Well, Saddam Hussein used to be a powerful and most importantly secular leader in the gulf region. He was a friend of the US in the Iraq/Iran war and D. Rumsfeld himself was responsible for delivering WMD to Iraq in the 80s. Iraq stabilized the region until they turned against Israel (rumour has it that Iraq invaded Kuwait because the US was already building up troups there). This is why I think the US did everything to disarm the country they once supported. Now that Iraq became weak, the Iran is trying to dominate the region. So in the end, Iran eventually with help from the US won the war they fought against Iraq in the 80s. This is quite a complicated story and the roots would have to be searched decades or even centuries ago.

Thoroughly debunked? I must admit, I am somewhat cofused as to what precisely you are talking about. It cannot be my entire post, because that was just created. (Unless you mean that you have just debunked it.) It cannot be my conclusion about motives, because one cannot debunk such a conclusion, only evidences and myths used to support it. So I conclude that you must be refering to some fact, or set of facts, or reasoning process in my post.
I will then request the following clarification:

1. Which of the above categories does it fall into?
2. Which fact or reasoning to you object to? (I do have references for all facts.)
3. Who has debunked it?

I am perfectly willing to discuss any errors or omissions I may have made.

However, before I continue, let me clarify my point. My point is not that we should have went into Iraq. (Sungrove makes a good argument that we shouldn't have. Kudos to him.) My point is not that, conclusively, Bush was without malice. My point is based on the saying, "never impute to malice, what can be readily explained by ignorance and/or stupidity. My point is specifically, that it is quite reasonable, that someone, with the information Bush had, would have come to the same conclusion. (Note: I did not say they most likely would; merely that it is a reasonable conclusion.)
If I didn't know you tended towards flaming a little, I would consider this a serious insult. I am NOT a neocon. Nor even a conservative. Yet I am as unwilling to impute unsubstantiated charges against Bush, as I am unprepared to believe that Obama actually supports voter fraud (as widely claimed by some folks online.)

Willful manipulation of the facts? Again, you are unclear. Manipulation of facts as presented to whom? The people? The Congress? Foreign Leaders? All of the above?

Well, lets look. Many members of congress (including some I quoted above) have security clearances, and have access to original intelligence documents. Clearly, these cannot be construed as having been manipulated. Foreign Leaders have their own intellegence sources. They also tended not to trust the US in general, or Bush in specific. So, it is nearly inconceivable that Bush could have doctored their own intelligence to the point it agreed with his agenda. Hence, you presumably did not refer to Foreign Leaders.
Then I suppose you must have meant the people. Well then, we have a word for "Willful manipulation of the facts." It is propaganda. So, does propaganda imply malice? Certainly, it is a crime nearly all politicians are guilty of. (Especially on election years...) They use it to persuade their constituents to vote for them, and support their policies. This indictment alone does not seem very malicious.

Nevertheless, I note that my post did not primarily rely on info available to the public at the time. Nor did the people I quoted. So regardless of the accuracy of your claim, my point stands. Yes, Bush may have exaggerated the evidence. Yes, even "willfully manipulated" it. However, that does not imply that he did not believe the gist of it to be true. Many people overstate their case, while believing fervently in their cause.


Interesting. I hadn't heard of this. Could you get me a reference? (Not doubting you on the fact of course; I just would like to read ti and see if it was appropriate evidence.)

I have Never seen any sort of evidence for this. Nevertheless, it seems irrelavent, when you consider what everyone he was talking to already knew. Furthermore, as stated above, manipulation of facts does not preclude belief in their conclusion. So this also is irrelavent to my post.

Beacause I haven't looked or anything, have I? No, I just invent a two page post out of thin air....

"I think the war was long planned and the evidence that there were no WMD made it possible to start the war. I don't think the US would have attacked Iraq if they knew that they had WMD. Way too dangerous."

There appear to be several people in this thread who believe this kind of stuff. I consider it claptrap, whatever that is.

Among other people, the UN inspectors believed that Iraq had wmds. They apparently knew more about the situation even than the people in this thread!

