What about Iran? They have been the leading terrorist nation since 1979. They supply terrorists with weapons and money. They boldly develop WMD's and disperse their knowledge to other nations like North Korea. And they have been outspoken of their hatred for the Great Satan over the past 25 years. I neither feel that Iraq was ever the threat that was claimed, nor did we have the right to overthrow a soverign nation. Yes Sadaam kept SE Asia unstable, but how many countries around the world can also make that claim? I still feel to this day that Bush came into office seeking a way to take care of "unfinished business."

Has Iran made threats against Israel and then showed they have no problem in using chemical weapons to wipe out a large group of people as Saddam did with the Khurds?

 

I would not be surprised if your last statement is true.

Has Iran made threats against Israel and then showed they have no problem in using chemical weapons to wipe out a large group of people as Saddam did with the Khurds?

 

I would not be surprised if your last statement is true.

In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:

 

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:

 

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

Wasn't Saddam of the same mindset? Israel needed to be defeated and thrown out of the ME. And yet Saddam HAD USED chemical weapons to get rid of a group of people. He had shown that he would do it. He showed that he had the capabilities to use chemical/gas weapons.

 

I'm not happy with what's going on in Iraq right now. Not at all. I do think that our intel was again wrong in believing that the people of Iraq would respond more positively to the chance for democracy in Iraq. I'm not happy that each day more of our fine young men and women are losing their lives for people who seem unwilling to recognize the wonderful opportunity that we have provided to them. But I also realize that to have done nothing but hope that the sanctions would eventually work was tantamount to the wishful thinking that the Brits and the French had towards Hitler. One can only speculate how many millions of lives would have been saved if Hitler had been stopped by an invasion of Germany in the late 30's (which I'm sure would have been criticized by many for not giving appeasement a chance to work) instead of allowing him more time to build up his military machine.

 

 

 

Overall a good post, presenting your case.

 

I've chosen this paragraph and this statement though to reply to. I've heard this argument many times before. If Britain and France had invaded Germany in the late 30's they would have been sorely beaten. By that time Germany had already built back their military and were more on a war footing than either power. France had allowed their military to be trained for a "defensive war" behind the Maginot Line. Britain was a great military but sorely lacking in resources. (Without US help in the early years they would have gone dry trying to defend their nation against the Nazis)

 

There was no country ready for WW II in '38 except Germany. Even the USSR wasn't ready because Stalin had just purged the military again of its greatest leaders. The truth is they were the only real threat to the Germans and in the end their demise on the Eastern Front was a combo of weather, over extended lines, and the USSR ability to produce men, material and numbers to overwhelm the Germans by '43.

 

So, IMHO, there was no way any nation could have stood up to Germany before the war actually broke out. It would have taken years to prepare themselves for such a conflict and history shows that was pretty much the case since the tide of war never really turned until about '42 in North Africa.

What about Iran? They have been the leading terrorist nation since 1979. They supply terrorists with weapons and money. They boldly develop WMD's and disperse their knowledge to other nations like North Korea. And they have been outspoken of their hatred for the Great Satan over the past 25 years. I neither feel that Iraq was ever the threat that was claimed, nor did we have the right to overthrow a soverign nation. Yes Sadaam kept SE Asia unstable, but how many countries around the world can also make that claim? I still feel to this day that Bush came into office seeking a way to take care of "unfinished business."

 

 

Good post. I agree, especially with your last statement. In my opinion, if you replayed the last five years with any of 100 different people as President, none of them would have invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. The American public was pliable in the years after 9/11 and demanding strong action. The Bush administration took advantage of this to sell its Iraq adventure.

Wasn't Saddam of the same mindset? Israel needed to be defeated and thrown out of the ME. And yet Saddam HAD USED chemical weapons to get rid of a group of people. He had shown that he would do it. He showed that he had the capabilities to use chemical/gas weapons.

 

Saddam may have used chemical weapons (which he no longer had in 2003) in the early 90s against a defenseless Kurdish population, but that doesn't mean he would have been foolish enough to pick a fight with Israel, which packs a nuclear punch and the military support of the U.S. There are a lot of bad actors in the world, many armed and dangerous. We can't take them all on. While America has misfired and become bogged down in a WMD-less Iraq, North Korea and Iran have been emboldened to sharpen their spears without fear of military reprisals from the U.S.

 

What a foolish course we have taken. Our situation is a mess.

Saddam may have used chemical weapons (which he no longer had in 2003) in the early 90s against a defenseless Kurdish population, but that doesn't mean he would have been foolish enough to pick a fight with Israel, which packs a nuclear punch and the military support of the U.S. There are a lot of bad actors in the world, many armed and dangerous. We can't take them all on. While America has misfired and become bogged down in a WMD-less Iraq, North Korea and Iran have been emboldened to sharpen their spears without fear of military reprisals from the U.S.

 

What a foolish course we have taken. Our situation is a mess.

Don't disagree with much you have put in here but to make the leap that if we would not have been in Iraq we would have had some sort of military action vs. NK or Iran is quite a large leap in my opinion.

