I think Bush's most valid reason to to make an example of Iraq for all the other rogue-states. Mess with the US and we come and get you! Imo he should just hav gone in kick Saddam's ass and pull out. What's with the nation builing? A country that can't build unity isn't a good country in which to introduce democracy.

P.s. was it stated that Bin Laden was in Iraq after the 9/11 attack?

Originally Posted by Ted

I think Bush's most valid reason to to make an example of Iraq for all the other rogue-states. Mess with the US and we come and get you! Imo he should just hav gone in kick Saddam's ass and pull out. What's with the nation builing?

Because, if we stay long enough for the idea of real freedom to stick, there may still be civil war, if we had left, there would most certainly been civil war or worse, tribal warfare and genocide.

So what you are saying is that the choices are possible civil war and actual civil war? That doesn't look too good. I am just afraid that it is going to be a very nasty to live for the coming years.

Thats war for ya. In a nutshell. Iraq will get its stuff together, it will just take some time for that change to come about. As to the democracy issue, who better to take democracy to the middle eastern countries than the country that basically invented it?

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

Thats war for ya. In a nutshell. Iraq will get its stuff together, it will just take some time for that change to come about. As to the democracy issue, who better to take democracy to the middle eastern countries than the country that basically invented it?

You are correct as far as you go ... American forces/advisers ARE the best people to demonstrate democracy ... HOWEVER ... most Muslims in that part of the world still view America as the 'Great Satan' ... the fact that we kicked Saddam's (_|_) hasn't changed that very real stumbling block to Iraq's democratization.

Originally Posted by Ted

So what you are saying is that the choices are possible civil war and actual civil war? That doesn't look too good. I am just afraid that it is going to be a very nasty to live for the coming years.

There were/are in fact four possibilities ... if we would have pulled out as soon as Saddam was removed, there would (for sure), have been a civil war ...... there is still the possibility that the various factions are waiting for a MAJOR draw-down of our forces and THEN there will be a civil war ... (or) there will be a civil war and our forces are going to be caught right in the middle of it. The best resolution would be for the various factions to settle their differences and for our troops to be able to make a peaceful withdrawal.

Is it going to be peace (or) civil war ... MOST experts, believe there IS going to be civil war ... GW and his minions are the only ones who seem to have their eyes closed and their brains on standby.

There needs to be major strides made in the settlement of mutual grievances between factions before the spectre of civil war fades. Thousands of years of constant warfare makes it very difficult for two factions to put aside their hatreds (never mind that the number of factions in Iraq are in double digits). Every two-bit warlord represents a faction.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

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

No.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

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.

No. The situation in Iraq was different than the overall situation of terrorism in the sense that we always had an adversarial position towards Iraq. 9/11 clarified the position as no longer acceptable.

Years prior, we were willing to accept real politik. Give the dictators some rope. They won’t stray. After 9/11, it became an unacceptable risk.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

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

Your opinion. Saddam supported terrorist organizations. However, his support of terrorists was one of many reasons to go after him.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

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....

Yes and no. The al Qaeda types dream of the caliphate. The Baathist types just don’t want to be strung up for their past crimes.

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.

I just ask for you to read the full resolution authorizing military action. Just because the president cited X or Y doesn’t mean he imagined X or Y as a justification. It was spelled out in the beginning. Again, read the resolution. The US Congress (by greater than 2/3rds vote) stated military action would likely be used because Saddam failed to comply with WMD de-militarization, supported terrorists, and had a long history of human rights abuses.

Originally Posted by Ted

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.

The documents in possession prior to the war and those found in Iraqi possession show a far more detailed relationship. Don’t get fooled by the “ideological inconsistency” argument. After all, Germany and Japan were allies in WWII, as were the US and USSR. Were there shared ideologies or shared goals? Again, ABC news has the more recent roundup of documents, recently declassified. Steven Hayes has been on the trail for years. Check out both for a comprehensive review.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

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.

Chief,
I don’t mind a fella holding his own opnion, but it should be a reasoned opinion.

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.

No, not even close.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

The non-feasable,selfish reason to invade was to finish the job started by his dad.

No, the reason to invade Iraq is because, in light of 9/11, the concept of “threat to the US” changed.

