There's been some new developments on this front, and I'm wondering whether that will change people's minds about whether the war was justified if we do:

http://www.nysun.com/article/27183

That article basically talks about an inspector who says that there are several large, underground concrete bunkers that Saddam buried and flooded the entrances. The WMD inspection teams didn't have the equipment to ever check them out, but they found chemical warfare suits, gas masks, and other equipment in houses nearby.

Then there's this article:

http://www.nysun.com/article/27110?page_no=1

It basically says there is a congressional committee reviewing a bunch of taped conversations between Saddam and his generals prior to the war. The chairman has made some statements that they involve WMD's and that they will definitively answer some of the WMD questions - but it looks like they support the idea that there were WMD's in Iraq, because the committee just reopened investigations into it after reviewing the tapes (which will be released at some point so we'll know for sure what's on them).

So is there anyone who would change their mind about the war if we opened up one of those bunkers and found chemical stockpiles or if the tapes had Saddam admitting to having them and destroying them or hiding them?

I think the left has backed itself into a corner on this. They have focused almost exclusively on the inability to find WMD's as the reason they think the war was unjustified. If we end up finding them, or find tapes of Saddam saying he sent them to Syria or someplace, it kills their argument in the eyes of the public. There were lots of better reasons to say the war was unjustified in my view (too many risks, some we avoided but that's hindsight, the costs we've paid, etc.), and while I think on balance it will end up being a good thing, it would have been better to have a fair debate than the "bush lied" stuff that may end up being debunked totally by history.

Yes I did see this story but it does not change anything. The reasons that Iraq was wrong were multi faceted and a bunker with chemical warfare suits is nothing new. We all know he did have chemical war fare and used it on the Kurds, This is not a new story. No one disputes that Saddam was EVIL what they dispute is they were ni imminent threat and he was aaging dictator who could have been handles in a different way with a plan. N.Korea has WMD so do otheres Iraq was no threat to us we needed to be able to help the population not add to their destruction.

__________________
BLIND FAITH IN BAD LEADERSHIP IS NOT PATRIOTISM

"We all know he did have chemical war fare and used it on the Kurds, This is not a new story. No one disputes that Saddam was EVIL"

You would be surprised. The last political discussion I was on, which I'm trying to slowly move away from, had a couple guys who beleive that no chemical weapons were ever used by Saddam on the Kurds and that Saddam wasn't an evil man... 99% of liberals give the rest a bad name jklol

Only those that do not try to seek out the full facts of the situation, leap to the conclusions about the lack of WMD's. This is not a dig at them as most people have a good moral point of view, but not all want to investigate fully. Those that are willing to dig a little deeper, were always saying that the war was illegal and that Iraq was not an immediate threat. If the US and allies had bothered to do this through the UN then at least it could be argued that democracy won. Not taking that vote because you feared the result and then doing it any, weakens the fighting for democracy argument beyond recognition.

Also I could not see why the US would not have followed up on these accusations fully. If they had found evidence of WMD's then they would be milking it up, glorying how they were justified from the beginning, blah! blah! blah!

dimension says, ".......and that Iraq was not an immediate threat."

In anything there are differing opinions, but you need to examine the word "immediate". Would you say any teriorist poses an "immediate" threat? Can you answer that question? If you mean by immediate, which means "direct" or "without delay" then your supposition probably applies to terrorist in general does it not? In any case, you don't have to read a bunch of left wing web sites to figure out what you want to think so don't go patting yourself on the shoulder like you are a thoughful person or implying the other people who disagree with you have not dug deeply. If you want to dig deep, try digging into your own mind and applying some logic to the thought process. A good way to do that is ask youself some questions, like maybe, "Was Saddem harboring terrorist?" Yes or no. Or maybe, was Saddem paying the families of suicide bombers? Yes or no. Or maybe, was Saddem really shooting at our aircraft? Yes or no. Did Saddem agree to certain conditions after Gulf War one? Yes or no. Did Saddem really use WMDs on his own people? Yes or no. Was Saddem really honest about dismounting his WMDs? Yes or No. Was Saddem an destabilizing force for the Middle Ease? Yes or no. Could the Middle East ever be stabilized with a Saddem in power? What would be the tradeoff of letting the problem remain. This counld go on for hundreds, even thousands of questions. Get yourself a check list. I am sure I could make up one for you but it would be hundreds of questions you could answer either "yes" or "no" and some with qualifications.

