We told you so?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4169107.stm)

When are you conservatives going to acknowledge the superiority of the left? How many times will we have to prove you wrong? Let it be more, 'cause I'm havin a blast!

Wow for now on we can all just come to you for Britians/US intellegence reports. Amazing you knew all along there was no WMD in Iraq. Holly shit Halo you could stop war maybe down the road some day. Your incredible man.

Super Hero Halo!! hurray hurray hurray.

For the record I never said a word if he had or didn't have WMD..simply put how in the fuck would I know?

Ibudin

"For the record I never said a word if he had or didn't have WMD"

- Sponsored by the Conservatives of America.

That's because any weapons, if any, are either in the desert in a hole or in Syria/Iran. This article does not PROVE anything, it's just an official statement that the active search will stop.

OR, maybe alien's took them?
Yah. They're prolly buried on Mars.
Those fucking Marsians, HAVEN'T WE WARNED THEM!?!

Sadaam himself was a WMD. Just ask the Kurds. Looks like we found atleat one.

Rigin

The guy from the left with the blinders on will not see that. He wasn't doing anything wrong..really he wasn't!! Even if he gassed his own people but hes been a good boy for the last 10 years...surrrrreeeeeeee.

Ibudin

All I know is...

I want some of what Halo is smoking, I need to be delusional for a few minutes!

Oh, so it's a cause for invasion when he gasses his own (a decade later, mind you...), but OK to help him when he's doing it to the Iranian's at a time when we didn't like 'em!
Yeargh, Next Stop For Contradiction, Anyone, Contradiction? Next Stop!

The fact is, WMD were the reason, and that smoke-screen has been blown aside with such ease that we've had a good time laughing for the past 2 years while you die-hards have given your heart to the cause.

Why else would you turn around, in the middle of a fight on "terrorism", and wage a campaign to crack down on WMD?

Because... he was a naughty man?

Get back in place, fool. I'll tell your conservative arse the next time you're allowed to make an opinion.

'I want some of what Halo is smoking, I need to be delusional for a few minutes!'

- Hey, it's someone from the "He had WMD" camp! Hi, how's the grapes?
Dellusional? Show me the piles! Show me the piles! Haha.. of WMD. Not, "piles", because, eww, gross.

The Duelfer report concluded that Saddam lacked WMD. Our own extensive hunt (and the UN hunt that predated it) found no WMD. Saddam did not resort to WMD during our invasion. So, Iraqi documentation and our own experience and observations find no evidence of WMD (that Saddam wanted them is a separate issue). The war was a snipe hunt.

Saddam wasn't a good man, but he had been effectively neutralized, unlike Kim Jong Il, the Iranian ruling hardliners, etc. Iraq is a fucking mess, we're paying for it and the people who fucked it up are getting medals. Only the blindest defend it at this point.

Oh, so it's a cause for invasion when he gasses his own (a decade later, mind you...), but OK to help him when he's doing it to the Iranian's at a time when we didn't like 'em!
Yeargh, Next Stop For Contradiction, Anyone, Contradiction? Next Stop!

The fact is, WMD were the reason, and that smoke-screen has been blown aside with such ease that we've had a good time laughing for the past 2 years while you die-hards have given your heart to the cause.

Why else would you turn around, in the middle of a fight on "terrorism", and wage a campaign to crack down on WMD?

Because... he was a naughty man?

Get back in place, fool. I'll tell your conservative arse the next time you're allowed to make an opinion.

'I want some of what Halo is smoking, I need to be delusional for a few minutes!'

- Hey, it's someone from the "He had WMD" camp! Hi, how's the grapes?
Dellusional? Show me the piles! Show me the piles! Haha.. of WMD. Not, "piles", because, eww, gross.


Actually...

It had less to do with WMD, and more with your tirade about Martians. I thought that you were either delusional or smoking some good chit....in which case I wanted some too. :D

I'm not a Bush fan, nor am I a fan of this war but I do support my friends who are over there b/c it's their duty and....b/c if I were still in I'd be there too.

Sheesh.....smoke some more....or wait don't......you're getting paranoid now!

WMDs in his possession or not, Saddam had to go. The minute sanctions were lifted (which France, Russia and China were agitating for so they could get paid for past weapons sales), he planned to renew the programs. No one is seriously disputing that contention from what I have seen. So we have a situation where you can get rid of him *now* or have to do the whole thing over again a 3rd time in 5 years.

