Foiled Terror Plots Against America Since 9/11

[Keystone Phil]

What was the main objective of going into Iraq?  WMDs?  Al Queda? 

Hell, even if Bush had said "we need to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from the beginning, that would have been at least a little better.  Sure, he may not have been popular for it, but by now people would have said "well, we accomplished our main objective and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."  Instead, we're left with "well, at least Saddam Hussein is gone and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."

Actually, I don't know about everyone else but I remember that the WMD argument wasn't the only reason for going in.

I know it might not seem to be the case five years afterwards but removing Saddam from power will be much better when you take a long term look at things.

[Ban my account ffs!]

What was the main objective of going into Iraq?  WMDs?  Al Queda? 

Hell, even if Bush had said "we need to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from the beginning, that would have been at least a little better.  Sure, he may not have been popular for it, but by now people would have said "well, we accomplished our main objective and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."  Instead, we're left with "well, at least Saddam Hussein is gone and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."

Actually, I don't know about everyone else but I remember that the WMD argument wasn't the only reason for going in.

I know it might not seem to be the case five years afterwards but removing Saddam from power will be much better when you take a long term look at things.

I haven't argued against the fact that Saddam being gone has been a great thing.  My beef is not with the outcome, but with the reasoning and ultimate motives for going in.

[Franzl]

What was the main objective of going into Iraq?  WMDs?  Al Queda? 

Hell, even if Bush had said "we need to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from the beginning, that would have been at least a little better.  Sure, he may not have been popular for it, but by now people would have said "well, we accomplished our main objective and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."  Instead, we're left with "well, at least Saddam Hussein is gone and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."

Actually, I don't know about everyone else but I remember that the WMD argument wasn't the only reason for going in.

I know it might not seem to be the case five years afterwards but removing Saddam from power will be much better when you take a long term look at things.

I agree, the world is a better place without Saddam. However, there are still many dictators throughout the world without which the world would also be a much better place, particularly for the oppressed people in these countries....You know...like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba.....even China...

Following your theory of liberating people, wouldn't in make sense to go to war with every regime we believe is abusing their power?

And don't give me the s**t about "Saddam was/would have become a threat to the U.S....other countries with WMD are just as dangerous from our perspective.

[Keystone Phil]

I agree, the world is a better place without Saddam. However, there are still many dictators throughout the world without which the world would also be a much better place, particularly for the oppressed people in these countries....You know...like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba.....even China...

You have to pick your battles. Sorry if that sounds cynical but it's the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it is our duty to liberate every country with military force. We have put appropriate pressure on other countries through different means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From "our" perspective? You're German, correct? You don't share "our" perspective.

Iraq was definitely more dangerous when it came to physical force compared to countries like China, Cuba and Zimbabwe. We have to handle North Korea and Iran a bit differently but military action should never be taken off the table.

[Franzl]

I agree, the world is a better place without Saddam. However, there are still many dictators throughout the world without which the world would also be a much better place, particularly for the oppressed people in these countries....You know...like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba.....even China...

You have to pick your battles. Sorry if that sounds cynical but it's the truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it is our duty to liberate every country with military force. We have put appropriate pressure on other countries through different means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From "our" perspective? You're German, correct? You don't share "our" perspective.

Iraq was definitely more dangerous when it came to physical force compared to countries like China, Cuba and Zimbabwe. We have to handle North Korea and Iran a bit differently but military action should never be taken off the table.

I've made quite clear that I'm half-American, and even registered to vote

And believe it or not, America is where my true allegiance lies.

[Keystone Phil]

I've made quite clear that I'm half-American, and even registered to vote

Never knew that.

[AkSaber]

Hell, even if Bush had said "we need to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from the beginning, that would have been at least a little better.  Sure, he may not have been popular for it, but by now people would have said "well, we accomplished our main objective and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."  Instead, we're left with "well, at least Saddam Hussein is gone and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."

Exactly!! If the President had said that Hussein was a loose cannon and wouldn't let him become a threat to us, that would be different. First, it would've showed he was honest, and that he would take extreme measures to enhance national security.

But of course that's not how things went. There's no denying it. The President used fabricated evidence to justify an unnecessary war. Because of this war, everything is becoming more expensive for us, while the President's friends have been raking in the cash.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is exactly the point.

If the case made was humanitarian.... fine.

Terror is very real to me since I actually lost someone due to those bastards. So it's not something I take lightly at all, and the suggestion that the "left" actually want more attacks makes me so angry.

Terror is an ideology - you can't bomb it out of existence.

They made NO ATTEMPT to separate 9/11 from Iraq until it was intellectually impossible to do so.

[Keystone Phil]

This is exactly the point.

If the case made was humanitarian.... fine.

That was always one of my reasons and the administration did use it as a reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree but we know that the target is Islamic militants.

[??????????]

Hell, even if Bush had said "we need to remove Saddam Hussein from power" from the beginning, that would have been at least a little better.  Sure, he may not have been popular for it, but by now people would have said "well, we accomplished our main objective and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."  Instead, we're left with "well, at least Saddam Hussein is gone and now Iraq is becoming democratic and free."

Exactly!! If the President had said that Hussein was a loose cannon and wouldn't let him become a threat to us, that would be different. First, it would've showed he was honest, and that he would take extreme measures to enhance national security.

He did say that, several times.