If not for 9/11 would there be a war in Iraq?

[PAlexC]

Originally posted by hurricaneone
If a group of governments are realistically considering waging a 'war against terror', profit as a policy-directive will have to be replaced by system of policy making that ignores the bottom line, and instead seeks as it's main goal to demonstrate a change in attitude towards peoples and land, hopefully helping to reduce the anti-West sentiment that fuels the terroristic groups.

Pft! That's un-American! You dirty commie!

[hurricaneone]

Originally posted by PAlexC
Pft! That's un-American! You dirty commie!

Color me quasi-pinko socialist.



That's just it, though. A government so firmly based on making money is unlikly to decide over-night to do a switcheroo on the antagonistic, two-faced foreign policies observed as the key motivators for attacks. As such, aside from a few captures or diffused plans, there can be no progress toward ending this new war. As you said, PAlexC, the 'War on Terror' seems to be be nothing more than a ploy to keep open the door of pre-emptive war. If there's going to be no move to placate terror groups, there'll be no reduction in their animosity, or the flow of recruits joining their terror crusade.

New from the United States, Pre-emptive War - War where we like, when we like.

[webcorps]

The question however, is would America have gone to war to change the regime if it was not for 9/11.

As far as the war on terrorism, of course not, no. would we have invaded iraq? yes, eventually. Iraq was, for the second time in a decade, a show of force - to the nations in the region that were starting to doubt our resolve. Iran's, Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and Syria's support of terrorism and some of their forrays into WMD and missile development has been going on for a long time now. The desire to make an example out of one of them was always there. 9/11 and Hussein's arrogance just gave us the excuse to follow through.

[yasunobu13]

Iraq? I think Bush would eventually have made it there, I don't think that it would have been so quick going from preparation to actual combat, though. He would have had to go through the UN and get the support of more, larger countries.

I just read something interesting recently.

It seems that Clinton had a big plan to go after al qaeda and Bin Laden near the end of his term. As Bush took over, the new administration was given breifings and info about the plan. It was all laid out, but the Bush administration ignored it and kept putting it off. Bush was finally in a meeting discussing it a few days before 9/11.

When the Bush administration went into Afghanistan, they followed the Clinton administration's plan.

[PAlexC]

Old news. Not well reported. But old.

[Visionray]

I read an article in Time Magazine about a year ago, after 9-11, but before this Iraq war started. It described an incident during the first few months of the Bush Administration. Supposedly, Saddam was being defiant again regarding a certain resolution, or a no-fly zone breach or something. Bush supposedly peeked his head into a white house meeting and was quoted as saying "F*ck Saddam, we're taking him out".

I don't doubt that one of his objectives was to remove Saddam from power from the very beginning. I also don't doubt that 9-11 was a huge catalyst to the invasion. On the other hand, in my mind this doesn't at all make the invasion unjustified. If that's what your trying to argue Flipshark I think it's a flawed argument. Many saw 9-11 as further justification for taking care of the Saddam issue before that itself turned into another disaster.

9-11 made an invasion more justifiable in many American's minds, and it made more sense militarily. We were completely mobilized in the area already from Afghanistan, thus...the timing couldn't have been better.

[marknovak]

I'm glad that we're at war with Iraq



now that I've said that, I expect GMF to come by and close thread

[Visionray]

Originally posted by marknovak
I'm glad that we're at war with Iraq

now that I've said that, I expect GMF to come by and close thread

see that's the thing. The thread topic didn't ask if anyone was glad we're in Iraq. Besides, we all know you're glad we're at war in Iraq Mark.

[marknovak]

Originally posted by Visionray
see that's the thing. The thread topic didn't ask if anyone was glad we're in Iraq.

hmm

"If not for 9/11 would there be a war in Iraq?"

I say it relates, slightly... maybe...



BAM!

[Ultima Designs]

While it is certainly post-9/11 sentiment that drove ability to conduct the war in Iraq, it likely would have proved inevitable to have to eventually one day invade Iraq. Their roots in supporting terror are crystal clear, their colorful history with weapons of mass destruction made them a bigger threat, and Saddam's continual attempts to obtain nuclear weapons could have meant the beginning of World War III. The fact is that Saddam was destined to obtain nuclear weapons sometime in the near future, and no draconian sanctions were going to stop this. CIA and German intelligence estimated that Iraq could have such weapons as early as 2004 to 2007. In 1990, Iraq built a worksable nuclear weapon, lacking only fissile material. Iraq even has natural uranium deposits, so it would not have needed to import uranium, and they had the scientists and know-how to build a ssystem capable of enriching that uranium to weapons grade. Without 9/11, the answer is that a majority of Americans would likely have opposed the war, but there would have eventually had to be a military confronation of Iraq before they became the threat North Korea is today.

[GMF ™]

Originally posted by marknovak
I'm glad that we're at war with Iraq



now that I've said that, I expect GMF to come by and close thread

then why do you post this crap ??? just to ruin for the rest ???

post that crap somewhere else !!

[PAlexC]

Originally posted by marknovak
I'm glad that we're at war with Iraq

I'm glad you have such a rosy view of war.

