Originally Posted by GermanStar
Ridiculous. How many terrorist attacks against the West had emanated from Iraq to date? Iraq would have been far down my list of terrorist threats, especially since they were already under our thumb at the time. Let's start with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, N. Korea. Tell me how Iraq represented a greater threat to the security of the U.S. than any of those places? Let's just ignore the people and governments that bore some measure of responsibility for the 9/11 attack, and go after a disgruntled U.S. puppet and his legion of goat herders, right?
Perhaps you are of the mind that there was other, more prevalent and obvious historical evidence of WMD's elsewhere in the world we should have pursued. Or, perhaps you're of the mind that those in posession of WMD's had such tight control over them that they could not be stolen; and that there would never come a time when the adage "my enemy's enemy is my friend" came true in the form of a new allegiance (or clandestine arrangement) between Saddam and *any* terrorist whereby some neurotoxins here or a SCUD there could be 'lost' or 'dismantled'.
I think you mistake Saddam's known posession of WMD's as being the justification for war, on the basis that Saddam had direct personal intent to use the WMD's on America, Americans, or the free world at large. This was never my perception of our "go to war" case.
The clear and present danger was not that Saddam would go on the offensive, but that Saddam's WMD's would be obtained with either his blessings or his ignorance, by Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, sliding straight down the slippery slope into the hands of people who would absolutely use them on either American soil, American interests, or the free world at large.
To me, it is this charter for which the world signed up in support of the Iraq invasion. The danger was that WMD's were in the hands of an unstable, irrational individual. Iraq was unique in this regard. Saddam may not have had the time or capability to grind an axe against us himself, but 9/11 fully unveiled a new theater with new players and new threats for the whole world to see. None of them could afford for those WMD's to fall into the hands of those who'd flown over the cuckoo's nest. Everyone was equally at risk.
Having said that, it's completely and utterly fair to take issue with the manner in which the coalition carried out the task of neutralizing whatever weapons threats we were led to believe existed. Let's start with the lilly-livered attendance records of countries with every bit as much to lose as we do by way of the threat described above. Australia has shown more spine than those useless French fucks, for example.
It is utterly unfair (I believe), given what we know today, to assign the label of malice to anyone involved with the decision making process that led to war in Iraq. I can only hope that the ultimate motives were not malicious, and can guarantee my outrage should that come to pass. To me, any other judgement is premature, any other reaction wildly irrational.