GMTom wrote:and doing nothing in Iraq would have done just the same thing, yet that's what liberals wanted then as well. How can you have it both ways?

Really? Iraq was being run by secular Arabs who were repressing the extremists. After we invaded and then disbanded the security forces, the extremists were able to become active and started to target our forces.

If anything, the invasion of Iraq did more to embolden them than the alternative of not invading.

Dr Fate - The violations of the no-fly zones in Iraq peaked years before we invaded. Things were calming down, although Saddam was always going to try and see what he could get away with. Essentially, however, Iraq was contained.

danivon wrote:Dr Fate - The violations of the no-fly zones in Iraq peaked years before we invaded. Things were calming down, although Saddam was always going to try and see what he could get away with. Essentially, however, Iraq was contained.

I was against the Iraq invasion. However, the question is how often a ceasefire must be violated before it is null and void? If Saddam would have simply stopped, the allies would have eventually gone away.

But the US, UK and French forces enforcing the no fly zone didn't 'stop' either. The UN resolution under which they were claimed to be being set up didn't give us authorization to do so. We enforced those zones by military force, entering Iraqi airspace, shooting at any planes and bombing ground installations within and without the zones.

So the question of which side was guilty of escalating things is not so simple.

danivon wrote:But the US, UK and French forces enforcing the no fly zone didn't 'stop' either. The UN resolution under which they were claimed to be being set up didn't give us authorization to do so. We enforced those zones by military force, entering Iraqi airspace, shooting at any planes and bombing ground installations within and without the zones.

So the question of which side was guilty of escalating things is not so simple.

So, you are saying what: Iraq did not violate the ceasefire? Or that they did, but so did the allies?

Saddam was bad, but so were the US, UK and France?

Iraq violated the ceasefire. But the US, UK and France also did by using force to enforce the no-fly zones which were not mandated.

Both were bad. We can probably agree that Saddam was worse, but whether what he did was justification enough to start a full scale war and occupation I would say that if that were the case, it was deserved many years before 2003, because the violations (and the attacks on people in those areas) reduced greatly. By the time of 9/11, Iraq looked to be pretty well contained. The means of that containment was an issue for Al Qaeda (Western forces on the 'holy peninsular'), but this tended to be a problem outside Iraq.

We've just seen today that one of the other justifications, WMDs, were partly based on completely false information fed by the source Curveball. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... ng-germany

danivon wrote:Iraq violated the ceasefire. But the US, UK and France also did by using force to enforce the no-fly zones which were not mandated.

Both were bad. We can probably agree that Saddam was worse, but whether what he did was justification enough to start a full scale war and occupation I would say that if that were the case, it was deserved many years before 2003, because the violations (and the attacks on people in those areas) reduced greatly.

True, so by being patient and building international consensus, Bush the cowboy failed? Isn't that a bit funny to you?

We've just seen today that one of the other justifications, WMDs, were partly based on completely false information fed by the source Curveball. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... ng-germany

Again, what major intelligence agency did not think Iraq had WMD? It wasn't just "Curveball."

Doctor Fate wrote:True, so by being patient and building international consensus, Bush the cowboy failed? Isn't that a bit funny to you?

If you call planning it from the moment he entered office, rejecting most of your allies, ignoring the facts being presented by inspectors and pressing ahead without UN agreement as being patient and building a consensus, then you'd be right.

As it is, you are just being well, frankly hilarious.

Again, what major intelligence agency did not think Iraq had WMD? It wasn't just "Curveball."

I don't know. They tend to be a bit secretive these intelligence agencies. But they are capable of putting caveats onto their intelligence. That people managed to create a circle of self-reinforcing hype about weapons that didn't exist doesn't mean that much. Part of it was the insistence that Iraq must do, because, well, we say so.

Just like they were working with Al Qaeda because, well, Cheney said so. Someone said two men met in Prague, so it must be true.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:True, so by being patient and building international consensus, Bush the cowboy failed? Isn't that a bit funny to you?

If you call planning it from the moment he entered office,

That's just sad. I think you've come to believe the mythology you've read.

. . . rejecting most of your allies, ignoring the facts being presented by inspectors and pressing ahead without UN agreement as being patient and building a consensus, then you'd be right.

Really? Who were all of our allies Bush "rejected?" The UK? Australia? Canada?

As it is, you are just being well, frankly hilarious.

