Replies

True, the president never said the WMD threat from Iraq was "imminent" and in fact he said that we should not wait until it became imminent. But it is also true that a danger that is "gathering" has to be more "imminent" than if it was not gathering. And a threat that is grave and growing has to be nearer in time to materializing than one which is neither. Perhaps, this does not rise to "imminence" but the American people were clearly given the impression that action was needed right away.

Absolutely. Unless we had a credible WMD/terrorism threat, in addition to the U.N. resolutions, we had a slim pretext for war. Afghanistan was clearly harboring terrorists so that was not in question with anyone.

But if we maintain that Saddam was a 'gathering threat' and that justifies our invasion, even against world opinion, then we have accorded ourselves the right to invade anyone anywhere any time they make us a little nervous.

I don't believe that Bush acted in bad faith. I think that he did believe what he told us.

I'm not suggesting that we need anyone's permission to defend ourselves. But we have to have a rational and consistent explanation for what we do militarily and in foreign policy. And when we say we'll produce proof to justify an invasion, we'd better not produce excuses instead. Especially while garrisoning one of the biggest oil reserves in the world which just happen to be located in that 'gathering threat' country.

You know, we would never believe any country, not even Britain or Israel, if they staged an invasion into an oil-rich country and then had no proof of aggression or WMD.

We have to ask exactly why the rest of the world should trust us when the situation is reversed.

I agree that Saddam Hussein was part of the war on terrorism, and hoped Bush would have made that connection before the war, and not more now.

Saddam headed a terrorist regime. He was a terrorist, and so was his country, even before 9/11.

After 9/11 the US declared a war on terrorism. Iraq was probably one of the top three terrorist regimes the US should have started on, just by looking at its history of agression made the case stronger to start on Iraq. Also the fact it didn't condemn 9/11.

It harbored terrorists, funded them, and incited them. I am not saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but it doesn't matter to me. It is not a war on only those responsible for 9/11, a war just on Al Queda, or a war just on WMD. It is directed against all terrorists. So the argument leftists say about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11 is foolish, because this is not what this war is just about - it is more than that.

My only hope is that the US declares war on militant Islam.

Iraq is part of the overall WOT. But what you said is not the same. You claimed we were told to buy plastic sheeting, implying it was a DIRECT result of the war in Iraq. It wasn't, it was a DIRECT result of the fears that we may get attacked by terrorists. Your statement was implying that since there was no WMD found in Iraq, we shouldn't have been worried about buying plastic to protect ourselves. What is so hard to understand about that? I would think with the screen name you selected that you would have some sort of grasp of all of this.

"You know, we would never believe any country, not even Britain or Israel, if they staged an invasion into an oil-rich country and then had no proof of aggression or WMD.
"

That is just ludicrous. I guess all the land grabs by the Euros in the last 50 years were only to stop the spread of WMD, right? Wake up! It's an ugly world out there. Nations do what they need to all the time. And I couldn't care less if other nations trust us or not. I don't trust any of them.

Unless we had a credible WMD/terrorism threat, in addition to the U.N. resolutions, we had a slim pretext for war.

I don't agree, and Congress didn't either. You can hold this opinion but yours was the losing end of the argument.

But if we maintain that Saddam was a 'gathering threat' and that justifies our invasion, even against world opinion, then we have accorded ourselves the right to invade anyone anywhere any time they make us a little nervous.

"make us a little nervous" = support and harbor terrorists, try to develop mass-deaeth weapons, and invade another country and then violate the ceasefire after we kick them out?

I guess so, then.

We have to ask exactly why the rest of the world should trust us when the situation is reversed.

I don't give a rat's ass about "the rest of the world" "trusting" us. They are not going to no matter what we do. Your assumption seems to be that our primary concern in all this is or ought to be whether "the rest of the world" "trusts" us. Some of us have different priorities than that.