So we have a ruthless dictator with a penchant for trying to expand his control to his neighbors sitting on top of a huge oil reserve to pay for new weapons. A man who violated nearly every agreement he made to end the first Gulf War, who continued to starve his own people of medicine and other basics in order to garner sympathy (while building 40+ lavish palaces for his own use) and who has since been learned to have bribed a large number of politicians with under the table oil vouchers. A man who commissioned the assassination attempt of Bush Sr. A man who's forces fired on coalition aircraft on a daily basis. So we were just supposed to let him be?

Sorry. His "sovereignity" does not outweigh his crimes in my book. The left claims the war was just about oil. Maybe they should consider that the opposition to the war was about oil and weapons sales. Claims of innocent Iraqis being killed by coalition attacks are offset by claims of innocent Iraqis being killed by Saddam's "security" forces. At least in a war, there is light at the end of the tunnel. With Saddam in place, the killing would have continued for as long as he and his sons were in power (probably decades). Where was Europe/China's concern for the sovereign rights of a nation when Saddam attacked Iran without provocation? Even in Kuwait it took the US do get the UN off it's duff and oppose Saddam's attempted annexation.

Should the US have relied so much on presumed WMDs to explain their case? Obviously not. There are enough justifications without existing WMDs, and I for one think the invasion was necessary from a security *and* a moral point of view. There have been some definite downsides (chaos in Iraq, enmity towards the US), but in the longer term the world is better off with Saddam out of power.

The world is a lot better without a lot of certain leaders being in power. So I'm waiting with excited anticipation for the invasion plans of North Korea.

Have to disagree, Gulor. If the war was about a guy who killed his own people, then we should have taken him out during the First Gulf War. If the war was about WMD, then, well, there should have been WMD. That was the war's justification after all. Saddam simply was not a threat to the US. The war has undermined our country far more than Hussein would have had he been left in power (or removed in some manner that wouldn't lead to the current debacle).

What has Kim Jong II done? I keep seeing he is this evil man although ..what countries has he invaded, what mass genocide has he committed? Hes not very good at running his country (his people are starving..but hes got a fuck load to feed). Hes no bright star in the sky by no means but im all ears...fill me in.

Ibudin

You answered your own question, Ibudin. By not taking actions to ensure that he can feed his people, he is allowing their deaths (and IIRC, the numbers far outstrip those under the Hussein regime). He hasn't invaded any countries because he has a crapload of US troops waving at him from across the DMZ. By all accounts, he's also far more of a loon than Saddam ever was, and rattles his sabres at least as much. If we're talking about dictators who want to make a name for themselves in the history books, Kim Jong Il fits the mold as well as anyone.

I guess we can go after the leaders and rulers in Africa as well for allowing draught and poor soil conditions to starve its people as well.

I need more..sorry. Like I said hes not very good at running his Country..he has sex slaves, likes movies, pretty much non existant in the public. Hes a freak but mysterious...

Dont see why so many make him out to be worse than Saddam. I fail to see it.

Ibudin

Well for one thing, NK may actually have WMD...the very reason we went into Iraq in the first place (according to the administration). He isn't necessarily worse than Saddam (is there some sort of checklist for this?), but the reasons Bush/Rumsfeld gave for going to war in Iraq apply to NK, not Iraq itself.

As we have discussed before, invading NK is a lot more complex with China bordering it...let's see your plan Halo ;')

As far as Iraq goes there are plenty of solid reasons to have invaded Iraq, many have been already mentioned (Killing his own citizens, oil, a penchant for invading neighbors, oil, ties with known terorism, oil). This war was sold , however, on the premise that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to US security...it has been well proven that he was not.

The president has a clear duty of making sure his actions are in the best interests of this country. How is the spending of 100+ billion dollars, thousands of US casualties, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties is in the best interests of the United States? More countries hate us than ever before (though some, and we all know who they are, I could care less about), we are mired in a country close to chaos (with three large groups all trying to grab power), and we have no real exit strategy.

Rationalize the justifications for the war however you want, I did the same thing when we first invaded, but ask yourself one question: Do I still think it was in the best interests of the USA?...of the World? My answer is no.

