But I’d like to point out that the idea you can “flush out terrorists” through any means, especially a war, is absolutley rediculous. There are not a finite number of people who hate or who are can be convinced to hate and to fight.

The war in Iraq, by all accounts, has created more terrorists. As Ireland shows us, you can’t defeat an insurgency, rebellion, or rebels using terrorist tactics by killing them. Palestine shows the same thing. Diplomacy, and the lifting of the economic and social conditions that lead to people ripe for ‘brainwashing’ by terrorists, those are the only ways to end the violence. And is Northern Ireland finally violence-free? No. Which shows how long this kind of thing can take. But the major crucial step was when the broad public sentiment finally moved away from the IRA. That only happened when the war ended. Similarly, in Iraq, the longer the American forces are there, the more public symapathy will be with Al Quida and other groups like them, the more new recruits they’ll have, and the longer it will be until the situation can be defused and the people of Iraq will be able to move to accept and act out for peace.

SG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

* ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi told an emissary from the RG leadership, on 27 January 2003, that if Saddam had WMD, he would use it, according to a former officer with direct knowledge of Iraqi military ground operations and planning.
* According to a former senior RG official, Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion.
* If he had CW, Saddam would have used it against Coalition Forces to save the Regime, according to a former senior official.
* Iraqi military planning did not incorporate the use—or even the threat of use—of WMD after 1991, according to ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid. WMD was never part of the military plan crafted to defeat the 2003 Coalition invasion.

Based on the statements of former senior officers, the Iraqi military—including the RG—allegedly had no plans for employing WMD, had not practiced tactical use of WMD since 1991, had no available stockpiles of WMD, had not deployed any WMD to tactical units, and had no special infrastructure in place for handling WMD.

The evidence you cite, as noted in the report, suggests that Saddam wished to return to WMD programs after sanctions were lifted. The important thing to note is that there were no stockpiles of WMDs, and the sanctions against Iraq were working!

Is there any evidence in those quotes you lifted?

Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.6

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

And this is what you send me to dispute the case that Saddam has no WMD or was not researching it? Would these ballistic missiles that exceed restrictions possibly contain anything that might cause mass distruction? Please open your eyes to this.
Have you read the 9/11 commission report?
Here is some evidence that proves that there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda:
1.) “With al Qaeda as its foundation, bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudia Arabia, and the Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Erirrea… With a Multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for the terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.” – 9/11 COMMISSION STAFF STATEMENT # 15, OVERVIEW OF THE ENEMY, PAGE 3.

2.) “Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime … The Sudanese [government] … arranged for contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons…” – 9/11 COMMISSION STAFF STATEMENT # 15, PAGE 5.

Well, let’s see what Colin Powell said previously at a statement to the UN, “Zarqawi … traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months … During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al qaeda affiliates … coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network … [in 2002] an al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ‘good’”

We can also read from the Wall Street Journal, SEPT. 22, 2003,
“One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for ‘The Toronto Star’ and London’s ‘Sunday Telegraph’. The February 19, 1998 memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden’s name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of ‘the weekly Standard’, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman al Zawahiri $300,000.”

I understand your frustration, Dave. However, try to open your eyes to this and read these citations for yourself. It also helps to know why these are not publicly disclosed to the public by the current media. As I stated before to others, the media cannot be fully trusted at a glance and you have to look past the glossy facade and dig deep to find answers that those people do not want you to find.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States because of his proven and quoted connections with al Qaeda in the 9/11 commission report. They also celebrated when the US was attacked on 9/11. Do you not remember any of this?

These are quotes, this should be the concrete evidence that you were looking for….unless you were not looking for it at all, but rather wanting to argue and mis represent facts.

And, yes, as a matter of fact, they did come to start blowing us up because we were there. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and his power would have been threatened by al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission found no evidence that Hussein had any links to al-Qaeda, and that in fact, bin Laden was an enemy of Saddam. You’ve provided me no actual, concrete evidence to make me believe that the word of two independent commissions tasked by the U.S. Government is 100% completely false. The burden of proof is on you, here. Give me a citation, other than the statements of men who make a living in lies, and I’ll hear you out. Since I know that you have none, I’ll continue to shoot down your arguments.

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States. Not in any way that would be worth the lives of more than 3,000 Americans. Period.

Secondly, you and others are wrong about there not being any weapons of mass distruction. Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. The effects of this are great, yet the media does not want you to know this. That goes again with my point how they only want to show the negetives and do anything and protect any documents away from the population that would at all support Bush.

True, we had him contained, but he was still harboring terrorists. Why can’t you see the threat in that? Why do you close your eyes to it? For once, tell me if this in itelf is or is not a threat.
If you say it is not a threat, then you are the one detached from reality, and if you say it is a threat, then why are you arguing this point?

So you and others like you are wrong about the creations of WMD, you’re wrong about there not being liberal propaganda that is spread around like it is FACT, and most importantly, you’re wrong about Saddam not being a threat!

If you would have paid attention to what I said, I said that democracy can be the result of a civil war. By being the “result” of a civil was means that at the end of that conflict, when everything settles, you can have democracy. GET THIS STRAIGHT AND DO NOT MIS QUOTE ME!

I’ve given you ties to al-Qaeda and Iraq, I’ve given you ties to WMD’s but you still won’t understand the main reason why Saddam was a threat.

HARBORING TERRORISTS MAKES YOU A THREAT.

