Whether or not Iraq was a mistake is now a moot point. Now that we ( I mean you, I'm Canadian.. but..ya know..) are in there it our duty to help these people as best we can and help get Baghdad back on it's feet.
Although this whole thing may have been motivated by selfish goals, some good can still come out of it..

Thanks Jonathan, I agree with the course of action although I doubt the original motivation less than you do.

I think it was, and is, a noble effort. What pains me is the sacrifice of our young peoples lives seems to go under appreciated. Sometimes unappreciated. I wonder sometimes if the Iraqi people deserve a better government.

I understand and share your concerns, we cannot become jaded to death. I don't know what Iraq "deserves" but I think it deserves a chance and that's what we are giving it. Ultimately when we do the right thing, we do so for our own benefit as a people - we are always better for having done right, and of course no good deed goes unpunished. That part seems to be holding, sadly.

I won't lie, I actually protested against the war.
But now if for some reason everyone decided to pull out of Iraq, It'd be a much greater tragedy.
Of course the Iraqi people deserve a better government.. They are just like you and I.

So did my daughter, but she has changed her mind as it sounds like you have, at least to a certain extent. Your last statement is very wise - people are people.

I doubt that you'll find anyone who disagrees with your characterization of the Saddam regime as vile, but the invasion of Iraq was still a mistake. Pulling out now would be a bigger mistake, but that doesn't make the initial invasion correct.

Had the US wanted to go to war against vile and sadistic regimes, there were probably several other choices that could have been considered, particularly in Africa, any of which might have been a better choice based on the criteria of vileness.

But the invasion was sold as part of the war on terror, and as such it is a failure. Invading Iraq was an abandonment of the war on terror where the
terrorists were.

Afghanistan, for instance, after an initial good start, was left as a fertile field where terrorists have been able to regroup, and are growing richer and
stronger every day. [Big bomb hits Kandahar market]

The invasion of Iraq in fact gave terrorists a prime target in their own neighborhood, and we see what that has meant every day. [Still
at large, bin Laden and Saddam inspire resistance]

And terrorist acts are now spreading to other countries (e.g., Turkey) against America's supporters. [Twelve
held over Turkey bombing]

The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake, and so far has resulted in increased terrorism and reduced security.

i would question the validity of such a survey. I'm not saying hussein wasn't evil - clearly lots of bad stuff happened. But such a survey is relying on too many assumptions to be valid (altho i suppose it is about the same as with many "official" surveys such as political polls and so on but anyway)
it's like saying "Iraw did have nukes because some iraqis who hated saddam say so"
it could be true, but at least a little evidence pointing to it would be useful. 60000 bodies are hard to hide, even if they're skeletons, such that they cannot be found

The mistake was in not doing it twelve years ago. If anything we were better prepared then.

Hal, it's all interpretation from here: I say iraq is central to the War on Terror, you say it's a distraction from it. I say it's critical to destroy the worst of the regimes in the Middle East and replace it with a modern democracy to show the Islamic/Arab world what they CAN have if they reject Islamofascism (doesn't matter that Iraq was secular, when the crisis came Saddam reverted to Islamo-speak and is still exhorting the jihadis). Iraq was critical, was the right thing to do, IS critical, and must be completed.

And absolutely it should have been finished 12 years ago - that is one of our most shameful failings of the last century.

Eric, Iraq being central is because of the invasion, not a reason for the invasion.

And even then it's only central because we can't abandon it. We're still avoiding real terrorists in, say, Saudia Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

In Afghanistan, the doubling of forces seeking out terrorists to 2,000 is a step in the right direction, but it pales by comparison to the number of troops in Iraq.

If I were in a kindly mood I'd give Wolfowitz a D on security, although his actions really deserve an F.

The choice was between improving our security versus getting rid of an Evil regime and showing the Middle East The Shining Path of Democracy. Choosing the latter has reduced security around the world as well as at home.

The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake whose consequences we'll have to live with for a long, long time.

It's hardly 'delivering a message' to terrorists.
If you invaded Saudi Arabia, now that would deliver a message.