Before I hijack this thread, I do want to pay my respects to President Ford. I believe he was an honest caring man. In many ways he reminded me of President Carter.

 

Now on to the quoted post. So the lesson learned by you and hopefully many others is that decisions made by Presidents today that are horribly unpopular can in fact, when viewed decades later, turn out to have been very enlightened and in the best interest of our country. Perhaps we all should remember that the next time we fly off the handle at the decisions made by our current President.

 

I still remain one of those people in the minority that believe the decision to remove Hussein and liberate Iraq will turn out to be one of the smartest and most courageous decisions made by any President. While we could all hope that the sanctions would have worked in controlling Hussein, no one and I mean no one can know for sure that they would have. We saw how the Oil for Food program was being abused and not properly supervised by the UN and we saw how corrupt the UN was. With that knowledge, could anyone realistically trust the UN to make sure that the sanctions were being implemented and followed? Honestly, if you were the President burdened with protecting American citizens, would you trust the UN to protect us? Could we know for sure that the sanctions would prevent Hussein from developing WMDs? I don't think so at all. At best we could have is hope and hope isn't real effective against biological and chemical weapons.

 

The imperfections of the UN are frequently brought up as justification for Bush's disastrous "go it alone" mentality that brought about the Iraq fiasco. Well now with the wisdom of events of the past three and a half years, from a pragmatic standpoint, what do you think would have been easier to fix--an admittedly corrupt and dysfunctional UN filled with civilized people who can be reasoned with -or- the failed state of Iraq we created, where centuries-old sectarian animosities have spun out of control, ruthlessly enflamed by Iran, Syria, and the terrorists who flooded the country after we destabilized it? Iraq was full of bluster, but turned out to be a neutered threat. If we had pursued inspections more aggressively, we might have understood that fact before we embarked on our wreckless course of invasion. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. held the pursestrings and had an immensely strong bully pulpit (before the war) to demand changes in UN internal oversight and policy toward Iraq. We failed to use those tools to our advantage.

 

On the other hand, what we did know for certain was that Hussein was committed to developing WMDs as soon as he could. We did know for certain that Hussein was a lunatic and was not the least bit reluctant about ruthlessly killing innocent people, including his own people. We did know for certain that he was a sworn enemy of you and I and had vowed to kill Americans whenever and wherever he could. Maybe he was just spouting off, but with his track record would you bet your life and the life of your loved ones that he was just kidding? Why people think we should have given this guy one more day in power based on the hope that sanctions would work and that the UN would rigorously enforce them is somewhat puzzling to me.

 

Bluster and bravado from an emperor with no clothes. Saddam relished his image as a maverick Arab leader who talked tough about the U.S. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, and Mahmood Ahmadinejad have all said things that were not nice toward the U.S., with varying degrees of threat implied. What made Saddam different? The fact that he used chemical weapons (that he no longer had) against his own people (in a region that had since been successfully protected by UN no-fly zones)? The fact that we gave up on sanctions that had clearly worked and were successfully containing Saddam only illustrates the foolishness of the immensely costly path ultimately chosen.

 

A lot of people think the fact that there were no WMDs found supports their opposition to the war. If anything it only supports the fact that our intelligence agencies were not very good. The fact that WMDs were not found does not however change the fact that Hussein was a raving lunatic, committed to harming America whenever and however he could. As I oft stated, I'm thrilled to pete that our intelligence and Bush were wrong in that there were no WMDs found. All of the ground troops that invaded Iraq were danged thrilled that the intel community and Bush were wrong.

 

Would some of you have felt better if Bush had justified the war with the rationale that "Hussein does not yet have WMDs, but we believe he is committed to developing them, we take him at his word that he is committed to harming America and Americans whenever and wherever he can, we do not believe that sanctions will be effective in stopping him, we do not have faith in the UN that the sanctions will be enforced, and thus we are not going to give him any further time to develop them; rather we are going to attack him now before he can develop them in order to save 100s of thousand lives of our military"?

 

I would have felt better if we had been told the truth, rather than the cherry-picked worse case scenario used to sell this dripping bag. Public support for the imperious enterprise of invading a sovereign country would have certainly been tempered by the knowledge that there was, in fact, no imminent threat. Unfortunately, the American public, still reeling from 9/11, was whipped into a frenzy by the Administration's horrifying images of mushroom clouds in American cities and chemical and biological weapons labs. Telling the side of the intel story most suited to justifying this war of choice robbed the public of the opportunity to think through this course of action rationally. We have plenty of time to think now.

 

But if we can honestly put the political rhetoric aside and look at what was fact: that Hussein was crazy and ruthless; that he was committed to developing WMDs; that he was a sworn enemy of you and I, and that he was committed to doing us harm, I think one would logically agree that removing Hussein was the right thing to do.