So basically we have set a precedent now even though we couldn't prove it in Iraq.

Oh... <country_01> has WMD we are invading now!!!!

I'm with Ibudin on this one, I need a little more from his baddy list. No I don't like him but heck no do I want us to go invading another country and having to pay for it. And actually I'm rather sick of the claim that Social Security is in danger b/c soon we won't be able to afford it.....well yeah b/c we have people in office now who like to borrow against it to support wars! So of course it's going broke.

We *should* have taken Saddam out in the first war. Not having done so was a huge mistake and cost a buttload of lives. We didn't do so out of political considerations...trying to keep the arabs happy and preserving a counterforce to Iran in the area. It was analagous to invading Normandy in WWII and then stopping at the Rhine because the nazis promised to be nice and act as a buffer for the Soviets. In my view it was one of the worst decisions in the last 40 years.

Much of the opposition to the war takes the stance that there was no "legal" authority to attack, that respecting the sovereignity of Iraq was too important as a principle to take military action. What of their concern about the principle of meeting the terms of the agreement of the cease fire? They conveniently ignore Saddam's violations and contravention of UN sanctions because it was in the financial interest of several security council members and other nations that he remain in power. Their professed concern for the lives of Iraqis was cover for their concern about their financial stake in Iraq. We are talking about many billions of dollars owed by Saddam to various countries for weapons and infrastructure that would never be paid if he were overthrown.

As far as Saddam not being a threat, are you serious? This guy had no qualms about burning every oil well in Kuwait and pouring oil slicks into the gulf and he has ample motive to get even with the US. Can you imagine the terrorist attacks he would be able to finance with unimpeded oil revenue and technical assistance once sanctions were lifted? We need not talk about Al Qaeda, there are plenty of other groups more palatable to Saddam that he could use to get back at the US. With North Korea about to go nuclear (if they haven't already), do you really think he would not have been able to cut a deal with cash starved North Korea for both nukes and the missiles to carry them?

As far as North Korea goes, that's yet another problem that will have to be addressed. But ignoring Iraq because you can't do anything about North Korea is fallacious logic. Remove the serious problems that you can, don't sit passively and let them all grow worse because you can't fix them all.

I didn't say he wasn't a potential threat, but was he a clear and present danger to the US? With what he had on hand, under the sanctions and scrutiny he was under, was he a threat to the security of the US...NO!!!

With all of his antics and UN violations, sanctions were not going to be lifted, he was under intense scrutiny from weapons inspectors and the US, he wasn't going to get away scratching his own ass...let alone developing new WMD projects. You use the term "could have" done this, "could have" done that, what if this, what if that...we are going to be invading a lot of countries using could haves and what if's as justifications.

Personally I think we had a just cause to invade, from a legal standpoint. He countless UN violations, war crimes in Kuwait, against Iraq, against the Kurds and Shities opposition, funding Palestinian terrorists, etc. My argument is that the cost to the US is too high to justify the gains (if any) we (or the world, or Iraq) are getting. When we leave, it is my belief, this country will be no better off, more countries will hate the US, Al queda ranks will be swelling, and the US deficit will continue to be out of control. Hard to see how this is in the best interests of the US, or anyone for that matter.

his guy had no qualms about burning every oil well in Kuwait and pouring oil slicks into the gulf and he has ample motive to get even with the US.
So this was about oil then?

I agree we should have taken him out in 1990. I don't dispute or ignore the fact that Saddam was ignoring the terms of the sanctions. My primary complaints are two-fold: 1) Our casus belli was WMD. Other concerns were secondary at best, and most (like alleged terrorist connections) didn't enter the picture until the war was well under way; 2) Rumsfeld's desire to go with his smaller, lighter military undermined our ability to occupy the country, and our post-war planning seems nigh non-existent (or, at best, predicated on unlikely scenarios for which no contingencies were anticipated). Failure abounds in the issue of Iraq, but where is the accountability? People who should be out on their asses are getting medals and promotions.

I guess im missing out on these medal cerimonies. I see our brothers and sisters being rewarded with whats due but I see as well polititians beat up daily and no one wanting to fill the shoes worth a shit. Who are you seeing being promoted and rewarded?

Ibudin

I hate to gloat but

Yeah sure, and and fish hate water.