Granted, most of our specific 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but toppling that weak regime would not have been that much of a message.

For starters, they're militarily almost nothing, and it would be only too easy to knock that government out. Thus, it would not impress the people we need to impress. Even if the wimp is a dirtbag as well, you need to knock down the biggest bully in the schoolyard to make the point.

Also (as a side point)- although our particular 9/11 bombers came from Saudi Arabia, the Iraq government overall clearly did ten times more killing than anything associated with the House of Saud.

Also, if we took out the Saudi government, what would replace it? It could well be something worse- a real Wahabbi government rather than just amoral appeasers. Whereas it would be highly unlikely that we would ever come up with a worse regime than was in Iraq.

As to Dan wondering whether the Iraqis deserve a better government, I sympathize with the frustration- but what they deserve isn't the point. Whether you think it successful to that end or not, the point of going into Iraq is ultimately our own security.

As to Jonathan's comment #1, yes that IS absolutely a "selfish" goal. Not wanting people to come kill you definitely constitutes selfishness or self-interest- and there's nothing wrong with that. There's a big difference between that and, say, GREED- wanting to mug people and take their stuff. That would be something significantly different.

"Granted, most of our specific 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but toppling that weak regime would not have been that much of a message.

For starters, they're militarily almost nothing, and it would be only too easy to knock that government out."
People said the exact same thing about Iraq's military strength.
Isn't Saudi Arabia MUCH richer? And I'd say nearly as corrupt a government. I'll have to look into that now, do some research.

Are we missing something here? Mecca and Medina have always been occupied by Arabs. If Americans waltz in and take over Mecca that would have to go down as the most humiliating defeat for any religion ever.

We could probably build a defensive perimeter so no one goes in or out... Hmmm, no more Hajj. Yeah, that would register with the Muslim world. They'd go fuckin' apeshit. But then they'd have to decide whether they want to be allowed to fulfill one of the five "pillars of Islam".

They'd probably get the message.

Al, I hope you weren't responding to me because if you were, you misunderstood my post.

While I mentioned Saudia Arabia, it was simply that if the Bush/Wolfowitz agenda needed a target to avoid getting bogged down in Afghanistan like Russia had been, they could have at least picked a country that had something to do with the terrorist attack on the US.

The point of going into Iraq was not "our own security," and doing so has clearly compromised that security in a significant way.

One reason was to avoid "getting bogged down in Afghanistan", as is plainly documented in Woodward's book "Bush At War."[1] Another was the neoconservative agenda. Taking out Saddam was part of a program put together for the Iraeli hard right, and was then pitched (unsuccessfully) by Netanyahu ot the US Congress back in 1996. [2]. They kept at it.

Control of the oil fields appears to be almost incidental from what I've seen so far.

[1] Relevant excerpts from "Bush At War"
[2] Summary of neo steps to removal of Saddam

Saudi Arabia nearly as corrupt as Iraq? "Corrupt" perhaps, but obviously the Iraqi regime has done far, far more out and out killing than anything associated with the House of Saud- even if you count the actions of al Qaeda against them. Saudi Arabia has nothing to compare to Hussein gassing most of a couple of hundred thousand Kurds- not to count the war with Iran and other wickedness.

And JR- I hadn't thought about it till you mentioned it, but being MECCA and all, a US invasion would likely infuriate Muslims far worse than going into Iraq. Now, we might sometimes have to do stuff to infuriate people, but should probably avoid it whenever reasonably possible.

No. Iraq was not a mistake. They had to get that Tyrant out of there. It is central to the war on terror. It is irrelevant whether direct evidence was shown. The point is, due to that man's dislike for the western world, he allowed his country to be used as a breeding ground for terrorists, he may have sold some of them weapons. That alone is not enough because Syria etc fall into that category but it is the multitude of Saddam's sins that make the invasion of Irag justified.