 

Yes I realize that there are leaders of other countries also committed to harming us that we have not toppled with a military invasion. But with the exception of the leader of N. Korea (discussed below), I don't think any of them are certifiably insane like Hussein was or have the ability and financial resources to hurt us like Hussein did. And I thus believe we can control them or limit their ability to hurt us without overthrowing them with military force. Hussein was a crazy person who hated us and threatened harm to us and had the money to do it. He had to go and the sooner the better.

 

This is rich. Iran is and was before the invasion of sanction-weakened Iraq a much stronger Middle Eastern adversary (in every sense of the word). Iran is OPEC's second largest petroleum producer and has a developed arms industry capable of building missiles with ranges exceeding 1000 miles. Ahmadinejad, whose 2005 victory in the Iranian Presidental election was no doubt boosted by his tough-talking stance in the wake of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, recently sponsored an event devoted to the denial of the Holocaust. His country regularly conducts missile tests and it has embarked on an in-your-face nuclear program while we sit mired in Iraq. What's even more outrageous is the fact that, by our consumption of oil, we are financing not only Iran's development of military capability, but its support for Shiite insurgents killing our own soldiers. Doesn't sound like we are controlling anything with respect to Iran.

 

 

I'm not happy with what's going on in Iraq right now. Not at all. I do think that our intel was again wrong in believing that the people of Iraq would respond more positively to the chance for democracy in Iraq. I'm not happy that each day more of our fine young men and women are losing their lives for people who seem unwilling to recognize the wonderful opportunity that we have provided to them. But I also realize that to have done nothing but hope that the sanctions would eventually work was tantamount to the wishful thinking that the Brits and the French had towards Hitler. One can only speculate how many millions of lives would have been saved if Hitler had been stopped by an invasion of Germany in the late 30's (which I'm sure would have been criticized by many for not giving appeasement a chance to work) instead of allowing him more time to build up his military machine.

 

Iraq's military machine was a joke. Its weapons programs were nonexistent and Saddam was not able to achieve much of anything under the weight of post Gulf War sanctions. Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is absurd. About the only thing the two had in common were vain leaders who liked to publicly thumb their noses at the international community. But Iraq was no prewar Germany. Iran may be, but by virtue of our situation in Iraq, we are relatively powerless to act with much effect. The Iranians know this.

 

 

I look at our current inability to deal with N. Korea in a more forceful manner as further support for our actions against Iraq. We allowed N. Korea to get so strong that we cannot forcefully deal with N. Korea without a catastrophic loss to our military people. So we are now forced to negotiate with another madman. Does anyone think one can logically negotiate with a madman? I don't. Rather we have to count on China to use its leverage to protect us, S. Korea and Japan. Not a position I like being in thank you. I do thank the good Lord that we removed Hussein before he had the chance to create WMDs. I just wish we had done the same with N. Korea before it was too late and I wish the Brits and French had done the same with Hitler.

 

Again, apples and oranges. North Korea was virtually in a position to defy U.S. and international edicts the day the Korean war ended. Seoul, the South's largest city, is a mere 30 miles from the DMZ--well within the range of missiles fired from the North. Saddam had been completely bottled up by the no-fly zones imposed in the north and south and by sanctions which prevented him from acquiring technology and material useful in building weapons.

 

One final thought that is not discussed much. If the sanctions had resulted in the Iraqi people overthrowing Hussein (which a lot of people in support of the sanctions used for justification to stick with the sanctions), would Iraq have turned out much different that it is today? Does one logically think that the Shiites and the Sunnis would, like lion and lamb then lay down in the grass in peace next to one another? I don't think so. It would be just as a big of mess that it is today. And my guess is given the importance of the middle east to America and the likely invention of Iran and Syria into the situation, we would have sent our military into the mess to try and protect our national interests. And thus we would still have had our military personnel dieing while we try to stabilize the situation.

 

This is tortured logic if ever I saw it. Any one of a thousand different destabilizing events could occur around the globe tomorrow that might justifiably rate U.S. military intervention. That doesn't mean we should speed the process along by unilaterally setting them in motion. Honestly, I think some are so ideologically married to this disastrous policy blunder that they will come up with incredibly contrived scenarios to rationalize it. Even the think tank neocons, who spend all day every day thinking about stuff like this have pretty much abandoned ship on the decision to start a war in Iraq.

 

So perhaps several decades from now, when our current President is laid to rest, some of the same people that were so upset with Ford for pardoning Nixon will be saying how wrong they were to criticize Bush for removing Hussein, that he did what he thought was in the best interest of this nation and that he did so knowing full well that he would take a lot of heat, political and otherwise, for his decision but had the courage to do so anyway.

 

Ford's pardoning of Nixon closed the door on Watergate and let the country move on. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq opened a Pandora's box that will negatively impact this country for decades when fully accounted.

