What is this truth that you keep talking about?
There was enough doubt in the cooked 'evidence' not to justify the 'imminent danger' and pre-emptive strike option. The idea was to press on with inspections, and pressure on the regime to cooperate, while being carefully monitored for nay signs of hostile action.
If Haliburton was smart they would make more of them
You get my point, then. :)
The underlying point was that Saddam DID have WMDs
Yes, and so does just about every country on earth. There is a difference between using them locally and inter continentally. Besides, North Korea did 't even hide that it was making or or that it actually had at least one missile capable of reaching the US and we did nothing. How selective can you get?
Saddam's army has proven completely inept in the past (taking over a posta-stamp sized country like Kuwait is not a great feat), especially after ten years of severe sanctions. So, claiming "imminent danger" and 48-hour nuclear strike capability was a deliberate dysinformation with one goal in mind: to create a panic situation and get a green light for a war.
Information such as that launched by the Brits is not something you would release to the public. You would react first and explain later, if the evidence was there, that is.
ANYONE making the assumptions and conclusions you say Bush should have made would NEVER have the courage to protect our nation when it is attacked again
Hello? Are you there? We were attacked by Osama who was in Afghanistan. Our miserable failure to catch him there was no excuse to go after Iraq with no connection whatsoever. Except the neocons saw this as a perfect opportunity to settle some old scores.
Attacking Iraq did not reduce the possibility of terrorist infiltration on our shores, or using domestic "sleeper cells" for that purpose. Saddam held exactly zero chance of attacking us successfully using conventional methods. Preparation for an attack would be detected before it got off the ground. Iraq was under constant satellite surveilence and under no fly restrictions.
Our interballistic missiles would have shot any of his interballistic missiles (which he didn't have) out of the sky with ease. The Israeli air force could have blown the whole operation into smithereens as it has done once before. If we had such incontrovertible evidence that he was capable and was actually committing an imminent threat, we could have resorted to air strikes; not an invasion. Clearly, the WMDs were an excuse.
Saddam invaded Kuwait first
Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created it (together with the fake "royal" family) for their oil interest. A little history helps understand how conflicts simmer, and why they boil over when no one expects it.
The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley
You have no clue of what you are taking about. Your knowledge of Middle East history is zero, imo. Everything you spout is replaying recorded Fox News propaganda. Otherwise you couldn't be saying what you are saying. There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there.
Unilateral creation of Israel, even if morally right, was in violation of the UN resolution, involved ethnic cleansing and a cause of instability in the region that has lasted for the last 60-plus years. Israel has been our friend and ally but it has not been a "stabilizing" factor.
It makes absolutely zero sense to say that Bush went to war for oil, when it is clear that there is no gain to be had there, unless we were just going to steal it or something. Looking at today's gas prices, it looks like Bush hasn't stolen very much yet
The oil was certainly a big factor, but not a politically desirable one for public consumption. First, the issue of oils supply to Israel, which has no oil of its own, is a concern. All the oil in the region comes from Israel's enemies. The pipes leading to the Mediterranean go over territories that are hostile to Israel. The only connection to oil is through Turkey, the only Muslim country which has a defense pact with Israel, a deal worked out at great benefits for Turkey, which has received our complete protection and immunity in return.
Saudi Arabia is no friend of ours, as you say, and if its regime became less friendly or fell to the Wahabbi opponents, our oil supplies would be in serious danger as our dependence on imported oil has only steadily risen since the last Arab-Israeli war in the 1970's.
Most of the oil in that region is concentrated in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran and the Caspean Sea. the oil pumps go into the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean (via Syria), and Turkey. Controlling the region, or having America-friendly regimes installed there would assure us not only of the world's largest oil reserves, but direct control over them.
This would also assure oils supply to Israel as an added benefit. It would also free us from total dependence on the Saudi oil. That's why we created friendly relations (and installed friendly regimes) with Kazakhstan, and all the countries from the Caspean Sea all the way to Turkey. Our aim is to overturn the regimes of Iraq, Syria and Iran for that reason. That would be in our national interest. the big question is how?