He was always in negotiation to buy weapons. Let the exiled Iraqis tell you how they were being tortured..with all the mass graves that were found how can anybody call news of his violent regime exaggerated? An unpopular decision ofcourse, but someone had to do it. Who likes War? Not many. So, all these people against had no alternative to offer. We could not go back to the UN. As far as I am concerned, they lost thier clout years ago when they let that man keep flouting thier resolutions. Now, you find that the likes of Iran dare not put themselves in that position. Syria..is slowly panicking. Even North Korea have offered to freeze thier nuclear testing if they are removed off the axis of evil list. Sometimes, taking action is a deterrent of some sort.

The lunatics will always be lunatics so taking action cannot be blamed for thier particular acts of violence. Those sorts of people would have always found reasons to be violent.

What I cannot believe and understand is that, with all the technology in the world, America and Britain cannot find Mr Hussein in Iraq? Do you mean to tell me they cannot find Osama? What on earth is going on here? Men can be sent to space, to the moon..they can tap your computers/phones you name it. Yet..they can not find these people? Are they looking? I am puzzled that with all the technology of the western world and supposed know how..the tracking down of these two men is proving so difficult.

I am not pro-Bush at all but at the same time I have no patience for all these protesters. Especially the idiots that gathered in Trafalgar Sq when the man came to England. They are enjoying the rights that if thier views were followed would not be enjoyed by the people they claim to be protesting on behalf of. How many of them were on the streets when exiled Iraqis were complaining about thier families being slaughtered? I really have no patience at all for the stop the war people..none whatsoever.

Sandra, that was absolutely logical, sensible, refreshing, and I am thrilled to hear it coming rom the UK. I can't understand the massed intelligence of the Western world not being able to track down these grease farts either, but that shows you the importance of human intelligence, which we had shamefully neglected prior to 9/11.

I have no idea what Hal is talking about that we are less secure, obviously we are much more secure now in the big picture and we will continue to become more secure as the Islamic world democratizes with Iraq as an example, hence the fundamental importance of finishing the job.

There is no need to invade Saudi Arabia, we have to let it be known that change is required there, that we no longer support a terrorist-appeasing autocratic theocracy, and tht if the Sauds want to continue to have a role they must become a constitutional monarchy with clear separation of church and state, the Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers must be actively rooted out and crushed.

Regime change in Iraq was obviously not a mistake, will never be seen as a mistake by any objective observer, is the part of the "neocon agenda" that has always made sense, and if you think it is only the "Israeli hard right" that wanted Saddam out of power you are hallucinating.

Sandra is simply wrong in her basic premise, stating a conclusion ("They had to get him out of there") as if it were a fact.

And Eric, you're doing the sliders again: nobody said that it was "only" anything that wanted Saddam out.

But the facts do show that it was the Israeli hard right and the American neoconservatives who took the steps that resulted in the US executing and funding the ouster of Saddam through invading Iraq.

It was not in the best interest of the US, and it did not improve our security.

As you have said Hal, saying it does not make it so.

"It was not in the best interest of the US, and it did not improve our security."

I have to agree with Hal on this. Ousting Saddam Hussein was great for the Iraqi people and it served justice, but the way it was done has probably done more harm than good for the more narrowly defined interests of the U.S.

Saddam was a menace to his neighbors and his own people, but he was never going to attack the U.S. He just didn't have the reach. And he clearly had more lose by provoking the U.S. into a war. Unlike bin Laden, Saddam wasn't specifically looking for trouble with us; he was thoroughly invested in maintaining the status quo. He could probably be dissuaded from supporting terrorism much as Qadhafi was.

At the same time, exercising military dominance is exactly what breeds terrorism, because that's what the weak turn to when they have no other way to assert their will. Palestinians resort to suicide bombers because they've been totally defeated militarily and politically. U.S. victories may send the message that we are militarily unassailable, but that doesn't make people agree with us. Our enemies are human beings just like us, and human beings aren't submissive creatures - beat them down and they'll just wait for a chance to strike back, no matter how "cowardly" or symbolic the act.

And now with all the stumbling in our postwar efforts, we risk the goodwill of the people we're trying to help. It may eventually turn out that Iraqis believe they got their country back in spite of us, not because of us. America has an unfortunate history of receiving more blame than credit for the good we do; I don't see that changing right now. The war we should be winning is the propoganda war - it would do us a lot more good if we convinced the Arab world that their leaders suck before we start knocking them off.

