__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish

I think you know how I feel about Iraq, Crow... I think wisdom dictated that invading Iraq wasn't worthwhile unless there was a broad international consensus to do and marshal together another Gulf War-style coalition. That was the wise decision. However, wisdom is often inversely proportional to bravery. The brave decision was to realize that Saddam was an evil tyrant who - even if he didn't have WMDs - was intent on acquiring them and to do whatever it took to head that off.

What if FDR and British Prime Minister Baldwin had decided to invade Germany in 1936, when Hitler was in clear material breach of the Versailles Treaty? The result would have probably been much the same as Iraq - overextended and undermanned US & UK forces battling embittered German nationalist guerrillas, a US President and British Prime Minister under attack at home by vigorous opposition to the war. But Hitler would have been dealt with... only nobody would have realized a far greater disaster was averted.

Who knows what would have happened if Bush and Blair hadn't gone into Iraq? If Dr. Blix was given his "weeks, not months" then odds are that he would have ended up issuing a report saying that even though he couldn't account for all of Iraq's weapons stockpiles, he couldn't find any evidence that they were still in existance and so Iraq would have gotten off the hook. As we've seen in the Duelfer Report, even though Iraq didn't have WMD's in 2003, it didn't mean that Saddam had given up trying to re-acquire them - his plan was to get out from under the sanctions and then to rebuild his WMD programs. So, in effect, Dr. Blix would have played into Saddam's hands. Who knows where that would have led? It's possible that Bush & Blair averted an even greater disaster down the road. And what about the UN? If it's indecision led to a resurgent and aggressive Iraq, what makes you think it wouldn't pay the same price the League of Nations paid in not standing up to Hitler and Mussolini?

So it's a difficult call... is it better to be wise or to be brave? What do you think?

>>>I haven't read the report, but the proof seems to be in the pudding, doesn't it? So I'll ask again - how many nuclear, chemical or biological weapons did the U.S. find in Iraq? Turns out that when Tariq Aziz said "we have no weapons", he was telling the TRUTH.

Why was such a declaration necessary, though? If Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire and was given one final chance to comply and then issued a bogus statement that put them in further material breach, then wasn't the hand of the Security Council pretty much forced? How could you overlook the further material breach and still maintain any credibility?

Also, I'd like you to clarify why you believe that if Iraq was in material breach (and further material breach) of the Resolution 687 ceasefire then why didn't Resolution 678 come back into effect? If Resolution 678 authorized the Gulf War hostilities and those hostilities were suspended by Resolution 687, then once Resolution 687 was declared breached, then why shouldn't the state of active hostilities come out of suspension?

Can the UN actually "declare war", though? It can authorize force to seek compliance with Security Council Resolutions, but aren't declarations of war a purely national function?

Can you name a modern war which wasn't the result of miscalculation?

We would have been authorized to join you in Iraq - we could have had a vote on the matter in Parliament, just the way you did in Congress - but our Government decided that wasn't the way it wanted to go. We decided that we weren't going to participate without an explicit Security Council Resolution.

I must say you are just a tad bit of an idiot. First of all, if the USA and the British did invade Germany they would have had every right to do so because Hitler violated every aspect of the treaty that brought the end to WW1. He thumbed his nose up at all nations who wanted to reign him in. They even gave him a couple of countries just to shut him up.

Nope, we gave Iraq the same choices. Only this time history was remembered and you cannot ever give a dictator bent on world or regional control any latitude at all. You give them an inch and they will take a yard. In this case we gave Saddam a lot of feet and he took miles.

Terror was just but one reason to invade Iraq. If you ask me, and I am no war monger...but we should not have let ourselves get so bogged down in Iraq so we would have the strength to take out Syria and Iran as well. I think history will eventually prove the mistake of not taking them out.

We don't need world consensus on our own security. We didn't in WWII or Korea or Vietnam. But do to public and world pressure we did not do what was needed to win Korea or Vietnam. The same mistakes cannot be made again. Wars cannot be political. People die when that happens that should not have died. Do what you gotta do with overwhelming force and be done with it.

__________________
Rod is the Coolest Most Politically Incorrect Conservative Black Man on the Planet
www.thelibertycafe.blogspot.com

Do you figure Bush knew one way or the other if Saddam had WMD's? Hell, Iraq had weaponry laying around that Saddam didn't even know about!

Regardless, the burden of proof wasn't on Bush to prove Iraq had WMD's - by the terms of Resolution 687, the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove that he didn't. Colin Powell didn't have to go before the UN with all of his charts and props and intelligence reports trying to prove his case... all he really had to do was to say "We know Iraq had WMD's - it used chemical and biological weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds - we know they were trying to build a nuclear capability. We also know that they haven't accounted for those weapons stockpiles. So if we know they had them and we don't know they have gotten rid of them, we have to assume that they still have them. What's the alternative? Take Saddam's word for it?"

Hindsight is 20/20, though. If you were President, would you have been willing to take Aziz's word for it?

We've been over this before...numerous times...678 provides for military action to push Saddams forces out of Kuwait and any other subsequent resolutions "to restore international peace and security in the area"...are you suggesting that we've done that?

This discussion we are having brings something to mind that may be relevant in title only but depending on your age, you may enjoy this as a blast from the past...

YouTube - joni mitchell - the circle game 1966 live

Perhaps I could have used a better choice of words to indicate "military action for the removal of Saddam".

I wouldn't call our "diplomatic" bullshit and propaganda a miscalculation.

Exactly...yet you can argue that we didn't need one.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

~ Pat Paulsen for President

I agree with you for the most part (well, except for the part about me being an idiot *L*) - tyrants do need to be confronted. I disagree that politics don't play a role, though... if you go to war without your people behind you, you're going to lose - no matter how just your cause. You lose a war if the politicians don't do they job and get the people behind it just as easily as if your generals don't their job.

This is one of those seldom occasions where you and me differ. I think the WMD boogeyman was way over-hyped. Honestly, who cares if Saddam had WMDs...seriously? Lots of countries have them; it's not exactly the most advanced technology. The Bush Administration played on the 9/11 fears and made the threat of WMDs drive people to support an invasion of Iraq...but, in reality, most didn't have a clue as to what they were actually so scared of.

This is probably true...but, Iraq clearly wasn't Germany.
Using much of the same logic, one could argue that Harry S. Truman should've unleashed McCarther on the Chinese....or that we should've duked it with the Soviets over Cuba. I'll take prudence over bravery.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...