I have seen many debates on these boards about whether there were WMD's or WMD programs in Iraq and whether the Bath regime had ties to Al-Qaeda. Those are the wrong issues to debate. The issues are: 1. If Hussein had WMD's, could they have reached U.S. soil? Iraq did not have technology to launch a missile strike on the United States. 2. What is the likelihood of Hussein giving nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda? Given that, first, although he may have wanted nuclear weapons, he wasn't even close to building one and second, Israel showed in 1982 that it was more than capable of dealing with a potential Iraqi nuclear threat, the odds against this scenario are overwhelming. The same is true of biological weapons. As for chemical weapons, Al-Qaeda already had them when we invaded Iraq (warning, disturbing subject matter):

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/1...tape.chemical/

So the remaining question is: Has invading Iraq made the United States safer? My answer is a definite no. Al-Qaeda has more recruits, the Middle East in angrier at us than ever and finally, well over 2,000 Americans have died fighting in Iraq. This would be worthwhile if Hussein was a real threat to the American people, but he was not. Our intervention was unnecessary, WMD's or no, links to Al-Qaeda or no. Saddam Hussein is evil, but so are many other world leaders. Policing the world, history has shown, makes it more dangerous. Ultimately, it is in the best interests of everyone, including people in un-democratic nations, that we not intervene with war or diplomacy unless attacked or under an imminent threat of attack. With the exception of World War II, in which a true genocide (as opposed to a democide) was occurring, the only wars we needed to involve ourselves in were those that directly involved the safety, unity and existence of our country, namely the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War and the War in Afghanistan. All other American conflicts have resulted only in American deaths and more recently, a greater threat from violent extremists. Accordingly, I think that we should withdraw from Iraq now. With each day we stay, we inflame more of the Arab world. You can think what you want of that part of the world, but if your concern is our national security, then increasing the number of Al-Qaeda recruits should be the last thing you want, but that is what our continued presence in Iraq is doing. Let us withdraw our soldiers from Iraq and, at long last, learn the historical lessons about the negative consequences of foreign intervention. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

This is already pretty much the way I see it. Good luck on selling it to the hawks.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

But leaving now would be immoral. We created a mess. We need to clean it up. You always say that saving human life is your top foreign policy objective. Iraq would fall into civil war before our troops were even done pulling out. That would result in needless death and even more instability in the middle east. Since we cannot go back and undo the war, we need to finish it.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

That part pretty much goes without saying. But we should set some concrete goals and work on getting out.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

No, but that is irrelevant.

You assume that because Saddam could not deliver the weapons himself, that must mean he was not a threat. You are wrong.

1) A missile strike is not the only way to deliver the weapon.

2) Missile technology could have been purchased from another nation or developed later.

1) High enough that I do not want Saddam to have nuclear weapons.

2) Al Queada is not the only terrorist group that would use nukes if given the opportunity.

So we should have waited until he was close to building one? Is that your logic?

Irrelevant even if true. I am not comfortable outsourcing our defense policy to Israel.

There is now a democracy in place of a terrorist-friendly despot. Our enemies have fewer resources than they did before. The threat of being nuked has been reduced.

So the correct answer is "yes".

More recruits + fewer resources = smaller threat.

Not everyone agrees with you that he was not a threat.

Really? Would you say the world is more dangerous now than it was before WWII?

So let me get this straight...you DO support policing the world when it comes to genocide?

Inaction would have resulted in more American deaths.

The inflamation will not be permanent.

The increase is not permanent.

Why do you think they are so terrified of democracy? Do you think they would be afraid of democracy if it resulted in a GAIN of power for them?

They know what will happen. If they believe it, why dont you?

We have already learned the negative consequences of inaction. Pearl harbor anyone?

Crawling into our shell only gives the illusion of security.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

In the long term, Al-Qaeda will be strengthened if we stay in Iraq, Islamists will take over yet more nations as they did in Iran and more lives will be cost than saved by our continued presence.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

And how does a civil war lead to fewer deaths?

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I agree with stekim on this one. We need to be there to help fix the problem that we caused. The initial reason may have been our 'security', but this isn't about us anymore. If our country f-s something up, we need to take responsibility and fix it (or at least aid in fixing it). It's entirely possible that we make more enemies in the process, but I still see it as being far more important to take responsibility for our actions.

__________________
Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder 'Why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself he understand.
~Bokonon

That's not what I assumed. Read my post again. I addressed the possibility of Iraq giving weapons to terrorists.

Again, this is all speculation based on wild improbabilities. Moreover, you're overestimating what Hussein had even at the peak of his power if you think he was anywhere near being able to attack American soil in any way.

Iraq might have been seeking weapons that it might have been able to acquire that it might have given to terrorist groups years in the future- all of this working on the assumption that Israel would do nothing about it.

No, if Hussein had been close to building one, Israel would have known it and dealt with the situation. Again, you're working on the assumption that, even if he wanted them, Hussein had scientists knowledgeable enough and well enough funded to build nuclear weapons. The improbability of all of this is becoming astronomical as the necessary conditions for this dire scenario become greater in number.

Mossad is more competent in these matters than the CIA. Regardless, this is yet another condition for your argument. Israel would need to have been ignorant for intervention to have been necessary if Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons and if he was capable of making them. It is downright absurd to go to war based on "if... then... well... maybe".

I disagree. Terrorist groups now have more recruits and are doubtless seeking black market nuclear materials. We are now more likely to face a nuclear attack.

You're working on yet another unproven assumption, i.e. that Iraq was a major supplier of Al-Qaeda.

I haven't seen any evidence that he was. If you have some, please present it.

World War II was a special case because of the Holocaust.

I define genocide as an organized attempt by a government to exterminate a race or ethnic group. Short of that, I am an isolationist.

Again, I'd like to see some evidence of this. If you have none, then I see no reason just to take your word for it.

Yes it will, because if we continue on the current course, more and more Arabs will become terrorists and we will have more enemies to fight. As we fight them and accidentally kill civilians and so forth, we will anger even more Arabs, making the neoconservative agenda a downward spiral.

It will be unless the United States changes its foreign policy soon. Iran is more democratic than Iraq was, but it sponsors terror more. Arguments about "spreading democracy" mean nothing to me.

I already mentioned that World War II was an exception. Strictly speaking, moreover, we weren't inactive on the Pacific Theatre prior to Pearl Harbor. Japan struck Pearl Harbor because of trade sanctions. I believe in free trade with countries we are not at war with.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Al-Qaeda is an organization of Islamists. I don't think there would be a civil war if we left now. I won't be dogmatic about this point, however. The most important thing is to change our future foreign policy.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)