Now Repeter I got to say you are a interesting guy to debate so I'm going to try and keep this peaceful backed up and clear as possible so we can engage in something constructive here.
Back at you dude. Yeah, lets not get any infractions going here...
So if the topic is why did Bush go to Iraq lets break it down in a time line. First i'd like to mention that Peloshi in 98 stated that if Sadam even attempted to make WMD's she condoned going to war against them was the right choice and Clinton said in 2003 that " I would of made the same choice." in reference to starting this war.
Yes, Congressional Democrats aren't very bright. No politician really is, when it comes to warfare. Based on their limited understanding of things, they thought that it would be good to invade a country based upon the evidence at hand. There is also considerable evidence saying that he didn't have WMD's, and that if he did in fact have them, he would gladly show the world, so their fears of him would be well founded. The following link is extremely interesting in that matter.
Here it is.
Now we sent in inspectors who reported subtle radiation readings inside some of these suspect nuclear spots. They even found burns on some of the walls that were highly concentrated and believed to be from the discharge of Yellow Cake debri ( Yellow Cake is one of the most prime dangerous ingredients for making Nuclear power weaponized.) Brittian's spy networks also had reliable sources that told them Sadam was ordering Yellow Cake from Niger. (This is where that whole Valerie Plame debacle started where she ignored her protocol requirements and leaked CIA information to the press.) I think given just this information we had more than enough right to invade, but your point is we should of waited longer.
In relation to the weapons inspector, we actually have one on this site. Ask
Scorpian89 for his account of it. My personal understanding of what happened was that we found traces, but nothing more then that. We found some evidence, enough to pursue the fact until conclusion, but not enough to use as justification for war. Also, the danger is that if he had them, and we attacked, he could launch them, and there go 20 Million people. We should have waited longer, to either confirm or deny the initial *incomplete* reports. Based upon the complete reports, we could either have had B-2's destroy the weapon sites, and then proceeded with an invasion to capture Saddam, or we could have simply called the entire thing off.
You already been told this but the country was very blood thirsty at this point. Waiting that long would of been ill advised. It would of made the president look weak and unwilling. Now you have a point when you say Iraq is not responsible for 9/11; however the moment we started fighting in Iraq there were no further attacks on the US. I'd like to chop that up to good military intelligence. But Iraq was key, if you look on a map Iraq is surrounded by countries that have ties to terrorism. Iran, Jordan,Egypt, Saudi Arabia no matter how you look at it, strategically speaking Iraq is perfect for cutting off trades. Does that mean all countries that have good position should be invaded? No, but at the time Iraq was pretty much under our jurisdiction so why not use it?
I see your point in this, but at the same time, I disagree with it. Had Bush waited some time, not longer then half a year, we could have gotten the necessary information about the country, about what we might face, and how we could counter that. Had Bush acted with more prudence, no matter what happened in the short run, he would be thought of as a great president in the long run. And yes, when we invaded and occupied Iraq, the terrorists had no need to come to America to fight us.
Saddam Hussein has been against terrorists such as, our enemy, Osama Bin Laden. A reasonable assumption, based on the knowledge that OBL tried to topple and kill Hussein, is that Hussein would have allowed us to perhaps make a staging base in Iraq to Afghanistan. He wanted Bin Laden dead almost as much as we did, and that would have really helped us in Afghanistan.
For the trade remark, there had to be a betetr way of doing things. If we were not involved in Iraq
and Afghanistan, in the sense that we only occupied one or the other, we would be much better off. Our troops in Afghanistan have, until recently, been completely on their own. They have been seriously undermanned, outgunned, and for the most part, cut off from the rest of the world. Had we invaded Iraq, finished up there after 5 years, then gone directly into Afghanistan, or the other way around, things would be great. The Taliban were
nearly destroyed when we invaded Afghanistan, and if we had brought the troops necessary to garrison the country, they (along with Bin Laden) would be dead. Unfortunately, we got bogged down in another war a tiny bit away, and that stopped us from finishing them off. In essence, the division allowed us to nearly win 2 wars, rather then completely win 1 war.