The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[Thecla]

So (and maybe I'm wrong again) you believe that the US invasion of Iraq was necessary because of Iraq's ties with al Qaeda? If so, you are missing the forest for the saplings.

Was there an Ansar al'Islam base in northern Iraq?

No..umm...yes..umm..no. Alright, alright...you got me there.;)

More seriously, of course there was --- in Kurdish controlled territory, run by a group that likely had al Qaeda connections but was hostile to Hussein (although perhaps used by him to fight the Kurds). This stuff was known at the time (whether or not you believe the particular statements here)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_...713749.stm

Did Iraqi officials meet with Osama bin Laden and other al Queda leaders in Khartoum?

Who knows. What about that guy in Prague? Never did get it clear if that story was true or not. But, honestly, what if you were to ask if, say, Saudi Arabian officials, or Pakistani officials met with al Qaeda leaders someplace. I guarantee you would dig up a lot more stuff than this. Is this really why the US invaded Iraq, because some "Iraqi officials" may have, or did, meet with "al Qaeda leaders" sometime in Khartoum? If that standard were applied uniformly, there'd hardly be any countries left to invade.

Or, if this is the tip of some huge undiscovered iceberg of Hussein-al Qaeda plots against the US, show me the rest of the iceberg.

Did Iraq try to assassinate Bush Sr?

They may well have, in retailiation for Gulf I, I suppose. I don't know if it's conclusively proven or not that Iraq was behind the attempt, but I find it quite believable. Except that was in 1993, and the US retaliated at the time with a missile strike. Are you seriously suggesting this as a reason to invade Iraq in 2003?

Was there evidence that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its weapons programs? Were they bypassing sanctions and buying proscribed equipment?

As far as I can tell, they were bypassing sanctions and mostly building palaces for Hussein.

If you narrow down the criteria for what constitutes justification for war enough, then yes your right.

Well, again, I can't help being reminded here of the Bush administration's use of the word "revisionist" to attack those who complained that the administration had switched rationales from WMDs to spreading democracy after no WMDs were found. If you narrow down the evidence required to the point where almost anything will justify war, then yes you're right, the war was necessary.

Saddam was a choir boy.

Please explain why anyone who's strongly opposed to the Iraq war must believe Hussein was a choir boy?

p.s. More of that damn left-wing liberal media, that New York Sun.;)