I don't believe any prior administration could have changed the current course. There certainly have been times when a complete justification for taking out Sadaam could be made, but I don't believe it would change things now. I think W's biggest worry is/was Iran. After September 11th, W had quite a bit of discretion as far as military force in the Middle East and from what I've read on the subject he, and the administration as a whole, was seemingly rushed to move into Iraq. Now, I don't know why it was Iraq, but I believe the strategic location it provided against Iran and inside the Middle East as a whole was the chief reason. Things going as planned, we would have two allies in the volatile, anti-American region with great position on Iran, giving us greater influence over them and facilitating checking their power. If Iraq were not a viable invasion point due to a prior administrations actions, I believe another state would have been used. Of course this is all speculation, and merely my opinion, but I believe W's solution to the post-9/11 world was to establish military dominance in the region, and if it wasn't Iraq it would have been another.

I agree, but 4 years later Reagan did the same thing in Lebanon when he pulled the Marines out after the barracks bombing. We've failed over and over to show the people of the Mideast that we have any testosterone. Even the past two wars failed at that. First, we failed to hunt down Hussein after the first Gulf War (I know it wasn't our fault). Then we choose to fight these "compassionate" wars which the people there totally don't understand. They see it as a sign of weakness.

 

I don't know how you show people who are willing to blow women and children up on a regular basis that you have testosterone. At least not with a shred of the civility that is expected of a superpower. Short of leveling an entire nation in the middle east with nuclear weapons, I don't know how you set a precedent that would make the jihadists tuck their tails. I think the most realistic way to impact the behavior of these groups is to financially cut them off at the legs. But we've never had the stomach to deal with our appetite for oil in this country, so we are paying for both sides of the "war on terror".

I don't know how you show people who are willing to blow women and children up on a regular basis that you have testosterone. At least not with a shred of the civility that is expected of a superpower. Short of leveling an entire nation in the middle east with nuclear weapons, I don't know how you set a precedent that would make the jihadists tuck their tails. I think the most realistic way to impact the behavior of these groups is to financially cut them off at the legs. But we've never had the stomach to deal with our appetite for oil in this country, so we are paying for both sides of the "war on terror".

 

It may not necessarily be seen as civil, but I know a perfect way to demostrate our seriousness, and at a limited loss of life. No world leader would have the sack to drop bowling balls and junk cars and beat-up refrigerators and pig entrails on ME terrorist camps, however. I'm firmly convinced the only way to get the attention of terrorists is to out-crazy them. That's their trump card.

I would say that the phrase "failure to rein in Hussein" is a bit vague. Prior administrations may not have invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (which certainly reined him in all right), but they did succeed in containing him very successfully for 12 years with economic sanctions and the militarily-enforced no fly zones. Don't forget that there were no active weapons programs of any consequence going on in Iraq at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, so I would say that Saddam was already "reined in" pretty effectively from a pragmatic standpoint. Without the (completely unrelated) attacks of Sept 11, the Iraq war would have been an answer to a question nobody asked. Yet the Bush administration was considering it before Sept 11.

 

 

As to the bolded part, why do you think the Bush administration was considering it? Or better phrased, what motivated the administration to want to attack Iraq even before the occurrence of Sept 11?

Let me get this straight Jim, you think Clinton is completely blameless. For Iraq or for all of the isues in the mid east? I am not absolving GHWB or GWB but to say Clinton could have done nothing else is absurd.

There were many things that Clinton COULD have done, but none that he should have done. That is the problem with the GWB strategy. He should have left Iraq alone, not because that was in Iraq's best interests, but because it would have been in the best interests of the US.

I would say that the phrase "failure to rein in Hussein" is a bit vague. Prior administrations may not have invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (which certainly reined him in all right), but they did succeed in containing him very successfully for 12 years with economic sanctions and the militarily-enforced no fly zones. Don't forget that there were no active weapons programs of any consequence going on in Iraq at the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, so I would say that Saddam was already "reined in" pretty effectively from a pragmatic standpoint. Without the (completely unrelated) attacks of Sept 11, the Iraq war would have been an answer to a question nobody asked. Yet the Bush administration was considering it before Sept 11.

 

 

As to the bolded part, why do you think the Bush administration was considering it? Or better phrased, what motivated the administration to want to attack Iraq even before the occurrence of Sept 11?

 

 

Because "he tried to kill my dad." Seems pretty obvious to me that Dubya is a petty enough person to send thousands of our soldiers to their death so that he could satisfy a revenge urge. And I firmly believe his friends in the oil and defense contracting industries had a scratch, and it needed itching. I have no faith whatsoever that Dubya's motives were noble.

