liberals.....

[Hicksey]

Actually there was considerable disagreement among UNSC nations as to Iraq's capabilities. Many of the nations that share dteh U.S.'s views were basing their positions on information the U.S. gave them.

The major dispute was how to proceed. France (Oil), Germany ($11B owed), Russia (Oil) and China (Oil) didn't want to proceed with a war because they believed it would interfere with the committments made to them by SH. Canada jumped on board because it is en-vogue to be anti-US.

First: given the hash that has been made of Iraq, would you really trust the people in charge to have successfully prosecuted a war against Iran? As for now, going to war against Iran would be a titanic strategic blunder that would undermine the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and threaten stable, U.S. friendly regimes in the region.

I can only play with the cards I am dealt. Bush is what we have. I'll take imperfect over not at all every time.

No state is going to spend the time and resources to build a nuclear weapon and waste it in a futile effort to make a statement. They're certainly not going to hand weapons to terrorists (despotic regimes have a hing for control). Nuclear weapons are of limited strategic value. They make good deterrents (and when you're ona list of "Evil" countries, one of qwhich has already fallen to invasion, you're gonna get what deterrent you can) but are pretty much useless as offensive weapons.

What about instances like the Taliban/AQ/Afghanistan where a terrorist organization takes control of the country. It has already happened, it likely won't be the last time. And it just happens they completed the most devastating attack on North American soil since Pearl Harbor on 9/11. If such a nuke makes it into one of those planes what does that do to the death toll?

9/11 to me was a painful reminder that today a reactive policy should have been a pro-active one. We should act to prevent such actions instead of waiting and reacting.

[ceemes]

You never said why YOU think that the war of Iraq needed to be fought.

Im curious since they never did find weapons of mass destruction and managed to dispossess 1000s of peoples let alone murder them. Dont forget the premise for entering Iraq was to check out IF it had weapons. This is a far cry from what actually took place. The US should be locked up like any of its citizens would be if they committed mass murder.

They were funding different terror efforts aimed at the US and more frequently its allies. Further, they constantly verbalized a threat of use of chemical weapons and WMD's. Even if they didn't have the capability the threat of same cannot be ignored and an unenforced, paper UN resolution is not enough.

Well, you have your Bushie talking points down pat, I'll give you that. Problem is, everyone of them is either erroneous or misleading. Lets take a look at them individually shall we?

1) They were funding different terror efforts aimed at the US and more frequently its allies.

The only financial support or terrorism funding that has been proven against both Saddam and Iraq prior to the invasion, was that Saddam cut a few cheques for a couple of grand to be be given to the widows and children of Palestinian suicide bombers. As bad as Saddam's régime was, it was secular in nature and was itself a target of Islamic Extremism.

But what has been proven beyound a shadow of a doubt is that the two biggest funders of AQ, Hezbolah, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups is the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) and Pakistan. Both these nations have close ties to AQ and the Taliban. Indeed, the majority of the the proported terrorist that attacked the US on 9-11 came from Saudi Arabia, and zero, nada, zip, SFA, bugger all came from either Iraq or Iran. And yet, both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are so-called ALLIES in the war on terror. In fact, Bush ordered Pakistan to be removed from the US's State Departments list of terrorist supporting nations.

2) Further, they constantly verbalized a threat of use of chemical weapons and WMD's.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Prior to Gulf War I, the threat of Iraqi chemical weapons was very real and a major concern. But even when Saddam realized that he had lost his Kuwaite gambit, he did not resort to using this arsenal of WMD's.

After GWI, Iraq was isolated and hemmed in and began to disarm its WMD programmes. UN inspectors including those from the US have pretty much free access to all Iraqi weapons sites and when Iraq did deny access to a site, US and UK fighterbombers that were enforcing the no-fly zones paid a loud visit to Baghdag and other Iraqi cities. Right up to the start of the Iraqi Invasion, UN and US inspectors were stating loud and clear that Iraq was all but completely disarmed and that 10 years of sanctions had bankrupt Saddam's weapons programmes, as was the CIA, MI5 and other international intelligence agencies. The Iraqi's also stated over and over again that they had no WMD's left and never verbalized as you say a threat to use them.

However, Bush and his Neo-Con handlers did not want to hear that and instead listened to and trotted out proven Iraqi liars and conmen such as Ahmad Chalabi and Adnan Ihsan al Haideri. Worse yet, Bush and the Neo-Cons knew that the claim made by men like these were complete and utter fabrications and yet they still used them to make a case for war. This along with the cherry picking and manipulation of intelligence data and the use of know false intelligence to launch what has turned out to be a right BALLS UP CLUSTER FUCK of war should considered to be high treason.

3) Even if they didn't have the capability the threat of same cannot be ignored and an unenforced, paper UN resolution is not enough.

Again wrong, wrong and wrong. The Bush Administration knew beyond a shadow of a doub that Iraq had no WMD's of note, had no means of delivering WMD's, had no or at best minimal ties to AQ or anyother terrorist organation nd was not in any way involved with the events of 9-11.

As for the US paper resolution being unenforced. Sorry, but UN Inspectors along with members of the US Armed Forces weapons inspection team and various intelligence agencies were crawling all over Iraq up until the point where war was a foregone conculsion. They only pulled out of Iraq when it became perfectly clear that Bush and Co were going to have their little war no matter what. And when the UN did encounter Iraqi resistance, US and UK fighterbombers patrolling the no-fly zones quickly made the Saddam and his people exactly what the price would be. Just as many bombs few on Iraq during the embargo era as did during the entire GWI.