Thormir-
I completely agree with you on Rumsfield. My point about the oil slicks was not that it was oil, but that he was viscious enough to do *everything* he could to screw over Kuwait by even attacking it's environment and means of living after his retreat was inevitable. It was a comment on his vindictiveness that could be extrapolated to show a desire to attack the US to "settle accounts" in the future.

To Ail, contrary to what you might expect, Al Qaeda ranks do *not* appear to be swelling to the degree feared. Their own tactics resulting in innocent arab deaths are hurting them in that regard. Also, Arab hatred of the US is inevitable and unavoidable as long as the root cause, i.e. US support of Israel, remains. If we want to make nice with the whole muslim world, we have to abandon Israel entirely.

As far as "what ifs, could haves" etc, that has been ample reason for conflict in the past. If someone has a history of making threats (and acting on them), do you wait until he has stuck a knife in your belly before you act? The assessment of a threat must take into account percieved intentions, capabilities and past actions. Did Saddam have stockpiles of undeclared chemical/bio weapons on hand? Apparently not, at least not in Iraq. Did he make efforts to fool us (and more importantly Iran) into thinking he did have secret stockpiles? Absolutely. So you can claim there was no clear and present danger now in hindsight, but if you were in the shoes of an intelligence agency and were getting indications (false though they have now been shown) that he did have them, would you claim there was no clear and present danger given Saddam's past? If you are the president, do you ignore what your intelligence agency is telling you and presume Saddam is innocent? I don't think so.

While Saddam was not on the threshold of an attack on the US at the time of the invasion, we were only a few months at most away from losing the sanctions due to pressure from the pro-Saddam contingent in the UN. Once that happened, Saddam would have been free to revitalize his programs. We still do not know for sure if banned weapons were moved to Syria or not prior to the invasion. Since Syria is believed to have chemical weapons of its own, we will likely never know for sure.

'Yeah sure, and and fish hate water.'

No shit, they have to breathe and drink the same stuff they piss in.

How's that for a kick in the crown jewels?

Who are you seeing being promoted and rewarded?
Tight on time, so here are some rewards. Bush gave Presidential Medals of Freedom to:
George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, who convinced us of Iraq's WMDs
Tommy "We have enough troops" Franks, who followed Rumsfeld's lead on deployment and brought us to our current state of beleagured occupation (then retired before the shit fully hit the fan and campaigned for Bush).
Paul "Disband the Iraqi Army" Bremer, who was in charge of rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq.

Even conservatives were unhappy with this selection, and some observers think that Bush used the medals to purchase Tenet and Bremer's silence about the administration's culpability in the war.

"So you can claim there was no clear and present danger now in hindsight, but if you were in the shoes of an intelligence agency and were getting indications (false though they have now been shown) that he did have them, would you claim there was no clear and present danger given Saddam's past?"

I guess this is where we have to agree to disagree....I believe that "indications" were in fact developed to try to bolster support for an invasion that was planned long before 9/11, and not for security reasons. But again I re-iterate, under the scrutiny Sadam was under, his threat to US security (the main premise behind the war) did not warrant the cost in cash and lives in the Iraq war. What has the US gained? Under vigilant containment by the US and others, the Saddam could have been contained.

"Al Qaeda ranks do *not* appear to be swelling to the degree feared."

But Al Qaeda ranks have swelled...i.e. they are stronger, not weaker because of the war. Many Americans are being killed and maimed (along with many, many more Iraqis) by Al Qaeda linked attacks, more attacks than before the war....granted because in the chaos of Iraq, targets are much more plentiful.

"we were only a few months at most away from losing the sanctions due to pressure from the pro-Saddam contingent in the UN."

They were for lifting restrictions on of non-military sanctions. The US and allies could have continued to monitor and contain his threat. We could have continued to play "the game"....continue inspections and scrutiny, cutting off and discovering any attempt to develop or deploy WMD. It was a frustrating game, with an evil SOB, but now, yes...in hindsight, when you look at the cost of the war politcally, financially, and in human lives....it was game we could have continued to play.

I ask again, what have we gained? Do you still have hope we will gain anything, considering our investment of money and lives, out of that cesspool of humanity?

Thanks for you thoughtful responses Gulor.

