Sorry, gentlemen, but personal attacks, such as those already in this thread before I ever posted, seem to be a modus operandi, couched in "oh woe is me" by both Goslash and eghad. Your opinions, and those parts of your anatomy that you show, are your choice.
Voting for someone with an even worse record then the current administration, as a vote in protest, makes little practical sense. However, it is your choice.
The Taliban didn't set up the 9/11 attacks. It made available the training grounds. Iraq has done the same, for even longer. Iraq was also the strongest of the so-called terrorist states. The UN had the power, and the legal right, and duty, to force Saddam Hussein from power. He had violated the terms of the surrender document multiple times, delayed, then sent home the teams investigating his WMD programs, and violated the no-fly zones repeatedly. His obvious mis-use of the oil-for-food program was also reason enough to remove him. As was typical of the UN, nothing was done, with the exception of a number of UN officials making money.
The surrender documents were also signed by the US, and his removal from power, as witnessed by the lack of UN sanctions, allowed us to strip him of power.
As for the WMD, everyone still focuses on the Nuclear aspect, as noted in your posts. With literally millions of square miles of desert to place facilities in, it may never be proven. However, there is/was a strong case to be made for biological and chemical abilities. Both of these are considered WMD, and Hussein has already proven the ability, and history of actual use, to regard them as a legitimate threat.
Now, without provoking the "muslim backlash" that gets threads closed, please be aware that the B'aathist regime was SECULAR. Saddam Hussein only used the Muslim religion when he needed to rouse the poorest, and least educated, of his people. The Iraqis today aren't really big on a fundamentalist government. It's not something that they have experienced in recent years.
The prosecution of this WAR ended when Hussein was captured. The current state of affairs has come about because we are now in the peacekeeper mode once again. This is another Kosovo, not Vietnam. The parallels drawn aren't correct. We're not fighting against another country, and we're not allowing "safe havens" for the enemy. There is no NVA to come to the rescue of the VC after they destroyed themselves in Tet.
Remember Murphy's Laws of Combat. "No plan survives the initial contact with the enemy". There is no overiding strategy needed beyond what is in place. The formation of an elected government, and the formation, training, and equipping of an Iraqi Self-Defense Force, and national Police Force, will go a long ways towards easing the populations fears. The continuing rebuilding of the infrastructure will also relieve many of the reasons that contribute to today's insurgents.
While you may not agree, the existence of even a neutral country in that section of the world would seriously impede the spread of Muslim Fundamentalism. From the looks of things emerging from the heavily censored fundamentalist regimes, there is quite a bit of unrest among the younger set. The view of the rest of the world via the Internet, has sparked some serious doubts that the 13th Century form of government now imposed is the answer to survival. An Iraq that succeeds in emerging from the shadow of these antiquated ideals would result in a local example of a better standard of living.
The Muslim religion doesn't appear to be providing the Arab, or any other people, with the path to greatness and enlightenment enjoyed centuries ago. Instead, it plunges the population into ignorance and poverty. While this may not be the fault of the Koran, it's the practical application that seems to be lacking.
While everyone is drawing parallels, let us try a different one. How about the one of the US in WWI? We weren't attacked, or threatened by the Germans. There was no invasion of our soil. Yet, unthreatened, we went to war against a country that was against our way of life. We lost several hundred thousand men while doing so. We spent a fortune while doing so, and had to fight them again twenty-odd years later.
Iraq represented a similiar system of circumstances. Maybe this time we've learned from the lessons of nearly a century ago.
Voting for someone with an even worse record then the current administration, as a vote in protest, makes little practical sense. However, it is your choice.
The Taliban didn't set up the 9/11 attacks. It made available the training grounds. Iraq has done the same, for even longer. Iraq was also the strongest of the so-called terrorist states. The UN had the power, and the legal right, and duty, to force Saddam Hussein from power. He had violated the terms of the surrender document multiple times, delayed, then sent home the teams investigating his WMD programs, and violated the no-fly zones repeatedly. His obvious mis-use of the oil-for-food program was also reason enough to remove him. As was typical of the UN, nothing was done, with the exception of a number of UN officials making money.
The surrender documents were also signed by the US, and his removal from power, as witnessed by the lack of UN sanctions, allowed us to strip him of power.
As for the WMD, everyone still focuses on the Nuclear aspect, as noted in your posts. With literally millions of square miles of desert to place facilities in, it may never be proven. However, there is/was a strong case to be made for biological and chemical abilities. Both of these are considered WMD, and Hussein has already proven the ability, and history of actual use, to regard them as a legitimate threat.
Now, without provoking the "muslim backlash" that gets threads closed, please be aware that the B'aathist regime was SECULAR. Saddam Hussein only used the Muslim religion when he needed to rouse the poorest, and least educated, of his people. The Iraqis today aren't really big on a fundamentalist government. It's not something that they have experienced in recent years.
The prosecution of this WAR ended when Hussein was captured. The current state of affairs has come about because we are now in the peacekeeper mode once again. This is another Kosovo, not Vietnam. The parallels drawn aren't correct. We're not fighting against another country, and we're not allowing "safe havens" for the enemy. There is no NVA to come to the rescue of the VC after they destroyed themselves in Tet.
Remember Murphy's Laws of Combat. "No plan survives the initial contact with the enemy". There is no overiding strategy needed beyond what is in place. The formation of an elected government, and the formation, training, and equipping of an Iraqi Self-Defense Force, and national Police Force, will go a long ways towards easing the populations fears. The continuing rebuilding of the infrastructure will also relieve many of the reasons that contribute to today's insurgents.
While you may not agree, the existence of even a neutral country in that section of the world would seriously impede the spread of Muslim Fundamentalism. From the looks of things emerging from the heavily censored fundamentalist regimes, there is quite a bit of unrest among the younger set. The view of the rest of the world via the Internet, has sparked some serious doubts that the 13th Century form of government now imposed is the answer to survival. An Iraq that succeeds in emerging from the shadow of these antiquated ideals would result in a local example of a better standard of living.
The Muslim religion doesn't appear to be providing the Arab, or any other people, with the path to greatness and enlightenment enjoyed centuries ago. Instead, it plunges the population into ignorance and poverty. While this may not be the fault of the Koran, it's the practical application that seems to be lacking.
While everyone is drawing parallels, let us try a different one. How about the one of the US in WWI? We weren't attacked, or threatened by the Germans. There was no invasion of our soil. Yet, unthreatened, we went to war against a country that was against our way of life. We lost several hundred thousand men while doing so. We spent a fortune while doing so, and had to fight them again twenty-odd years later.
Iraq represented a similiar system of circumstances. Maybe this time we've learned from the lessons of nearly a century ago.