[marknovak]

Originally posted by GMF ™
then why do you post this crap ??? just to ruin for the rest ???

By saying I support the war, I ruin this debate thread.

Yep.

Glad you caught me ruining this thread with my right-wing comments.

Yep.

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by marknovak
By saying I support the war, I ruin this debate thread.
Yep.
Glad you caught me ruining this thread with my right-wing comments.
Yep.

or maybe you caould have attempted to answer the thread's question. Your post came from nowhere and did not relate to anything that had been said.

And I don't see why you have to make it right-wing vs. flashkit whenever you speak.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by yasunobu13
or maybe you caould have attempted to answer the thread's question. Your post came from nowhere and did not relate to anything that had been said.

And I don't see why you have to make it right-wing vs. flashkit whenever you speak.

I have seen that, in general, the web design community at-large (not only FK) is more liberal than the mainstream. But you're right, it really isn't fair to stir a conservative vs. flashkit debate, especially in the midst of the fact that everyone is respecting everyone else's opnions. If you want to make a point about Iraq, go for it, but I think that you need to answer the thread's question first.

[aversion]

Originally posted by marknovak
By saying I support the war, I ruin this debate thread.

Yep.

Glad you caught me ruining this thread with my right-wing comments.

Yep.

I think the point is you're just posting for the sake of it, you don't really care about your comment you just want to post it like a child wants attention.

it's got nothing to do with your politics, it's to do with you not participating in the thread, not adding anything to a discussion, personally, I don't care because I don't think anyone is impressed, you're just wasting bandwidth because you have nothing to contribute.

[GMF ™]

Originally posted by marknovak
By saying I support the war, I ruin this debate thread.

Yep.

Glad you caught me ruining this thread with my right-wing comments.

Yep.

There are thoughts in life that i would love to shout out in public, but it would be more trouble than i could handle, thats why i keep my feedinghole closed. I can see now that your brain is missing a plug, so ill fill it with something x-tra special , a ***-plug !

Banned .

you had your chances ! Bye bye . I wont miss you .

[yasunobu13]

Originally posted by GMF ™
Banned .

He irritated me sometimes, but I don't think that a banning was in order.

At least not the telletubbies. That's just insult to injury.

[ViRGo_RK]

Chalk one up for GMF...

You told him to post his crap somewhere else.

No one gave him the link to were-here?

At least not the telletubbies. That's just insult to injury.

No. It's entertainment.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
While it is certainly post-9/11 sentiment that drove ability to conduct the war in Iraq, it likely would have proved inevitable to have to eventually one day invade Iraq. Their roots in supporting terror are crystal clear, their colorful history with weapons of mass destruction made them a bigger threat, and Saddam's continual attempts to obtain nuclear weapons could have meant the beginning of World War III. The fact is that Saddam was destined to obtain nuclear weapons sometime in the near future, and no draconian sanctions were going to stop this. CIA and German intelligence estimated that Iraq could have such weapons as early as 2004 to 2007. In 1990, Iraq built a worksable nuclear weapon, lacking only fissile material. Iraq even has natural uranium deposits, so it would not have needed to import uranium, and they had the scientists and know-how to build a ssystem capable of enriching that uranium to weapons grade. Without 9/11, the answer is that a majority of Americans would likely have opposed the war, but there would have eventually had to be a military confronation of Iraq before they became the threat North Korea is today.

Hmmm... I think you need to check some of your facts.

How was Saddam "destined to obtain" nuclear weapons? It seems pretty clear from the lack of weapons they found that he was having great difficulty in obtaining any substantial weaponry (is that a word?!).

And "supporting" terrorism? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you just mean his vocal support, plus financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers, and not any material links between Iraq and Al Queda that were falsely reported. And in that case, show me an enemy of the US who would not support terrorism against the US? So is that reason enough to invade?

It seems quite clear to me - and with time and more and more facts coming out even more so - that no invasion would ever have happened without 9/11. Despite what some in the US admin are still trying to hold onto, sanctions against Iraq WERE working in stopping them aquiring significant weapons. But saying that, I agree that more needed to be done in order to bring further order to Saddam's rule, and like I've said previously, if a "legal system" of sorts - which is exactly what the UN is, or should be - is not functioning as effectively as you would like, then why not address that rather than become vigilanties? Anyway, just another question to add to the discussion, don't take it personally.

And North Korea a threat? No more than Russia ever were, or Cuba. Yes, there needs to be something done at the highest diplomatic levels, and it appears that it is, but I have as much fear of North Korea firing a nuclear weapon as I do of a flying cow landing on my car. So what's your real issue with "the threat North Korea is today"? What threat?

As Aversion has pointed out, the only real danger we face are from terrorist groups who have no alliance to any country, and who cannot be damaged in any long term way by any invasion. Real intelligence is needed, not "shock and awe". If a fraction of the money that was spent on the invasion went into intelligence then so much more could be dealt with more effectively, behind the scenes.

Oh, but that won't win votes will it, 'cos it can't be publicly talked about?

Hmmmmm....

(and most of this is not just relevant for the "US admin", but for the Brits, Australia, and so forth - so don't take it personally, it is a discussion of opinions)