Let me get this straight: Saddam prosecuted war on Iran, invaded Kuwait, murdered millions of his own citizens, and flaunted the UN ... and he's not a terrorist? I think it is the war opponents who want to insist on an identification of AQ and Saddam. Terrorists come in all stripes and Bush said that none of them would be tolerated any more. I think the Administration made a political mistake by trying to ride the coattails of 9/11 into Iraq, but the mesage that none of this terrorism would be tolerated anymore was clear.
Emm.. nice try. the reason the us went into iraq was because of his supposed WMD and TIES TO ALQAEDA . history has shown that both those accusations were false...
Nobody ever debated if Saddam was a bad man. The question is the justification of invading Iraq within the context of 9/11. Without 9/11, invading Iraq doesn't make much sense. The anti-war crowd didn't make that up. GWB took every opportunity to imply or OVERTLY say it himself. Anti-war opponant simply were using his own words against him. But if we are going to attach terrorists: What about the terrorists in Darfur? ...they are actively killing people as we speak. Why go after somebody for a 20 year old event when you could actually save lives in Darfur? What about the terrorists in Iran? ...they are actively funding terrorists in Lebanon (which we knew at the time) and they are OPENLY seeking nuclear bombs ...the mother of all WMD. Attacking Iraq was misguided.
Oh my God, it's not even funny any more. You are justifying this current war because Iraq went to war with Iran. You do remember who we backed in that war, don't you? You do remember that Iran had taken US citizens hostage and was considered a terrorist state, right? As for Kuwait, I know Desert Storm happened really fast, but it did happen. That was our reaction to Iraq trying to take Kuwait. We could have taken Saddam out, but Bush 1 was against it and his military advisors had warned that trying to topple Saddam would put mire the US in a multi year long conflict in which Iraq would descend into chaos and possibly civil war (sounds familiar, right). As for killing his own people, he isn't the only guy that does it. So why are we singling him out and involving ourselves in a long term war. Are the people of Burma not worthy of having their military dictatorship overthrown? Do you even think about other countries where this kind of stuff is going on and do you want us to go there and help those people? As for flaunting the UN, it's already been proven that there were no weapons anyways. Plus he did cave, people seem to forget, and the inspectors found nothing.
I'll disagree on both counts. Regarding WMDs, he had used them already on his own people-- not nuclear but WMDs all the same. There are scads of quotations from politicians of every stripe and agencies of every ilk which indicate this understanding. Regarding AQ, the hammer was put down on terrorists period. Yes, the conversation turned to AQ quite naturally, but the target was not limited to AQ.
It's not that simple. There are a constellation of factors--- one of which is probably that militarily Iraq was something of a pushover (Mission Accomlished) and it was not an Islamic state, i.e. Saddam was not a religious leader. Here goes.... 9-11 changed everything. You can't go everywhere at once. You have to pick your spots. It was a dozen years. OJ was also found NOT GUILTY.
The tiny little fact you are neglecting is the proverbial "hammer" you refer to was put down by W himself. Targeting AQ occured "naturually?" What kind of talk is that? Targeting AQ occured because of 9/11. W only later broaded to scope from AQ to terrorists in general (which was a bad political move as evidenced by the current state of affairs in Iraq and that even Republicans are now distancing themselves from W's policies).
just happens to be the country with probably the largest untapped reserves in the world...how lucky they are
I'm not neglecting anything. That is centrally important. The SOTU 2003 (before the War in Iraq) was where we first heard of The Axis of Evil and the "hammer was put down." It didn't occur after the War in Iraq. I"m not sure "when" you meant by your reference to later... The distancing is done due to considerations of popularity. Sometimes it is unpopular to do the right thing, is it not? In fact it is often unpopular to do the right thing.
2003? Wasn't 9/11 in 2001. That's what I mean by later. Thanks for making my point. And sometimes I've found it unpopular to do the wrong thing too. Funny how that goes. But I'm not really talking about right or wrong, with respect to my previous comment. I'm simply saying that the war in Iraq is turning out to be a political disaster for the Republicans. Deciding if it was right or wrong will be decided by historians 3 decades from now. But the political ramifications are being felt right now.
You caught me before I finished editing. So now it isn't GWB's fault? Is that what you are saying. It is okay for GWB lay out the "Axis of Evil" speech and he takes no responsibility, as the president, because his advisors told him to do it. (Who selected those advistors anyway) Dude, it was blatently obvious to me BEFORE THE WAR that there was no link between AQ and Saddam. They have conflicting goals.
I'm just objecting to your language which makes it sound like GWB was running the show unilaterally by and for himself.
Last time I checked, GWB was the PRESIDENT and he made the Axis of Evil speech. It was him that is unilaterally responsible for problems incurred while in Iraq. If Iraq turns out to be the success of the century, it will be GWB that can claim victory ...and I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Perhaps it might surprise you then to know that one of our closest and perhaps most important ally on the war on terror is also an undemocratic militarists regime that has killed its own citizens, in fact we would like it to kill more of its own citizens, has nuclear WMD, has trained terrorists who have carried out terrorists acts against a neighboring democracy. Saddam's Iraq? No Musharraf's Pakistan. I am convinced without a trace of irony that if it hadn't been for Kuwait Saddam would probably be one of our biggest allies on the War on Terror.
and where did he get the WMD's that he used against iran and his own people again? iran is blamed for suppling and funding hamas. should the u.s. be responsible for selling saddam the WMD's that he used to kill millions?
You know, I think you are right. Never thought about that particular aspect of the whole crazy ****-up in Iraq. Keep D&D Civil.
Think about it this way. Saddam was a secular dictator with a record of suppressing Islamic fundamentalists further we supported him in his war against Iran and were on good terms with him up until he invaded Kuwait. If 9/11 had happened and Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait we still would be on good terms with him and likely would be relying on using Saddam as a continued check on Iran and Syria and probably basing surveilance and covert missions into those countries out of Iraq. It seems pretty obvious to me that we would've embraced Saddam as much as we embrace Musharaf and Mubarak.