The imperfections of the UN are frequently brought up as justification for Bush's disastrous "go it alone" mentality that brought about the Iraq fiasco. Well now with the wisdom of events of the past three and a half years, from a pragmatic standpoint, what do you think would have been easier to fix--an admittedly corrupt and dysfunctional UN filled with civilized people who can be reasoned with -or- the failed state of Iraq we created, where centuries-old sectarian animosities have spun out of control, ruthlessly enflamed by Iran, Syria, and the terrorists who flooded the country after we destabilized it? Iraq was full of bluster, but turned out to be a neutered threat. If we had pursued inspections more aggressively, we might have understood that fact before we embarked on our wreckless course of invasion. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. held the pursestrings and had an immensely strong bully pulpit (before the war) to demand changes in UN internal oversight and policy toward Iraq. We failed to use those tools to our advantage.

 

 

 

Bluster and bravado from an emperor with no clothes. Saddam relished his image as a maverick Arab leader who talked tough about the U.S. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, and Mahmood Ahmadinejad have all said things that were not nice toward the U.S., with varying degrees of threat implied. What made Saddam different? The fact that he used chemical weapons (that he no longer had) against his own people (in a region that had since been successfully protected by UN no-fly zones)? The fact that we gave up on sanctions that had clearly worked and were successfully containing Saddam only illustrates the foolishness of the immensely costly path ultimately chosen.

 

 

 

I would have felt better if we had been told the truth, rather than the cherry-picked worse case scenario used to sell this dripping bag. Public support for the imperious enterprise of invading a sovereign country would have certainly been tempered by the knowledge that there was, in fact, no imminent threat. Unfortunately, the American public, still reeling from 9/11, was whipped into a frenzy by the Administration's horrifying images of mushroom clouds in American cities and chemical and biological weapons labs. Telling the side of the intel story most suited to justifying this war of choice robbed the public of the opportunity to think through this course of action rationally. We have plenty of time to think now.

 

 

 

This is rich. Iran is and was before the invasion of sanction-weakened Iraq a much stronger Middle Eastern adversary (in every sense of the word). Iran is OPEC's second largest petroleum producer and has a developed arms industry capable of building missiles with ranges exceeding 1000 miles. Ahmadinejad, whose 2005 victory in the Iranian Presidental election was no doubt boosted by his tough-talking stance in the wake of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, recently sponsored an event devoted to the denial of the Holocaust. His country regularly conducts missile tests and it has embarked on an in-your-face nuclear program while we sit mired in Iraq. What's even more outrageous is the fact that, by our consumption of oil, we are financing not only Iran's development of military capability, but its support for Shiite insurgents killing our own soldiers. Doesn't sound like we are controlling anything with respect to Iran.

 

 

 

 

Iraq's military machine was a joke. Its weapons programs were nonexistent and Saddam was not able to achieve much of anything under the weight of post Gulf War sanctions. Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is absurd. About the only thing the two had in common were vain leaders who liked to publicly thumb their noses at the international community. But Iraq was no prewar Germany. Iran may be, but by virtue of our situation in Iraq, we are relatively powerless to act with much effect. The Iranians know this.

 

 

 

 

Again, apples and oranges. North Korea was virtually in a position to defy U.S. and international edicts the day the Korean war ended. Seoul, the South's largest city, is a mere 30 miles from the DMZ--well within the range of missiles fired from the North. Saddam had been completely bottled up by the no-fly zones imposed in the north and south and by sanctions which prevented him from acquiring technology and material useful in building weapons.

 

 

 

This is tortured logic if ever I saw it. Any one of a thousand different destabilizing events could occur around the globe tomorrow that might justifiably rate U.S. military intervention. That doesn't mean we should speed the process along by unilaterally setting them in motion. Honestly, I think some are so ideologically married to this disastrous policy blunder that they will come up with incredibly contrived scenarios to rationalize it. Even the think tank neocons, who spend all day every day thinking about stuff like this have pretty much abandoned ship on the decision to start a war in Iraq.

 

 

 

Ford's pardoning of Nixon closed the door on Watergate and let the country move on. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq opened a Pandora's box that will negatively impact this country for decades when fully accounted.

 

 

Well stated responses. When I get the chance, I'll respond.

Overall a good post, presenting your case.

 

I've chosen this paragraph and this statement though to reply to. I've heard this argument many times before. If Britain and France had invaded Germany in the late 30's they would have been sorely beaten. By that time Germany had already built back their military and were more on a war footing than either power. France had allowed their military to be trained for a "defensive war" behind the Maginot Line. Britain was a great military but sorely lacking in resources. (Without US help in the early years they would have gone dry trying to defend their nation against the Nazis)

 

There was no country ready for WW II in '38 except Germany. Even the USSR wasn't ready because Stalin had just purged the military again of its greatest leaders. The truth is they were the only real threat to the Germans and in the end their demise on the Eastern Front was a combo of weather, over extended lines, and the USSR ability to produce men, material and numbers to overwhelm the Germans by '43.

 

So, IMHO, there was no way any nation could have stood up to Germany before the war actually broke out. It would have taken years to prepare themselves for such a conflict and history shows that was pretty much the case since the tide of war never really turned until about '42 in North Africa.

