[xzins]

I don’t care if Al Qaeda and Iraq met at the same conference to discuss new rules for Chinese Checkers. The point remains that the meeting itself is obvious proof of ties between the two. Maybe “tie” (singular) between the two, but it doesn’t matter.

They could discuss anything — holocaust, oil, hot cars, cold women, pastrami on rye — but they would be together in the same space at the same time.

Tie.

Ties.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Thank you for the ping, X.... but this is kindofa non-issue to me. I agree with GWB's assessment that just because a bunch of different Evil Terrorists and a bunch of Representatives from Evil Governments (Iraq, Iran) meet in the same place, does not in and of itself prove that they actively plotted together on a specific nefarious atrocity (9/11) -- HOWEVER...

I do think that at least some Casus Bellis did exist prior to the US Invasion of Iraq:

• The attempted assassination of former President George HW Bush. At the time a private citizen (no longer President), and more of a botched Iraqi fantasy that didn't come to fruition than a real, Mossad-style, die-hard assassination attempt -- but still, as an "attempted" assassination of a US Citizen, it could be argued as a legitimate Casus Belli under international law.

• Iraq really did shelter known Anti-American Terrorist Abu Nidal for years in Baghdad, until he died shortly before the Invasion under mysterious circumstances (not that there's ever a bad time for a Terrorist to die). Abu Nidal's crimes were long in the past by 2003, but they were unavenged acts of Terrorism against the US nonetheless, and Hussein never offered to hand him over. So, again, I think it could be argued as a legitimate Casus Belli under international law.

• Iraq was training Terrorist airliner-hijacking teams at Salman Pak -- uh, well, maybe. After conquering the place in 2003, we were never able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq had trained Terrorist airliner-hijacking teams there; it's possible that that site was used for what Saddam had always claimed: ANTI-Terrorist training, for use against Kurdish rebels and the like. However, when even the UN inspectors (no supporters of the Invasion) said that they strongly suspected the place as a Terrorist training camp, and Saddam didn't exactly offer to host an "open house" to prove otherwise, it could be argued as a legitimate Casus Belli under the "With Us or Against Us" doctrine. Call the pre-2003 evidence "close enough for government work", I guess.

Now: What did I think was NOT a Casus Belli? UN Resolutions and possession of Chemical Weapons. I don't care of France or Israel possesses Nuclear Weapons, for that matter; as long as a Country does not use WMD's against us, the mere possession thereof is NOT a Casus Belli. And I don't think we should EVER go to war to enforce UN resolutions, even if and when they do align with our own National Security interests, if any; in fact, I think that we should always make it painstakingly clear that US foreign policy is conducted according to United States National Security interests and NOT the interests of any overarching supra-national organization.

So I did NOT agree with the stated reasons we went to war (or "police action", since Ron Paul's resolution to Constitutionally Declare War was ignored).

But I do think that there were several at-least-arguable Casus Bellis prior to the 2003 Invasion. That being said, a Casus Belli provides a justification for War, not a requirement for War -- according to Christian Just War theory, even when a legitimate Casus Belli exists, War should always be a Last Resort. Perhaps a targeted assassination of Hussein and his sons, leaving some wary Baathist hierarch in charge of the remaining Iraqi government (Baghdad Bob?), always looking over his shoulder; or even an Afghanistan style Proxy War, giving money, ammunition, and US Air support to every anti-Saddam faction within Iraq... these options might also have worked to acheive "regime change" (and if not, well... there's always War as a last resort).

ALL that being said (sorry, running long-winded again), I do think that a Case could be made for War in 2003 (though I don't believe it should have been our first choice, one could at least make a case for it). My problem has never been primarily with the War, but with the now over 4-year long Occupation -- something I hoped we would avoid from Day 1. Someone else said it best...

"Go in, cuss, break some stuff, and then Leave." -- Xzins, circa 2003

I never, in my wildest dreams, imagined that we would see patriotic FReepers arguing that our nation's continued existence, indeed even that of the entire Christian West, utterly depended upon the US Federal Government giving virtually-unlimited military and financial support to an Anti-Christian Iraqi Thug Regime run by self-confessed, and even Convicted, Al-Dawa Terrorist Scumbags like Nouri Al-Maliki and Jamal Jafaar Mohammed (Prime Minister and Member of Parliament, respectively; former head of the Al-Dawa Terrorist Jihad Office in Damascus, and former member of the "Dawa 17" who blew up the US Embassy in Kuwait). It's... Bizarro World, man. I just can't get my mind around it.

I'm wary of the US sticking it's foot into the snake-pit of the Middle East to begin with; but I guess if you can stomp down quick enough and hard enough to crush one serpent's head, I can't complain. But I do NOT think it's a good idea to leave your foot in the snake pit long enough for the other vipers to slither up your trousers and bite you in the arse. I'm just not seeing the wisdom, there (and neither did Ronald Reagan).