Starting to Be More Pro Iraq War, Views Changing

I am finding my politics shifting somewhat regarding how I see intervention by the US and other western nations from once being a staunch anti interventionist to now questioning the moral and geo political impact of such a stance.

A few things have started to alter my opinions on the issue, most of them having to do with how the classical and post modern left have resorted to outright lying for what they see as the greater good on so many small details it is not making me question everything about the reasoning behind the anti interventionist stance.
A great example is the repeated claims that Iraq under Sadam was a secular and nationalistdictatorship, this can be easily dismissed;

Sadam added Allah Akhbar or as it is known Takbir to the Iraqi flag, he initiated the massive drive to build thousands and thousands of mosques, one being the biggest in the world.
He also had the Quran dictated in his own blood to be placed in that mosque.
He stopped supporting the PLO and other quasi secular Palestinian movements and instead funded Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

He also offered money and houses to those of Iraqi born suicide bombers, increased his jihadist rhetoric and often praised islamic terrorist atrocities.

Another major issue is that of his genocide of the Kurds, his breaking the main rules of international law which dictate one must be removed from power and lose sovereignty on at least three or four counts, those being:

  1. Wars of repeated aggression against neighbouring states
  2. breaking the non proliferation treaty
  3. Harbouring international terrorists
  4. Genocide

None of the anti war crowd ever even address these points, yet they would support the overthrow of a white fascist power under the same circumstances.

Yet here are my misgivings about the pro war, traditionally but by no means always right wing and conservative crowd many of whom are seemingly also biased.

An example being that we sold Sadam the weapons he used to gas Kurds, we sold him arms, we supported his strong arm takeover and consolidation of power. We supported him when he was running a horrific fascist state that was so thick with fear you could eat it.

How can we claim to be so against dictatorship and genocide during and post invasion but before that we could do business with the same regime?
One of my main misgivings with any war is the danger out soldiers could be being used by people in wars that are essentially being launched so people can profit. For example there were 100% legit reasons to remove sadam, but I can’t just ignore the fact that for example Cheney was the chairman of Haliburton, becomes vice president, is part of the leadership that launches a war on a former supported dictator and then hands the company he worked for billions in the way of no bid contracts.

I would support every war by the U.S to topple dictatorships and theocracies, but I have a real fear that we don’t go to war for those reasons, instead I see the possibility we go to war for private profit against the interests of the military who go to fight them underpaid, under equipped and under supported and against the interests of the tax payer who is stuck with the bill.

I am interested to hear some opinions, mainly from the people who supported the war on their view on it, something I admit I never took much heed of, being initially so against it. I am always willing to change my mind on an issue and this one I really need to do more studying on from both sides.

I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I can’t imagine it was about menacing the Saudi’s, from a few books I have read on the Saudi’s they were pushing for American action against Iran and Iraq, especially after the Kuwait invasion.

What are your views of Paul Wolfowitz and the other Neo cons? In one of the recent books I read the Author brought up how he was booed by pro Israel audience members when he pointed that the palestinians were suffering too, told the Iraeli’s during the Iraq invasion that any aggression towards the palestinians during the fog of war that the iraq invasion brought, would not be met kindly and told them he expected the end of settlements.
Most of the left paint him as this NeoCon Cabal mastermind and muslim hater and a lot of the religious right often do too, yet closer inspection would seem to present a much more decent and less cartoonishly gung ho character than is often presented.

I see a lot of myself in some of the Neocons, in my opinion liberalism is about wanting to do away with fascism and theocratic oppression, not marching with signs to stop the removal of a fascist jihadist sloganeering despot.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I can’t imagine it was about menacing the Saudi’s, from a few books I have read on the Saudi’s they were pushing for American action against Iran and Iraq, especially after the Kuwait invasion.

What are your views of Paul Wolfowitz and the other Neo cons? In one of the recent books I read the Author brought up how he was booed by pro Israel audience members when he pointed that the palestinians were suffering too, told the Iraeli’s during the Iraq invasion that any aggression towards the palestinians during the fog of war that the iraq invasion brought, would not be met kindly and told them he expected the end of settlements.
Most of the left paint him as this NeoCon Cabal mastermind and muslim hater and a lot of the religious right often do too, yet closer inspection would seem to present a much more decent and less cartoonishly gung ho character than is often presented.