Al Qaeda trained up to 70000 militants before their bases were destroyed in Afghanistan. Are you claiming 70000 Al Qaeda insurgents or more fighting in Iraq? I don't think so. Their numbers have not swelled, only their coverage. If they weren't attacking in Iraq, they would be attacking elsewhere. The vast majority of attacks on US forces in Iraq are from home-grown "patriots" who just want the US out of Iraq, not from Al-Qaeda "jihadis" out to start a religious war against the west.

Not to belittle our casualties in Iraq, but we *still* have not lost as many people in a year and a half of war/occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan as we lost in a couple hours on 9/11. I think the sense of our losses in Iraq is put into perspective when you think of the consequences of a single WMD attack. Do we lose 2000 troops now in a nasty occupation or do we risk the loss of 100,000 civilians later? Because a *single* so-called tactical atomic bomb set off in one of our cities would result in that. A chemical or bioweapon attack would probably kill several thousand at a shot as well. Saddam with all the resources of Iraq at his disposal is exponentially more dangerous than Bin Laden with a few million dollars and his fanatics.

Regarding sanctions:

Those "non-military" sanctions you speak of cover a lot of dual use chemicals. All sorts of legitimate industrial-use items function perfectly well for weapon production. Even the military sanctions were crumbling, as evidenced by brand spanking new anti-tank missiles from Russia that mysteriously appeared for use against American armor during the invasion. Given the abysmal record against illegal oil smuggling from Iraq, I think the notion that stopping weapon materials from being imported was possible is pretty optimistic if not downright foolish. Russia, China and to a lesser extent France *wanted* to sell their weapons to Iraq. As long as Saddam was there to buy them, weapons were going to be sold.

Thanks for the response Thormir.

Ibudin

From the time just before we invaded Iraq to now...their numbers have swelled. They have launched more attacks and injured more people.

We have have many times more casualties when you include Coalition dead, Colition wounded, Iraqi dead and Iraqi wounded.
1.5k coalition dead, 10k wouded, 15k Iraq dead, uncounted wounded.

"consequences of a single WMD attack"

He didn't have a single WMD.

"a *single* so-called tactical atomic bomb set off in one of our cities would result in that."

Do you truly believe we have lessened the chance of this happening with the war on Iraq? I agree we have with the action in Afghanistan...but not Iraq.

"Saddam with all the resources of Iraq at his disposal is exponentially more dangerous than Bin Laden with a few million dollars and his fanatics."

First off he wouldn't be free to to do whatever he wanted to, believe me...that level of incopetance is beyond even the present administration. Second, he would be less dangerous simply for the fact that we would have a known target...a country with a known head of state.

"All sorts of legitimate industrial-use items function perfectly well for weapon production."

Then those could have been monitored and accounted for. It would have been costly and difficult...but more difficult and costly than this dumb war?

"As long as Saddam was there to buy them, weapons were going to be sold."

So now they sell them to the Religous Sheite Iran-like government that is going to be in power there in a couple years, or the Sunni insurgents, or the Kurds (after we reneg on our promise of a say in the government). What have we gained? Compared to what we have lost?

For Ailwon-

Yes, I do think we have lessened the chance of a nuke being used on us with Saddam out of the picture. Afghanistan was about putting Al Qaeda out of control of that country. Iraq was about removing a *different* but more potentially dangerous threat. The threat of a nuclear attack has not gone away, not with North Korea likely to try and peddle it's wares. But let's face it, Saddam had the entire resources of an oil producing nation to enable him to buy whatever he could not himself make. He had the will and he had the means to re-establish a chemical and biological weapon stockpile in a matter of weeks after sanctions were lifted. He had a bone to pick with us for kicking him out of Kuwait and he puts revenge above common sense. Iraq is a technically savvy country, not a backward 3rd world hellhole, so they would be *much* better equipped to be able to actually use anything they bought. He was getting away with thumbing his nose at UN resolutions, successfully undermining the sanctions and had proven himself to be a reckless gambler . As such, he was providing an example of the ineffectiveness of the UN in curtailing renegades. By taking him down, another sort of example was made, one that resulted in Libya coming clean, exposing the Pakistani black market for nuclear materials and yes, slowing the proliferation of WMDs overall.

As far as Saddam being less dangerous because he is the head of an identifiable state, what makes that less dangerous? The most likely scenario would be a sneak attack with a bomb smuggled into a port. How do you prove he did it, especially if the radioactive traces are Korean in origin? Why would we automatically assume it was him and not Iran or North Korea? Politically we could not retaliate without proof.

