T Nation

War Aims in Iraq

After saying that there were many reasons put forth to invade Iraq, I’ve found that the liberals continue to say that we went to war solely over WMD’s.

No one would reasonably argue that they were a vital reason to invade.

However, the liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge what W. has been saying since he was elected: There were plenty of other reasons.

Frankly, I’m tired of typing the reasons for the densest members of this forum.

Therefore, I’m going to BB this article from October 2002 (That’s many moons before we actually invaded)

Here you go:

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

President’s Remarks
view
listen

8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I’m honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability – even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action – why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, “The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.”

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today – and we do – does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles – far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations – in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren’t required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy – the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer – the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” – his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there’s a reason. We’ve experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, “Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.”

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions – and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities – only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people – and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country – and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself – or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein’s regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that’s why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that’s why two administrations – mine and President Clinton’s – have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait – and that’s an option. In my view, it’s the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I’m convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace – we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I’m not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history’s course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan’s citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi’a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq’s people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America’s military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance – his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I’m confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

Liberals, can we lay this one to rest now.

Or are you going to force me to highlight the pertinent areas.

Before you respond, read the speech.

Ok?

Good!!!

Thanks!!!

JeffR

All I can say is…nice

At least there are some people that learn BEFORE they claim.

Got my vote!

[quote]wetdrmscap wrote:
All I can say is…nice

At least there are some people that learn BEFORE they claim.

Got my vote![/quote]
I think Bush would even be embarrassed by this. This is not a very good example of proving liberals wrong—it uhhh… does the opposite. You see you want a speech where Bush isn’t talking about WMD or confusing americans by blurring the line between Al-queda and Saddam. Besides liberals don’t think we went to war because of WMD and al-queda, Those are the reasons the GOP used to great effect to get us to war, the real reasons are easily found in various PNAC manifestos, memos, etc. The relevant argument would be discussing the value/benefits of PNAC’ers goals, Bases in Iraq was just one of them.

some links:

1992 Wolfowitz’s Defense Guidance
http://www.yale.edu/strattech/92dpg.html

1996 Memo by group led by Perle
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm

1996 Kristol/Kagan neo-reagan memo
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/foreignaffairs.asp?from=pubauthor

1998 PNAC’ers letter to Clinton:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PNAC’ers :Rebuilding Americas Defenses
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

2001 PNAC’ers letter to W.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

You might recognize some (HA! all!) of the names…Anyway you can see the speech above effectively masks all the predecided intentions—all that was needed was an opportunity.

Also notice how these PNAC’ers have made some good use out of ol’ W.—Is it any wonder that Cheney picked himself to be vice president? I don’t think so. Jeff, why don’t we have a real discussion as to why we’re there—considering what we know of Bush’s Cabinet (chock full of PNAC)----please note the PNAC agenda is not a conservative agenda—in my mind.

lumpy,

I respect your right to try to act like you know something.

Saying you don’t believe the reasons for going to war is fine with me.

That’s part and parcel of being an ABB.

However, saying that WMD was the only issue, is false.

JeffR

Yeah, reading the first several paragraphs, it outlines very clearly how the president was linking Iraq to WMD’s and how Iraq posted a direct threat toward the US and how it had to be stopped.

Anything else thrown in there is just to make sure some kitchen utensil was not left out of the mix – other minor justifications used to convince the wavering.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,

I respect your right to try to act like you know something.

Saying you don’t believe the reasons for going to war is fine with me.

That’s part and parcel of being an ABB.

However, saying that WMD was the only issue, is false.

JeffR[/quote]

Act?
Anyway the point is the reasons weren’t WMD or al-queda, Those were the LEADING reasons given—as witnessed in your speech, I’m not saying those were THE reasons or the ONLY reasons given, see? I’m not sure if I even really know what the real reasons are? Base of operations? Centerpiece for a hopeful democracy? I dunno.

By the way, there may indeed have been a ton of good reasons for invading Iraq.

However, those reasons are not good enough to authorize a war. You need something approaching the scope of imminent strikes with WMD’s to legally do so.

The US is not supposed to be able to start “wars of agression” whenever it wants to. That wasn’t part of the grand plan.

So, yes, you can indeed identify any number of reasons, but they aren’t the reasons that people were in a sense coerced to vote to approve the use of force in the aftermath of 9/11.

[quote]vroom wrote:

The US is not supposed to be able to start “wars of agression” whenever it wants to. That wasn’t part of the grand plan.
[/quote]

Whose grand plan do you speak of?

lumpy wrote:

“Act?”

Huh?

“Anyway the point is the reasons weren’t WMD or al-queda, Those were the LEADING reasons given—as witnessed in your speech, I’m not saying those were THE reasons or the ONLY reasons given, see? I’m not sure if I even really know what the real reasons are? Base of operations? Centerpiece for a hopeful democracy? I dunno.”

As I indicated, WMD was certainly a leading reason. al qaeda was another.

Where have we come up short? I would say only in failing to identify stockpiles of WMD. I am also very aware of continued terrorism in Iraq.

I think it’s hard to argue that al qaeda has been flushed out into the open, deterrance has obviously been established, the torture chambers/mass graves are closed, schools, hospitals, sanitation, and power stations are opening, and free elections have occurred. Intent, aim, and method of WMD reconstitution have been found. Amounts of non-declared arms in violation of UN resolutions have been found. Massive deception has been unconvered. Iraqi police/military are becoming increasingly effective (see Operation Lightning).

On balance, the positives far outweigh the shortcomings.

