On Nov 6, 5:55*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:16*am, Han wrote:





" wrote in news:22232125-
:

On Nov 5, 12:02 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:54 am, "
wrote:

Had Bush not acted and Saddam used WMDs, you would be
here bitching about how Bush should be impeached because everyone
KNEW Iraq had WMDs and Bush did nothing.

Now we're playing alternative realities to justify cooking the
intelligence gathering books? Sigh.

Again, this is not a red state blue state thing. There are no red
states and blue states. What I'm seeing is a lot of white states.
White either from fear of the boogeymen or white from being livid with
rage with the way that things are playing out on our political scene..

Any statements made at the time of the Iraq vote were based on what
information that the powers that be chose to release. There was
essentially no mention of Saudi Arabia at all. You didn't find that
odd considering the nationalities of the 9/11 idjits?

R

That's because the Iraq war was justified on Saddam's threat to
the world by refusing to fully account for the WMDs that we know
he did have at the end of the first Gulf War. * And US, British,
Israeli, and Russian intelligence all believing he had ongoing
WMD programs. *And his continuing to fire missles at US
aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. *His playing games with the
UN inspectors, behaving like he did have weapons programs
that he was hiding. *Then factor in the genocide
he had committed in the past, the hundreds of thousands
that died as a result of his actions.

None of that had anything to do with Saudi Arabia. *What you
apparently are suggesting is that the Iraq war was some kind
of revenge for 911. * The links between the two at the time
we

1 - Seeing what terrorists had just done to NYC, Bush was
determined to make sure rogue countries run by nut cases
would not be able to get to the point where they had WMD
that could be used against the US or to start another war
in the middle east.

2 - Iraq was a major sponsor of state terrorism, supporting
many terrorists organizations. *There was some sketchy
evidence possibly linking them to Al-Qaeda at the time.
Yes, later it looks like that evidence was wrong, but
that's after the fact. *Bush saw this as an opportunity to
get rid of one very bad actor on the world stage. *Similar
to what Obama just did in Libya. *The obvious difference
being in the cost of the two outcomes. *But that is different
than denying that there was justification for the action.

My view is the worst you can accuse Bush of doing is not
giving more weight to the possible reasons not to go to war.
The war was easily justifiable for the reasons above. *But
if you imagine a sheet of paper with two sides, for and against,
for going to war, I think the Bush administration paid too
little attention to the against side, ie the possible bad outcomes.
All in all it will likely be another 10 or 20 years before we know
the outcome.

I agree with all that, but came to the conclusion the war wasn't
justifiable, mainly because Iraq was a totally secular state where
religious fanaticism was totally absent, except perhaps for religious
purposes. *Moreover, there was a total absence of a possible Iraqi
government post-Saddam because the Iraqi exiles were in total disarray
and never have gotten together at all, even now. *Then the absence of an
agreement with Turkey to be able to attack from north and south made the
dismissal of Saddam last 3 times longer than it should have. *Last but
one reason for the war to have been a bad move was the fact that there
was no plan to guard the munitions left behind by the Iraqi army.
Lastly, it was insane nonsense to totally disband and make jobless the
large military and police apparatus of Saddam. *That generated a large
number of capable, armed jobless discontents who (thank whoever) are
mostly fighting each other, but also the Allies and the somewhat
"legitimate" current Iraqi ruling elite.

Our withdrawal now is opening up (I am afraid) another cicil war in Iraq,
that is being fought along tribal and religious schisms, the worst of all
possible.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm surprised we finally agree on something, and this of all things...
I had mixed feelings about the war before the start too and was
concerned
about the possible outcome. * I was hoping that when the coalition had
400,000 troops ready to invade and knowing that we had kicked his
ass last time, that Saddam would finally fully cooperate with the UN.
Unfortunately that didn't happen.

There is no question that there was considerable validity to the
argument against invading. * However that is different than claiming
that Bush lied. *Most of those saying he lied would have been calling
for his impeachment had he done nothing and later Iraqi WMDs were
used. *I can just hear the same Monday morning quaterbacks saying
"Everyone knew he had WMDs. *He had used them against his own
people. * The CIA, British Intelligence, Israeli
intelligence, all knew he had them. * Look at what Hillary Clinton,
Obama, John Edwards, etc all said in 2002! * They knew he had
WMDs and was a threat. *Bush should be impeached!

Unfortunately in the real world you have to make decisions based
on what inteliigence information you have at the time and what is
believed to be correct.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not only did he invade a foreign country illegally for regime change
purposes (also illegal) he sanctioned concentration camps and torture.
He also used it as an excuse to erode democracy. (Patriot act)