Then you need to decide on your value system whether or not war is ever wise. Just what conditions would have to be met before YOU would say, "OK, enough is enough, and go to war realizing of course that everyone in the world would not agree with you, but pretend you are the president. Your number one priority is the safety of the people of the US.

Then ask youself, would you be deserving of the support of the american people first; the world second. Then ask yourself that if you did all of the above and a significant number of your countymen did nothing but get on the internet and take cheap shots, how would you feel?

Now if you did all these things you would be digging deeper.

There be fire in your belly. If you mean that I should make my own opinions through a process of not trying to gain knowledge of a subject, and thereby basically accepting what is being told to me by my government without question. Then the answer is I am afraid NO. I will make my opions once I have tried to absorb a number of angles and then decide what I personally feel to be true. I spend a great amount of time digging within myself it is called meditation, perhaps you should try it.

With your question of terrorists, unfortunately terrorists have been a part of the history of man, terrorists that have succeded in the past tend to become the government and then write the history in a way that changes that angle. For example, the US becoming independent, Cromwell taking over from the King of England, and countless more across world. However, this does not justify their existence or their cause. But first you have to look at the causes of terrorism, and change the perception of their ideals by showing that their false reasons do not exist and any real ones they have, no longer will. Attacking Iraq has done absolutely nothing in reducing the chance of a terrorist attack or changed the opinions of those outside of America.

I do not need self gratification or seek the gratification of others for my own opinion. I only hope to ask questions of the reasoning behind others opinions so that I may have the opportunity to further my own knowledge and understanding, and to play my part in trying to make the world a better place.

Was Sadam harbouring terrorists? I don't know, was that what you were told or is there evidence? I hope it is better than the WMD stuff. Saddam is shown in a recent film of him from a few years back, but discovered recently, warned that the US may be attacked in the near future, but also said that he would not be part of it. (yes this does include the topic of WMD's but not sure of the implications yet)

Was he shooting at your aircraft? Maybe, would you shoot his aircraft if it was flying over your airspace? (don't bother with the breaking UN resolution arguments, the US does this on a daily basis, until you lead by example, your argument is flawed, the US can not choose which international laws it wants to follow and which it does not)

Yes Saddam did agree to certain conditions after the Iraqi war, did he also agree to the sanctions imposed by the UN/US yes. Did this mean that this should result in the deaths of thousands of innocent children from starvation. NO. Did israel agree to a number of UN resolutions, YES does it keep to them, NO.

Could the Middle East be stabilised with him in power. Not even a valid question when the whole region hates US foreign policies. Until you deal with this issue, no other issues will have a chance be dealt with effectively.

Did he really disarm his WMD intentions? Maybe, maybe not. He may have had the intention but not the resources to try. Is it really surprising that he would have a desire to have WMD's. Just by owning some you reduce the power that the US has over you. Not saying that they are right but the US was all in them a few years back because of the terror of communsim. OOooh! fear is a way of control and is required to maintain power. Iran is another problem and one that is of more concern. But what to do? what to do? I suppose you would suggest another war? (it may end up being the only way but I really hope it is not? It all depends of Iran's real intentions and the US's methods)

I don't think a war is ever wise, as my understanding goes there has only ever been one war that I concede may have been unavoidable and that is WWII. The others have all been a case Religion/power/land. None of which are valid reasons. I do however wonder what would have happened if the people of europe went through a process of Civil Disobedience as completely as when Ghandi tried it. Yes lots of lives would have been lost, but they were anyway, could you say that it would have been more than what it turned out to be after so many years of fighting. If all the people stood there without weapons or resistance. For how long do you think the German army could slaughter Men who did not fight back?

If I were to pretend I am president, I would have a sore bottom from being a puppet to those that are really in control. If I actually had that power, my priority is to the human race and all species that are part of our global existance. Maybe I would try and do more for the world and by doing so would actually be doing more for the American people.

If I did everything I could for all people, and the only thing I had to worry about was a few cheap shots from people like you who was demanding War and oppression. Yeah I think that would be OK I would feel fine, and hopefully over time, there will be less of you.

The world does not need to be told it is free, it will know in its heart when it is true.

__________________
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
(Mahatma Gandhi)

Was that digging deep enough for you or would you like me to draw you a picture?