I see a lot of myself in some of the Neocons, in my opinion liberalism is about wanting to do away with fascism and theocratic oppression, not marching with signs to stop the removal of a fascist jihadist sloganeering despot.[/quote]

To be honest, no I don’t like the neocons. They’re naive and don’t understand foreign policy. I don’t think the West should be trying to unseat tyrants all over the world. Often you end up with something worse than what you started with. The neocon crusade is naive dilly dallying based on the false assumption of liberals that everybody is like them and so they believe in enlightened mob rule and feel that democratic peace theory will solve all the world’s problems. I’m more of a realist than an idealist.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I can’t imagine it was about menacing the Saudi’s, from a few books I have read on the Saudi’s they were pushing for American action against Iran and Iraq, especially after the Kuwait invasion.

What are your views of Paul Wolfowitz and the other Neo cons? In one of the recent books I read the Author brought up how he was booed by pro Israel audience members when he pointed that the palestinians were suffering too, told the Iraeli’s during the Iraq invasion that any aggression towards the palestinians during the fog of war that the iraq invasion brought, would not be met kindly and told them he expected the end of settlements.
Most of the left paint him as this NeoCon Cabal mastermind and muslim hater and a lot of the religious right often do too, yet closer inspection would seem to present a much more decent and less cartoonishly gung ho character than is often presented.

I see a lot of myself in some of the Neocons, in my opinion liberalism is about wanting to do away with fascism and theocratic oppression, not marching with signs to stop the removal of a fascist jihadist sloganeering despot.[/quote]

To be honest, no I don’t like the neocons. They’re naive and don’t understand foreign policy. I don’t think the West should be trying to unseat tyrants all over the world. Often you end up with something worse than what you started with. The neocon crusade is naive dilly dallying based on the false assumption of liberals that everybody is like them and so they believe in enlightened mob rule and feel that democratic peace theory will solve all the world’s problems. I’m more of a realist than an idealist.[/quote]

An interesting opinion, most Neocons assert that they are realists in a geopolitical sense and the isolationists and the anti war liberals are the idealists.
How do you feel about forging alliances with dictators? How about the war vs market forces debate, I often hear libertarians claiming that the civil war was not needed and that capitalism could of abolished slavery.
I think that kind of thinking is somewhat idealist.

I’m generally anti-war, mostly shaped by how the second Iraq war went. I also realize there is a time and a place for it, but ground wars should be reserved when the situation has turned critical and the no other options are available. I also realize there is some political and geopolitical advantage towards hiding that mentality, which Obama has generally failed to do, tipping his hand due to degree of partisanship this country has shown during his presidency.

Mushashi you pointed out the $$ grab, Iraq and Afghanistan turned into. It really was a free for all and they are still working on accounting for all the spent funds. There’s a fine line and should be a free market, but I really think the due mean was exceeded here and that greed harmed the war effort. Afghanistan and Iraq are still both poorly equipped to handle the threats they face and the money/funds could have been better spent to give them a shot at facing the challenges they face. Several people have pointed out that when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, they built an Air Force. There’s documentaries all over on both countries, and the situation is about as fucked up as it gets with poor communication in the military/police sides of government and no infrastructure in place to distribution needed items/funds.

Second it wasn’t the quick victory promised and it didn’t go even nearly as close to as planned. If you are going to send soldiers to risk life and limb, you owe them a victory and preferably a quick one. If you can’t guarantee this, then there should be another means to complete the objective or it should really be a WWIII scenario and then there should be a draft.

There’s idealogues on both sides of the issue, who are generally oblivious to obvious realities, and this tends to muddy the waters.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I can’t imagine it was about menacing the Saudi’s, from a few books I have read on the Saudi’s they were pushing for American action against Iran and Iraq, especially after the Kuwait invasion.

What are your views of Paul Wolfowitz and the other Neo cons? In one of the recent books I read the Author brought up how he was booed by pro Israel audience members when he pointed that the palestinians were suffering too, told the Iraeli’s during the Iraq invasion that any aggression towards the palestinians during the fog of war that the iraq invasion brought, would not be met kindly and told them he expected the end of settlements.
Most of the left paint him as this NeoCon Cabal mastermind and muslim hater and a lot of the religious right often do too, yet closer inspection would seem to present a much more decent and less cartoonishly gung ho character than is often presented.

I see a lot of myself in some of the Neocons, in my opinion liberalism is about wanting to do away with fascism and theocratic oppression, not marching with signs to stop the removal of a fascist jihadist sloganeering despot.[/quote]

To be honest, no I don’t like the neocons. They’re naive and don’t understand foreign policy. I don’t think the West should be trying to unseat tyrants all over the world. Often you end up with something worse than what you started with. The neocon crusade is naive dilly dallying based on the false assumption of liberals that everybody is like them and so they believe in enlightened mob rule and feel that democratic peace theory will solve all the world’s problems. I’m more of a realist than an idealist.[/quote]

An interesting opinion, most Neocons assert that they are realists in a geopolitical sense and the isolationists and the anti war liberals are the idealists.
How do you feel about forging alliances with dictators? How about the war vs market forces debate, I often hear libertarians claiming that the civil war was not needed and that capitalism could of abolished slavery.
I think that kind of thinking is somewhat idealist.[/quote]

Yes, I don’t really have any problem forming alliances with dictators. It’s just part of statecraft.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I can’t imagine it was about menacing the Saudi’s, from a few books I have read on the Saudi’s they were pushing for American action against Iran and Iraq, especially after the Kuwait invasion.

