Originally posted by: Edge3D
Initial commentary snipped.
Anyway, in response to your question- The war was fought for two reasons, first for 9/11 named an axis of evil and declared if you read the national security strategy paper of the US, you will see we live in a world where terrorists can deliver WMD to the US, we don't have borders, we have millions of containers coming in that don't get inspected, one nuclear device (which are getting smaller and smaller), one canister of anthrax or nerve gas delivered by a terrorist to the US will kill tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people. Saddam Hussein is our declared enemy and he had the programs to develop these weapons, there's no disputing that.
How does invading Iraq improve the security of containers shipped in to this country? If you wish to remove the WMD threat from the supply side, why attack a nation that there is, at best, very sketchy evidence on regarding the existance of WMD. Should one of the requisites for a preemptive invasion be definative proof of a threat that requires preemption?
There are other unfriendly nations with WMD. Iran has actively assisted terrorists infinately more-so than Hussein's Iraq, including assistance to Islamic militants bombing US Marine barracks, and assistance to Hezbollah in its attacks against Israel. Hussein's alleged post-humonous monetary contributions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers pale in comparison. There are questions regarding Iran's active heavy water, weapon capable nuclear program, and Iran has active biological and chemical weapons programs. North Korea is an admitted nuclear state, with large chemical and biological arsenals. Both of these "Axis of Evil" nations could serve as WMD suppliers to terrorists, and North Korea very actively aids in the proliferation of WMD delivery systems and possibly WMD itself to other nations, some of which are not friendly with the US. Additionally, there are the threats of stolen or black market ex-USSR WMD, and WMD in Pakistan falling into Islamist hands.
We've only examined a dozen or so of the 120 sites.
This is patently false. This was the case several months ago. Dr. David Kay and the Iraq Survey Team, to the best of my knowledge, completed the search for WMD, and Dr. Kay's report was that pre-war intelligence on the existance and/or readiness of Iraqi WMD was completely incorrect.
We don't know if the weapons he had are in Syria or Iran. We know he was developing them. So we know he was a threat.
No. We don't know if any weapons Hussein possibly had or was making are in Syria or Iran. We don't know if he was developing them. Before the invasion we didn't know if he was developing them. The evidence that he was, was very sketchy at best. Powell's presentation of "definative proof" to the UN Security Council was full of conjecture from Akhmed Chalabi's defector informants. One of the pieces of evidence cited in Powell's UN presentation was two trucks which could serve as "mobile WMD labs." These were later determined to be British made systems for creating hydrogen-filled artillery-practice meteorlogical balloons. Another piece of evidence was a drone aircraft. This aircraft was later displayed by the Iraqis, and found to be in initial stages of development and apparently underfunded.
Akhmed Chalabi is under suspicion of being involved with the intelligence service of Iran, Iraq's enemy. The CIA has had misgivings over Chalabi for years due to his Iranian ties, and the unreliablity of his informant's claims. It is a documented fact that V.P. Cheney made nearly daily trips to the CIA, urging them, perhaps even pressuring them, to find evidence that Iraq had or was developing WMD. His trips were fruitless because there was only scarse, circumstantial, and conjectural evidence.
The people who really liked Chalabi's claims were in The Office of Special Plans, a special Pentagon department created by Dept. Sec. of Def. Paul Wolfowitz specifically to find evidence to support an invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz has previously said that a rationale for invading Iraq was needed, and it was decided within the Bush Administration that the rationale would be to secure Hussein's alleged WMD. Everyone in the department was of like mind with Wolfowitz, in that they wanted to invade Iraq, and were eagerly looking for conjectural evidence to provide rationale for invasion.
The UN weapons inspectors, led by Dr. Hans Blix, were as unsuccessful as Dr. Kay in finding WMD. The Bush Administration's repeated claims of definative proof of WMD in Iraq lead the UN inspectors to ask for tips in finding WMD. The tips were investigated, and none yielded evidence of WMD or WMD projects.
He has aligned himself with Al Qaeda, even though he modeled himself after Mussolini literally. The Bathst party is a fascist party modeled on Italian fascism and German fascism of the 30s. That's who Saddam Hussein is. He later years began speaking in Islamic martyrdom, financing suicide bombers, anybody involved in suicide bombers is involved in radical Islam. That's what its about.
By all accounts, Hussein was a secularist, the most secular Arab leader. The political modeling of the Ba'athist Party is irrelevent; the US supported Dictator Hussein for years in a war against Iran, a nation with a more democratic form of government. Hussein's Islamic martyrdom and suicide bomber family post-humonous financing were not indicative of a policy shift. The former was a public relations drive that began during the Iran-Iraq War, and resurfaced during the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The latter was a public relations campaign designed to improve his regard among the Arab world, where many individuals support suicide bombing against Israel.
