[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So the war was all about violating UN Security Council resolutions? That's what made the war not only necessary, but so urgent that diplomatic means were pointless?

Wow. If that's so, I can think of a list of countries that had better watch their backs. Good thing the UN has good old America watching its back and enforcing its resolutions. Now if they'd only pay their dues.....

The fact is, the war was sold to the public on two grounds: specifically that Saddam was known to possess WMDs, and that given 9/11, immediate war was necessary to disarm him. To sweeten the pot, Cheney made numerous remarks about linkages between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, most of which have been shown to be untrue. The UN resolutions barely made it into Bush's State of the Union address--which, if you remember was all about some intelligence about aluminium tubes that had already been discredited.

Look--nobody thinks Saddam was a good guy--what people question is the urgency of this war--why did it have to happen immediately, and why were the contingencies so poorly thought out? Why was there never a real exit strategy?

In other words, why did Bush blunder into a war with a weak enemy that posed no immediate threat to anyone, thus depleting the US' military might on what turned out to be a predictable wild goose chase? Wouldn't that military might be useful now, as Iran is brazenly rattling their sabres, knowing the US is helpless to do anything about their nuclear ambitions?

I've been arguing it was bungled for months so you are preaching to the choir. Lets not forget what my post was responding to. March Hare stated that the Senate Intelligence committee had just debunked the only reasoning for the war. I simply said it wasn't the only reasoning and in fact wasn't even high on the list.

Thanks for the sarcasm. So constructive on an emotional topic such as this. Looger would be proud.