Thanks for the links, Rufus and jshore.
Here is a more complete history of the Libya situation, including some reference to the issue of Libya’s WMD programs during the Clinton Administration:
So, as you can see, it is a complex story such that even the people involved can only speculate on Libya’s motivations, but while the Iraq war was likely a factor in Libya’s decision to get rid of its WMD programs that action was not an abrupt about-face but rather was part of a longer process that started in the late 1990s.
Aha! It was all Clinton’s fault. 
I wonder if HCG thinks the Hamas victory in a fair election was an instance of democracy yielding truth?
Another thing that is certain is that he did not have the weapons in March, 2003. The Iraq Survey Group said so, as did former weapons inspectors. There are no weapons buried in the Iraqi desert. They just didn’t exist, and hadn’t existed for years. It’s as plain as the partisanship in your handle.
My apologies if this counts as flaming - although I’d like to think the point stands.
Sorry to go off topic, but I just have to respond to this sudden Republican concern for the Kurds. Saddam used poison gas on the Kurds because Reagan let him, aided him in doing so (we hoped he’d gas Iranians, which he also did) and when Saddam got caught gassing his own people we increased our military aid to him. Link.
Now, the Republicans who go worship the ground that Saddam’s ally and enabler, Ronald Reagan walked upon are suddenly outraged that Saddam poisoned his own people with the stuff we sold him or allowed to be sold on him.
Back on topic, I think one daming case for proving that America is now less safe is the fact that the Taliban in Afghanistan are now using more effective techniques that were learned on the fields of Iraq. That’s right, we have now turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists to prepare for fighting us in Afghanistan. Did anyone imagine on 9/12/01 that things would be so unresolved?
You assume too much. I have no ax to grind, but I do have an opinion to share. And what makes you so sure I am a he?
So what’s the point in leaving Iraq if leaving surmounts to allowing terrorist training camps to grow unmolested?
So share your opinion on the question I raised in post 18. If there’s still a chance that Iraq had WMDs at the time of invasion, why has Bush himself stated that they did not? What possible gain would Bush have making such an admission if it were not true?
Gosh, thanks. I do try to be liberal but fair.
I don’t think there is much doubt that the war has made us less safe from terrorism. Saddam was nobody’s idea of a good leader, but he didn’t have much use for al Qaeda and he was effectively neutered by the first Gulf War and posed no threat to the US. Now the terrorists have swarmed in and turned it into Camp Runamuck. The diversion of troops to Iraq is enabling the Taliban to start mounting a comeback in Afghanistan. America’s reputation has been flushed down the crapper, particularly in the Moslem world. This will in my opinion go down as the biggest blunder in American history.
Of course, the $64 question is what to do now. Continuing as we are leaves little chance of success. The insurgency is far from being in its death throes and the mission is not accomplished. I think we should either bring back the draft and bring in enough troops to truly restore order or redeploy the troops just over the horizon from Iraq and see if the Iraqis can police their own country. This business of trying to do it on the cheap and not asking Americans to make any sacrifices (except our brave soldiers and National Guardsmen) isn’t cutting it.
It would be a pretty daft terrorist that swapped fighting in Iraq for fighting in Afghanistan.
Totally different ‘warfare’. Also not Mazlo friendly.
My take is that any invading army will whistle up ‘insurgents’, more commonly called freedom fighters, and they will get pretty good at fighting on their own terrain.
Their skills are not particularly exportable, and they are not that welcome elsewhere (notice how the Taliban melted away - and is it really Taliban now in Afghanistan ?)
Personally I reckon that the USA, UK, Europe risk of terrorism is now slightly lower, primarily because we are on the look out for it
At risk of making an infantile comparism, West oriented terrorism is done by cats and insurgency (or resistence) is done by dogs.
The invasion of Iraq has turned the place into a toilet, but I doubt that it has increased or decreased the chance of another 9/11.
Don’t you dare fucking imply that opposition to the idiotic policies of Great Leader George is somehow equivalent either to callous disregard for the plight of the suffering people of Iraq or anyone else in the third world, or, worse, to support for the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. That’s deliberately deceptive and inflammatory rhetorical bullshit and it will not fly around here. Feel free to go elsewhere if you want to wank yourself off like that.