 

 

H this one's easy to respond to so I'll address this one first. So what you seem to be saying is that if the French and the Brits had been strong enough to stand up to Germany in the late 30's they should have done so. While you did not so state and I won't put words in your post that are not there, do you believe that if they had had the strength to oust Hitler before he started WWII, millions of lives would have been saved? If so, applying that logic to the Iraq situation, we were certainly strong enough to topple Hussein and while we can never know for sure admittedly, by doing so when we did, we may have saved many many lives by acting when we did.

 

Another thought. Wasn't Germany supposedly under many post WWI sanctions, many involving not building up its military? If so, why did the Brits and French wait until Germany became so strong that they could not confront him pre WWII? Perhaps if they had been more vigilant or more willing to do what needed to be done at an earlier time, Hitler would have never been able to build up its military. Can you agree with that?

H this one's easy to respond to so I'll address this one first. So what you seem to be saying is that if the French and the Brits had been strong enough to stand up to Germany in the late 30's they should have done so. While you did not so state and I won't put words in your post that are not there, do you believe that if they had had the strength to oust Hitler before he started WWII, millions of lives would have been saved? If so, applying that logic to the Iraq situation, we were certainly strong enough to topple Hussein and while we can never know for sure admittedly, by doing so when we did, we may have saved many many lives by acting when we did.

 

Another thought. Wasn't Germany supposedly under many post WWI sanctions, many involving not building up its military? If so, why did the Brits and French wait until Germany became so strong that they could not confront him pre WWII? Perhaps if they had been more vigilant or more willing to do what needed to be done at an earlier time, Hitler would have never been able to build up its military. Can you agree with that?

 

 

Not a bad stretch for applying the two except for one thing H already pointed out. Iraq's military could not compare to Germany's ever in their history or their future. To be honest, you were the one trying to draw the comparison and I was pointing out what was the problem, Britain and France could not match Germany.

 

The Treaty of Versailles and its punitive reprecussions led to the atmosphere that allowed a Hitler to be listened to and believed. If you study history you will note that the German military rebuilt while the world was in the throes of the Great Depression. No one could have been viglilant on that watch when the masses in the Democratic nations were trying to survive.

 

You are painting "what if" pictures without recognizing the "what was" that couldn't be changed. Economy, history of World War that had eradicated much of the flower of the European population during that time depriving the continent of potential leadership, and the resulting desire to avoid another full scale conflict.

 

I don't know how Britain or France could have acted differently. If they did invade Germany what would that have accomplished? It would have created an even greater Nationalism among the Germans that would have been impossible for those two nations to control. Invasion and control of a foreign nation is not a good answer and a lousy policy that usually results in what we see today in Iraq. I'm not sure I've seen any work over the long haul.

Not a bad stretch for applying the two except for one thing H already pointed out. Iraq's military could not compare to Germany's ever in their history or their future. To be honest, you were the one trying to draw the comparison and I was pointing out what was the problem, Britain and France could not match Germany.

 

The Treaty of Versailles and its punitive reprecussions led to the atmosphere that allowed a Hitler to be listened to and believed. If you study history you will note that the German military rebuilt while the world was in the throes of the Great Depression. No one could have been viglilant on that watch when the masses in the Democratic nations were trying to survive.

 

You are painting "what if" pictures without recognizing the "what was" that couldn't be changed. Economy, history of World War that had eradicated much of the flower of the European population during that time depriving the continent of potential leadership, and the resulting desire to avoid another full scale conflict.

 

I don't know how Britain or France could have acted differently. If they did invade Germany what would that have accomplished? It would have created an even greater Nationalism among the Germans that would have been impossible for those two nations to control. Invasion and control of a foreign nation is not a good answer and a lousy policy that usually results in what we see today in Iraq. I'm not sure I've seen any work over the long haul.

 

Yes I am well aware of the reasons why Germany was able to rebuild its military. As you pointed out, some of it had to do with the economic effect of the Great Depression. But a lot of it had to do with the lingering effect from WWI and the elected leaders and the people of Europe just did not have the stomach or the will to start another conflict. A lot of it had to do with the fact that the European countries just didn't want to deal with Hitler, that they hoped that he was all bluff and bluster and that the sanctions would keep him in check. All those reasons factored into the decisions make to not confront Hitler. But we all know what eventually happened. We all know that the sanctions did not prevent him from rebuilding his military and that appeasement only gave him more time to strengthen his military and prepare his evil plan. We all know that as tough as it would have been for France and the other European countries to take on Hitler in the 30's, what they suffered in WWII was even tougher, much tougher. And we all know that Hitler was not just bluff and bluster.

