Tsk tsk Mr. Bush

[lastkryptonianhere]

But the problem is that the economic sanctions were the UN's way of enforcing its resolutions. And it was stated that there were credible links between Saddam and bin Laden. The report shoots that reason down, as it said that there was no collaborative relationship between them. Thus, how can this be a part of the War on Terrorism, rather than a simple (but increasingly complicated) regime change?

UN sanctions were a joke.  All they did was keep food and meds from the Iraqi people while Hussein lived in palaces of Ivory and Gold.

[Tiberious]

I don't know how ideological or cynical everyone around here is, but I never thought that the war on Iraq was about liberating anyone or protecting us from WMD's. Especially as soon as we started attacking and Hussein didn't retaliate AT ALL.

My view of the war was simply that the United Empire of America (AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT) was expanding to the east, and sure this is not the most just cause, but having a sphere of influence (another one) in the middle-east wouldn't hurt. I think the big problem though is that big companies (Bush %$&-kissers) are reaping all the goods, while the young of our country are paying the price.

[nightwing]

There was little resistance in the early days not because Hussein "turned the other cheek", but because his armies fell apart and his aides betrayed him.  Saddam's armies were emplaced to offer heavy resistance ...he himself promised "The Mother Of All Wars"... but in the end, our troops found the Iraqis' light and heavy ordinance all over the countryside where they'd left them and run away.  There were many reports that Iraqi officers in the field gave orders to attack, only to have their men say "no thanks" and march en masse to the Coalition forces with their hands over their heads.

I think Saddam was more shocked than anyone that Iraq fell essentially without a fight.  Certainly his family members who've spoken to the press feel he was betrayed from inside his government.

As for motive, I don't for a moment imagine we went over there to add Iraq to our "empire." It's a useless hell-hole, for one thing, and too far away and too surrounded by hostiles to govern, for another.  And we already have a "sphere of influence" in the area, in Qatar and to some extent Saudi Arabia.  I think the idea of the war was to show we were serious about going after terrorists wherever they might be, with the hopes of scaring various governments into ceasing their covert deals with terrorists, lest they be invaded next.  You can argue the merits of that kind of thinking...certainly it still adds up to a "pre-emptive" war, or even as Al Gore has alleged an "elective" one...but the notion that we did it for oil or money is nuts.  That's a typical conspiracy theory from liberals who place capitalism and profit at the top of the list of humanity's evils.

[Tiberious]

Though I understand that it was an attack on terrorism when we went after Hussein, it seems that this wasn't the best of targets. If we were going after fundamentalist middle-easter type terrorists, we should have gone after Saudi Arabia. If on the other hand we were going against a country with a disturbed leader who HAS WMD's in possesion, than N. Korea was a more realistic target who we know HAS WMD. Of course, what would we really gain from that? The end of communism? No wait, there's Castro.....why's he still there?

Anyway, concervatives like to dismiss the fact that there is plenty to gain from a country like Iraq. If not from that place itself, than by all the bs that exists in our own government and its policies. Regardless of what the man's media or the anti-man's media is feeding us, there are some people profiting in this war, unfortunately its not the tax-paying-middle-class-hard-working-group....well at least not me but then again I'm not really middle class I'm a poor student.....yeah *sigh*

[nightwing]

I still have mixed feelings about the war, but you're definitely right about Saudi Arabia getting away scot free.  Bush went out of his way to use blunt terms when he said, in essence, we will come after you whether you are a terrorist, or a country that harbors terrorists...we make no distinction and one is as guilty as the other.  But in practice, he quickly relented on this threat by turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's terrorist ties, ties that go all the way up to the royal family members who helped bankroll the 9/11 death squads.

The trouble with painting things in black and white is that sooner or later you get bitten by your own rhetoric.  It happened to Bush the Elder (41) when he declared "no new taxes!" only to raise them anyway in a move that was politically necessary (and which laid the groundwork for the economic boom of the 90s) but made him look like a hypocrite anyway, and helped him lose re-election.  "Plain talk" is all well and fine, but when you talk in absolutes, you better be ready for the fall-out when you start making compromises.

[Tiberious]

You are very right about the clear talk, nightwing. Though Bush may have gone after Sadam Hussein for all the wrong reasons, I feel that well Hussein is out of power (for now anyway) and that's a pretty good thing. If only he could now find a way to stop our troops from continuously being killed, OR produce Bin Ladden a bit before the next election, well he might just be around a while longer.

Good move on Kerry, picking Edwards, now at least the man who should be representing Democrats will be around to back him up.