An open-ended commitment by the United States offers the Iraqis no incentive to stand up and take responsibility for their own security. At some point, they have to take over. We cannot be the de facto Iraqi army.

You fail to realize, quite simply, that Saddam Hussein posed absolutely no real, physical threat to the United States. We had him contained. He was no threat. The United States had long ago neutralized Saddam Hussein’s power. Independent investigations have confirmed what most of us knew was true before the war: Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties to al-Qaeda. These are hard, indisputable facts. They are not creations of the media. They are not liberal propaganda. They are facts. And if you cannot accept them, then you are simply detached from reality.

Do you dissagree that setting a date for withdrawl could set a date for rebutle and reorginazation for the terrorists? Even if you were to “begin” the withdrawal of our troops, that is a bad strategy and will result in more troops being casualties since their support is being dwindled as time goes by. These bombings and other terrorist actions are a result of our presence because this enemy knows that the media will recognize that before recognizing any progress that was made in our efforts. The enemy knows that the media controls the morale heartbeat of our American people, so they use it against us and the media helps them. Why else do you think that the media would hastly show the casualties and beheadings on TV while asking “Is Bush making progress in Iraq”, and yet when a movie with actors are protraying the 9/11 attack they complain and ask, “Is this too soon to show this after 9/11″?
It is because the first instance is discouraging to the war effort, and the second enforces our reasoning to be on the offence. Why else would so many conspiracy topics have popped up trying to disprove the al-Qaeda involvment in 9/11? It is because they cannot handle a Republican president being active against terror while their beloved Clinton wouldn’t take action…even after the 93′ attack.

That is why some people don’t want to touch the justification for this war. It is because they cannot handle it. Did you know that we still occupy Germany and have a fully functional base there? We still won in WW2 and still occupy Germany today.

Drawing down our presence would only increase casualties because it is still hostile over there. Decreasing presence will not stop the violence and hostility over there.

Our commintment “can” be as open ended to eliminate any remaining terrorist threat and securing a democracy in Iraq. Not only that, the terrorists “are” leaving their commitiment open-ended to later attack us (and I don’t think any sanctions or comming together in discussion would change the beliefs that they are willing and wanting to die for). Many are still refusing to see that, because they want to close their eyes to it.

The civil war that would take place over there is not a result of our being there, but rather different sects want to control its people and not haveing the people decide for themselves. It is a difference between them that they are privilaged to express now that Saddam is gone.

I think what you fail to realize is that we “won” against Iraq, and now we are doing the right thing by spreading democracy where it has never been before. The process is rough, but that is what it will take and the world is safer because of that.

I believe that we need to set a date at which we begin the withdrawal of our troops. Our commitment cannot be open ended. Sending more troops will only lead to more American casualties. In order to minimize the impact of our withdrawal, we need to bring the region to the table, work out a diplomatic solution. We need to turn over the control of Iraq to the Iraqis. Their government cannot stand up on its own if our military maintains an indefinite presence there. I outlined all of those points above. At the very least, the goals outlined in the Iraq Study Group report are a good starting point for a plan. And the President’s plan is the exact opposite of that report.

I think we need to realize that what exists today in Iraq is an occupation. You cannot “win” an occupation. The only way it ends is by transferring authority to the legitimate government of Iraq. And the only way that can happen is by drawing down our presence, not increasing it.

You said it best that victory cannot be accomplished in a war that the enemy is undefined. Then why do you want the US military to claim victory and leave Iraq? Or is it that you want the US military to admit defeat and leave Iraq? Either way, if we exit or talk about exiting Iraq we set a waiting period for these terrorist to strike again.

Is the justification of the war tenuous? Shall I remind you that it took the majority of the US to allow us to go into this war in the first place? Most of the people you probably would vote for was in favor of the war when it was the popular (and right) thing to do, and yet the reasoning is flimsy to you? Or possibly the reason you wont “touch the justification” is because you cannot, and you only want to complain? This blog allows you to talk as long as you want and say what you fully want while reviewing your text when your done, and you still dont want to touch that? If I am wrong, please give me example and rational evidence so that I may correct my thoughts. As I said before, I want to discuss “what” is right, not “who” is right, so feel free to fully correct me.

We had saddam contained, true, however please remind yourself of that investigation process that took place to find the WMD. We couldn’t get into certain factories which gave time for saddam to hide, dismantle or dispose evidence that would suggest that he had completed WMD. This has been proven, however “glass is half empty” people want to focus on that we did not find completed WMD rather than saddam having the means and resources to make them. For instance, he used them before on the Kurds and would have love to use them on us.

Your say that, “A democracy cannot exist in the midst of a full-fledged civil war.” and that is true, but remember that a democracy can result from a civil war and I could give you a big example, the United States of America. I know this stings, but please remember that.

Time and time again people try to say that we should do treaties, sanctions, and other civilized processes to a society that is not civil and they regularly break the rules of engagment as a way of life. Why are you complaining that there is no clear way to define the enemy and yet try to define rules and negotiations for the enemy?
Nagotiations only work for civil opposing forces. Iraq is neither a standing society or an opposing force to the US anymore because of our current actions by our current president.

This has never been a conventional war so do not try to equate it as one. Shall we immediatly stop this war and let them regroup to strike us again, while sending the non effective negotiations and treaties that mean nothing to terrorists (ie, my right to carry guns bit from my first post)?

I will ask this last thing, then I have to go to work:
Why would someone rational claiming that this war is wrong because of the casualties on our side, but not give that same sanctity of life to unborn babies and yet call them a choice to be aborted?