 

And the point about Germany's military being stronger than Iraq's somewhat misses the point (or maybe it makes my point). Germany's army post WWI was beaten and in shambles. Germany's military was defeated. Sanctions were put in place that should have prevented it from being rebuilt. But for all the reasons we discussed, Germany was able to flaunt the sanctions and rebuild its military. Perhaps, just perhaps, if Britain and France had gotten tougher on Germany when it started to rebuild its military and had removed Hitler, WWII would have never happened. Perhaps if the European leaders had not believed Hitler when he started to rebuild his military with the justification that he was only going to build it to defend Germany, WWII would not have happened. Its not like Germany's military went from post WWI shambles to pre WWII superiority overnight. It happened over time and it happened with the knowledge of the leaders of Europe. But they failed to stop Hitler when he started. They believed listened to and believed him as you stated. They allowed him to gradually rebuild his military until it got to the point, as you stated, that they could not do anything about it but sit back and wait for him to attack and then hope and pray that the U.S. saved their butts at a great cost to the young men and women in our military, not to mention the military of our allies and the Jewish people of Europe.

 

Furthermore, accepting for argument's sake that it was primarily economic reasons resulting from the Great Depression that prevented France and Britain from addressing Hitler before it was too late, do you believe that if they had the military strength and financial resources they would have been justified in invading Germany to remove Hitler after Hitler refused to follow the sanctions imposed on Germany and began to rebuild its military? Do you believe that if they had removed Hitler before he was able to fully develop his war machine that it would have saved millions of lives?

 

 

You ask the question of what would have invading Germany pre WWII accomplished. It would have removed Hitler from power and hopefully sent him on an appointment with his Maker. And I do not believe that Germany would have ever proceeded down the course it took without Hitler. Perhaps it would have resulted in even greater Nationalism as you postulate. Could the results of that been any worse than the consequences of WWII? I don't see how that's possible myself. The 3,000 military deaths in Iraq are bad, real bad. If we had allowed Hussein to stay in power however, I believe the results would have been much worse than 3,000 dead.

 

As to your last point about invasion and control of a foreign power not working. I think our invasion, occupation and control of Japan worked out pretty well. It brought significant stability and peace to that country. Japan became a strong democracy and a major economic power.

 

The real differences between my position and your position on the Iraq invasion I believe, are: 1) you believe Hussein was only bluff and bluster, and 2) you believe that the sanctions would have forever prevented him from developing WMDs. Whereas, I believe Hussein was a crazy person who was not bluff and bluster. If it was all bluff, I believe he would have capitulated to the UN and US demands and ultimatums for free and unfettered access to look for WMDs. I believe his earlier invasion of Kuwait and his prior development and use of chemical weapons showed that he was not all bluff and bluster. And whereas, I believe that the sanctions over the long haul would not have worked. The Oil for Food program was corrupt and had already began to undermine some intended effect of the sanctions. I do not believe the UN can ever be reformed personally. I most certainly do not believe that the UN can ever be trusted to protect our national interests and our citizens. Furthermore, as you acknowledged with the Versailles sanctions, the countries required to enforce and monitor the sanctions became distracted by other world events. If that happened with the sanctions on Germany, why can't that happen again with sanctions on Iraq?

 

I respect your opinions and beliefs, but mine are different.

The imperfections of the UN are frequently brought up as justification for Bush's disastrous "go it alone" mentality that brought about the Iraq fiasco. Well now with the wisdom of events of the past three and a half years, from a pragmatic standpoint, what do you think would have been easier to fix--an admittedly corrupt and dysfunctional UN filled with civilized people who can be reasoned with -or- the failed state of Iraq we created, where centuries-old sectarian animosities have spun out of control, ruthlessly enflamed by Iran, Syria, and the terrorists who flooded the country after we destabilized it? Iraq was full of bluster, but turned out to be a neutered threat. If we had pursued inspections more aggressively, we might have understood that fact before we embarked on our wreckless course of invasion. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. held the pursestrings and had an immensely strong bully pulpit (before the war) to demand changes in UN internal oversight and policy toward Iraq. We failed to use those tools to our advantage.

 

 

I don't agree that fixing the UN would be any easier than what we are facing in Iraq. I will admit that trying to fix the UN would not have necessarily directly cost us the lives of our military. But if I am correct in my belief that we could not fix the UN, their continued corruption could have indirectly cost us many, many more lives. I'm not sure that simply pulling tight the purse strings would have been feasible either. Do the extent that the invasion of Iraq has hurt our relationships with other countries, and I agree that it has, can you imagine the reaction worldwide if we stopped our funding of the UN because the UN did not want to do things the way we insisted they be done by us? The reaction may have been worse than what we've experienced due to our Iraq policy. As I've mentioned in other posts, I do not think we will ever be able to trust the UN to protect our interests and national security. Perhaps that is a consequence of the USSR no longer being considered as our equal. A lot of countries are resentful of our stature as the only real world power. With the threat of the USSR removed, albeit it termporarily in my opinion, we no longer are the protector of the free world, as there is no country for us to protect other countries from (although I do think there is a growing awareness of leaders that fanatic Islamism is quickly becoming that threat). I am curious to know how you believe we could have pursued our inspections more rigorously than we did. Where did we (the U.S.) fail and what more could we have done?

