Some Historical Facts:

It's not a matter of "if". We are the world's policeman and have been for some time If they behave like Iraq, yes.

The weapons inspectors had documented stockpiles of WMD's before the invasion. Their whereabouts are unkown to this day.

Many, Al qaeda is one example

No, we shouldn't spend "most" of our time and resources if it can be avoided. We should spend only what is necessary in accordance with our foreign policies.

How about the truth? How about admitting that we were wrong?No chance of that I'm afraid.No chance of saying, "we thought Iraq was a direct threat to our country. Come to find out out, they weren't. But on the other hand, we are doing all this stuff. We are establishing democracy in Iraq; we got rid of Hussein. Admittedly, we over-estimated Iraq's capability of doing us any harm, and we did say we were attacking Iraq because they were a direct threat. Come to find out, they were not a direct threat--but they might have been. True, many have been killed. But we had good intentions. We wanted revenge for 9/11. Afghanistan did not seem enough. So we did this."That's what it amounts to. We can also add, if only we had done this against Hitler. I've heard that a lot.Yeah, right.You are comparing Iraq's army to Germany's?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, are you saying that the 9/11 Commission is wrong and there was actually a real connection between Hussein and al qaida?Because I was under the impression that there was no such connection before the invasion.Can you provide some evidence for that?

quote:

---

If they behave like Iraq, yes.

---

So, why shouldn't one of those countries "preemptively" attack the US?After all, we certainly have the capability to illegally attack them and have shown that we will attack a sovereign nation which is no direct, imminent threat to us.Would you send your child to possibly die in one of those countries, especially if they (hypothetically) had no long-range missile capability, no nukes, no significant military, and had made no direct attack upon the US?I also notice that you left this bit out of your reply. Care to comment?

quote:

---

Well, both Powell and Rice believed just before 9/11 that Iraq was well-contained and was not a danger to her neighbors nor to us.

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-15-2005 02:07 AM

The 911 commission said there was no credible evidence to show that Hussein was connected to the 911 attack. But that is completely different from the broader issue of whether Hussein was connected to terrorists organizations, because he was. The 911 report had little information about Iraq’s terrorists connections and since there was no credible link between 911 and Hussein, then Hussein’s terrorists connections didn’t seem appropriate for the report.Despite 911, Sadaam had a long history of supporting, funding, and harboring terrorists organizations including al Qaeda. Here are a few links.

• Papers found in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Source
  ​
• American officials in Iraq obtained documents showing that Iraqi intelligence agents had contacts with Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in mid-1990's as part of broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing Saudi ruling family; Source
  ​
• Although originally hostile to one another, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda began to develop a working relationship at some point between 1992 and 1994. This is known from a number of meetings between Iraqi intelligence officers and senior al-Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden. Source
  ​
• In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars. ---U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Source
  ​
• Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, arrived in America on an Iraqi passport before fleeing after the attack on Pakistani papers. Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals in that bomb, fled to Baghdad after the attack and lived there for years afterward. Source
  ​
• Abu Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the ocean liner Achille Lauro during which American retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered. U.S. troops captured Abbas in
  Baghdad last April 14, 2002. Source
  ​
• Abu Nidal’s terrorist gang killed 407 people, including 10 Americans, and wounded 788 more. He lived in Baghdad between 1999 and his mysterious shooting death in August 2002. Source
  

I also posted a separate list here in the Terrorism in London thread

They can try, but they won’t because they know they will be defeated. It wasn’t an illegal attack, it is supported by UN resolution 1441. Iraq was a threat to us, their neighbors, and the world at large. You’re wrong about this. Rice wrote the following in January/February 2000 published by The Council of Foreign Affairs

quote:

---

As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him. Source

---

Here she states that Hussein’s conventional military was weakened which was all the more reason he would not give up his quest for WMD’s. As such, the only rational course of action was his removal.Powell, on the other hand, was certainly more dovish than Rice. He had serious reservations about going to war with Iraq and pushed for increased sanctions among other measures, that’s true. But he never said the sanctions were working. In fact, it was Powell who repeatedly warned Iraq of impending consequences. He did this precisely because sanctions were not working. In a speech to the UN Security Council on Feb 5, 2003, he said:

quote:

---

Three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and still remains in material breach. Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its defiance of this council.

---

After 911, both Rice and Powell made numerous statements in support of the invasion. Source

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. Resolution 1441 promises "serious consequences" in the event of non-compliance, not invasion or military action. "Serious consequences" is not a phrase that connotes military action in any UN document.Almost all of the nations of the UN Security Council agree that 1441 was not an authorization of the use of force. Hence, it is accurate to characterize the attack as unlawful.Monk, seriously. This is at least the third or fourth time that you've promoted drastically inaccurate legal reasoning. I suggest that you stop relying on Republicans for your legal advice as it should be pretty clear by now that there's no law they won't ignore in their quest for power.

What are serious consequences then? I guess we could have been more stern in our request for his compliance. Maybe we should have said we really, really, really mean it this time.

Monk, I'm sorry but your list simply does not support your assertions. By the logic expressed in your list we should immediately invade England, the US, France and Canada.Look at your reasoning.Terrorists met with senior Iraqi officials. Would a picture of OBL with senior US officials serve as justification for invasion of the US?Terrorists lived in Iraq. Would terrorists living in the US be sufficient to prove that the US supports terrorism (which we do but that's another story).Terrorists traveled from Miami to New York with the purpose of blowing up buildings. Is that clear evidence that the US supported terrorism against the US?Frankly Monk, such reports are important because they prove that a Nation State, even Iraq, is really not the key item in terrorism or trying to manage and limit terrorism. Continuing to concentrate on the outmoded idea that it's Nation States that are the key simply moves the eye, resources and effort from dealing with the problem to dealing with symptoms. For every planning session that was held in Iraq, there were numerous other meetings in Bonn, London, Miami, Ottawa, Rio, Jakarta, Paris, Mobile, Savannah, Oakland, Seattle, Leeds, Rome, Athens, Madrid ...Terrorists meet wherever they can. Modern communication and transportation facilities make such events possible, easy even. A phone call from anywhere in the world can get a room set aside at the local Holiday Inn.Terrorism will not be managed by military actions. If there is going to be any hope of managing terrorism it will be through police action, the courts and diplomacy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My assertion is that Iraq had links to terrorism. The list I provided supports that. Managing terrorism through diplomacy? Good luck with that.

It looks like the prime suspect for the London bomb maker got his basic training at NC State with advanced level training at Leeds. More clear evidence that the US and England are centers for terrorist training.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not military ones. I thought I had made that clear. Reading difficulties? Well, yes. Had we wanted to be more stern, and imply military force, we would have said "all necessary means", which is the UN phrase that includes military action. Well, we, the US, tried. That was the point of proposing the "second resolution", the one that would authorize military force. The UN did not adopt it, thus, our military action is indisputably illegal.