[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.

[o_zarkman44]

Freedom is a vague concept in a society that has been repressed for so long. The memorys of mass graves, assasination and gassing have a way of causing mistrust in the noble cause. As Americans we truely understand freedom.
To the oppressed, freedom is fragmented by the day to day struggle of survival.

Saddam is out of power, no longer giving aid and comfort to terror. The rest of the terrorists are on the run because they are scared to confront the concept of freedom face to face. They prefer anarchy over democracy. They rule by terror and fear. If we didn't go there to free the Iraqis exactly why did we go there? Please explain.....

[driftless]

You know of course that Hussein was a major supporter of terror in and outside the U.S. To deny that Hussein was a major threat to the U.S. and its allies is to say that many analysts (including Steven Hayes, Laurie Mylroie, Jayna Davis, and others) who've studied Hussein and have concluded that he was neck-deep in Islamo-fascist terrorism including Al-Qaeda and other wahhabist groups. Jayne Davis claims that Hussein was deeply involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Mylroie puts has him complicit with the 1993 WYC bombing. And he still might have had a hand in 9/11. Vladimir Putin has evidence that Hussein planned terrorist attacks in the U.S. Now some of these people might be wrong, but ALL of them?!!? I strongly supported removing Hussein long before the war, and I'm now far more sure of that belief than I ever was.

[thoughtomator]

Why would you have said no? We went into Iraq to prevent another 9/11, not to free the Iraqis. Having a free Iraq is part of the solution; it would be a waste to go into Iraq, remove Saddam, leave, and let another terror-sponsoring madman rule in his stead.

[rudypoot]

The reason we went to war is because he was violating his agreement with the 1991 cease-fire resolution. It wasn't the US's responsibility to prove Saddam didn't have any WMDs. That was his responsibility. If Saddam would've given the US unlimited access and definitive proof that he destroyed all WMD and their programs it would've been very hard for the US to invade. Besides, just because we didn't find the in Iraq doesn't mean he never had them in the first place. He had three months to move them out of country and we know they probably went to Syria.

In the end we wanted proof and all Saddam gave us was promises. I guess Saddam's promises were good enough for some people. Example, Charles Mason is up for parole. He promises he won't kill anyone when he is released. Absent any other evidence other than his history, would you believe him?

[Valin]

but am now like Bill Buckley: if I knew then what I know now, I would have said no.

Why do you think we went there?

Do you have a link to Bill Buckley's take on this?

[P-Marlowe]

...if I knew then what I know now, I would have said no.

What exactly is it that you actually know now that you didn't know then that would have compelled you to say no?

[WOSG]

"We didn't go there to free Iraqis. "

Well that is exactly what we did. Free Iraqis. And yes, that *was* part of the *prewar* justification for taking out Saddam. It was expressed by Bush at his March 2, 2003 AEI speech. He said we would liberate Iraq and that is what we did.

There is this bizarre logic that seems to think the only good that could come from war is the most narrow of results, like we are prosecuting a criminal not a war.
Gee, why did we attack all those poor widdle japanese soldier who had *nothing to do* with Pearl Harbor?
We didnt declare war against Japan and Germany just as payback for a single military attack. We decided we needed to *destroy* them!

Why are we allowing the anti-war fever to overtake logic instead of treating this like the war that it is? Bush declared war on *TERRORISM* and Saddam was smack dab in the middle of it, and the ONE way to kill terrorism and make sure it doesnt come back is to drain the swamps of anti-western dictatorships and replace it with freedom and democracy.

Liberating Iraq is not some added bonus, it is *central* to defeating terrorism. The terrorists know it, that is why they are fighting so hard there.

Our interests and our ideals are perfectly aligned: Expand freedom in the muslim and arab world and islamic global terrorism will be eliminated.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"if I knew then what I know now, I would have said no."

This is a meaningless statement. As I posted on a similar discussion, one could just as easily say "If I had known on January 1 that I would have no auto accidents this year, I would have canceled my car insurance". But you did not know, and even though you do now you still go ahead and keep that insurance the next year.

The United States and other nations invaded Iraq because in a post 911 world it was unacceptable to allow a country that had a track record of developing and using WMD, and a known policy of aiding terrorists, to continue to refuse to provide a full accounting of its WMD programs per its Gulf War I agreements. As another poster wrote, it was not up to the U.S. to determine that status, it was the responsibility of Saddam and Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that Hussein would not have resumed WMD production, regardless of their status just prior to our going in, is kidding themselves. An argument such as yours could have been made about Germany in 1936 when they violated the Locarno Pact and the Treaty of Versailles by reoccupying the Rhineland. Their weapons programs, and their military preparedness, did not reach their peak until 1939 and later. Yet I was always taught that the French and the British could avoided the slaughter of WWII with minimal cost by moving before "the threat became imminent".

Beware Monday morning quarterbacking, or drawing false conclusions in hindsight.