors or harborers of terrorism that no longer do so....hmmm, well Afghanistan isn't run by them anymore, but they're still there. Iran hasn't budged. How about Sudan? Nope. Syria? Nyet. Well, what about Libya? They seem to be behaving better, but there was that assassination plot against the Saudi royals. Shit, maybe someone can help me out because I'm at a loss here.

Even if we do accept that the ONLY way to deal with states that harbor terrorists (and any other state that the administration dislikes, ie Iraq) is via invasion, how many countries and deaths will it take? As Gore Vidal said, the war on terrorism equates to eternal war waged for eternal peace.

I would say, change your sources of information. It is a documented fact that Hussein used WMD in the Iraq-Iran war and he used them in Northern Iraq on the Kurds. The whole world knew he had them, but they wanted to continue with appeasement and containment instead of regime change.

I'm talking about the period preceding the war, not twenty years ago when Donald Rumsfeld said that Saddam was a "man we can work with." Geez. You're talking about "appeasement" during an era when WE sold him weapons.

I count 0. Iran, Syria, the Sundan and Libya are ALL behaving better, and it's because of two reasons: Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been naughty in the past, but no more. We will never see a long term state sponsor of terrorism again; the world sill simply not allow it to happen.

How many deaths? Well now, thats up to the, now 0, state sponsors, now isn't it? If a state gives aid and comfort to terrorists then its government get changed. That is the only way to deal with this one particular problem.

the americans knew about the wmd systems iraq used during the iran iraq war because they sold many of those systems to iraq.
the americans said nothing about the gassing of the kurds when it happened--only later did the right begin to feign horror----later when it was convenient for other political purposes to feign horror.

the linkage between those events and the present war is totally specious--it leaves about the un inspections regime--in order to erase the fact that the bush administration did not have a case for war, that they failed to persuade the security council of its case, that the majority of the security council was simply not convinced by the "Evidence" bush's team presented, and was convinced by the case put forward by hans blix and al-baradi--which is not surprising, if you think about it--the entire bush case has turned out to be false---and it was obviously false at the time, even to people who were not in a position of power, with access to classified sources.

the link between hussein and terrorism is also not proven--if anything the contrary is the case.

the supporters of the war have nothing to stand on at this point--not a single element of their justifications for unilateral action holds even the slightest water.

i am amazed that the debate still goes on on this thread--the poitns above are not questions of belief---they are simple matters of fact. i do not understand why the right, why those who support the war, simply cannot acknowledge the reality their boy bush has put them in.

Lets see some evidence to back that up, because I haven't seen anything that supports your statements. And zero deaths from state sponsored terrorism? REally? If anything, terrorism is on the rise these days. There have been bombings all over the globe and platitudes of faith to our President's policies do nothing to change that.

You misunderstand. 0 state sponsors of terrorism. (which could also be interpreted as 0 deaths because of state sponsored terrorism)

You really believe that the governments of Iran and Syria are sending money to Al-quada and letting them set up training camps in their countries? They have in the past but I'm sure they are not doing that now. Libya bombed Pan Am 103 and a disco in Germany. Do you think Libya would do that again?

It's called Hezbollah, and the PLO.

The PLO/PA sponsoring Hezbollah, or the PLO and Hezbollah as groups?

BTW: The following is an excellent site, although you have to be carefull with their terminology.
http://cfrterrorism.org/home/

PLO and Hezbollah being two terrorist groups/organizations that are state sponsored by Syria and Iran.

so following this "logic" the americans should invade both iran and syria, without support of the international community and without the sanction of the un?

seems like we are back in the fantasy world of the project for a new american century. look where that crock got us.

You didn't just admit that Iraq had WMD did you?
Please say it isn't so.
Did Hell just freeze over?

j/k ;)
I got nothin but love for the Left.

HAD is the operative word.

um, powerclown--you do recognize a gap in time when it is indicated in a post, yes? that years can go by between the reagan administration and 2002, yes?
that the rest of the post said the situation during the iran-iraq war was not compatible with that of the present war?

jesus. sometimes i do not know why i waste my time with this.

Ohhh, so you want to fess up too, eh?
You're making my job here very difficult you know. :suave:

Joking aside, if the article referenced above is to be believed, ie., "almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage" the chances of finding anything (if theres anything left to find) are pretty slim.

Maybe he had a squadron of vicious, Muslim attack unicorns as well. If evidence isn't a factor in determining the truth then that's my vote for most frightening Saddam weapon 'o terror.

Sorry but if there was evidence of cherry picking the intelligence for Iraq Kerry would be screaming it from every rooftop. Opinions from a couple of intelligence "experts" is hardly significant enough to convince me that this happened. Additionally, the intelligence about Iraq was insufficient. I doubt anyone will say otherwise. It's easy to make decisions a year after the fact with free access to all areas of the country but quite another to make such decisions with no clear cut answers.

You claim that pre-emptive invasion hasn't worked (after just a year of trying it) but think that the methods used for the last 30 years which have proved ineffective since the beginning are our best option? Afghanistan was bungled? The Taliban is not exactly ruling the country and Al Qaida is not operating there with impunity any longer. These were two of our main goals and they've been achieved. They are on the verge of national elections but this is somehow a failure. The only failure in that regard is the capture of Bin Laden. And I'd love to hear how it was the invasion of Iraq that resulted in his continued freedom. And I do feel safer because we are more aware of the threat and hundreds (if not thousands) of Al Qaida operatives are dead or captured. I seriously doubt that their recruitment has improved significantly while on the run resulting in more fighters than are being killed or captured. But it's fine if you want to believe that since there is no evidence either way. I'm basing my belief on the simple fact that they are most likely in turmoil given the losses they've suffered. It will take them some time to regain the level of sophistication they had while they acted with impunity over the last decade or more.

It doesn't seem suspicious at all to me that members of the administration authored plans for Iraq. If that criteria eliminated someone's suitability to serve in an administration then I guess we'd have to get rid of all policy experts for every region of the world since they all have their own opinions and plans for the regions they've studied and focused on.