So are you saying that the reason we began the "War on Terror" was to fight Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by airborne eagle

toppling the regime and breaking Saddam were one in the same

I realize that. But that was only because Saddam was the one in power when the United States began to fight the War On Terror. If it had been someone else, someone who didn't have any beef with GW senior, the targets probably would have been totally different. You say that the Iraqi's didnt think that the original reason was to, as our President said,"Hunt down, and punish the cowards..." I say nay. Because that was the reason we made our way over the the Middle East. If we went over to attack Osama Bin Laden and half-way through the attack we turned around and attacked Saddam Hussein because it was convenient, then don't you think the Iraqi's would have noticed it?

Originally Posted by airborne eagle

That is, the non-Iraqi terrorists and the Baathist hold-outs have come to see the Iraqi people in the predominantely Sunni provinces as the bigger threat.

The non-Iraqi's and Baathist's see them as the bigger threat only because they want to topple the fragile,barely established government early before they get a strong hold. They want to push the Iraqi government down before they stand all the way up. They figure that if they can move the government into a position of no power, then they can just reclaim the "throne" and start fresh with a new totalitarian leader....

Well AE it sounds to me that reasons for invading are made up regressively. Each time something new is encountered.... well, that's a reason for invading. It seems to me that the original plans were bollocks to begin with, so make some nice ones along the way.

Saddams link with Al-Qaida are dodgy because Saddam is a well-know Muslim poser. The fundamentalists would not want to be seen with such a non-believer as Saddam. His flirts with the faith started when he needed them more and more. But as with most fundamentalists, they tend to have long memories.

Originally Posted by Ted

Well AE it sounds to me that reasons for invading are made up regressively. Each time something new is encountered.... well, that's a reason for invading. It seems to me that the original plans were bollocks to begin with, so make some nice ones along the way. ..................

The comment you made is the same comment that many Americans have been making since day one ... GW hasn't seen an excuse to invade Iraq so far that he didn't try to make his own ... even when the excuse was so much toilet paper.

Tadaa! Exactly my point. The only feasable reason George Bush had to invade Iraq was to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. The non-feasable,selfish reason to invade was to finish the job started by his dad. Like I said, he viewed it as killing two birds with one stone. He had been looking for a reason to invade Iraq, and with the 9/11 attacks, he had one. On the way, he figured he would get Saddam Hussein on some trumped up charge...

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

Tadaa! Exactly my point. The only feasable reason George Bush had to invade Iraq was to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. The non-feasable,selfish reason to invade was to finish the job started by his dad. Like I said, he viewed it as killing two birds with one stone. He had been looking for a reason to invade Iraq, and with the 9/11 attacks, he had one. On the way, he figured he would get Saddam Hussein on some trumped up charge...

I coundn't disagree more ... GW isn't that smart ...

Well, I think we may discredit him a little bit...Even though he is viewed as an overall bad president...There are some smarts that come with being a former presidents son...Perhaps his daddy gave him some advice...who knows? Anyway, thats just my opinion...

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

Well, I think we may discredit him a little bit...Even though he is viewed as an overall bad president...There are some smarts that come with being a former presidents son...Perhaps his daddy gave him some advice...who knows? Anyway, thats just my opinion...

I think it does a huge injustice to whatever point you're trying to make to continually attempt to align everything the POTUS does with "his Daddy." I think it also lessons the validity of your comments. It's easy to attack someone personally, a lot harder to defend your points with facts.

Well, the shift in targets in my opinion is a big indicator that he wanted to go to Saddam...Unless we as the American public is not hearing something that contradicts this then GW had no provocation...With Bin Ladin, he recieved the first punch..With Hussein, Bush struck first. Tell me how,without verbal confirmation from President Bush, that his father isnt at least a little bit of the reason he attacked Saddam Hussein. I know he said that Iraq had WMDs...but did we ever find them? Nope. Theyre still out there...if they exist...He turned away UN inspectors, does that prove anything? Nope...just another bullet to add to the "Pros of invading Iraq" list. Did we ever see any proof that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction, or that he was planning to attack America with those weapons? Not that I have heard of.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

Well, the shift in targets in my opinion is a big indicator that he wanted to go to Saddam...Unless we as the American public is not hearing something that contradicts this then GW had no provocation...With Bin Ladin, he recieved the first punch..With Hussein, Bush struck first. Tell me how,without verbal confirmation from President Bush, that his father isnt at least a little bit of the reason he attacked Saddam Hussein. I know he said that Iraq had WMDs...but did we ever find them? Nope. Theyre still out there...if they exist...He turned away UN inspectors, does that prove anything? Nope...just another bullet to add to the "Pros of invading Iraq" list. Did we ever see any proof that Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction, or that he was planning to attack America with those weapons? Not that I have heard of.

A lot better! You're pretty damn smart for a 15 year old kid!

You are correct that the American public was given no definitive proof to back the claims that Hussein was an immediate and direct thread to the United States. And you bring up a valid point about the constantly changing mission directives. I don't completely disagree with you, except on a few things.

Remember that even Clinton said Hussein had the weapons, also remember how ineffective the UN actually was in Iraq. These are two things to consider when taking this argument.

I also disagree that DS/DS or that Bush Sr. was a major driving force in invading Iraq. If anything, I think the decision was based more on a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and the need for a pro-US staging area for the US within the region. Saudi Arabia has never been too friendly to our forces (Khobar towers for example), and they've got us by the balls when it comes to oil. Iraq looked like a good target, we had a history with them, we knew we'd have allies in the north and I think that the political planners figured the Iraqis would be so happy to be free of Hussein, they'd forget the hundreds of years of tribal feuding.

Understand I'm not saying if they did or didn't have NBC weapons. I lean more towards "they did" than "they didn't," esp. with what I've seen and the previous documents and comments from the former admin. On the other side of the coin, I have serious doubts that they had anything that could be launched against the US directly.

I'm sure there was a valid reason for invading Iraq, I'm not sure if we'll ever know the real and whole story behind it, though. At least not for several years to come.

Regardless of the reasons though, we ARE there and that's the top concern now. I wish the politicians would focus more on that too, the rest can be hashed out later in hearings, hangings whatever.

LOL, thanks for that first part, Ill have to print this one out and show a copy to my mom...lol...Yea I get your point on the Saudi Arabia thing...They showed their stuff over this war too...my gas went up to around 3.50 to as much as lik 4.23(estimate)...I know Sr. wasnt a MAJOR force but dont you think its possible that George might have had that thought flash across his mind? I dunno what was going through the political advisors' heads if they were thinking if they thought that one man was going to change all those years of religious fighting...Religious grudges run much, MUCH deeper than political reasons. They could be set in a room against each other with 100 billion dollars and they wouldnt even go for the money until one faction was dead...They have geniuine need to defeat each other. A thousand-year brooding, bred hatred of the other. I dunno either wether or not they had the weapons, but I do know that they didn't find any, and you're right, they most likely didnt have anything that could have been launched against the continental US...however, if they knew that we would be over there fighting after 9/11, then they may have used those missles to effective use when we first began our offensive...And even though that wouldnt hurt us extremely...that would put a HUGE HUGE HUGE dent in our countries morale if we lost large numbers as soon as we stepped foot within range of those missles...As to the valid reason point, we can only hope that George Bush follows in Clintons footsteps...WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT!
Indeed, we are there now and that's what matters. We can worry about what happened when Bush's book comes out.