The war is also hugely expensive, and at a time when we're already facing a budget crunch. What good is a free Iraq to the states that can't balance their budgets? Meanwhile we continue to alienate many of the allies who could help shoulder the burden. And if, for example, we take the Russians to task for not supporting the war, how does that help us when we need to look for alternatives to Middle East oil?

The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. But is the United States of America a better place since it took on this task?

If it wasn't Sadaam, it would be Osama, if it's not Osama it would be Hezbolah..Face it..The USA is a target. So whether anything had been done to Sadaam or not was not going to affect your security either way. The Western world is a target to these lunatics. Leaving Sadaam there, was not going to stop Hezbollah from blowing up western interests. Indeed, Sadaam was in power on 9/11.

Therefore, any discussion as to what the Iraq war has done to U.S security is wrong and worse still, pointless, because it starts on a false premise. You are basically saying that had the War happened, U.S security would have in some way been better. We all know thats total nonsense.

Sorry, I meant to say, "had the war not happened..." in my post above.
It is and was TOTALLY in U.S interests to get rid of Sadaam, it was in the interest of the free world and the only reason Germmany and france did not want it to happen is because they were trading behind doors and a lot of money was owed to them that will not now be paid. These things are no secrets. The U'S is still a targety, as is teh U.K as is Moscow(even with their reluctance to the War)..We are all targets for lunatics and to suggest that, trying to stop them is making us bigger targets is not a very sensible argument to make.

again you make nothing but sense Sandra, thanks.

i could be inflammatory here, and suggest that alot of this is speculation. Do you know the reasons people have for supporting terrorists (and there most definitely are such people, who are not so crazy as the terrorists themselves. It's how the terrorists arm themselves and don't all get caught)? i don't think i've seen anyone try and claim that saddam's regime wasn't evil and bloodthirsty (and to be honest i try and distance myself from the extreme anti-war people just as if i were pro-war i'd distance myself from the extreme pro-war people) and i did find is plain stupid and in fact insulting that some anti-war people actually compared Bush to Hitler, although i think that was mainly young and angsty teenagers but anyway
Whether it was a mistake or not to invade again is now a moot point though. You can't change it, it's already happened. I just hope they don't mess up the bringing of democracy to iraq - it's not good that they aren't allowing countries who opposed the invasion to bid for rebuilding contracts, for example (not to mention that they seem to be ignoring Iraqi companies with regards such bids. Excuse me for thinking THAT is the height of stupidity at this point)

"You are basically saying that had the War [not] happened, U.S. security would have in some way been better. We all know thats total nonsense."

[I'm assuming that you meant to have the word "not" in there.]

First of all, I'm saying what I'm saying, not what you're saying I'm saying. You can't put words in my mouth then call them nonsense, because they're your words, not mine.

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq did not just "happen." The evidence is clear that it was a combination of the neoconservative agenda and a desire of the administration not to get bogged down in Afghanistan.

Before you lash out at that, you really should read the source links I provided.

One of them takes you to a series of quotes from Bob Woodward's book "Bush At War." This book was pro-Bush, and in it we find that an invasion of Iraq was first suggested on 9/12:

p. 49: [this occurs on the day after 9/11/01] "Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? ... Rumsfeld was raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately."

pp. 82-83: [9/15/01] "Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan, the nemesis of the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th. Rice was wondering whether it might be the same for the United States in the 21st.
" Her fears were shared by others, which led to a different discussion: Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad?"

Hal, I know your sources, you are consistent with them. I don't think you're perspective is illogical or even "wrong," but I think your conclusions are wrong that we are not more secure. Even if everything you say about Afghanistan and homeland security are factually true, you are still looking too narrowly at the picture, which is that a significant terrorist-supporting regime in the heart of Islamoland has been removed. Tyrants and Islamofascists are scared and doing things they wouldn't have otherwise done, including cooperating with our intelligence efforts and making internal changes within their own countries. I don't believe any of our "friends" are cooperating any less re al Qaeda because of Iraq, and I don't believe we would be any farther along in domestic security had we forgone Iraq - the problem isn't money, it's entrenched bureaucracy and ways of doing things.

