Originally posted by kestra
"No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11."

I guess you have little faith in the 9/11 commission.
Bahahaha. That is funny. 12 lawyers walk into a room no one should feel safe. As a fellow member of the bar, I sure as hell have no faith in the 9/11 commision. It is three years since 9/11 and they are just now starting to get to some interesting things. They have no power. No authority other than invesitgative subponea.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel safe when people 'chat' up people about the ingerity of my security. I feel safe when people are standing a post, defending a line, and spying on the guy who wants to kill me. Commision is at best an adivory group and at worst a bunch of partisan hacks of both sides of the ailse who want their moment in the sun.

Second, if you read their report and espcially the one last week. It talks about contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. It does say that Saddam had no part in attacks on the US while acknowledging links between the two.

Originally posted by kestra And this doctrine of pre-emption is bullshit!! What if every other able country decides to adopt a policy of pre-emption??
The stance on the war on terror is exactly absolutely about preemption. The adminstartion has decided that it was a big enough threat to warrant action. Hello-- the whole point about WMD was not that Iraq had them was that the fear they would fall into terrorists hands. (e.g. Like the recent attempted Chemical Attack on Aman, Jordan). The whole point was that we couldn't let this happen.

As for what if everyone else did, they already have. Our enemies have made significant preparations for our demise. I sight recent events in Iran regarding there so called nuclear program that was supposedly only for energy. It turned out that they have been actually making nuclear grade material and have every plans to have nuclear capabilities--this was added in large parts to our buddies in North Korea and our other commie friends in China. If you think they are not a threat, I just ask you to look at the news paper headlines from 1979-1980... and pick up an atlas and draw a line from their to Israel and eastern europe to appreciate how easy it would be for them to cause a great deal of strife. So I think being a bit proactive with our enemies is quite a prudent act.

If you don't understand the principal, I suggest you read the 2002 state of the Union where the president what is euphamistically called the Bush Doctrine.

2002 State of the Union

I pulled this section for you:
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)"

Originally posted by kestra
Bush Jr. is simply continuing and maintaining the US's strategic interest in the middle east's oil reserves that started after WW1, under the flag of spreading democracy.
First of all, this is such a cookie-cutter-kook response. The fact is the US recieves very little of its patroleum from the Middle East. We get the most from Venezula who is a nation in a great deal of political upheveal. In addition, during the pan-arab nationalism that gripped the region during the 1960's-70's that lead to nationalizing Ameican and British interests, we didn't go to war then. During the first gulf war, we stopped from finishing of Saddam's regime and we chose a tactic of isolating him. Despite the fact oil prices were up and Kuwait was on fire, we kept one of the worlds largest producers of oil segrated for over a decade. So, there is that great blood for oil argument. Finally, middle east sends the majority of its oil to China and Japan-- one ally one not... so I'm not sure if you are just repeating rhetoric, or just don't care as long as you get to bash the guy you don't like. Once again, I go to the first line of my original post, I'm not going to change your mind ... you want to slam who you want tto slam.