There is a huge difference between maintaining a belligerent and defiant posture on the world stage and enabling terrorism on colossal scale with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein was reckless, but he wasn't foolish enough to provide armaments that could be used to inflict mass casualties within the United States. He knew that this would have invited nuclear retaliation by the U.S. The doctrine of Mutually Assurred Destruction prevented a nuclear exchange between the Russians and the U.S. for over 40 years. The way you phrased your question implies that the risk of WMD was all on the side of the Americans, but in reality the greater risk was with the Iraqis.

 

One final point, if the Iraq war is justifiable on the basis of what a belligerent leader might do, where are the calls to invade and topple the leadership in North Korea, Iran, Syria, and even Venezuela?

Have any of those leaders invaded a neighboring country and spent over 10 years thumbing their noses at the calls from the world to get in line?

Have any of those leaders invaded a neighboring country and spent over 10 years thumbing their noses at the calls from the world to get in line?

 

 

Are you serious? North Korea is one that is blatantly obvious! What about Chavez in Venezuala? You don't think Ahmadinejad's comments and actions qualify?

Are you serious? North Korea is one that is blatantly obvious! What about Chavez in Venezuala? You don't think Ahmadinejad's comments and actions qualify?

 

Has the leader being doing it for the time span of about 10 years that Saddam was doing it? Have they in the past 15 years showed aggression by invading a neighboring country?

 

If Venenzuala invades Paraquay and disregards the worlds' pressure to fall in line over the next 10 years, invasion may be warranted.

If North Korea tries to invade South Korea again and thumbs their noses at the world for the next 10 years, invasion may be warranted.

If the alphabet guy does those things, invasion may be warranted.

 

Not saying invade, hope not, but if they do the same things that Saddam has done and then act for 10 years that they don't have to listen to the rest of the world and they are going to continue to do what they want, well obviously what has been tried for 10 years ain't working.

Are you serious? North Korea is one that is blatantly obvious! What about Chavez in Venezuala? You don't think Ahmadinejad's comments and actions qualify?

Dang. I forgot all about Kim Jong Il and North Korea. Nice catch.

Dang. I forgot all about Kim Jong Il and North Korea. Nice catch.

 

How long has he been in power and making such threats and who has he invaded?

How long has he been in power and making such threats and who has he invaded?

His father invaded South Korea. But if you go back and read my earlier post, you'll see that I wouldn't invade North Korea either.

Have any of those leaders invaded a neighboring country and spent over 10 years thumbing their noses at the calls from the world to get in line?

 

 

Saddam Hussein got the mother of all butt-kickings as a reward for his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I fail to see how that bit of history was proof of his intent to sponsor terrorism against the United States with WMD.

Saddam Hussein got the mother of all butt-kickings as a reward for his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I fail to see how that bit of history was proof of his intent to sponser terrorism against the United States with WMD.

 

I don't remember making that claim. Probably because I didn't make that claim.

I don't remember making that claim. Probably because I didn't make that claim.

 

I'm sorry. Tell me again why the invasion of Iraq was a good idea that was justifiable on the basis of the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States?

I'm sorry. Tell me again why the invasion of Iraq was a good idea that was justifiable on the basis of the threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States?

 

As Hillary Clinton pointed out, this country DURING the Clinton administration KNEW that he had a lot of bad stuff and had shown he would use it. That is the statement she made at the debate. No doubt he had it.

 

Now, we know that he obviously did something with it.

 

BUT, that is not what he was purposely leading everyone to believe. He said that he did things to make sure everyone THOUGHT he had WMD to keep Iran from invading.

 

He said that he expected only to be bombed by the US as the Clintons had done and he was fine with that happening.

 

He had disregarded what the world wanted him to do for 10 years.

 

It comes a point and time that when a rogue leaders thumbs his nose at the rest of the world, makes threates with WMD, makes it known he wants Israel wiped off the map, has pure hatred for us, and continually shows that he is NOT going to do what the rest of the world wants him to do, that a firm stance has to be made.

 

Was it a good idea and the best choice. I don't have 100% of the information to make that final call. I am saying there is an argument and a justifiable and good argument for invasion being the best choice.

 

I believe almost all of the Senators agreed with that call.

In the days and months after 9/11 I along with most of us on here felt that it was just a matter of time until we were hit again. Potentially hit with something even worse than 9/11. In the run up to the Iraq war there was near unanimous belief that WMD's existed in Iraq and that Saddam could not be trusted with them. Everyone from the President Clinton to Sec. State Albright all agreed that the WMD's existed and that Saddam was a threat to national security. If there was bad intelligence then it was the same intelligence that the former administration had.