I think you have a point about Afghanistan, though.

JR (#16), always?

Ah, I see where fallacy is rooted: "a significant terrorist-supporting regime in the heart of Islamoland has been removed."

As for homeland security, think of the country as an enterprise. Members of top management (administration, NSC, Defense, Cabinet) all have only so much time and they set priorities. Had they not had the invasion as a huge, constant and immediate issue, they would have been able to focus more on other areas. When top management isn't paying complete attention, neither are the underlings.

Without the invasion, priorities would definitely have been set differently and steps would have been taken to improve domestic security, more would have been accomplished in the last two years. (I'll skip the part about how the invasion has increased the terrorist threat worldwide).

I hope every day we can fix the shortcomings in time.

I have not read your sources Hal. I will not read them. I respect your opinion to be against the War or to say that the War has made America a more dangerous place and left it "friendless". As is obvious, I disagree completely. Therefore, any article supporting the notion that the War has put America more at risk and left them without friends does not deserve to be read in its entirety by me, even though I might find some things I agree with. The point it is making is such a complete nonsense to me that I refuse to read it. Please, I am not lashing out. I simply find that argument a complete nonsense.

America and the rest of the free world were under threat, are under threat, and will remain under threat as long as there are fundamentalists pursuing whatever agenda it is they claim they are promoting. It is the nature of the beast. America is like every other country..you were surrounded by fairweather friends. There is no need to panic. If something that suits the interest of France and Germany comes up, they will support America wholeheartedly. Thats world politics for you. The loss of their support is nothing to cry about. All these countries will support America and the UK when it suits them and that is not in dispute.

As far as the rebuilding of Iraq, I find it abhorrent that anyone should suggest that France or Germany be awarded any contracts in the rebuilding of any part of that country. Imagine if they had all stuck together and damned Sadaam from the get go? We may never have had the War. Sadaam played on the disputes within the UN and there were far too many idiots on the security council to realise that. A resounding.."you are in breach and we are taking action" from day one, might have prevented this War..but the man knew that there would always be a few bad apples he could rely on. I do not think that after Britain, U.S, Australia etc have lost lives while liberating the Iraqi people from Sadaams rule, France or Germany should now be allowed to waltz in there and make some cash. You can't have your cake and eat it. Nobody is burning French or Russian flags or effigys of Chirac and Putin as they are Bush and Blair. Let those who did the deed sort out the consequences. I am amazed that that anybody would suggest different or think it unfair that the Americans have banned those in opposition from bidding for contracts. That's World politics and its the way the game is played. They all know it and nobody should act like its all new to them.

Eric, good to see we agree on this matter:)

" The point it is making is such a complete nonsense to me that I refuse to read it.

Ah, yes, nothing like a bit of reasoned discourse based on facts.

Facts, shfacts, Hal. I am sure I could find a hundred articles pro my point of view and bring them to you as sources and therefore "facts" but I have no interest in persuading you to agree with me or see my point of view. Now, THAT, is a fact.

Sanra, I don't read everything that people throw at me in that I simply can't keep up with it all. However, when you say that you're not going to read things simply because you know you're going to disagree, then you discredit yourself.

It's not just how many articles or how many words expressing opinions that you agree or disagree, but how much of what kind of facts and documentation and reasoned arguments are involved. It's a question of quality, not quantity.

If you have "have no interest in persuading you to agree with me or see my point of view" then why do you even bother to post? The underlying idea of all this stuff is to reason together to improve all of our thinking.

I don't mean this to be crappy with you. I'm with you on the conclusion. Hal is, not to put too fine a point on it, ALL WRONG.

The country must be defended aggressively against people who want to kill us. There are plenty of reasonable arguments about the best way to approach this, but we can't afford to just wait for the SOBs to come to America and KILL US.

Killing one or two of these buttmunches here and there must continue to be done, but is not going to be sufficient to get the job done. We have to take the fight to the enemy. We need to be tearing up their nests. That's exactly what we're doing in Iraq.

