What exactly has ended up being the reasoning? Was it WMD, terrorist links or regime change?

Read the PNAC papers. You can get them online.

__________________
Those who define have the power. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...heney.ssl.html

And yes, wrong forum.

Pre-9/11, no one was "really" interested in what Sadam Husien was doing. An occasional glance by the Clinton administration, & comments made from Bill Clinton & Al Gore, as to the danger that Sadam Husien posed to us & the world. And Clinton/Gore are on record for stating that Iraq needed a regime change. That was it. Sadam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997, & no one bothered to pressure him into keeping them there.

However, post 9/11, with 3,000 Americans dead on New York streets, changed everything. We realized that our country, (homeland) could be hit by terror, & in a very big way. President Bush immediately authorized action against OSB & we went into Afghanistan.

President Bush in his first address to the nation after 9/11, stated he would go after terror where ever it existed, AND also "STATE SPONSORED" terror. So, evidence was gathered about WMD in Iraq. This evidence came from 6 different intelligence agencies. The CIA, Britain, Russia, France, & MI-6, all stating that Sadam possessed WMD & was trying to obtain yellow cake in Nigeria. British intelligence is still standing very firm on the yellow cake incident. Knowing that Sadam Husien did in fact, sponsor terror in Isreal. Publicly offering $25,000 to each Pakistani family of a suicide bomber. This is state sponsored terror. One has to think, at what point in time would Sadam give WMD, to a terrorist organization to hit the United States. Plus we had 12 years of 17 resolutions broken by Sadam Husien. At any rate all heads turned in his direction. Since 9/11, we are now on a war footing of pre-emption. "We want to get them, before they get us."

So as President, responsible of protecting Americans, what would you do? You invade Iraq, to rid a dictator, who is believed to have stock piles of chemical & biological weapons & who also actively sponsors terror.

PROBLEM--very little WMD has been found. Whose fault is that? We do know now, through the 9/11 commission report, that Al Queda operatives met with Sadam Husien intelligence officers in Prague before 9/11. We know that the Al Queda terrorist that is still causing all the problems in Iraq. Zarqawi was a long time acquaintance of Sadam Husien & was treated in Iraq, at the "Royal hospital of Sadam", prior to 9/11). Connection to Al Queda terrorists have been confirmed. What is not known. Did Sadam Husien have anything to do with 9/11?

I believe the 9-11 report stated that the visit by Atta to Prague was false..since FBI records of phone calls put him somewhere on the East Coast during that same time frame..

BECAUSE MARS WAS TOO FAR AWAY !!!!!!!!!




11/02/2004 ........An End Of An Error

I have listened to all concerning this & have not heard that yet? In fact, the report I heard did not mention Atta directly. Just Al Queda operatives.

Well firstly I don't think your case for the reliance of the intelligence agencies or their intelligence is alll that well grounded, ar eyou familar with the work of Andrew wilkie, "Axis of Deciet"? Especially in regards to the Niger story. Also about the only person in Britain that holds to it is Blair.

Their are a few things I would argue with you, but first:

Are you not repeating the official line coming out of the whitehouse? You can surely understand how the connections between the oil/munitions companies and the Bush administration, aswell as the existence of the PNAC papers cause doubts in the minds of many as to the true motivations behind the war.
I mean some people have really made a profit here: increase in Lockheed Martin's and other CEO's paychecks etc. The writers of the PNAC papers must have felt some jubilation because of 9/11, considering as they write down that they basically want another Pearl Harbour.
Also the idea that Bush and Co. had not thought about Saddam before 9/11 takes a beating, seeing as after only one day, when I assume they were out of contact, someone (Cheney) suggested they go after Saddam(someone help me with a link!) Had he formulated that idea after only one day? No man, think about it, this was just what he wanted in regards to the PNAC papers.

Also "At any rate all heads turned in his direction" I got the impression that no-one cared until after Afganistan. Still might be wrong there I suppose.

In regards to the Israel/Palestinian conflict, don't you give Palestine large amounts of money for weapons that go towards kiling civilians or militia? Isn't that state sponsored terrorism too? Just because one involves strapping a bomb to you and the other involves killing from afar, dooesn't mean that someone doesn't die in either case.

Don't you get the feeling that your patriotism is being abused and manipulated by your government for their own agenda? Also a word of caution, Kirov's death and the burning of the Reichstag both gave extrordinary power to their respective goverments, to Stalin and Hitler, through the subsquent ani-terror laws. I'm not suggesting that Bush somehow helped with 9/11(though there are others who will argue this I believe) but just that tsomeone may now use these laws in an opportunistic manner against you and American democracy. Just remeber that the Germans didn't believe that Jews were being rounded up and gassed.

would anyone like to revisit these posts?

it is interesting to view archives. It is an old hobby of mine.

I ams starting to read up on things. Someday soon, in the not too distant future I hope to know more about y'all.

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."

I still defend going into Iraq. I do not base it on any reasons given by the Bush scaremongers. I do not think it was the wrong thing to do. Deposing Saddam was a great reason and it seemed like an opportune time. But...

I never supported staying and trying to force the march of freedom on a group of backwards people.

So why should I say it was a mistake to go in? Where is the nuance about who supported what and why?

Why did the loonies-of-the-fringe who are so anti-war they have no clue get to decide what is right and what is wrong and when did they get to judge other people's motives and reasoning?

__________________

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know them by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against them.
-Jonathan Swift

---"Thoughts On Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting."