As I think of the big picture and look at continuing developments in that part of the world, I am more convinced now than ever that we took out Iraq just to more easily facilitate the future invasion of Iran. Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons. I am about 90% convinced that we will (and should) move against Iran before this happens, to prevent it.
Did you read the report? Out of all the Bin Laden associates that we have captured both senior and non-senior the main conclusion that the report draws is "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Though you are implying the report says something completely different than it actually does. Just a quick search of Iraq brought up these (both pro and some con) from the report and I skipped over a lot as well as there is other stuff the commission has ignored. The paragraphs are probably out of order as I just did a quick copy and paste. Since it is from the 09-11 PDF file it still has the footnotes and a messed up character every now and then pasting it into my web browser. http://www.9-11commission.gov/
We are there because Bush has the guts that neither his father nor Bill Clinton had. It has been U.S. policy for a regime change in Iraq since '98. It was on Bush's mind win he entered the White House. The Bush Doctrine is about a pre-emptive strikes. The removing of Saddaam is a pre-emptive strike as well as a re-do from '91, '94, '98. Saddaam should have been taking out during the first Gulf War, he should have been taken out when he tried to have a former President assassinated, when he shot at our planes, and when he broke UN resolution after UN resolution. After 9/11 Bush promised to rid the world of terror and countries that support it. That's exactly what he has done. All intelligence pointed to WMD. We knew he was crazy bastard that was a declared enemy of the U.S. No WMD's were found, but parts of their program are being found all around the world. Documents and labs showed that Iraq had the possibilty of being more dangerous than we thought, according to David Kay. Corruption and lack of money screwed their program, but we didn't know that. They had the scientist and intent to distribute them to terrorist. The Senate Intelligence report showed a direct connection between Iraq and Al Qeade. 66 pages of facts showing a connection between Saddaam and terrorism. He was training terrorists in chemical and biological weapons focused on attacking the U.S. He had terror camps. He provided a safe haven for one of the first WTC bombers. He offered safe haven for Osama at one time, even if he declined. He met with the Taliban and Al Qaede on numerous occasions. The 9/11 report mentions some of these things as well. Saddaam and Osama are not friends, one is a religious nut and the other not. But both despise America and may have not collaborated on 9/11, but they may have in the future. You can't fight terrorism with Saddaam still there offering safe haven and the possibilty of passing off nukes to them. You can't get to Iran without first going through Iraq. We now have Iran surrounded with Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan and Libya some what coopperating with us. The biggest benefits besides not having Hussein to worry about is a strong U.S. ally now in the heart of the Middle East. The fact that we got Libya to give up their weapons program. We proved a point. A point that Iran, N. Korea, Syria now see. They may not cooperate completely, but they now know we don't just throw out empty threats like we use to. I have a question for people who are against the war. If we hadn't gone after Saddaam, but he got the capabilities to make WMDs and then passed them to or sent his own terrorists to the U.S. to have them "delivered". Millions dead. What would your opoinion of Bush be then?
These are the people that continually say... we were never attacked. Hello people!!! Just how quickly do you forget the 9/11 attacks? How many died again? How many more need to die to understand that we have to take the battle to them? Are we going to wait until every terrorist supporting nation(Yes, it has been proven that Iraq had camps and other infrastrure) kills thousands or millions before we can go after them? How has the U.S. policed the world since 1945? By insuring a strong military presence in all parts of the world especially in parts of the world that pose an imminent threat. Why do you think we continue to hold the front in Korea for 50+ years? It is to keep them in check for the most part. The last thing the United States can afford is to have zero presence in a part of the world that presents the greatest danger to her. It's not rocket science. Just think about how the world policed itself during the span of time before the end of WWII. They didn't. The U.S. kept somewhat of an isolationist policy and were continually pulled into foreign conflicts with tremendous loss of American lives. Just how many have we had since then?
Crawfish, you really need to do some research on troop deployment on both Afghanistan and Iraq and learn up on what we have found the last several months in and around the country.
4,000 Marines in Afghanistan, which is plenty to catch and obtain what we need out of the country. Over 25,000-30,000 Marines in Iraq
MarineTiger, From my time in the Army, I recall Fort Gordon as being the U.S. Army's MP school (in fact, I have an uncle who trained there as a Marine MP during the Vietnam era)...is that what you're doing now? Training MPs?
We had a small detachment of Marines at Ft. Leonard Wood when I was stationed there for Army Engineer school. Their barracks was right across the street from mine.