What are your views of Paul Wolfowitz and the other Neo cons? In one of the recent books I read the Author brought up how he was booed by pro Israel audience members when he pointed that the palestinians were suffering too, told the Iraeli’s during the Iraq invasion that any aggression towards the palestinians during the fog of war that the iraq invasion brought, would not be met kindly and told them he expected the end of settlements.
Most of the left paint him as this NeoCon Cabal mastermind and muslim hater and a lot of the religious right often do too, yet closer inspection would seem to present a much more decent and less cartoonishly gung ho character than is often presented.

I see a lot of myself in some of the Neocons, in my opinion liberalism is about wanting to do away with fascism and theocratic oppression, not marching with signs to stop the removal of a fascist jihadist sloganeering despot.[/quote]

To be honest, no I don’t like the neocons. They’re naive and don’t understand foreign policy. I don’t think the West should be trying to unseat tyrants all over the world. Often you end up with something worse than what you started with. The neocon crusade is naive dilly dallying based on the false assumption of liberals that everybody is like them and so they believe in enlightened mob rule and feel that democratic peace theory will solve all the world’s problems. I’m more of a realist than an idealist.[/quote]

An interesting opinion, most Neocons assert that they are realists in a geopolitical sense and the isolationists and the anti war liberals are the idealists.
How do you feel about forging alliances with dictators? How about the war vs market forces debate, I often hear libertarians claiming that the civil war was not needed and that capitalism could of abolished slavery.
I think that kind of thinking is somewhat idealist.[/quote]

Yes, I don’t really have any problem forming alliances with dictators. It’s just part of statecraft.[/quote]

How do you square that with any religious or otherwise moral beliefs you have? Do you think it is even needed? I think if the major western democratic powers united with a strong military and economic partnership they could do without any need of allies with dictators etc

[quote]theuofh wrote:
I’m generally anti-war, mostly shaped by how the second Iraq war went. I also realize there is a time and a place for it, but ground wars should be reserved when the situation has turned critical and the no other options are available. I also realize there is some political and geopolitical advantage towards hiding that mentality, which Obama has generally failed to do, tipping his hand due to degree of partisanship this country has shown during his presidency.

Mushashi you pointed out the $$ grab, Iraq and Afghanistan turned into. It really was a free for all and they are still working on accounting for all the spent funds. There’s a fine line and should be a free market, but I really think the due mean was exceeded here and that greed harmed the war effort. Afghanistan and Iraq are still both poorly equipped to handle the threats they face and the money/funds could have been better spent to give them a shot at facing the challenges they face. Several people have pointed out that when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, they built an Air Force. There’s documentaries all over on both countries, and the situation is about as fucked up as it gets with poor communication in the military/police sides of government and no infrastructure in place to distribution needed items/funds.

Second it wasn’t the quick victory promised and it didn’t go even nearly as close to as planned. If you are going to send soldiers to risk life and limb, you owe them a victory and preferably a quick one. If you can’t guarantee this, then there should be another means to complete the objective or it should really be a WWIII scenario and then there should be a draft.

There’s idealogues on both sides of the issue, who are generally oblivious to obvious realities, and this tends to muddy the waters.

[/quote]

Good post, you seem torn on the issue in a similar manner to me. I agree it turned out terribly and was marked by dogged incompetence and unaccountability. However I would support the removal of a fascist dictator, by a secular republic, in theory.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

How do you square that with any religious or otherwise moral beliefs you have? Do you think it is even needed?
[/quote]

It accords just fine with my belief in natural law. In the state of nature man has a right first and foremost to preserve his life and liberty. So the safety and security of my own country comes first and foremost. Besides, dictators are often the lesser of evils. Egypt is better off under al Sisi’s military junta than under the Ikwan.

[quote]

I think if the major western democratic powers united with a strong military and economic partnership they could do without any need of allies with dictators etc[/quote]

We’re not colonialists. We have to leave the natives to run their own affairs so we need to ensure reasonable people are left in charge not crazies or Communists.