 

 

Bluster and bravado from an emperor with no clothes. Saddam relished his image as a maverick Arab leader who talked tough about the U.S. Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, and Mahmood Ahmadinejad have all said things that were not nice toward the U.S., with varying degrees of threat implied. What made Saddam different? The fact that he used chemical weapons (that he no longer had) against his own people (in a region that had since been successfully protected by UN no-fly zones)? The fact that we gave up on sanctions that had clearly worked and were successfully containing Saddam only illustrates the foolishness of the immensely costly path ultimately chosen.

 

What made Hussein different was that he had invaded Kuwait, a key U.S. ally, that he had used chemical weapons in the past, and that there was believable intel at the time that he had WMDs and that he refused to allow us and the UN to properly perform the inspections. I realize that you and others have the firm belief that Bush and his advisors made up the intel and that there was no credible intel supporting the claims that Hussein had WMDs but I don't believe that. I believe that there was some intel that said he had WMDs and there was some intel that stated there was not. I believe Bush and his advisors poured through all of it and decided the best course of action to protect our interests was to remove him militarily.

 

 

 

I would have felt better if we had been told the truth, rather than the cherry-picked worse case scenario used to sell this dripping bag. Public support for the imperious enterprise of invading a sovereign country would have certainly been tempered by the knowledge that there was, in fact, no imminent threat. Unfortunately, the American public, still reeling from 9/11, was whipped into a frenzy by the Administration's horrifying images of mushroom clouds in American cities and chemical and biological weapons labs. Telling the side of the intel story most suited to justifying this war of choice robbed the public of the opportunity to think through this course of action rationally. We have plenty of time to think now.

 

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. As I mentioned in my prior post, I do believe that Bush could have done a better job communicating that there was contrary intel on certain issues (particularly the african connection). Actually I think Bush does a terrible job communicating. He's a terrible public speaker and his mannerisms (the smirks and other body gestures that he uses which are probably involuntary) bother me and seem to confirm the "rogue cowboy" image that he has. He is no where close to Clinton or Reagan in being able to convey his message and support his position. I don't however think that better communication would have changed Bush's decision or a lot of the public's initial support for his decision. I do like the phrase "imperious enterprise" but do not think a country's act to defend itself quite fits the phrase. I have zero problem with the pre emption concept for what its worth.

 

 

 

This is rich. Iran is and was before the invasion of sanction-weakened Iraq a much stronger Middle Eastern adversary (in every sense of the word). Iran is OPEC's second largest petroleum producer and has a developed arms industry capable of building missiles with ranges exceeding 1000 miles. Ahmadinejad, whose 2005 victory in the Iranian Presidental election was no doubt boosted by his tough-talking stance in the wake of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, recently sponsored an event devoted to the denial of the Holocaust. His country regularly conducts missile tests and it has embarked on an in-your-face nuclear program while we sit mired in Iraq. What's even more outrageous is the fact that, by our consumption of oil, we are financing not only Iran's development of military capability, but its support for Shiite insurgents killing our own soldiers. Doesn't sound like we are controlling anything with respect to Iran.

 

I totally agree that I should have mentioned Iran. Keep in mind however that at the time we decided to invade Iraq, Ahmadinejad was not in power and a more moderate person (well, at least more moderate than Ahmadinejad anyway) was in power as President of Iran. It is and was much more wealthy than Iraq, sitting on 5% of the world's oil reserves. I think you are correct in your statement that the Iraq invasion may have played a role in his election, although you need to keep in mind that Iran and Iraq have long hated one another, and not withstanding the rhetoric, a whole lot of the Iran people were happy as all get out that Hussein was removed for many reasons. Ahmadinejad's election may have been more fueled by stuffing of the ballots and election fraud. The leader of Iran's military ordered every member of the military to vote for Ahmadinejad. Plus Iran's Revolutionary Guard (Ahmadinejad was a former member of the Guard) intimidated a lot of the more liberal and pro Western voters either not to vote for their candidate or not to vote for all. Its very likely that Ahmadinejad would have gotten elected regardless of whether we invaded Iraq. Iran is no doubt a country that we need to address; the only issue is whether we address it with diplomacy or the gun.

 

 

 

 

Iraq's military machine was a joke. Its weapons programs were nonexistent and Saddam was not able to achieve much of anything under the weight of post Gulf War sanctions. Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is absurd. About the only thing the two had in common were vain leaders who liked to publicly thumb their noses at the international community. But Iraq was no prewar Germany. Iran may be, but by virtue of our situation in Iraq, we are relatively powerless to act with much effect. The Iranians know this.

 

I disagree that it is absurd to compare Iraq and Germany. While you do not think Iraq had the ability to develop into the nemesis that Germany became, I disagree with you. At one point Hitler was just a crazy man with a very weak and ineffective military. But he was able to rebuild his military because the world allowed him to do so. Hussein was another crazy man and again, I believe there was credible intel that indicated he had such weapons. Also we know, if his own top scientists and loyalists are to be believed, he was heck bent to develop them as soon as he could. I do not have the same hope that the sanctions would have prevented him from developing them. And since he refused to allow us and the UN to inspect and investigate and ignored our ultimatums before we invaded, why are you optimistic that he was going to do so in the future? How could we realistically be certain that the sanctions were working if he refused to allow us and the UN to inspect, other than by invading and then checking?