You said "He did not have a single WMD". So we should wait till he gets a nuke to use on us? That would be pretty damned stupid. You take care of a problem when it's still manageable, not wait till it's lethal.

Regarding the monitoring of dual use chemicals, what you say is true *if* there is the political will to do so. Such will does not exist in a situation where three of five permanent security council members are on the take from the guy you want to monitor. Two of those three don't see Saddam with weapons as a big problem, being somewhat less than free nations themselves. Hell, China even props up North Korea which is a real basket case. So what makes you think there is any hope of establishing and maintaining the strict controls you are talking about when they were already clamoring to remove *all* sanctions and give Saddam a clean bill of health?

As far as the state-to-come in Iraq, it is not a foregone conclusion it will become a shiite religious annex of Iran. Nor can the sunnis re-establish the complete control they had. How the coming months play out will determine the shape of Iraq a few years from now. We have managed to co-exist with Iran and they at least are not attacking us or their neighbors. The Iraqis just want us gone, they aren't looking to screw with us or anyone else further. In other words, they won't like us but they won't be aggressively expansionist either. I think we can live with that.

As far as the Al-Qaeda attacks you mention, only some of the Iraq attacks are Al-Qaeda. Where they are stepping up activity is in Saudi Arabia and *trying* to do things in Europe. They lost a lot of sympathy when they started killing other muslims and I think you are overestimating their growth. Most if not all of the attacks that have been stopped outside Iraq were being prepared by people who had joined Al-Qaeda years ago (see the 70,000). They would be active if we were in Iraq or not.

What have we lost? We have taken casualties, though far fewer than most expected. We are at odds with a lot of countries over the war, of that there is no doubt. But maybe some of those countries need a wake-up call. Really bad judgement in the Defense Department (prisoner torture) has resulted in Muslims being more anti-American than they would have been. The monetary cost has been huge and we will be paying for it for years. All of these are short term or repairable losses, some of which will be reversed as soon as Dubya is out of office.

What have we gained? Saddam and his cronies are no longer in a position to threaten their neighbors, us or the world economy. We have removed a source of WMD research and development if not actual weapons. We have shown that we expect compliance to agreements made with us and will come down hard if you screw with us long enough, even at the cost of our relations with other countries. That has already served as a wake up call to Libya and to a lesser extent Iran. As a result, a black market in nuclear materials was exposed and quashed. Iran is being more responsive to IAEE inspections than they were (though they are still probably hiding an active nuke program). People generally take our warnings much more seriously now. Domestically we are beginning to finally come to the realization that we just can't continue to rely on the Middle East for oil and some true steps towards energy efficiency and alternative sources are finally being given impetus.

I agree that al-Qaeda is not gaining power or influence. Iraqis are not happy with what they see as an outsider's (i.e., bin Laden's) attempts to influence their destiny (there are other theological issues that divide them as well). Iraq may still, however, be a breeding ground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html?sub=AR) for skilled terrorists with their own agendas, few of which are likely to favor the US.

There's also nothing to say that whatever new government takes hold in Iraq will be favorable compared to Saddam (it'd be hard to smile at a radical theocracy with Iraqi tech). We must hope so, of course, but the very nature of the region doesn't generate optimism. The upcoming election is unlikely to be taken seriously, and civil war is around the corner. Whatever the pros and cons and false justifications for the war were, the situation is dire and worsening.

There seems to be lots of valid reasons for getting rid of him, some I agree with some not. But isnt the point that invading a country for regime change is illegal under international law. The coalition knew that and went in on the pretext of WMD which turned out not to be 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' but 'War on a Mad Dictator'.

The part that worries me the most is that the UN was unwilling/unable to deal with him. Seems that so many background deals are done to secure votes for this or that and the whole reason for the UN is undermined.

A "legal" justification for the regime change was Saddam's flouting of the sanctions levied against Iraq by the UN following the first gulf war. I don't know that those violations alone justify or legalize regime change, but they're a common reason given for the war (other than WMD).

A "legal" justification for the regime change was Saddam's flouting of the sanctions levied against Iraq by the UN following the first gulf war. I don't know that those violations alone justify or legalize regime change, but they're a common reason given for the war (other than WMD).

