Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP

The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was
effectively contained,

True.

had no WMDs

False. They had already used them on the Kurds. The presence and
actual use of WMDs in recent Iraqi history made this country far
more than some theoretical threat. The fact that they did not
have *additional* WMDs doesn't make our move to war less legitimate.
We had no way of knowning this - despite the expectation of the
Drooling Left that the CIA be perfect, and the posturing of the Moron
Right that the CIA *is* perfect. We had to operate on reasonable
assumptions drawn from Iraq's actual history since they would
not give the UN unrestricted inspection access.

was nominally cooperating with inspections.

"Nominally", yes. In actual fact, not really. A US invasion could have
been averted at any time up to the moment of the actual commencement
of hostilities had Sadaam made real inspections (unfettered, unmonitored,
without threat to the Iraqi participants) happen. He did not, he got
tossed out of power.

Saddam's secular dictatorship was antithetical to Islamic
fundamentalism,

Tsk, tsk. How very non-PC of you to lump all Islamic fundamentalists
into a single group. There are devout (aka fundamentalist) Islamists
who do not advocate terror, murder, oppression, and so forth.

and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were not operating
significantly in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's regime.

False. There is some incidental evidence that Iraqi intelligence
was in league with some of the terror operators. At least one well
known hijacking terrorist lived and operated freely in Baghdad. Sadaam
funded Islamic Palestinian terrorists. No one (with any clue) ever
thought Iraq was a direct threat to the West. The concern was
that he would make common cause with people who *were* direct threats
to the West by funding and/or arming them. This was a legitimate
fear given Sadaam's brutal history.


Those of us in the opposition are not saying the US shouldn't defend
itself.

Sure you are. You're only willing to have the US defend itself
*sometimes* and then only *after* its been attacked. By analogy,
if we were in a bar fight, and the guy at the end of the bar paid me
to poke you in the nose, your argument, roughly would be: 1) You
can't hit the guy at the end of the bar because he did nothing directly
to you and 2) You can't hit me until I actually poke you in the nose.
i.e., You cannot interdict while my arm is in motion swinging at you.

much as you do. The difference is that we believe that our recent
actions are ill-conceived and that they weaken the US in the long run.

You are free to "believe" what you want - many people believe all manner
of nonsense. But - and I am *not* a Bush fan by any means - let's
inspect Reality for a moment and see how your beliefs stack up against
what we observe:

There have been free elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for the
first time ever (or at least in many years). It is rather doubtful this
would have happened without the US projecting force in these regions, directly
or otherwise.

The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator,
was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted.

Said brutal dictator is now in irons.

Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real*
reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus.
But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US.
It worked in Libya - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and
Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria,
Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to
develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This
is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/