WAR IN IRAQ

I argue my point from a "knowing what we know now" point of view, I assume you are taking the same position. We obviously have very different views on what constitutes a just war, and it may come down to just opinions. You say that protecting our allies is a just cause for war. The founding fathers specifically warned against those sorts of policies. We are not meant to police the world and enter into entangling alliances. Nothing the UN says or does should ever influence our policy on war. It is not our job to keep the world in order. Our duty is to ensure the freedoms and protect our own people. Hence the term "provide for the common defense". You bring up something I neglected to mention and I thank you for that. The UN resolutions were not, and are not, foundations for a declaration of war. There was a reason that the first George Bush did not topple Saddam Hussein. He understood the enormous importance of maintaining stability in Iraq, Dick Cheney even agreed with him, here is an interview from 1994: http://youtube.com... The United States government back then understood the folly of trying to depose Saddam Hussein. They understood it would drive the region into total chaos, and they were right. Iraq is a quagmire and it will never be able to stand on its own. We removed a government that was capable of maintaining order in an extremely unstable part of the world. Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam Hussein's hand in the 80s. The "on-again off-again" alliances we have in the middle east are on of the reasons we are hated so much. We use to fund Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. We armed them with the weapons they now use on us, Russia did the same thing and payed for it. The link you describe between Al Qaeda and Iraq are flawed. The information put out by the Council on Foreign Relations came from a suspected Al Qaeda detainee. http://edition.cnn.com... The "intelligence" gathered from the suspect on the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein was based on what some detainee said. If justification for war can be tied to that then I seriously question the true intentions of this administration In addition, the 9/11 commission also sites that there was no tie between the terrorist attacks and Iraq http://query.nytimes.com... and this http://www.globalpolicy.org... By 2006 the entire region was already unstable. As we all know, it was after the fall of the Iraqi government that the various terror groups began to move into, and operate, in the area. So the claim "Zarqawi was in Iraq" is completely true and understandable, but we know that just about every terrorist organization was operating in Iraq to target American soldiers too. They are delighted that we are there, they can recruit much quicker and take advantage of a weakened government that cannot stop them if they wanted too. http://www.commondreams.org... Yes it is clear that Al Qaeda and Iraq had some connection throughout the 90s, however none of the evidence points to any sort of training or assistance leading up to 9/11. Most of the groups you mentioned were very critical of Saddam Hussein and would have much liked to get rid of him since he ran a secular government and was a friend of the United States. Saddam Hussein was a friend of the infidel. The fact remains that we went to war preemptively, and on false pretenses. The Iraq invasion was falsely linked to 9/11 to gain support among the people. We see now they are trying to pull the same trick. They say Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but wait a minute, isnt that what they said about Iraq? Isnt that the same trick they tried to pull? Iran stopped its program years ago, throught diplomacy, not war. http://www.nytimes.com... Saddam Hussein bragged about his weapon capabilities to intimidate Iran, with whom tensions were on the rise. There was absolutely no proof that he had the capability to do anything. The intel we got was flawed, and we were not interested in validating one shred of it. The idea that we should go to war to protect against a potential danger to our allies is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. It is in the best interest of the united states to abstain from war altogether. It is economically destructive. The enormous cost of the war is part of the reason we are printing all this money to forward our debt to China. Future generations are going to suffer because of it. Knowing what we know now, the only way you could still support the war, or think that is was justified is if: A. You truly believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States answer: Iraq had no capability of hurting us, and did not even make the slightest gesture towards us. In this case the person is either insane or has been living under a rock for the past few years. B. You believe that Iraq was going to detonate nuclear weapons in the middle east answer: The intelligence we got on the subject was completely flawed, and he had no nuclear weapons. He did have chemical weapons, but we knew that all throughout the 90s and did not care, because it was no threat to us. C. You believe that it is our job to police the world and protect other nations answer: In this case you do not have the best intentions of the United States at heart and with these sorts of people the neo-conservative movement has firmly attached itself. The idea of being "pro-active" is essentially saying you advocate preemptive war, if that is the case then there is no debate since that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I find it quite frightening that you could advocate going to war against a nation that MIGHT be a threat. You do not go to war because they do not cooperate with you. You do not go to war because some angry dictator in the middle east says he hates America. That sort of imperialist attitude is going to have dire consequences in the future, which I brought up in my opening statement. The very idea of invading sovereign nations to impose regime change is a practice of a rogue nation, and fools. If we think that the war in Iraq is justified then you must also except the consequences. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, the people are living in fear as never before, between 79,000 and 86,000 civilians are now dead, in addition to the 3896 dead coalition troops. You cannot possibly tell me that this, in addition to the decades of instability to come, were worth it. Our actions there are what motivate people to attack us, we must realize the enormous mistake we made. http://www.iraqbodycount.org...