20,000 tons weapons destroyed

[grizbeer]

The French said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The French were correct.

Actually the French fully believed there were WMD in Iraq. They didn't believe Iraq had nuclear capability, but they did believe Saddam had biological and chemical weapons. They (apparently) were as wrong about this as the US.

Where France differed is that they wanted a diplomatic solution - more specifically, they wanted a consensus decision, and not to be bullied into a war. whether they were right not to support the war is open to debate, depending on the long term impact of the war and Saddam ouster.

If Bush had been a better diplomat he probably could have gotten France and Germany to support the war. Of course if France, Germany and Russia had fully supported going to war it might not have been necessary - Saddam might have allowed inspectors back into the country, or resigned (doubtful). It is clear that without the dire threat of war Saddam would never have let inspectors back into the country, and UN Sanctions have been proven totally corrupt and ineffective, as they had the impact of increasing Saddam's wealth and resources at the expense of the people of Iraq.

In retrospect you have to wonder why Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. He (apparently) had nothing to hide when he kicked them out. Was he considering re-starting his WMD programs? Were the inspectors asking for or refusing to pay bribes? Did he think kicking the inspectors out and showing that the UN was ineffective would restore Iraq and himself as a leader in the Arab world? From a global historical perspective the question of why Saddam acted as he did is much more important than why Bush did what he did.

[briannell]

Of course, Rebecca, what you are doing is spinning as well. Weren't 100% of the educational facilities up and running before we invaded? And Iraq was never a hotbed of honor killing (those are our allies in Pakistan who get off on that). Iraq was actually quite progressive in its treatment of women (as long as they were in the right political affiliation). There were women in parliament and high government positions. Iraq was a secular country, and not an Islamic theocracy that allowed all the wacky Islamic cave man treatments of women.

yes, and that was partially my intent. I am just getting a little sick of having to brown bag back to WMD's - we are there NOW - so that point in my view is mute. it's all he said she said when it comes to intel these days and since we are in Iraq, we should just do what needs to be done to get us out of Iraq.

Saddam is gone, so WMD's or not we removed the tyranant from power and that benefits all, sunnis, ******, kurds, the US. I do think we can't prevent civil war, i do think it will eventually happen as horrible as that is. The US had it's civil war, so it is hypocritical and arrogant for the US to try to dicatate which countries are allowed to don't really know the best way to say this, but decide by their own actions how their country will be ruled and progress.

I am sick of being "keeper of the world", we are a very arrogant nation. Our way is the BEST and ONLY way to live. We are so screwed up here at home, how are we as a nation the BEST role model for the rest of the world?

[Ponycat]

I think Bush is a tremendous leader. He is not bending to the ever changing winds of public opinion. He steadfastly believes what he is doing is the right thing and that history will recognize this.

This is a point that a lot of Bush supporters have made in favor of his leadership skills, but I'm not sure I completely buy into its validity. I agree that our leaders should not automatically bend to the whims of the voting public, but I don't think that alone makes a person a great leader. Just to use an extreme example, Saddam Hussein also refused to bend to the will of the Iraqi people when he was in power, but I doubt that many of Bush's supporters would argue that he was a great leader for that reason.

I agree Grizlaw, I think great leaders are able to get the public behind them for things they believe in and shape the public opinion, much like Linclon and FDR were able to to. Bush has failed miserably at this. Although I am a Bush supporter I would never include him with the Reagans, FDR's, Washington's and Lincolns. I think his style is more along the lines of Johnson, Truman, and Nixon. (as far as shaping and using public opinion) And like Johnson and Nixon I think historical opinion will be split on him probably leaning on the negative side.

[Grizlaw]

yes, and that was partially my intent. I am just getting a little sick of having to brown bag back to WMD's - we are there NOW - so that point in my view is mute. it's all he said she said when it comes to intel these days and since we are in Iraq, we should just do what needs to be done to get us out of Iraq.

It's true that the point is moot as to Iraq, but I do think the inaccuracy and/or spinning of the intelligence on WMDs is still relevant to the extent that it will become an issue in future potential conflicts. I think most people agree that we need to get the job done in Iraq now that we're there, but what about the next country that we are told is a threat to our security?

If history decides that invading Iraq was a mistake, then that will be a tragedy, but the even bigger tragedy would be if we failed to learn from it.

--GL

[briannell]

but what about the next country that we are told is a threat to our security?

hey GL hope you enjoyed your Christmas in Butte. question for you, don't you think we as a country should put more focus on the threats here at home rather than so many countries abroad.

The US as a country is in a tail spin morally, politically, and legally. We want everyone to be like the US, hell we're a mess. YES we are free and have wonderful liberties that thousands have sacrificed so unselfishly for us to have, but we dishonor their sacrifice by screwing up so much as a nation.

I'll pick just one tiny thing that as a citizen has me totally outraged. Can we build more prisons? I do as you know volunteer work in child victim advocacy. why? Because for 14 months my son age 4 was stalked, videotaped, by a child molester. He came to our home, jacked off in my driveway (375K home no less across from Catholic Church) crapped on my back porch, took video tape of the kids and I inside our home from small cameras he mounted on MY roof and from the trees on his property that looked into my second story window. The man arrested 8 times by local PD, and out within 24 because of bail. Yes restraining order granted, but if you are 301 feet away instead of with in the 300ft. limit the police can't arrest you. So after 14 months in the Superior Court system the DA asks is 4 months okay? What a nut Job, so I took it to trial, he got 16 months. See no room in the "system" because of over crowding of local jails.

If we use even SOME of the money alloted to foreign countries we could protect the victims here at home.

So yes the bad intel over WMD is a concern that should be addressed for future deployments, but agreed mute now.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I read a really good quote the other day, but apologies to the originator, because I don't recall who it was who said:

"The Country is run by those who show up."

[Bleedinbluengold]

The French said there were no WMDs in Iraq. The French were correct.

Where France differed is that they wanted a diplomatic solution - more specifically, they wanted a consensus decision, and not to be bullied into a war. whether they were right not to support the war is open to debate, depending on the long term impact of the war and Saddam ouster.

If Bush had been a better diplomat he probably could have gotten France and Germany to support the war. Of course if France, Germany and Russia had fully supported going to war it might not have been necessary - Saddam might have allowed inspectors back into the country, or resigned (doubtful). It is clear that without the dire threat of war Saddam would never have let inspectors back into the country, and UN Sanctions have been proven totally corrupt and ineffective, as they had the impact of increasing Saddam's wealth and resources at the expense of the people of Iraq.

In retrospect you have to wonder why Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. He (apparently) had nothing to hide when he kicked them out. Was he considering re-starting his WMD programs? Were the inspectors asking for or refusing to pay bribes? Did he think kicking the inspectors out and showing that the UN was ineffective would restore Iraq and himself as a leader in the Arab world? From a global historical perspective the question of why Saddam acted as he did is much more important than why Bush did what he did.

A couple points I'd like to make regarding the above:

1. The French and Germans were more against the obvious loss of business in Iraq post-war. Companies in both countries lost billions in potential business, but of course, the leaders of both countries knew this beforehand. Follow the money.

2. France and Germany were never going to support overthrowing the Hussein gov't in my opinion (see #1).

3. From what I have read on the subject, Hussein threw the UN inspectors out because he was convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the US was (A) spying on his country through the UN inspectors, (B) the US was never going to sign off that all WMDs had been destroyed, and (C) give the above, he was convinced of an invasion and decided that at least he would go down with "guns blazin."