1. Regarding "the type of man we were dealing with", heck, we all know he was a murdering thug of the first order. That is not in dispute. Prior to the war, the question was what price would it take to remove him, and would it be worth it? The events of the last two and a half years are pretty clear; his removal was not worth the price.
How do you know for sure Peter? I think that is your opinion. Maybe 10 years from now we will say it was. Maybe not
Pat, I can only deal in the present, and with the facts that are now known. I'll take my list of negative consequences from the war over any list of positive consequences that you can put together.
2. You state that Saddam would not allow the inspectors back in and we therefore had to invade. This quote comes from the above link: The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
Peter, Peter, Peter if you remember they let the inspectors in but it was a dog and pony show. When the inspectors wanted to do unnannonced inspections they were not allowed to. Evidence to support they were hiding something
Notwithstanding the d and p shows, Pat, the inspectors gleaned invaluable intelligence from their inspections, and, on the contrary, these games they played do not provide "evidence to support they were hiding something". They may have had various motivations for their d and p shows but there is no evidence that WMD were being hidden. My guess is that Saddam wanted the world, and the nations of his region, to think that he still had something up his sleeve, even though he didn't.
3. With regard to the "network of terrorists" that you mention. Please understand that prior to the war, Iraq was NOT a haven for terrorists. It now is, and, more importantly, the number of terrorists is growing significantly due to the invasion. These are facts.
So its worse that we took them on in Iraq rather than Iran? Where ever we take them on will be a haven for terrorists?
I'm hitting my head against a wall here, Pat. Are you suggesting we should invade and attempt to occupy Iran? I could see a quick strike at their nuclear facilities, but occupation is out of the question. It's the occupation of muslim land that is the rallying cry of the new recruits.