@OP I remember you mentioning the Saudi’s spending billions to expand Wahhabism in another thread. It’s important to realise the House of Saud has some control over Wahhabism abroad and use it to conform with US interests. ISIS are really a modern incarnation of the Saudi Ikwhan movement that rebelled against Abdulaziz in the late 20’s. But official state Wahhabism is pro-Western and at war with IS. Saudi and even Israeli intelligence have some influence over radical Wahhabi groups along the Golan Heights border. It’s a way to control the loonies. This article from the HuffPo gives a little background on the House of Saud and Wahhabism:

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/5717157

The House of Saud has used Wahhabi militias since the 18th Century and after The First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Abdulaziz used the Ikwhan camel raiders to conquer most of present day Saudi Arabia from the rival al Rashid family. They then turned against him and he annihilated their leadership. Since then the House of Saud has been a Western ally with the exception of the Yom Kippur War / 73 oil crisis. The concern is not Saudi state Wahhabism it’s these rogue groups like IS that turn against the Saudi royal family.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@OP I remember you mentioning the Saudi’s spending billions to expand Wahhabism in another thread. It’s important to realise the House of Saud has some control over Wahhabism abroad and use it to conform with US interests. ISIS are really a modern incarnation of the Saudi Ikwhan movement that rebelled against Abdulaziz in the late 20’s. But official state Wahhabism is pro-Western and at war with IS. Saudi and even Israeli intelligence have some influence over radical Wahhabi groups along the Golan Heights border. It’s a way to control the loonies. This article from the HuffPo gives a little background on the House of Saud and Wahhabism:

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/5717157

The House of Saud has used Wahhabi militias since the 18th Century and after The First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Abdulaziz used the Ikwhan camel raiders to conquer most of present day Saudi Arabia from the rival al Rashid family. They then turned against him and he annihilated their leadership. Since then the House of Saud has been a Western ally with the exception of the Yom Kippur War / 73 oil crisis. The concern is not Saudi state Wahhabism it’s these rogue groups like IS that turn against the Saudi royal family.[/quote]

Of course, we do not disagree on this matter one bit. The Wahhabi Ulema are extremists but they avoid any direct assaults on the house of Saud. Bin Baz was arrested for publicly condemning Saudi princes using drugs and whores in the west and condemned the regime as anti muslim for allowing TV’s, cars, pictures and reports that the earth was a sphere.
After that he criticised things without attacking the regime itself, he saw it as the better option and best hopes of a firm strict Islamic hold on the peninsula, as opposed to supporting Wahhabi offshoots that would likely lose power in which he feared Shia, communists or secular forces seizing power.

I would support war on both the Saudi regime and any offshoots. Every antihuman group that sprouts up in the post war vacuum I would support fighting too. I think this fear of war at a time where we actually have an enlightened and democratic society is a shame.
War on fascists and genocidal fanatics everywhere for the right and moral reasons is a military industrial complex I could get behind.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I was on the fence for a long time. But I have come to realize, over time that the Iraq War and other things for that matter, like ousting Qaddafi was actually plans years in the making and not simply an ad hoc reaction to 9/11. The plans to take out Qaddafi date back to the Reagan years, I am quite frankly surprise obama actually did it, but it may be that he didn’t have a choice, the CIA had been working on his ouster for decades. Similarly, Iraq was more tied to the events the OP mentioned more so than WMD’s and current terrorist activities. The Iraq War 2 was a long time in the making.

I don’t know yet if I am for it. I will go with what history judges. I know we left to damn soon and the problem with ISIS was a predicted result of pulling out to soon.

I think obama knows boots are going to have to go on the ground eventually, more so than currently deployed. He just doesn’t want to take the blame so he’s pushing it off on the next president. He thinks he has time and he may. But I hate half ass war measures. Either do it, or don’t, but don’t half-ass it, that’s more dangerous.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I supported the Iraq War because I believed it was part of a broader grand strategy to take down Iran and menace the Saudis into dealing with their homegrown AQ supporters. I didn’t have any say in how it then actually played out so I became increasingly critical of how the Bush administration handled things. I was always concerned from the start that it would hamper efforts in Afghanistan and thought it was ill timed; it should have been done after Afghanistan.[/quote]

I was on the fence for a long time. But I have come to realize, over time that the Iraq War and other things for that matter, like ousting Qaddafi was actually plans years in the making and not simply an ad hoc reaction to 9/11. The plans to take out Qaddafi date back to the Reagan years, I am quite frankly surprise obama actually did it, but it may be that he didn’t have a choice, the CIA had been working on his ouster for decades. Similarly, Iraq was more tied to the events the OP mentioned more so than WMD’s and current terrorist activities. The Iraq War 2 was a long time in the making.