It is for the UN to decide if their sanctions have been flouted not a coalition on its own that is illegal. I agree they were flouted numerous times so why didnt they do something.

Unfortunately I do not have time to respond to you entire post...we disagree on so many fundemental facts, sorting that out would take far too long. However, I do want respond to your "what we have gained" answer.

"Saddam and his cronies are no longer in a position to threaten their neighbors, us or the world economy."

He wasn't in that position at the start of the war anyways. He had no WMD deployed, and no active research underway. With the Scrutiny the US and others in the world community I believe he would have been hard pressed to do anything. I believe you are way over estimating his threat. Granted this isn't really provable at this point, either way. It's really just opinion at this point.

"That has already served as a wake up call to Libya and to a lesser extent Iran."

I have a hard time believing what Libya has said they would do as far as cooperation is wholey true or the result of the Iraqi conflict, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. I have seen nothing from Iran that that have changed anything they do...they may pay more lip service, but they are going to pursue their nuke programs no matter what.

"As a result, a black market in nuclear materials was exposed and quashed."

I'm failing to see the connection here with Iraq war. Are you talking about the confession/capture of A.Q. Khan?

"People generally take our warnings much more seriously now."

Ya think? With all the protests, declining relations with other countries, cost,casualties, and stretching of our military the US has had to do to wage this war. IMO, this war has made waging future wars much harder for the US, especially during this president's tenure.

"Domestically we are beginning to finally come to the realization that we just can't continue to rely on the Middle East for oil and some true steps towards energy efficiency and alternative sources are finally being given impetus."

Where? Those trends were happening long before this war. We've known for decades we need to be less dependant. What exactly has this war done to lessen our dependancy?

It can reasonably be argued that the war was not illegal, Saddam having broken every cease fire agreement from the "authorized" first gulf war and several resolutions after. Violating a cease fire usually means resumption of hostilities under the original authorization. This one was unique in that we waited a decade to do something about it. The lawyers can argue that one and we will all have our own opinions on it.

I agree that corruption and/or shady deals within the UN is making it less and less effective. A good spring cleaning is in order. Personally I would like to see a lot of changes in the UN as well as in the US cabinet lineup. I still think Rumsfield and anyone associated with policy regarding prisoners at Gitmo or Iraq needs to go. Much of Kofi Annan's staff should be canned if not himself. Ah well, you do the best with what you have.

Ailwon,

The Pakistani black market was exposed when Libya turned over its records. I argue that was a direct result of Libya figuring it was next on Bush's hit list and coming clean on its programs.

My reference to conservation impetus is in regards to the heavier emphasis being placed on hybrid vehicles in the last couple years. Research has been going on for quite a while I agree, but the car manufacturers would not actually put models into production until they perceived a market. They are now seeing that market and up to 50000 hybrids are being built this coming year from GM alone. None too soon I say.

With the failure of the WMD excuses, the need to hide behind the "breaking of UN resolutions" argument wouldn't be so laughable had the US and its "coalition" not showed as much disregard for the UN itself.

"They're going against the UN! Invade 'em!"
"No."
"Fuck you, we'll invade anyway!"

It's amazing that some of you are still breathing, choked in contradiction as you are.

Just throwing the legal BS right back at the folks whining about it in the first place Halo.

You’re really stretching when you attribute either of those to the Iraq war....really stretching...tenuously stretching.

So you are saying that Libya's decision to start playing nice is a result of the Iraq war? I'd agree it may be as a result of the "War on Terror"...but not the Iraq war. Libya's coming out party began in May, 2002 with Pan Am bombing settlement and their subsequent removal from the states that sponsor terrorism. Um, the Iraq war started in March, 2003.

Granted, in December of 2003, through further diplomatic negotiations with the US and Britain, they exposed details about their nuclear program and how materials and information was obtained, but, to attribute that to the Iraq war is , well, ludicrous. To the Afghan war, perhaps, because it is part of the "War on Terror", maybe that made Kadafi think about it.

Research on Hybrid vehicles has been going on for decades; their popularity has been sparked by both more environmental awareness and the rising cost of fuel over the past decade.....not the Iraq war.