There are numerous nesting places for these people, and several reasonable arguments for different places to have started. Iran or Syria would have been good choices, perhaps, but you have to start somewhere.

Maybe our actions in Iraq will back some of the others up a step or two, saving us from having to go into major conflicts in other countries. Or maybe we'll be marching into Syria a year or two down the line.

One thing, though: we can't just sit and wait for the jackasses to kill US.

Al, I do not "not" read things because I know I am going to disagree. How do I know I am going to disagree if I have not read it? I said, i will not read Hal's sources because the point they are making is a nonsense to me. Perhaps I should have gone on to add that I am not that interested in reading articles about why people disagree with the War thats come and gone. I read all sorts and disagree more often than not..I meant in this particular situation.

I post here to exchange opinions, carry out debates, argue. Hey, hopefully I will change a few opinions, they might change mine, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. The main reason I post is to air my own view on whatever the matter is..if I happen to persuade somebody to agree with me along the way..fabulous! If not, oh well! I meant my lack of interest, once again, in this particular situation. I have no interest in changing Hal's mind. This does not mean I may not be interested in changing the mind of Joe Bloggs over another topic. It simply means, I have no interest in changing Hal's mind. I am not in the business of changing minds which might be a flaw:) I think it is something that is incidental to me having put my opinion out there. I dont state my opinion, atleast not on this site, because I am hoping to change opinions. Sadly or luckily in some cases;) I do not know any of you personally, so what would changing your minds achieve in the broad span of things? Nothing. I enjoy the interaction and anytime I do change any minds, I will have a triple Vodka and Cranberry juice or a Flapper cocktail:) Till then, I'll just keep posting my opinions that might agree or disagree with the varying opinions on show.

"i will not read Hal's sources because the point they are making is a nonsense to me."

Just to clarify for anyone paying attention: they're not my sources, they're a pro-Bush book, and links to statements of the very pro-invasion neoconservatives.

Sarah's statement seems to be self-defining.

Umm, make that "Sandra's statement.."

I should have been paying attention.

A few more things: the book isn't "pro-Bush," the book is just the book, there are "pro-Bush" elements and anti-Bush elements if a pretty straight telling of events can be classified that way.

And again, how does the fact that "neocons" have been hoping and planning for regime change in Iraq somehow make it illegitimate? It should have been done 12 years ago.

The results are the results and the results are ultimately for the good for iraq, the US, the Middle East, and the world.

1. Circumstances were different twelve years ago. Saddam had invaded a friendly country and taking him out then would have had some justification. At that time, he also threatened the US oil supplied by Kuwait, so that would have been in the national interest.

2. Executing the extreme neocon agenda but selling it to America as part of a war on terror, when Saddam was not part of the terrorist threat to the US, was utterly underhanded and illegitimate.

The neocon agenda was, in fact, never mentioned by the administration, nor has it been yet. Bush did finally admit that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Hal: "I should have been paying attention"

Sandra: A habit of yours perhaps?! Tell me something I don't know.

"Sandra: Tell me something I don't know.

God knows I tried, but you refused to let anything new in.

A few more things: the book isn't "pro-Bush," the book is just the book

No. It includes parts where he praises Bush's leadership and general wonderfulness without clear justification for the insertion. Overall, it struck me as a reasonably straight-forward bit of reporting, with a smidge of "smarm" where you could see Woodward wanted to keep his contacts with power.

My bottom line was: not terrific writing but well worth reading for what is revealed about the process, including some details that the administration might have preferred to leave out.

That comes out sounding pretty balanced to me.

Recent American History 101 in a nutshell: Let's not be naive. Bush senior waged the Gulf War to stop Saddam from taking Kuwait oil. Bush junior finished the job and seized Iraq to ensure the flow of oil to America for years to come. There are hundreds of Saddams in the world, but only one who sat on the 3rd largest oil field in the world. Bush junior won't leave Iraq until he has a stable pro-American government in place. It's all about the oil to ensure that America can keep her tanks rolling and jets flying. Human rights issues etc. are smoke and mirrors. Iraq was calculated and Osama was the excuse needed to finish the job, and in the words of the immortal Stone Cold Steve Austin - "And that's the bottom line."