LN, I do think that the lack of response of prior administrations allowed things to get to the point that Bush felt he had to respond. However, I do not believe he was predisposed to attack Iraq.

Because "he tried to kill my dad." Seems pretty obvious to me that Dubya is a petty enough person to send thousands of our soldiers to their death so that he could satisfy a revenge urge. And I firmly believe his friends in the oil and defense contracting industries had a scratch, and it needed itching. I have no faith whatsoever that Dubya's motives were noble.

 

 

Do you honestly feel that you know Bush well enough to be qualified to say he is petty? I assume you've never really spent any time with him, and only "know" him via the mainstream media. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you have been relatively critical of the mainstream media in the past.

 

As for the "he tried to kill my dad" bit, isn't someone who attempted to kill a U.S. President worthy by that fact alone of being removed? It is with me. Mess with my President (even if it was Carter or Clinton), and you best be ready to be messed with.

 

The real ironic part about a lot of posts on here is that we have can say derogatory things about our President that we can't say about another poster without violating BGP rules. Interesting isn't it.

As far as the planning before Sept 11 part, I would assume that the US has contingency plans for all sorts of things. I would hope that if Iran decided to invade Saudi Arabia or North Korea decides to head south again, we wouldn't have to start making things up as we go and the military would have some sort of basis for a reaction.

 

I would assume that there are hundreds of scenarios across the world that has been considered and discussed long before they ever came into fruition.

 

At least, that it was I would consider to be good planning for the leader of this country.

 

So, plans on how to invade Iraq before 9/11 would not surprise me nor upset me. They were one of those areas of the world that is a concern and we should have thought about it before it ever occurs.

As to the bolded part, why do you think the Bush administration was considering it? Or better phrased, what motivated the administration to want to attack Iraq even before the occurrence of Sept 11?

 

I think GWB and Dick Cheney were obsessed with Saddam Hussein and the fact that he remained in power for so many years after the Persian Gulf War (seemingly thumbing his nose at Bush 41, who had been rather humiliatingly voted out of office in 1992). The plot to kill GHWB couldn't have endeared him to W, either.

 

I don't actually have a problem with the fact that Bush and Cheney were secretly pining to overthrow Saddam well before 9/11. What I have a problem with is the fact that they deceived the American people into believing that:

1) there was a causal link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks

2) the intelligence suggesting Iraq was actively pursuing WMD was far more conclusive than it actually was, and

3) the administration was open-mindedly deliberating whether invasion was necessary when, in fact, they had been looking for an excuse to topple Saddam practically from day one.

I think GWB and Dick Cheney were obsessed with Saddam Hussein and the fact that he remained in power for so many years after the Persian Gulf War (seemingly thumbing his nose at Bush 41, who had been rather humiliatingly voted out of office in 1992). The plot to kill GHWB couldn't have endeared him to W, either.

 

I don't actually have a problem with the fact that Bush and Cheney were secretly pining to overthrow Saddam well before 9/11. What I have a problem with is the fact that they deceived the American people into believing that:

1) there was a causal link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks

2) the intelligence suggesting Iraq was actively pursuing WMD was far more conclusive than it actually was, and

3) the administration was open-mindedly deliberating whether invasion was necessary when, in fact, they had been looking for an excuse to topple Saddam practically from day one.

This is how I and I think History will see this war.

Trinity Alum that was a wonderful response, we had no reason to be there, Saddam posed no threat to us or our allies. Anyone who believes that Israel can not take care of herself is sadly mistaken. W went to war because Saddam tried to have his dad killed during the 1st gulf war and so far it has cost about 3500 lives and $1.60 a gallon

Trinity Alum that was a wonderful response, we had no reason to be there, Saddam posed no threat to us or our allies. Anyone who believes that Israel can not take care of herself is sadly mistaken. W went to war because Saddam tried to have his dad killed during the 1st gulf war and so far it has cost about 3500 lives and $1.60 a gallon

 

I continue to see this listed derisively as a reason Bush attacked Iraq. Assuming for argumentative purposes that it was true, shouldn't we remove dictators that attempt to assassinate our Presidents? If not, why not?

I continue to see this listed derisively as a reason Bush attacked Iraq. Assuming for argumentative purposes that it was true, shouldn't we remove dictators that attempt to assassinate our Presidents? If not, why not?

 

Not if the action is going to cause the country that dictator was in charge of to fall into civil war; a likelihood the administration was warned about, but ignored.

IMO if we would have put the money and manpower into Afghanistan that we have put into Iraq we not only would have stablized the area but also would have destroyed bin laden and his network