To war, or not to war......that is the question

[_JS]

As I said, this isn't a criminal activity.  You can't fight a war like it's simply a crime.  And after 911, we had more to go with than just "a connection", than you very much.

No we didn't. There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. You said that yourself, not very long ago.

I agree, war isn't a criminal activity, it requires a hell of a lot more justification to go to war.

In reality no, thankfully there was far more than that

There was a "connection." According to what you gave me as your "evidence." That's it. Correlation does not equal causation Sirs, and in this case you didn't even have correlation.

I really don't know what you expect from what you've given me here. How can any reasonable individual sit down and look at this information, then draw a straight line to "we must invade Iraq." It is absolutely illogical. There's nothing here that shows any threat to the United States or any reason to be concerned with the defence of a neighboring state of Iraq.

[sirs]

There was no link between Saddam and 9/11. You said that yourself, not very long ago.

Actually I (and Bush) have been saying that since the beginning, so please avoid the attempt to make it some recent epiphamy

I agree, war isn't a criminal activity, it requires a hell of a lot more justification to go to war.

Following 911, and given the intel Bush had at the time, the justification was plenty, IMHO, and more importantly, to the fella that had access to far more intel than we could ever imagine, without jeapordizing lives and tactics on how said intel is gathered

[_JS]

Sirs,

You're starting to talk in circles. Seriously, I think you've lost the plot.

[Henny]

Sirs, sorry for delaying on this response. I was thinking. LOL.

So, that brings up the logical foll-up question.  How much more time does the President of the U.S. give diploamcy, following 911?  You're the President.  You've seen the intel, your CIA chief says "slam dunk", you have documented connections, both direct & indirect between Iraq & AlQeada, and AlQeada just murdered 3000 innoncent civilian Americans.  Iraq also continues to remain out of compliance with UN 1441, not to mention a bunch of others.  Given that on your table, how much more time does President Henny give Saddam & diplomacy?

BTW, what "many other tactics" would you be referring to, to bring Saddam into full compliance?

First things first - I am following your line of reasoning, based on "let's just say" that Bush's hands are clean on this - that he did NOT lie to the American people.

President Henny would never consider a pre-emptive war. I would continue to work with the UN on finding non-violent means to deal with Saddam. Do you remember when Saddam offered to let UN weapons inspectors back in to Iraq? A lot of people felt that he was just posturing, trying to buy time. Perhaps he was. But he was told instead that "there would be a regime change in Iraq" and the time table was up for trying to negotiate. I would have taken him up on that, Sirs. I would have sent the weapons inspectors in. As this was the basis for going to war or not, the weapons inspectors would have really cleared things up - should we or shouldn't we?

Because they weren't in violation of UN 1441.  Nor were there any documented connections between AlQeada & NK

The UN and UN 1441 seem to be entirely beside the point. The U.S. scoffed at the UN - who needs the UN? Since when is the UN a litmus test for whether or not we go to war? They certainly didn't have much pull - except where it was convenient - before the invasion.

But how could they possibly have been "manufactured" when the global intel community, the NIE, and practically every Dem, when Clinton was in charge, professed with near certainty Saddam's WMD danger to the region and WMD being used against the U.S. & its allies??  What was that official position on regime change all about then??

I remember Saddam being problematic for Clinton. What I remember even more clearly was Clinton using Saddam as a distraction from his personal life that the press was so interested in. (Look over there! A bird!) Please, Sirs, believe me on this - I may not be a Republican, but I really can't stand the Democrats. Call me independent. What the Democrats do or say, did or said, is not credible to me either.

[sirs]

Sirs, sorry for delaying on this response. I was thinking. LOL.

So, that brings up the logical foll-up question.  How much more time does the President of the U.S. give diploamcy, following 911?  You're the President...... Given that on your table, how much more time does President Henny give Saddam & diplomacy?  BTW, what "many other tactics" would you be referring to, to bring Saddam into full compliance?

First things first - I am following your line of reasoning, based on "let's just say" that Bush's hands are clean on this - that he did NOT lie to the American people.

President Henny would never consider a pre-emptive war. I would continue to work with the UN on finding non-violent means to deal with Saddam.

Fair enough.  As I referenced to Js, quite a gamble being taken on your two's part, but that's why the President's payed the big bucks.

Do you remember when Saddam offered to let UN weapons inspectors back in to Iraq? A lot of people felt that he was just posturing, trying to buy time. Perhaps he was.

Do you remember how he still wasn't giving them complete, and unequivical access to everything at any time, per the UN's mandate, when they were in Iraq?

I would have sent the weapons inspectors in. As this was the basis for going to war or not, the weapons inspectors would have really cleared things up - should we or shouldn't we?

Hey, if it weren't for the events of 911, I'd be right there with you, on that one Miss Henny.  Perhaps you could conclude that AlQeada really screwed things up for Saddam

The UN and UN 1441 seem to be entirely beside the point. The U.S. scoffed at the UN - who needs the UN?

Well, you're right there.  Clinton didn't need them either, and our defense doesn't require UN approval.  Simply that in this instance we DO have UN 1441.  We DO have their madate that Saddam fully comply.  He chose to do other, and since the UN is a toothless uncredible organization now, having no ability (probably no desire) to actually enforce their own resolutions, we did it for them.  Not that we had to or required their authorization, simply that we did

But how could they possibly have been "manufactured" when the global intel community, the NIE, and practically every Dem, when Clinton was in charge, professed with near certainty Saddam's WMD danger to the region and WMD being used against the U.S. & its allies??  What was that official position on regime change all about then??

I remember Saddam being problematic for Clinton. What I remember even more clearly was Clinton using Saddam as a distraction from his personal life that the press was so interested in. (Look over there! A bird!) Please, Sirs, believe me on this - I may not be a Republican, but I really can't stand the Democrats. Call me independent. What the Democrats do or say, did or said, is not credible to me either.

Fair enough     

[Plane]

During the late part of the Bush 41 aministration , and throughout the administration of Bill Clinton acts ofwar were carryed ou in Iraq by the US and allies .


I see the availible choices as of 2002 as amounting to three ;

1.Status quo , maintain the embargo and the supression .
2.Give up,  let Saddam regain his unfettered controll.
3. War , not a small scale incease in the constant unfreindlyness,  but enough of a commitment to bring the conflictfiannally to a conclsion.


So item three being chosen, has given us the highly imperfect result we can all observe , but in what respet would choice one or two have been better?