You have to understand how easily crowds (such as the Bush admin) are mislead. Self-interest does play a role, but not as simple a role as is suggested. People really believe things, partly because it is in their self-interest to believe them. Others who share similar interests find facts or apparent facts or rumored facts that encourage persistence in those beliefs. The end result is groups of people living in a fantasy world, which eventually comes crashing down. The job of a cold-eyed politician is to understand these irrational forces and not act at their behest. This is where Bush jr. didn't live up to his responsibility as President, though his father did .

It was asked since when rumor justifies invasion. In several cases. If my next door neighbor is rumored to be making smallpox toxins, and there are many scary rumors that seem to support that possibility, at some point I am going to support a police invasion of the house, because that is a very scary rumor, and if it was true it could easily kill me and a lot of other people.

In the case of Iraq, I think that the invasion was not justified for reasons of prudence. There wasn't enough evidence, and with constant UN inspections, it was unlikely that Saddam could mount any kind of significant wmd effort. The US was freely bombing areas in Iraq anyway, as part of its enforcement of the no-fly zone.

My opinion on Iraq is: It doesn't matter whether we should have went or not.. we're there.

We'd better leave that place in a good working freaking order or I'll be thoroughly pissed with the new government. Whether we should have went or not people can scream and debate all day.. fact is - nobody on this board (unless we have someone in the white house here) without a TS/SCI clearance has any idea what kind of information there was or wasn't.

A lot of people here seem to think the "News" in "unbiased" and entirely "100% truth". I just laugh at those that make this claim, or the claim that they have no agenda of their own. And this goes from everything from Gun control, to Iraq War, to Drunk Driving or robberies.

What is fact is .. we went. We toppled their government. And I'll be damned if we want to be the kind of country that just wants to go "Oops, sorry - we'll leave you in a completely unstable, anarchic state - fix it your damn self."

That's like my son breaking another kids toy - and I refuse to pay for it.

yep, I agree with you there actually fatalsaint.

Yes, I think we do need to do the best we can to leave Iraq in the best way possible.

I think one of the reasons to be talking about this is not necessarily just to rehash old stuff, but to remember what can leed us into such a mess and also to realize that part of the problem still exists in the form of Iran.

My local conservative talk show host was implying that with Obama entering as President, we would be less safe. I do think he was saying that the consequence of leaving Iraq is that we will be less safe.

So, short of causing major calamity from a too speedy withdrawal, why does leaving Iraq make us less safe?

But ya, we do need to leave Iraq in a planned way.

But how much help DO we owe Iraq and how much are we willing to pay? At some point I think it's debatable on a deminishing returns basis although I hate to talk about people that way. Back to, 'well what about other war torn zones where many are currently being killed and displaced?'

Neil

Best way to leave Iraq in good shape is to leave asap.

Dithering over there just encourages further dependence and animosity. How ironic.

Yes, but you gotta admit that wiping out a government and then leaving chaos is not exactly an advertisment for the US. Especially since, as I am constantly pointing out, we turned Iran into a powerhouse by eliminating the big enemy it fought its last war with.

I agree with fatalsaint. It has happened, and now the situation needs to get solved. It would be best if the Iraqi people could help themselves and don't need foreign troups in their country, but this is a long process.
Building up the Iraqi police and military should be top priority. The US cannot play police there forever. They're not welcome, it's a clash of totally different cultures. Don't hunt the terrorists because you cannot win that game. Help the people to defend themselves and establish wealth and education. Wealth and education are the keys to fight terrorism.

Would the world become safer if Bin-Laden was found and executed? I don't think so. He might be dead already. Nobody knows for sure. But the world could become safer if less people turned to terrorism.
Occupation, oppression and exploitation make terrorism thrive. Not a single man called Bin-Laden.
If Obama understands this, he will certainly be a better president than the Texan cowboy there has been before.

Iraq is Vietnam Redux. Anyone looking for a clean solution should avoiding holding their breath.

I will be proven correct, in distant hindsight by self-appointed experts and after much pointless malingering.

Christians are not permitted to lie, or kill people. Now, there appears to be an exception: self-defense. Strangely, the Christian movement made their contribution to re-elect Bush in 2004.