Iraq had a recent history of belligerence against the US and our Allies (firing on our planes in the No-Fly Zones.
Iraq had known terrorist connections (harboring one of the original WTC bombers, Harboring Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Zarqawi, abetting Andar al Islam, Palestinian suicide bomber families, etc.)
Iraq had the means to strike the US due to vast personnel, financial, and military means.
Iraq demonstrated their disregard for civilian casualties.
Iraq had the means, motivation, opportunity and history to strike the US.

That, my friends, is a threat.

You don’t need to equal the US’ firepower to threaten the US. You just need to have the capability and desire to hit us to inflict thousands of casualities.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

He had been looking for a reason to invade Iraq, and with the 9/11 attacks, he had one.

Read the 9/11 report. Bush consistently resisted Iraq as a target following the attacks in September

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

On the way, he figured he would get Saddam Hussein on some trumped up charge...

Saddam was framed?

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

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

Geez, Chief. Are you saying a guy who sees a mountain of facts in front of him and refuses to accept reality isn’t all that smart?

Bush isn’t an idiot. I know it comforts folks to believe it, but he isn’t an idiot. He just never wants the US to be sucker punched again. That’s really it.

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...

I think history will be far kinder than contemporary critics. You wouldn’t believe what folks said about some of our greatest presidents as they waged unpopular wars (like the Civil War, WWII, etc.). Oh yeah, those wars were not popular during their time. Revisionism has a way of making up all on board with successful campaigns.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

I know he said that Iraq had WMDs...but did we ever find them? Nope. Theyre still out there...if they exist...

Not just Bush. I was an intel analyst for 12 years. It was the consensus opinion that Iraq had WMDs. A lot of analysts want to say they never thought so. This makes them appear so much smarter than the rest. The fact is, there was no widespread dissent in the halls of Intel. You’ll get the book-writers who will say they knew all along, but I think they’re just covering their own beee-hinds.
Bush had no reason to “cook the books,” because we (the intel community) already agreed Saddam had to programs (he did) and the stockpiles (doesn’t look so).

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

He turned away UN inspectors, does that prove anything?

This is incorrect.

Originally Posted by C/2Lt Henderson

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.

Are you serious? You really don’t believe the guy had WMDs?

Well AE, you took some of my edges off. I guess what is all boiled down to was a calculated risk. There were some blank spots in the equation and the intel-guys did some probability calculations. Eventhough the changes were quite big that Saddam would have WMD's, it appears to be not so! And as we all know, even if the chances are 90%, 10% says it is not so. Just too bad that intel was wrong this time.......

Originally Posted by Ted

Well AE, you took some of my edges off. I guess what is all boiled down to was a calculated risk. There were some blank spots in the equation and the intel-guys did some probability calculations. Eventhough the changes were quite big that Saddam would have WMD's, it appears to be not so! And as we all know, even if the chances are 90%, 10% says it is not so. Just too bad that intel was wrong this time.......

Tell me I am reaching for an excuse all you like. I still find it plausible that if Iraq had WMD then it is entirely possible that they could have been moved elsewhere. Someone said the factions in Iraq reach the double digits. Isn't it possible that one or more of these faction had or now have control of WMD and moved them?

Meh, it is an idea. However realistic it is or is not.

AE
I think I made my statement as clearly as I could ....

BUSH IS NOT A MENTAL GIANT ... IN MANY WAYS HE IS STUPID ...

Did that clear up any ambguity in my statement???

You believe he is a fairly smart individual and I believe he's as dumb as a box of rocks ... I guess this is another time we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

AE
I think I made my statement as clearly as I could ....

BUSH IS NOT A MENTAL GIANT ... IN MANY WAYS HE IS STUPID ...

Did that clear up any ambguity in my statement???

You believe he is a fairly smart individual and I believe he's as dumb as a box of rocks ... I guess this is another time we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Fine.

Just understand that he had better grades at Yale than Kerry and finished his MBA from Harvard. I have little doubt that family connections got him into Yale for his undergrad. However, I strongly doubt they would've been good enough to get him into or through Harvard's MBA program in the 70s.

I think he plays the folksy angle because its more comfortable for him and, like 95% of Americans, he has little time for putting on an act just to impress people. The malaprops are played up, of course, because it's a worthy past-time to humble our political leaders to remind them that they are not above us. All politicians make the gaffes, though.