 

 

 

 

Again, apples and oranges. North Korea was virtually in a position to defy U.S. and international edicts the day the Korean war ended. Seoul, the South's largest city, is a mere 30 miles from the DMZ--well within the range of missiles fired from the North. Saddam had been completely bottled up by the no-fly zones imposed in the north and south and by sanctions which prevented him from acquiring technology and material useful in building weapons.

 

I totally disagree about N. Korea being in such position the day after the police action ended. N. Korea was beaten and they were powerless until the Chinese entered the fray. As for the no fly zones, didn't Hussein start shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone? Not as bottled up as some may think. And for the billionth time (sorry about that) that fact that he did not have the WMDs, does not mean that he was not going to be able to develop them in the future. I'm glad we got rid of him before he did so.

 

 

 

This is tortured logic if ever I saw it. Any one of a thousand different destabilizing events could occur around the globe tomorrow that might justifiably rate U.S. military intervention. That doesn't mean we should speed the process along by unilaterally setting them in motion. Honestly, I think some are so ideologically married to this disastrous policy blunder that they will come up with incredibly contrived scenarios to rationalize it. Even the think tank neocons, who spend all day every day thinking about stuff like this have pretty much abandoned ship on the decision to start a war in Iraq.

 

 

So you don't think one of the stated reasons for or expectations of the sanctions was that Hussein would be overthrown by his own people? I sure remember reading and hearing that logic and reasoning. If he had been overthrown, I believe we would be in Iraq today and if we were not in there, that Iran and Syria would be there in a much bigger way than they are. And yes I do believe that could have had even more disastrous consequences to our national security that what we are dealing with currently. At the end of the day, critics of Bush cannot have it both ways. They cannot blame him for the high prices of oil and the resulting adverse effect that it has on U.S. citizens and our national economy, and at the same time criticize him for taking actions that he believes are vital to preserving our ability to buy oil. Sure we can lament all we want about our country's dependance on oil and our failed policies (or better yet lack of any policy) to develop alternate energy sources, but there are a whole lot of past Presidents that have more blame than Bush for this. Keep in mind that 9/11 happened in 2001, shortly after Bush came into office and the invasion was in 2003. While I believe that with alternate energy sources and less dependence on oil, a lot of our concern with the middle east can go away, but we are not there now and we were not there in 2003. And yes I don't mind stating that our need to preserve our oil supply was also a part of the decision to remove Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that Bush and his advisors (some of which were the very same people that Ford brought into his administration and must have had great confidence in) believed that if a true democracy could florish in Iraq, it would have a trickle over effect on other countries in the middle east, and that would be a "good thing" as Martha likes to say, not only for us and Israel, but the people living in those areas (unless you believe that democracy and freedom should be a right of people everywhere). And please don't respond with "if democracy is so important, why don't we take military action against every dictator in other areas of the world". Because of the importance of oil to our country, we are and must be most concerned about the middle east. It would be nice if we had the ability to remove all dictators, but that's not likely. Plus, from what I recall, we sincerely believed that there was an educated populous in Iraq that wanted and would be able to implement democracy. That's not necessarily the case in many other countries.

 

 

Ford's pardoning of Nixon closed the door on Watergate and let the country move on. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq opened a Pandora's box that will negatively impact this country for decades when fully accounted.

 

We won't be able to judge if you are right until many decades are past. Much like the critics of the pardoning are now admitting they were wrong, lets all hope that the critics of Bush's decision to invade Iraq will also admit they were wrong in decades from now. Frankly it's in every one's benefit that Bush be proven by the historians down the road to have been right.

...Frankly it's in every one's benefit that Bush be proven by the historians down the road to have been right.

 

I would have to tweak this, and say that it's in everyone's best interest if Bush gets it right. Like you, I would love to think that none of our soldiers have given their lives in an unworthy cause, but I fear that that is exactly what is happening. In that sense, I see the war in Iraq as being eerily similar to Vietnam.

 

The issue that is important is not how Bush is viewed by historians, but rather, if anything worthwhile is achieved by this war. At this point, the majority of Americans clearly think that is not the case.

 

 

Frances

I would have to tweak this, and say that it's in everyone's best interest if Bush gets it right. Like you, I would love to think that none of our soldiers have given their lives in an unworthy cause, but I fear that that is exactly what is happening. In that sense, I see the war in Iraq as being eerily similar to Vietnam.

 

The issue that is important is not how Bush is viewed by historians, but rather, if anything worthwhile is achieved by this war. At this point, the majority of Americans clearly think that is not the case.

 

 

Frances

 

Saddam Hussein was deposed as a result of this war. That is "worthwhile," no matter how you spin it. Not saying that, in and of itself, justified the war, but certainly was "worthwhile" in the realm of cause and effect.