There is little evidence of a Hussein-Qaeda alliance. Czech intelligence services reported an Iraqi Intelligence Service-Qaeda meating in Prague; the CIA refutes this claim. There were reports of Qaeda activity in Iraq prior to the invasion. These included the existance of a terrorist training camp, and a known terrorist passing through Baghdad. The former was a well-known situation, in which Ansar-al Islam, often noted as "affiliated with Al-Qaeda," had a training camp remotely situated between land controlled by Hussein, and land controlled by the Kurds. The area was under the Anglo-Franco-American Northern No Fly Zone, so Hussein did not have the luxury of air power if he wished to deal with the remote, well defended, mountain camp. The incident of a terrorist passing through Baghdad was confined to rumors, and let us not forget that terrorists pass through large cities of friendly nations often.
He was in defiance of 17 UN resolutions including one that by Dec 7th 2002 (4 months before he was attacked) he had to deliver a report accounting for the weapons that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors knew he had and he didn't do that. That's why we went to war.
Any candidate who accuses the president of lying or bringing us to war on under false circumstances and killing American troops for no reason, by that very statement should be disqualified for running for president, and is himself an enemy to this country.
Those sound like Ba'athist standards of patriotism.
The only reason, we have not had a terrorist attack in the United States and Americans have not died in this country, is because George Bush has taken the war to the enemy camp. He took it to Afghanistan, he took it to Iraq. We have fought Al-Qaeda in Tikrit and Basra instead of New York and Washington. He has eliminated 2/3rds of the Al Qaeda leadership, he has them so off balance that the only attacks they are capable of are in Muslim countries where there are so many of them.
The largest Qaeda attacks before September 11th were the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. The largest Qaeda attack after 9/11 appears to be the Bali, Indonesia bombing, the Madrid train bombings. Al-Qaeda appears to possess a similar capability before and after the 9/11 attacks. I have always maintained that the 9/11 attacks were a real fluke, a once in history feat for Al-Qaeda. They were much more destructive and more elaborate than any other attack they have carried out. Let us hope I am right.
Qaeda terrorists were definately fought in Afghanistan. Qaeda terrorists are definately being fought in Iraq. Those terrorists moved into Iraq, along with many non-affiliated foreign Jihadist fighters, after the US invasion. The terrorists of the type in Iraq mostly appear to be of the "Arab Street" variety, poor ignorants who engage in Jihad when they are riled up. There are definatively a few mid-level Qaeda operatives commanding operations. These are the kind of calculated, educated operatives who conducted the 9/11 attacks.
It would seem that Qaeda terrorists are a minority group within the entire insurrection which US forces are fighting in Iraq. The insurrection is also comprised of other groups, such as Ba'athist loyalists and Al-Sadr's militia, which may be collaborating with Al-Qaeda only now, after the invasion. The invasion of Iraq has probably already succeeded in killing some Qaeda operatives, but they could have been killed or captured in easier ways, which would not rile up as many "Arab street" variety individuals to join the ranks of Al-Qaeda.
If you are not convinced, or even THINKING about this.. then you might as well go pay a visit to that tree I referred you too.
Please refresh my memory about a "tree."
To understand the reasons for the Iraq war, you have to understand it's chief proponents and architects. These individuals have wanted to invade Iraq since the Gulf War, because an American controlled or allied nation in the heart of the Middle East fits their "Project for a New American Century." 9/11 was a strategically important development, in that it required a plan for retaliation and meeting the threat posed by Al-Qaeda. Numerous ideas were discussed within the Bush Administration, and the Afghanistan invasion was easily chosen.
But an invasion of Iraq was desired by some as well. However, Iraq's lack of ties to Al-Qaeda, and contained status, made it's threat to the security of the United States dubious. A rationale for invasion was needed, and as Wolfowitz said, WMD was chosen, because of Hussein's flagrant lack of compliance with UN WMD resolutions. But this lack of compliance, if studied carefully, appeared to be totally bluster. It has been suggested that Iraqi scientists were telling Hussein that programs were in development, to maintain favor with him, and that the realities of inspections, finances, equipment, and knowhow, and perhaps even the scientists' lack of desire to create WMD, did not allow for the projects to proceed. WMD inspectors who left in 1998 felt that the majority of Iraq's stockpiles were destroyed. WMD inspectors who entered Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion found no WMD and no WMD programs. The CIA and other US intelligence services had little reliable information regarding Iraqi WMD. Hypothetical attack situations by Iraq against the US given by administration officials, such as the 45 minute window, were not supported by evidence. So, in summary, there was little evidence before invasion that Iraq had WMD or WMD programs. And, after the invasion, there is little evidence as well.
Vast segments of the American public believed that Hussein was definatively linked to the 9/11 attacks. Vast segments also felt that there was definative evidence of Iraqi WMD programs, despite evidence to the contrary. Consequently, public support for the "agreed upon rationale of WMD." was relatively strong. Was Hussein a problem in the Middle East? Yes. But the question is, was he an imminent threat, and was invasion at the juncture chosen, neccessary. Based upon the evidence, the answer to both appears to be, No.
Zephyr