[Clive]

-

[DelphiUser]

BTTT

[AlbionGirl]

We didn't go there to free Iraqis. I supported the War, but am now like Bill Buckley: if I knew then what I know now, I would have said no.

That isn't to say that I don't appreciate a certain bit of extra professed war logic, in that if even a rudimentary democracy, real democracy, takes hold in Iraq that could bear some delicious future fruit, so my change of War heart has not resulted in a change of heart as it relates to President Bush.

[Carry_Okie]

Without the resolve of the Bush administration to take the war on terror to its Middle Eastern heartland, the architects of 9/11 and their allies would still be a present menace rather than fugitives on the run.

The architects of 9/11 are still a present menace, even if they are on the run... across our open borders.

It became clear that tyranny in the Arab-Muslim world was not going to implode internally, as communist regimes had in Eastern Europe. An external force was required if a tyranny imperilling international security, such as Saddam's Iraq, was to be dismantled and its people given freedom.

We can defeat terrorism the same way we defeated the Soviet Union: cut off the money. Build nuclear reactors and develop alternative sources of energy. Government regulation is the biggest reason our enemies have the cash to fight.

[wayoverontheright]

Remember when the Left's alternative to the war was the pleading that the terror problem "had to be dealt with at its roots?

Democracy in Iraq is going to be like the most powerful weed killer sprayed on the entire Middle East's garden. The roots of terror are composed of their thirteenth century economic and political systems, almost as much as the cultural paralysis bequeathed to them by Islam.

There simply is no scenario whereby terrorism can be said to have been dealt with AT ITS ROOTS which doesn't include the implantation of democracy in Iraq, IMHO.

[cwb]

"Afghanistan under the Taliban regime of Mullah Omar had become the citadel of Osama bin Laden and his thuggish organization of al-Qaida terrorists. From the mountain fastness of this unruly country brutalized by occupying forces of the Soviet Union, bin Laden and the transnational network of Muslim fascists threatened the world with impunity for nearly a decade."

---

And this was the one of the reasons why Saddam had to be removed, immediately. When we took down the Taliban and AQ's camps in Afghanistan, it was obvious that the terrorists were going to need somewhere else to coalesce. With Musharif (seemingly) joining the US in the WOT, Pakistan was a little too hot for "all" these leftovers, as some began dispersing throughout the region.

While many of these terrorists did find there way into Iran, which was right next store...American pressure and the threat of Iran becoming the next target, forced the Iranians to expel a majority of them. In fact, this was right around the time when al-Zarqawi, who fought in the Afghan War with AQ, left Iran and ended up in Baghdad for a couple months, with a few of his Egyptian Islamic Jihad brothers.

The fact is, al-Qaeda and the terrorists choices for santuary were running extremely thin after the Afghanistan War. They had already been kicked out of places like Saudi and Egypt...with no one wanting to take them in after 9/11. Even terrorist-listed states like Libya and Sudan weren't eager to help as US embargoes were taking a toll on these countries...and after 9/11 no one wanted to feel the US's wrath. While Iran is a big sponsor of terrorism, they too, didn't want to give the US any excuse to target them next.

Saddam has always provided safe-haven to terrorists, whether it was Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal...or later, al-Zarqawi. With the PLF/PLO camps operating out of Iraq...and the new AQ affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, establising itself in N. Iraq just a month before 9/11, it was obvious that Iraq was becoming the next Afghanistan...complete with full resources and funding supplied by Saddam. Better to hit them now, than let them get settled in.

[MainFrame65]

I believe that our real reason for going to war was both more subtle and more important than either WMD or freeing the Iraqi people - we went there to change the strategic situation in the war, to move the fight to the Middle East instead of in our back yard. Whether that was stated explicitly or not is unimportant - just another piece of the strategery.

[VOA]

bump