Where did I suggest pulling out? That is a different issue. I and several lefty outfits like the CIA, DIA, and NSA argue that invading Iraq in the first place has made us less safe. I did not address how to get us out of this mess the Bushies and chicken hawks have got us into here.
Oh, please. Spare us the righteous indignation. If you just can’t abide by the argument that the invasion brought democracy to Iraq, then you might be too tender to survive around here.
Where was this outrage when madmonk said Republicans worship Reagan, who was responsible for the gassing of the Kurds? How was HCG’s comment any more inflammatory than this?
I’d say that’s “deceptive and inflammatory rhetorical bullshit and it will not fly around here,” but of course we all know that it will fly around here just fine.
Fine, then I suppose you will and others will start advocating we bring democracy to North Korea, any number of African countries, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.
Democracy is a lovely idea, I fully support over any other form of government, but it is completley disingenuous to imply that opposing the Bush’s Iraq invasion is tantamount to not supporting democracy. That’s why the argument won’t fly.
Yes, it really is as far as I know. And I think the argument is that they are now using a greater number of suicide bombings and similar tactics. I’ve read that soldiers in Afghanistan are now at as much risk for death or injury as soldiers in Iraq due to the Taliban’s resurgence.
There is plenty of evidence that Iraq and Afghanistan are sharing fighters and expertise.
For example an escapee from a US prison in Afghanistan was just killed in Iraq by the British Link
Afghanistan has a long history of Arab fighters, bin Laden himself was an Arab fighting Soviet invaders in Afghanistan and there is strong evidence that fighters are working a circuit between Afghanistan and Iraq. Notice an increase in the use of IEDs in Iraq, there is also a concern expressed in the NIE mentioned in the OP that fighters are learning skills that they are then taking back to their home countries to undermine current regimes.
The invasion of Iraq has created a cottage industry in Pakistan and Syria to outfit and deploy Jihadists into Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been numerous articles about this including the cover story of the recent Newsweek (the international edition, my understanding that the US version has celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz on the cover instead).
The recent assasination of an Afghan governor and the bombing of his funeral is classic Iraqi tactics.
And spare us the self-serving shift of focus. The indignation, which is, in fact, entirely righteous…had to do with the vile implication that one is less than patriotic for one’s dissent. It is the kind of argument a polilte cowboy will scrape off his boots before entering the house.
I can certainly understand how you might wish to believe that bringing democracy to Iraq was the point of the excercise, especially since the central argument of self-defense and premptive actions have proven to be just so much buttwhistle.
Yes, I support bringing democracy to North Korea, any number of African countries, etc. But I reserve the right to decide the best method for bringing democracy to those nations. The fact that those countries are not democratic, standing alone, is not enough of a reason for a war. But that was also true with Iraq.
And yet it’s fine to sugguest that Republicans worship the man who was responsible for the gassing of the Kurds. That’s my point.
I’m not arguing that if you support democracy, you must support the invasion of Iraq. I’m arguing that Cervaise’s mock outrage at that comment was silly. How many times have made the same remark as HCG on this board? And yet Cervaise is still so shocked and offended upon his 50th or 60th viewing of that comment that he/she feels compelled to curse in response? He/she suggests that the speaker should leave the board?
Please. I don’t buy it.
Other than the fact that we have gotten rid of one dictator for the chance at a democracy, I can’t think of one good thing. On the other hand we have a deeply divided nation, 3000 dead soldiers, $300 billion dollars of our fortune spent, almost all of our international goodwill evaporated, and a brand spanking new generation of terrorists.
Its not that we want to be isolationist and ignore problems in the rest of the world, its that we can’t squander our resources. For the same amount of money we could have done so much more, heck we could have even reconstructed New Orleans to the level of Baghdad. We could have ensured that everyone in the world was vaccinated forever, we could have ensured that every child in the world received at least a 6th grade education (for the next 25 years), we could have fed every starving human being for the next 25 years, and we could have provided sex and prenatal education to the entire developing world for ever; or we could have just given every Iraqi man woman and child $10,000 to get rid of Saddam Hussein on their own.