[CamB]

Originally posted by ronin
oooohboyohboyohboy. I don't mouth off much here, but this time I just can't resist. so here goes

had the liberals had their way, the status-quo would have been preserved, the inspectors would still be running around Iraq looking like fools on wild-goose chases, thousands of Iraquis would still be dying at the hands of a despot and his two sons, Russia and France would still be profiteering from the so-called Iraqui oil embargo, and terrorism would still be getting a substantial financial boost from the coffers of Saddam's regime. this, kind sir, would have been the "bigger picture" that would have prevailed had the US not intervened. a reality that the libs were too unwilling to see in their abject hate of a man trying to protect the interests of his fellow americans

That's your opinion! The inspectors looked like fools on a wild goose chase because the WMD are proving difficult to find (we disagree on why). Thousands of Iraqis may well have been dying, but there are other genocides and politicides in the world*.

And despite recent information which has come to light about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, I am unconvinced they were a major contributor (again, people within other nations are much more guilty). They contributed to terrorism in the Middle East, yes, but again I understand they were not the greatest contributor. I actually suspect time may prove me wrong on this one (that Saddam had somewhat strong links), but I challenge anyone to prove that the US and UK knew this with the same certainty when they invaded Iraq.

I'm not defending Saddam, I'm highlighting that the Bush govt read what it wanted to into the "facts" to prepare its bigger picture.

I guess the question is "do I think Iraq would be better off if Saddam was still in power". The simple answer is that I think the world would better off if the UN-led process had run its course (I view the deposing of Saddam as a foregone conclusion over time). But what is done is done, and I hope that the remaining resistance in Iraq goes quickly. More so, I hope that whatever governance the Iraqis choose for themselves is one that stand the test of time and is just.

more time for Saddam to prepare himself

This is a good point. I am not convinced that there was a case for Saddam getting stronger, but its not like I am the CIA here. Did the pre-war evidence (if viewed objectively) really suggest he was an increasing threat?

ever noticed that things have been relatively quiet on the terrorist front lately? this isn't because Saddam (or anyone else for that matter) turned out not to be a threat, but rather because the terrorist world took note and came to the realization that the US doesn't screw around any longer

I'm not so sure about this. It is just that there is other stuff in the news (ie, the war and rebuild)? I'm pretty sure that the situation in Israel/Palestine isn't improving much, and that there have been ongoing attacks of various kinds throughout the Middle East and South East Asia (note attack on Pakistan President today). I agree that, other than the terrorist (guerilla?) attacks against Coalition troops in Iraq, there may have been a reduction in attacks against US interests.

I'd like to see you use that logic the next time a neighbor (yours or otherwise) takes his drunken rage out on his own family. where's that liberal idealism when it's actually appropriate?

Again, this is the "killing his own people argument". I am very glad it has stopped, I am very sad it continues in other parts of the world. If the US is looking to sweep brutal dictators/regimes from the world, I hope the broom is very large.

ANYHOOOO. having said all that, Cam, 350, Todd, or anyone else with leftist leanings for that matter... drag you down to the local pub and settle this issue properly...God bless our freedom of speech, boys... Wayne, tabs (sometimes) etc, are invited too. Island said he was buying

Amen to that Brother ronin

* I've got no idea how good that site is as a source, I just went for quickest and easiest.