Eric, the dead horse gets it one last time: I think I meant "pro-Bush" as in "pro-Bush" not as in "pro-Bush policies," but at this point ... :-)

Thats right darling, I refuse to let anything "new" in:) The idea that I will allow myself to read material repeating the same points of view I have heard ad nauseum against the Iraq war and its consequences all in the aid of raising doubts in my own wisely;) held views pro the war is simply not up my street. So indeed, I refuse to let anything "new" in:) As long as we both sleep easy standing firm in our beliefs, there'll be nothing lost, huh?! Happy preaching:)

BB, for me, its irrelevant the motivation. You may be spot on. I will not argue that. However, this war was not against a peaceful nation minding its business and no source of threat to the free world. It was against a tyrant who had killed more people than the War ever did, a man in breach of. international Law and a man that crude as it may sound, had to be taken out. If not, it would have ended up as Rwanda where they argued about the rights and wrongs of going in until thousands of people were tortured and slaughtered to death.

So, if Bush wants Oil, well france did not go in cos they wanted to keep making backhand cash. Everybody's a thief. Nobody is a saint in world politics and once we understand that, we realise that the end justifies the means. Iraq is still a dangerous place now. People are still dying but its FREE of that man's rule and people are not dying because they dared to tell Qusay that he could not rape thier sister or brother. Its a free nation with all the budding problems of newly freed nations. It will take time to sort it out. It may never be completely sorted out but where in the world is without its problems?

I just find it amazing that people can think because Bush may have had ulterior motives for going in, the removal of Sadaam was a pointless venture and America is now at risk because of it. I don't think reasoning can get any more preposterous than that and I just refuse to fill my mind with such and align myself with that school of thought. Yeah Bush may be selfish, greedy, maybe it is all about Oil, but in the process he got rid of a man who was killing, slaughtering, torturing men, women and children just for the hell of it, for reasons that you and I take as our God give right. These people were killed on those grounds. Do you think if you asked the Iraqi child whose whole family was wiped out by sadaam, "oh, look here boy, we'll be taking lots of your Oil, but we'll get rid of this here bastard"..do you think that child would have said.,.NO, We want our Oil? Only people like you in the West are so worried about where the Oil is going. The average suffering Iraqi human burdened with all sorts of psychological trauma could give a rats ass who gets the Oil. Its not like they will not get paid for it, however cheap it is. Afterall, its not like sadaam was sharing the benefits of the Oil with his people.

I just refuse to understand such reasoning and I put myself in the shoes of an Iraqi living there all these years like the many I saw in documentaries through out the War, the exiled who were happy about the war, and I think to myself, who gave me the right to protest against this war on some self righteous grounds about morality and supposed ecomic motives? Humanity itself demanded that Sadaam be removed and whatever the reasons and whatever way it took, he is out and thats all I care about and i dare say thats what the average Iraqi person cares about.

The idea that I will allow myself to read material repeating the same points of view I have heard ad nauseum against the Iraq war and its consequences all in the aid of raising doubts in my own wisely;)

That's what I'm talking about - the links I gave you were to people arguing FOR the war.

The Grateful Dead were right.

Hal, ok, lets just face it. I am not interested in your links. Okay? I dont care what you think about that. If you think the grateful dead were right, well, yipee for you. I disagree with you and i have posted my disagreement. End of story.

All sides have expressed some reasonable views, but here are a few of my thoughts:
12 years ago there wasn't a multilateral mandate to take Saddam out. People tend to forget that. You can say that the US doing it now is unilateral, but the international support the US does have is significant and is based on the violation of sanctions agreed on by the UN Security Council regarding weapon inspections etc. In my view France Germany et. al. didn't go along because of selfish financial interests with Saddam. I think it is right to leave them out of the contracts now. The US shouldn't worry about alienating them now any more than they worried about alienating the US then. Any time they would like to regain good standing with the US, they could send peace keeping forces to help out.