 

The 9/11 attacks had tossed our country into disarray. The economic slow down that was already nearly a year old was kicked into high gear, Americans were being given color codes to tell us if it was safe or not and there was a general fear in the USA that this was only the beginning. I am sure this was not lost on those that wish our country ill, any kind of attack in the next year or so would have in all likely hood set our economy back several years as well as the damage to the American psyche. To think our actions in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan have not made our homeland safer I think is a mistake. Action in Afghanistan put those behind the 9/11 plot on the run and severally disabled the ability to plan and carry out attacks. The Iraq invasion allowed those that wanted to fight and die for Allah to do so by coming to Iraq to fight our soldiers. Unlike previous wars body counts are not released very often of total insurgents killed, but when they have been released there have been some shockingly large results in the success that our military men and women have had. I feel the majority of these insurgents are the same people being trained in the Al-qaeda camps, the same camps that trained most of the 9/11 terrorist. If these guys didn't go to Iraq to fight our military they may well be here among us fighting here and blowing up malls, schools and churches. I know that is a stretch but so was flying jets into the towers and pentagon 7 years ago.

 

For those that may think I am a Bush robot here are a few points that I disagree with him on.

....Enough resources were not put on the ground in Afghanistan to do the job early on when it could still be done.

....We are in a position of vulnerability every day the borders are not secure.

....Plan for the peace was not well thought out (if at all) going into Iraq.

....Has been a failure at getting American less dependant on foreign oil (drill for the oil we have here)

 

That said I still give him credit for no new attacks on US soil. For those that have said you must also give Clinton credit for no attacks after the first world trade tower bombing, I respectfully disagree. The inaction by the Clinton administration for the attacks on American embassies, military installations and The USS Cole emboldened our enemies to continue because they felt we would do nothing more than launch a few bombs at them.

As Hillary Clinton pointed out, this country DURING the Clinton administration KNEW that he had a lot of bad stuff and had shown he would use it. That is the statement she made at the debate. No doubt he had it.

 

LBBC, you obviously want someone to acknowledge this, as I think I have read if about 4 times in this thread, so here you go. I am not sure that "bad stuff" necessarily equates with WMDs, but if so, okay.

LN, here's how I felt about it then and how I feel about it now. Our military forces should never be committed to battle unless an overt act has been committed against this nation by the opposing force; or, in order to protect a friendly nation from an aggressor who has committed an overt act against said friendly nation.

 

I don't have to like Iraq, Iran, Russia, the PRP, Venezuela, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez, Jintao or Jiabao. But as sovereign nations, I feel they have the same rights as the United States has, and that includes weapon development.

 

This is excellent, HHSDad. :thumb:

LBBC, you obviously want someone to acknowledge this, as I think I have read if about 4 times in this thread, so here you go. I am not sure that "bad stuff" necessarily equates with WMDs, but if so, okay.

 

I thought it was AMAZING that she would make this statement in a debate. Blew my mind, so I had to go to the transcripts to make sure that is what she said.

In the days and months after 9/11 I along with most of us on here felt that it was just a matter of time until we were hit again. Potentially hit with something even worse than 9/11. In the run up to the Iraq war there was near unanimous belief that WMD's existed in Iraq and that Saddam could not be trusted with them. Everyone from the President Clinton to Sec. State Albright all agreed that the WMD's existed and that Saddam was a threat to national security. If there was bad intelligence then it was the same intelligence that the former administration had.

Again, whatever the intelligence reports said, the Clinton administration didn't stake lives of American troops on them.

To think our actions in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan have not made our homeland safer I think is a mistake. Action in Afghanistan put those behind the 9/11 plot on the run and severally disabled the ability to plan and carry out attacks. The Iraq invasion allowed those that wanted to fight and die for Allah to do so by coming to Iraq to fight our soldiers.

Afgahanistan, yes. We hit the people that were responsible for 9/11 and hit them hard.

 

Iraq, no. We started a war with an enemy that didn't attack us, very possibly to fulfill a desire that preceded 9/11 and while using 9/11 to justify it.

That said I still give him credit for no new attacks on US soil. For those that have said you must also give Clinton credit for no attacks after the first world trade tower bombing, I respectfully disagree. The inaction by the Clinton administration for the attacks on American embassies, military installations and The USS Cole emboldened our enemies to continue because they felt we would do nothing more than launch a few bombs at them.

Well, they didn't hit us in America until well after Clinton was out of office. Gee, if Clinton was such a wimp you would have thought they would have done it while he was still residing in the White House.