The UN sanctions isolated Iraqi, USN, RN, and RCN naval units blockaded Iraq by sea, USAF and RAF blockaded it from the air. Iraq was a broken nation and no threat to anyone anymore.

[Topaz]

So you believe that Bush and Bush family and other higher ups in the US govt didn't know 9/11 was going to happen???? I bet you can find hundreds of people who work at the US Fed govt that would disagree with you and show you evidence that it was a cover-up! One example is the fact that Barbara Olson, who phoned her hubby and said they were going to crash into the penetagon is actually ALIVE and was found last july in Europe with big bucks on her. She was picked up by US intel agents and French trying to cross into another country. Don't blame the Liberals for the "war on terror" or the US Dems. IT has been the US Republicans foreign policies and GW Bush that has brought this world to unrest for many decades to come!

[jbg]

I think that whether or not Iraq had WMD's their threats justified action.

[gnam]

Sorry folks but I am tired of all the Liberal’s making up stories about conspiracy theories against George Bush. What a JOKE! He doesn’t need help from the terrorists to make his point! You do! I watched a news program last night that made me sick. Liberals and anti-Bush ideologies have become ramped in a world fought by brave young people. You, on the other hand, are equal to the Talaban or Al’Quada terrisits on the lose still.... Sad you people are...and you know who you are...Wake up and smell the smut you pollute the world with, then join the army and get off welfare! Or take a break from Michael Moore who is an ass!

If this pisses you off....its because you are one of them!

Actually... this pisses me off because your sentence structure and spelling are poor and your little rant bears the tone of a street corner, soap box communist.

[geoffrey]

I ask you this. Where would Israel be today without US support?

Toast.

I submit it wouldn't be. Why is killing Jews less wrong than killing Arabs?

Depends if they are legit targets or not. A Jew civilian is worth as much as an Arab civilian in my books.

Israel is surrounded by countries that want them dead. Leave them to their own devices and Israel will end up in history books and no longer on a globe. It that what you want?

Nope. Israel has a right to its defense.

The only reason Israel has to target civillians is because the chicken-hawks that are Hezbollah hide within their civillians and fire at Israel.

Wrong, they don't have to target civilians. Their bombing has been mostly of civilian infrastructure. This assault wasn't about catching Hezbollah, it was about punishing civilians, just Joe and Bob out to make a living for their family. It is morally bankrupt.

Tell me Hicksey, your a reasonable guy, how many Hezbollah operatives did they capture/kill? I'll bet you struggle to find a number larger than a handful.

The strategy simply doesn't work, the operation was a failure to Israel and to the majority of Lebanese citizens that voted for peace.

Who we support in the battle aside ...

Why can't this entire region get along with each other, or those around the world? They're the only ones that cannot, or refuse to.

Only recently. It was only 60 years ago that Europe nearly wiped each other right off the map, those conflicts had higher body counts. Some may argue colonization and Western interference were at fault, but I'd argue that it's just conflicting political idealogies that need to balance each other out over time.

[Hicksey]

So you believe that Bush and Bush family and other higher ups in the US govt didn't know 9/11 was going to happen???? I bet you can find hundreds of people who work at the US Fed govt that would disagree with you and show you evidence that it was a cover-up! One example is the fact that Barbara Olson, who phoned her hubby and said they were going to crash into the penetagon is actually ALIVE and was found last july in Europe with big bucks on her. She was picked up by US intel agents and French trying to cross into another country. Don't blame the Liberals for the "war on terror" or the US Dems. IT has been the US Republicans foreign policies and GW Bush that has brought this world to unrest for many decades to come!

I've seen all the conspiracy theory videos and powerpoint presentations too. They are quite funny. Much more humorous than accurate I'd bet.

[Hicksey]

The only reason Israel has to target civillians is because the chicken-hawks that are Hezbollah hide within their civillians and fire at Israel.

Wrong, they don't have to target civilians. Their bombing has been mostly of civilian infrastructure. This assault wasn't about catching Hezbollah, it was about punishing civilians, just Joe and Bob out to make a living for their family. It is morally bankrupt.

Tell me Hicksey, your a reasonable guy, how many Hezbollah operatives did they capture/kill? I'll bet you struggle to find a number larger than a handful.

The strategy simply doesn't work, the operation was a failure to Israel and to the majority of Lebanese citizens that voted for peace.

I never thought they were pursuing Hezbollah with the intention of capture or even full-out defeat.

As far as I know Israel's 2 primary motivations were to push Hezbollah back from their positions along the border and to punish them for taking 2 Israeli soldiers hostage. My opinion is that the offensive was as much defensive as offensive. I am also guessing that such a battle happened also because Israel suspected an impending attack along that border and eliminating the infrastructure in that area would make it very difficult for Hezbollah to achieve.

However, I can't ignore your assertion that the attack was about punishing Joe Hezbollah because in that region they seem to serve such violence with breakfast. I just don't see that as a primary objective.

[Charles Anthony]

As far as I know Israel's 2 primary motivations were to push Hezbollah back from their positions along the border and to punish them for taking 2 Israeli soldiers hostage.

Just to be nit-picky: it was Hamas that kidnapped those soldiers. The distinction may likely be lost from our perspective now but they are two different bodies.

[jbg]

As far as I know Israel's 2 primary motivations were to push Hezbollah back from their positions along the border and to punish them for taking 2 Israeli soldiers hostage.

Just to be nit-picky: it was Hamas that kidnapped those soldiers. The distinction may likely be lost from our perspective now but they are two different bodies.

No, Hezbollah did its own kidnapping as well.