It seems like it is always the US that is asked to examine its policies to find out why terrorists hate us. I think they hate us for who we are, not what we do. I said before that I didn't know for sure if the Iraqi's deserve a better government. It seems illogical, but not everyone wants freedom (limited) and democracy. Many in this country (US) would subvert the principles of the Constitution.

All in all I do feel like the US is more secure having taken the offensive. It sounds crude to say that maybe force is all they can understand, but it might be true. Of course there are innocents, but there are innocents here as well. War is hell of course, but at least it's over there. If other places on the globe are less secure now because of our offensive, then it should make it clear to them who the bad people are, (the terrorists)and draw them in to a more pro-active stance, which is the kind of multi-lateral coalition we are looking for.

Thanks Dan, I more or less agree with everything you said and you said it well.

And BB my friend, it's not about the oil. That's the one thing most non-US citizens of whatever political stripe say and that most US citzens, including many who were dead against the war agree on. It may have been about a lot of things and perhaps not all of them were "honorable" (like Sandra, I don't much care "why"), but it was not about oil. It just doesn't make sense.

I staunchly opposed the first Gulf War, believing then (and still) that it was mostly about oil. I tend to be real skeptical of fighting for "American interests" in that I don't wish to see our government spending our blood and money just to support the profit lines of business.

That was then, though, and this is now. We've had 9/11, and know that there are dirtbags all over that part of the world actively trying to come here and kill us. Insisting that this is not the reason we went into Iraq this year just reflects willful failure to recognize reality.

You might argue that this was not the best way to go about it. Perhaps you're right. I just don't see a better way.

What would you war opponents do to protect America instead? Nothing? Sit here waiting for the next 9/11? Kiss ass on the thugs in the hope that if we talk real nice, they'll just go away?

Again, what realistic idea do you have for knocking out this huge ongoing threat other than taking a stick to the miscreants?

HOW ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO STOP SONSABITCHES FROM COMING HERE TO KILL US BY THE BATCHES?

Oil probably played a large part in GW I, but likely very little in GW II.

The US should have gone after the terrorists following 9/11, and started to do so by going into Afghanistan.

And then, instead of continuing the war on terrorism, the neocons went after Iraq.

Bad idea, poor execution.

I'm not arguing for or against the Gulf War, the war in Iraq or the war against Terrorism. BUT, we must all understand that everybody hates (or envies) a bully (or a perceived bully), regardless of the merits of the cause. When you are the only remaining superpower and you flex your muscles you are going to attract negative attention. How you can avoid that stigma and at the same time protect your borders, well that is a darned good question and I do not pretend to have all the answers. Might make a good discussion though.

And Eric, are you saying that I'm full of nonsense? Where's MD when I need her? Sik girl sik. Actually, oil makes perfect sense to me and is the only reasonable explanation. Yes there are alternatives but they are secondary and not a good enough reason on its own to spend billions of dollars and risk lives. Sorry, but that's the way I see it bro.

BB, don't disagree about envy and muscle-flexing, but it's not like we GET the oil, it still belongs to Iraq and their infrastructure is years from being at full capacity. This was about finishing a job started 12 years ago, a continuation of the War on Terror, self defense against WMD (even if they aren't found), and trying to turn the worst government in the Middle East into the best.

If we got to KEEP the oil that would be another matter.

I must confess that I'm impressed Eric. Your world is in turmoil and you can still rise to the challenge. Congratulations on your son and happy to hear that Dawn is well.

Back to the matter at hand. At least we have some common ground (that's the mediator in me). However, (now comes the advocate part) it is not about owning the oil. It is about ensuring the steady flow of crude and prices. There are many Saddams in the world but this one just happened to sit on a huge oil reserve and it was no coincidence he was targeted. Imagine for moment what would have happened had Saddam taken ownership of Kuwait oil. With his military might and clout with the oil cartel he could have wrecked havoc economically as well as compromise the defense of the civilized world. You can't run tanks, jets or missiles on vapour. And who's to say he would have stopped there?

History has shown that nations don't go to war for noble causes (contrary to what the propaganda spin doctors would have us believe). They go to war for economic reasons and that's the bottom line.