Obviously we can't buy them. Because they are so adamant about Israel's demise, which is not an option under any circumstances, there is no possibility of getting them to agree, as was possible with non-oil producing countries like Jordan and Egypt (no democracies there, by the way; the Egyptian regime has been in power for 40-plus years...and Jordan is run by the king and a rubber-stamp "parliament").
So, the only possible way is to force a change, and for that you need casus belli (the cause of war), and in the aftermath of 9/11 the "mindset" was ripe for that, but the neocons actually presented the plan to the Clinton administration in the mid 1990's, so the intention was there all along; what was missing was some kind of "urgent evidence" to make the case.
Saddam's torture chambers, and the political prisoners, and all their families, etc. We've certainly made some serious mistakes in Iraq, but if we don't quit, and they don't quit, the lives of the Iraqis and countless future generations will be immeasurably better
No doubt, but it didn't bother us as a matter of principle when he engaged Iran. Then he was just one of "our thugs." he was good for us. And, by the way, by now more Iraqis have died since the invasion then under his horrible regime. Geopolitically, he was a minor threat to us, but he was a stability factor for the region. And, that should be our concern. Now we have a destablizied region, and no potential solution. I seriously doubt the Iraqis will be better off any time soon.
Our myopia when it comes to international conflicts is stunning. We have all the resources and very little understanding of other cultures and root causes for their present state. High tech, low IQ. We react, and apply our standards on them. We rely on disgruntled emigre groups and treat them as if they had no axe to grind and a motive to provide us with misleading information for their own purpose. We engage in nation-building experiments when thousand-year old cultures are firmly entrenched and will not change. My take on the reasons for such misses is that we have become politically correct instead of practical. political correctness promotes and hires as well as fires. It doesn't look for talent and knowledge, but for those who will be politically correct. yes men are not necessarily your best workers.
It's funny how the Taliban mistreatment of women was not mentioned on the news in any significant ways until it became necessary to get people all worked up to attack Afghanistan. Likewise, their disproportionate poppy seed production was never mentioned until then. After all we helped put Taliban in power there. Zbig Bzesinski even called them the "soldiers of God" and CIA was supplying them with weapons and intel to fight the Soviets. Their poppy production and their abuse of women didn't bother us at all.
What does that say about our principles? It says we don't have any. It says we have selective outrage when it suits us. Saudi Arabia treats its women just as badly, and we see nothing about in on public TV. Ever wonder why.
Since I am obviously anti-UN, I never thought the inspections were honest. I was never really worried about Saddam launching missiles against the U.S., but I was very worried that he (or his sons after him) would develop nukes and give them to those who intended to detonate them in the U.S. (or Israel).
I honestly don't know if there was anything to that yellow cake story, but it would make perfect sense if true. Saddam openly said he had a nuke program, and it fits the personality profile of any dictator to want to be in "the club".
Besides, North Korea didn't even hide that it was making or that it actually had at least one missile capable of reaching the US and we did nothing. How selective can you get?
Of course they attempted to hide it. Clinton cheerfully signed an agreement with DPRK in 1994, in which they "promised" to give up their nuclear weapons program. I am sure that the libs were all SHOCKED when it turned out they had been lying to us all along. (Of course they were finally forced to admit it when they planned and executed nuclear testing.) Who could ever imagine that a dictator would lie? :)
This is what drives me nuts about liberals. They have a genetic inability to see evil in the world for the threat it is. Even now we have a major candidate calling the War on Terror a bumper sticker.
So, claiming "imminent danger" and 48-hour nuclear strike capability was a deliberate disinformation with one goal in mind: to create a panic situation and get a green light for a war.
I'm not certain, but I don't remember Britain ever claiming that Saddam actually had nukes at the time. I thought it was about for whenever they got nukes. Nukes have to be tested and everyone obviously knew that no testing had taken place. That would operate against imminent threat. Plus, I KNOW that Bush never claimed imminent threat, and never pumped it as a reason to go to war.