I'm not the one who drank the Michael Moore Kool-Aid. Maybe O'Neill? In any event, I don't think anyone takes claims about Bush being dead set on invading Iraq from his inauguration on seriously--except for a few of you sucking down the rare green-fogged air of huffpo and dailykos and believing it uncritically.

Again, what major intelligence agency did not think Iraq had WMD? It wasn't just "Curveball."

I don't know. They tend to be a bit secretive these intelligence agencies.

True, but all the intel we were aware of--Britain, Israel, Russia, and others agreed: he had them.
From The Atlantic:

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States;

You may not like it. It may be inconvenient. However, it is the historical record. And, that doesn't even count the opinions of President Bill Clinton and many Democrats, including Senator Kerry.

Don't forget that Saddam greatly exaggerated his nuclear weapons program intentionally. He wanted to make it seem like he was getting nukes so that we would back off. Ultimately his bluff failed, and of course once we invaded and examined all these facilities we realized it was all bullshit. But to say it was bullshit propagated by Bush is false, it originated with Saddam.

I, just like many others here, disagree with the handling of the war. I think we should've just bombed all of the supposed "nuclear facilities" and left Saddam in place, or remove him by simply supporting a rival. A ground invasion basically ruined our war in Afghanistan, which at that point was going well.

man

I think we should've just bombed all of the supposed "nuclear facilities"

Would you have waited till the UN inspectors had left those sites?

The damning part of the lead up to the war is that inspectors had been in country a long time, had examined and reexamnined and were about to reexamine again every place that had been thought to hold evidence of weapons storage or development....and found nothing.
It was the recalling of the inspectors in favour of war that belies the notion that the war was a "pre-emptive strike" of any kind.
The inspectors were proving that the pre-war "intelligence" was false. The inspections were proving that the Iraq military was a paper tiger. Their continued presence would have further dismantled the reasons for war. Therefore they could not be allowed to continue and a false ultimatum set. False because its demands had already been met.

rickyp wrote:The damning part of the lead up to the war is that inspectors had been in country a long time.

In reality they had ony been there fro 4 months. The disarment inspections between the Gulf War and 2002 never lasted more then a few days before Hussein would kick them out of the Country. The inspectors you are referencing were actually in country only 4 months before the war started (November, 2002 - March, 2003). Further it is my understanding that when the new inspections first started that Hussein was very uncooperative. Not allowing inspectors into certain sites and requiring days and even weeks notice before allowing inspection visits to certain sites. It wasn't until the stronger ultimatiums of Febraury, 2003 that Hussein started to become more cooperative. Even then Hans Blix said it would take months to confirm.

So your above contention is wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/ ... 2330.shtml

Here's a 60 minutes story on an interview with Paul O'Neil, GWB's 1st Treasury Secretary, that basically says GWB was intent on war in Iraq from day 1 even before 9/11. My sense is that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, and used 9/11 and WMD as that excuse. At best, the Bush administration was drinking their own bath water and deluded themselves into believing Curveball.

My sense is that WMD was never really the issue, but rather a mechanism to get those undecideds (such as Powell, Blair, much of Congress) to support the effort.

RJ

RJ,

The problem is O'Neill was fired and has been contradicted by pretty much every other member of the Adminstration. If you look at it rationally and logically, who do you believe? One guy with an ax to grind or the majority of the others in the know?

Ray Jay wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Here's a 60 minutes story on an interview with Paul O'Neil, GWB's 1st Treasury Secretary, that basically says GWB was intent on war in Iraq from day 1 even before 9/11. My sense is that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, and used 9/11 and WMD as that excuse. At best, the Bush administration was drinking their own bath water and deluded themselves into believing Curveball.

My sense is that WMD was never really the issue, but rather a mechanism to get those undecideds (such as Powell, Blair, much of Congress) to support the effort.

RJ

I mentioned, obliquely, O'Neill previously. As the Archduke says, his contentions are a bit unbelievable. Furthermore, without 9/11 (even though Iraq was not involved), could Bush have ever invaded Iraq? I don't think so. I think O'Neill was out to sell a few books and had nothing to substantiate his claim.

Steve:

Furthermore, without 9/11 (even though Iraq was not involved), could Bush have ever invaded Iraq? I don't think so.

Isn't that just another way of saying that 9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq, and it was on Bush's mind from the beginning?

Re O'Neil's truthfulness, I'm going to keep an open mind.