[mjp]

If Saddam had no WMD, had no role in 9/11, did not attack us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us, was our unprovoked attack on that country a truly just and moral war?

Saddam was an oppressive tyrant who denied natural rights to his citizens. By the Declaration of Independence, any government that is tyrannical deserves to be overthrown. It becomes a duty when is in the best interests of those oppressed.This also applies to legitimate foreign governments who support and protect natural rights.

[9YearLurker]

No.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Days before September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington Saddam Hussein put the Iraqi armed forces on “Alert G”—the highest state of readiness his troops had been since the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam and his immediate family moved into bombproof bunkers. A hijack ringleader, Mohamed Atta, was later linked to an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague. Saddam maintained a terrorist training site at Salman Pak in Iraq where foreign Jihadists, mostly Saudi, trained in the art of hijacking jetliners with bare fists and knives. In the late 1990’s a conspiracy was exposed in which Saddam was channeling funds to al-Qaeda for designated attacks in Europe and the Middle East. Saddam wanted to be able to conduct specific terrorist strikes without leaving Iraqi fingerprints. The operation resulted in some exiled Iraqi dissidents being murdered before the scheme was discovered.

There was a large body of circumstantial evidence tying Iraq to al-Qaeda after 9/11. The U.S. news media has done its best to bury or minimize it.

When G.W. Bush took office in 2001 he inherited a National Security Council that had endorsed “regime change” in Iraq long before 9/11. One of its most influential voices was Kenneth Pollock who wrote “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” in 2002.

From Wikipedia:

[Pollack is credited with persuading liberals of the case for the Iraq war. New York Times columnist Bill Keller, in supporting the Iraq war in 2003, wrote “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.” Liberal writer Matthew Yglesias in the LA Times also attested to Pollack’s influence:
“Of course, those of us who read Pollack's celebrated 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,” and became convinced as a result that the United States needed to . . .invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein's advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn't actually have) might feel a little too bitter to once again defer to our betters.”]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pollack

The breadth and scope of the Second Gulf War so stunned the Middle East that Iran announced it was suspending its nuclear weapons program. Libya shuttered its WMD programs, renounced terrorism and reopened its oil fields to U.S. and European companies.

[rdb3]

I knew who wrote this by the title.

I was right.

[catfish1957]

Nope. Tipped the balance of power in that area to Iran. Now we are having to deal with that. That doesn’t count the overall monetary cost, and most important loss of young lives.

[spetznaz]

It depends:

1) If one is a Republican, and the president was Republican, then it was worth it.

2) If one is a Republican, and is truly objective, and the president was Republican, then it was probably not worth it.

3) If one is a Republican, and the president was Democrat, then it was a quagmire.

4) If one is a Democrat, and the president was Democrat, then it was worth it.

5) If one is a Democrat, and is truly objective, and the president was Democrat, then it was probably not worth it.

6) If one is a Democrat, and the president was Republican, then it was a quagmire.