JeffR

I read it, and I did the highlighting for you, buddy- but it seems the mods have deleted it, undoing the 15 minutes I should have been doing something here at work :frowning:

Funnily enough, the first half of the speech is all WMDs. ‘Chemical weapon this, nuclear bomb that, etc’

Even more funny, is that all these claims have failed to be proven. That includes the ‘high level Al Qaeda and Iraq contacts’. Actually Saddam despised Al Qaeda and they were in principle opposed to him because of the secular nature of his government. But that is secondary to all the scaremongering by Bush about mushroom clouds and chemical weapons.

WOW, he developed all that stuff in less than two years?!

February 24th, 2001: Powell Admits Saddam, “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5502.htm

I take it you took the short bus to school. That’s pretty damning evidence for impeachment.

Before the war:
Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’
Feb. 20, 2003
In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors - or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel - is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they’ve begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they’ve been getting as “garbage after garbage after garbage.”

If reports and (credible) intel before the war said we wouldn’t find any WMD’s, and then we didn’t find any - YOU don’t win the argument. Did you know that? BTW, “regime change” was not a legal basis for war.

Or maybe this is to try and throw us off like the Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd, “duck season” - “wabbit season”, “duck season” - “wabbit season”, “wabbit season” - “duck season” thing?

Yes, Bush not only had “bad intelligence” - he also had the stupidity to use it…

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Yes, Bush not only had “bad intelligence” - he also had the stupidity to use it… [/quote]

Along with apparently far too many people who actually support the action.

Again so there’s no doubt why we (were told) went to war:

Bush:?Hopefully, we can do this peacefully ? don?t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there?s a chance he may decide to do that.

Bush: ?This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It?s up to him to make his decision.?

Bush: ?We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.?

There goes Bush saying Jeff is dead wrong again. There is no mention of another reason for directly going to war other than disarming himself of “WMD” that he didn’t have.

Funny how hard it is to comply with an ultimatum to disarm when you don’t actually have anything to disarm, isn’t it?

There goes my pal lumpy cherrypicking the information to suit his silly little ends.

No mention of:

“And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace”

lumpy, you are hilarious!!!

Or are you trying to contend that the War on Terror wasn’t/isn’t an URGENT concern of the Administration.

Care to argue that W. didn’t consider ties to terrorists and URGENT reason to invade Iraq?

Oh, care to argue the facts in this paragraph right now?

Shall I type the other reasons he gave?

JeffR

P.S. I’ll bet you didn’t read it.

Vroom,

I have to disagree with you on this. Imminent threat, in the age of nuclear weapons is too late.

The US has made no secret of the fact that we will protect our interest, with premptive strikes if that’s what it takes.

Legal or not that is the direction we have. Those that would do us harm and those that have allowed themselves to become weak will not dictate our policy.
The concept of a legal war is kind of fluid depending on the opponents regardless.

I think this policy is effective because it eliminates the doubt. God help the nation that provides a nuke to Al-Queda. It’s gone as soon as we can make the link. Sad to say but true.

I think the rest of the world should be glad that the superpower that remains is the benevolent one and this policy was a reaction to events not a random idea.

Iraq sent the message. Iran, Syria and North Korea will get the message.

Hedo,

I can agree with what you are saying, but I have hard time applying it to Iraq.

Although your wording doesn’t make it clear, obviously the policy is not that countries cannot have nukes, but the countries in question should be non-agressive and stable.

I don’t have a problem with the concept of needing to disarm North Korea, or Iran.

Again, I’m not sure this is applicable to Iraq.

Bush cited resolution 1441 yesterday as the reason for invasion.

I don’t understand the deflecting.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo,

I can agree with what you are saying, but I have hard time applying it to Iraq.

Although your wording doesn’t make it clear, obviously the policy is not that countries cannot have nukes, but the countries in question should be non-agressive and stable.

I don’t have a problem with the concept of needing to disarm North Korea, or Iran.

Again, I’m not sure this is applicable to Iraq.[/quote]

I think the issue with Iraq was presumption. We thought they had them and had intelligence seemed to back us up. As we all know it was flawed.

I think it applied to Iraq because of the guy in charge. Sadaam certainly would have used a nuke against us or his neighbors, if he could have put one together. I think his defeat prevented a program from ever getting to that point.

The concept of being stable is exactly what the administration is shooting for. Iran has too much at stake to ever use a nuke, however, they can allow one to fall into the wrong hands.

Okay, Hedo, I will entertain the idea that the current administration acted completely and solely out of a caring for one: the American people and their safety and two: peace and safety for the entire world as the benevolent power. Right?

That the chess game of strategic world peace had to be played out this way and if Iraq wasn’t invaded it surely would have meant some catastrophe somewhere in the middle east whether it be them giving a terrorist a dirty bomb or Iran and North Korea thinking they could get aggressive because the US OF A is soft and weak. Right?

Conversely, (as I like to point out) could you entertain the idea that the world would have kept rolling along smoothly (we know suffering was going on in Iraq, no more then is going on in Korea or Africa) and that a large part of the reason to possibly fix, put full faith in, or doctor, intelligence could have been fueled by desires that were other then fully noble.

Would you agree that the top one percent of America is going to reap some pretty nice profits off of the oil even if it’s indirectly? I think this administration did believe this action would be beneficial on a strategic level in terms of a power base in the Middle East, but I also believe a large part of their rush to war was fueled by corporate America.

Do people like Bush and his admin ever feel the pain of the actions undertaken. Will Jenna ever lose her legs to a roadside bomb or Barbara come home in a bodybag? Will Dick (I’ve got other priorities) know what it is like to live off of disability check for the rest of his life in a run down part of town because his arms are gone? I don’t think so.

Maybe, their intentions were totally above board and noble, I just have a hard time believing that.