We were attacked by Osama who was in Afghanistan. Our miserable failure to catch him there was no excuse to go after Iraq with no connection whatsoever. Except the neocons saw this as a perfect opportunity to settle some old scores.
Who ever said that was an excuse to go into Iraq? Not Bush. Both were part of the WOT, but Bush never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Bush presented the WOT as a global effort, wherever terrorism flourished. Iraq WAS one of the biggest state sponsors of terror at the time.
Attacking Iraq did not reduce the possibility of terrorist infiltration on our shores, or using domestic "sleeper cells" for that purpose.
Not true. The threat was never ICBMs from Iraq, and nobody I can think of in the Bush administration ever said it was. The threat was smuggling in weapons to be used by foreign terrorists, and possibly domestic sleeper cells. Given how porous our border security is, that remains a very real threat today.
Kuwait was part of Iraq until the British created it (together with the fake "royal" family) for their oil interest. A little history helps understand how conflicts simmer, and why they boil over when no one expects it.
My understanding is that Kuwait has been completely sovereign since the early 60's. If one believed that Saddam had a legitimate right to invade Kuwait, then I suppose such a person would also have sympathy for La Raza, which believes that the southwest United States really belongs to Mexico. :)
Your knowledge of Middle East history is zero, imo. Everything you spout is replaying recorded Fox News propaganda. Otherwise you couldn't be saying what you are saying. There was no terrorism or instability in the Middle East. The only terrorism that existed after 1945 was Israeli terror tactics against the British there. (emphasis added)
Please take this in the good humor in which it is intended, but that statement makes Holocaust deniers look reasonable. :)
First, the issue of oils supply to Israel, which has no oil of its own, is a concern. All the oil in the region comes from Israel's enemies. The pipes leading to the Mediterranean go over territories that are hostile to Israel. The only connection to oil is through Turkey ...
I don't understand why this would be a reason to go to war. Why can't Israel buy its oil on the world market, like everyone else does. We buy Iranian oil and they hate us just as much as Israel. There's no way to shut off Israel's oil supply, except for a physical blockade of some sort, and that can't happen.
Controlling the region, or having America-friendly regimes installed there would assure us not only of the world's largest oil reserves, but direct control over them.
I really doubt Bush had such grand designs. I think part of our foothold would indeed go to protecting the oil supply. But right now no one country, such as Iran, (or even a small group) can keep its oil from the U.S. Once on the world market, oil goes to whoever buys it. If Iran wanted to deprive us, they would have to shut down all production, and they aren't going to do that. This shoots down the whole "war for oil" argument right here.
And, by the way, by now more Iraqis have died since the invasion then under his horrible regime.
How can you know that? To my knowledge, the DOD is not releasing those estimates (Rosie O'Donnell's numbers notwithstanding :), and we certainly can't be sure of how many people Saddam has murdered. We have only found some of the mass graves. It is inconceivable that more have died since the war began than he killed. And, you cannot count those who are shooting at Americans, they are the enemy.
Geopolitically, [Saddam] was a minor threat to us, but he was a stability factor for the region.
A leading state sponsor of terror was a stabilizing factor??? Interesting. He invaded sovereign nations, gassed his own people, paid bounty to suicide bombers, grossly violated UN agreements, and bragged that he was developing nuclear weapons. Yep, sounds stabilizing to me alright. :)
What does that say about our principles? It says we don't have any. It says we have selective outrage when it suits us. Saudi Arabia treats its women just as badly, and we see nothing about in on public TV. Ever wonder why.
I agree with your general points in your last few paragraphs. But all any leader can do at any one time is go with what he thinks is best at the time and for the future. Sometimes that means making a "lesser of two evils" choice. Once upon a time, Saddam was the lesser of two evils so we backed him. Times change though, and I don't think that necessarily makes the original decision wrong, FOR THE TIME it was made.