News flash... the sharp rise in fuel cost (driving the interest) is a direct result of the war. People don't pay attention when gas goes up and down slowly, but when it shoots from $1.25/gallon to $2.00/gallon in a few months, they notice. When did this happen? After the war started, destabilizing the market. I'll grant you it was not an intended effect of the war, but it is an effect.

Second point. Libya had *years* to divulge their WMD data. Did they do it after shortly after 9/11? No. Did they do it shortly after Afghanistan? Again no. They did it shortly after the Iraq invasion, holding back nothing. You can draw your own conclusion.

Saddam wasn't a good man, but he had been effectively neutralized, unlike Kim Jong Il, the Iranian ruling hardliners, etc. Iraq is a fucking mess, we're paying for it and the people who fucked it up are getting medals. Only the blindest defend it at this point.

This summed everything up quite nicely. Blind is a good word for it.

I wonder how the number of hybrids coming into the market compares to the number of hummers. ;)

Bigger news flash: Development of Hybrid vehicles has been on the rise for many years before the Iraq war:

January, 2002 - Toyota reports U.S. Prius sales of 15,556 in 2001, up 180% from 2000.

Has the rising cost of oil sparked more interest in the last couple years, yes...but it's been going on for many year before. <facetious mode on> Let's see, we need more interest in alternative fueled vehicles, so we need the cost of oil to rise. I know let's start a war in the Middle East that'll kill tens of thousands, that should do it. <facetious mode off> Counting "the sharp rise in fuel cost" as a positive outcome of the Iraq war is kind of funny really.

"Second point. Libya had *years* to divulge their WMD data. Did they do it after shortly after 9/11? No. Did they do it shortly after Afghanistan? Again no. They did it shortly after the Iraq invasion, holding back nothing. You can draw your own conclusion."

No, they started acting more civilized right after 9/11 by admitting fault in the Pan Am Settlement. They continued down that path by later revealing details of their nuclear program, when it is was clear they would suffer little or no consequences. You can draw that their coming out party was due to some serious attention being paid to go after state sponsored terrorism after 9/11 and the Afghan operation, but to say they did all this beacause they were afraid they were next to be invaded is to ignore the steps they had made before Iraq war was even proposed. Could it have helped convince them to cooperate more fully, perhaps a little. If I were a bettin' man, I would have bet they would have regardless of the Iraq war.

Excellent point Thormir, it didn't stop me.....went from a 30mpg Acura mini-mite to a 20mpg Infiniti SUV. (Kept seeing those friggin' gigantic humburbpedtions in rear view mirror wonderin' when some dumb ass ona cell phone was going to crush my kids in the back seat)

The interest was a lot weaker in years prior. What has changed? Pricing, political awareness (i.e. realizing we are filling the coffers of people trying to kill or convert us) and the hoopla about the environment. You are correct, hybrids have been around for a few years, but Toyota is not importing 15000 this year, they are planning on selling 40000 in the US and they are no longer the only ones. They and others are even making hybrid SUV models.

We will always have a segment of the public buying those big honking gas guzzling SUVs. That segment is going to get smaller though. And as I said, that was an effect of the war, not a goal of the war. It just happens to be working to our long term advantage. Just like Muslim anger was not a goal, but an effect working to our disadvantage.

Regarding Libya, there is a huge difference between "acting civilized" and forking over state defense secrets. If Libya was just concerned with being tied to terrorism, all they had to do was to kick out any groups they were sponsoring, pay the reparations for a couple bombings (which they did do) and publicly declare their rejection of terrorism. Giving up their most closely held state secrets goes so far beyond that, I really can't conceive how anyone could come to the conclusion that Libya would have done it anyway out of the kindness of their hearts. Fear of the US, Bush in particular, was the obvious motivation. What caused that fear? The overthrowing of Saddam is the pretty obvious answer. Its a far greater reach to say the invasion of Iraq *didn't* have a major effect on Libya's decision to come clean than what I am arguing.

BTW, fun discussion :)

'BTW, fun discussion'

- Of course it is, Big Halo from England's back on the scene after his holiday.

Aparantly, a newly released CIA report suggests that Iraq is the largest terrorist training ground today, replacing Afghanistan.

Now, if that's not fucking ironic...

Yeah, I would be more concerned except the CIA has proven it can't find it's own ass with 2 hands. On the other hand, they are probably getting "on the job training" with suicide bombings.