__________________
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
(Mahatma Gandhi)

dimension says, "Could the middle east be stabilised with him in power. Not even a valid question when the whole region hates the US foreign policies. Until you deal with this issue, no other issues will have a chance be dealt with."

OK what is the underlying issue, deep digger. Like a true right brainer you mix apples and oranges. How are we going to make the World better? Should we even try?

I see the Middle east problem as one of religious fanaticism. The effort in Iraq, the epicenter of the middle east, is a herculean effort to change that dynamic. By establishing democratic regimes with institutions that can better the peoples lives with a better standard of living will in time do just that. Instead of being dictated to, they will have a say in how they are governed.

Now maybe this is a wrongheaded way to do it, so give us your wisdom on exactly how you would do it, or do you have a so,lution?

I don't think rational people can believe that if we just leave them alone, they will sort it out themselves. It has taken many lives for civilization to progress to the current point but the middle east is really still in the dark ages. In a world where even terrorist may get nukes with the help of rogue states, it is simply a risk the civilized world cannot afford to take.

Now I would like to point out that Bush was the closest thing to an isolationist we have had in the almost a century. 9/11 had a profound impact on him. He realized you can't just "get alone" with the prior 9/11 environment. So he took bold action to try an solve the problem. So I am coming right back at you.

WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION BESIDES CHEAP SHOTS AND RAMBLING.

'By establishing democratic regimes', is that just nice way of imposing your beliefs on others? You may see the middle East problem as one of Religious fanaticisms but what you think does not really matter. How they think about it is where the answer to this problem lies. You can not force people to believe what you believe. Also what will you do if, as in the case recently of Palestine, they democratically vote in a party like Hamas and Isreal will not negotiate for peace and the feeling may be mutual. Will you just say that a regime change is required and you will invade to control the whole area?

Yes it has taken us a long time to get where we are and maybe trying to accelerate other areas in the world, to where we are without them developing it through their own progression will be impossible. Also we are not that far advanced if you ask me. Yes we are in some ways, scientifically and in some ways ethically but the US is not that long out of an opressive racist regime that condoned slavery and the suppression of the weak. You are not viewed that well in the world and some would say that you are not advanced either.

This is not a problem of religious fanaticism, it is deeper than that. It is all about power and control, and some individual's are determined to gain some power and an easy way for this to be achieved is to hide behind the cloak of religious beliefs. To change this you have to show the everyday peaceful muslim of your real bona fide intentions. If they do not have the support of their people the fanatics will have no control.

I know that there is a threat of terrorism but the reality is that we keep being told about these imminent attacks but very few have actually happened. Are you sure that this threat is as large as you think, or is this just another tactic employed by the US to maintain control.

If we was not so keen to blow the hell out of each other, maybe these WMD's would not have been created in the first place. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about that now.

What is my solution. I actually believe that more needs to be done in giving power back to the countries of the world. If you really believe in democracy then let it do its job. That means the US has to live by the same rules as any other country. If this is achieved then nations will no longer view the US as an enemy and when the world says that they should not be doing something, then the world will be in a position to do something about it. Not under US empirical aspirations or through bad US foreign policy and selfish interestsbut by a determination of all parties to move forward as a civilisation.

He took bold action alright he set about implementing the plans he had already made prior to 9/11, that is all. Do not try and hide behind the veil of righteousness. If he was trying to solve the problem I think he could have come up with some better tactics.

My cheap shots and ramblings if that is what you see it as, were only in response to your propaganda fuelled questions. If you did not want my answers then don't ask the questions.

__________________
'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
(Mahatma Gandhi)

dim.. a true right brainer, "give power back to the world". This is all mush. What power? Is it ours to give. Man, you are really on a bender. Are you smoking something? So I guess that in your view, you are one of the people who think the first world trade center bombing was all our fault. Then the second world trade center disaster was because Clinton fired cruise missiles into Afganistan and hit a few donkeys in the butt.
Well for whatever it is worth, that is history. So too is the desposing of the Saddam dictorship.We can't change that now, can we.

So what are you saying. Do we continue on plan A, or do we execute the dim.. plan? Give us your plan for straightening it all out. Forget about the past. You have a blank sheet of paper. What do you advocate going forward or do you just like to critisize the Bush administrations effort.