I don’t know yet if I am for it. I will go with what history judges. I know we left to damn soon and the problem with ISIS was a predicted result of pulling out to soon.

I think obama knows boots are going to have to go on the ground eventually, more so than currently deployed. He just doesn’t want to take the blame so he’s pushing it off on the next president. He thinks he has time and he may. But I hate half ass war measures. Either do it, or don’t, but don’t half-ass it, that’s more dangerous.[/quote]

If we are to use Germany and Japan as examples, and we are to assume that the nation building that they underwent was the goal for Iraq, then it becomes obvious how premature the departure was.

Forget a decade, pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan would likely require multiple decades, and huge investments of men and money.

It’s also difficult to be sure that those examples are even relevant.

[quote]pat wrote:

I was on the fence for a long time. But I have come to realize, over time that the Iraq War and other things for that matter, like ousting Qaddafi was actually plans years in the making and not simply an ad hoc reaction to 9/11. The plans to take out Qaddafi date back to the Reagan years, I am quite frankly surprise obama actually did it, but it may be that he didn’t have a choice, the CIA had been working on his ouster for decades. Similarly, Iraq was more tied to the events the OP mentioned more so than WMD’s and current terrorist activities. The Iraq War 2 was a long time in the making.
[/quote]

There was a good Show Time documentary on Qaddafi called “MAD DOG: Inside the Secret World of Muammar Gaddafi”. It’s worth watching if you had an interest in him.

@OP, I think most of your points are spot on and you bring up a lot of issues about Saddam that are brushed under the rug or forgotten. I have always felt the war was appropriate and could be easily be won which is was in a just few weeks. The post-war management (occupation?) of Iraq is another story and a clear failure that cost many lives; can’t say I have figured out a viable alternative (and most proposals would be speculative at best. Pulling the troops out once everything was starting to stabilize was also clearly a bad idea…

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

  1. Wars of repeated aggression against neighbouring states
  2. breaking the non proliferation treaty
  3. Harbouring international terrorists
    [/quote]
  1. He was punished severely for his invasion of Kuwait circa 1991.
  2. Which articles of the NPT did Iraq concretely violate leading up to the Iraq War?
  3. The alleged links between Saddamn and al-Qaida were not substantiated by the official analysis from the intelligence community before the war.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

  1. Wars of repeated aggression against neighbouring states
  2. breaking the non proliferation treaty
  3. Harbouring international terrorists
    [/quote]
  1. He was punished severely for his invasion of Kuwait circa 1991.
  2. Which articles of the NPT did Iraq concretely violate leading up to the Iraq War?
  3. The alleged links between Saddamn and al-Qaida were not substantiated by the official analysis from the intelligence community before the war.[/quote]

I am on my way out but just a quick clarification about the third one with regards to harbouring terrorists. Sadam publicly supported Iraqi’s involved in terrorist activity, the regime officially gave the families of Iraqi suicide bombers money and houses as rewards for their martyrdom in various terror attacks in Israel and other places.
That alone is supporting and harbouring terrorists.

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

  1. Wars of repeated aggression against neighbouring states
  2. breaking the non proliferation treaty
  3. Harbouring international terrorists
    [/quote]
  1. He was punished severely for his invasion of Kuwait circa 1991.
  2. Which articles of the NPT did Iraq concretely violate leading up to the Iraq War?
  3. The alleged links between Saddamn and al-Qaida were not substantiated by the official analysis from the intelligence community before the war.[/quote]

I am on my way out but just a quick clarification about the third one with regards to harbouring terrorists. Sadam publicly supported Iraqi’s involved in terrorist activity, the regime officially gave the families of Iraqi suicide bombers money and houses as rewards for their martyrdom in various terror attacks in Israel and other places.
That alone is supporting and harbouring terrorists.[/quote]

After Iraq’s allegedly robust CBRN programs, the regime’s intimate support of al-Qaida was cited as a leading casus belli. Neither were substantiated by the IC.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I was on the fence for a long time. But I have come to realize, over time that the Iraq War and other things for that matter, like ousting Qaddafi was actually plans years in the making and not simply an ad hoc reaction to 9/11. The plans to take out Qaddafi date back to the Reagan years, I am quite frankly surprise obama actually did it, but it may be that he didn’t have a choice, the CIA had been working on his ouster for decades. Similarly, Iraq was more tied to the events the OP mentioned more so than WMD’s and current terrorist activities. The Iraq War 2 was a long time in the making.
[/quote]

There was a good Show Time documentary on Qaddafi called “MAD DOG: Inside the Secret World of Muammar Gaddafi”. It’s worth watching if you had an interest in him.
[/quote]

I’ll look for it.