I will place my answers in line and then sum it up at the end.

This looks like a long one folks.

Glen wrote:

Denys,

Thank you for the links but I think they don't really address the
fundamental issues of what led the US to attack Iraq. Before I get to
them I would like to offer a couple of corrections to you're e-mail.
First, GW did firmly and unequivocally state that Iraq posed an imminent
and serious danger to the US. I offer the following two links as
evidence:

'http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020801-6.html',
'http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020924-1.html'.

[DPB:  The two links you offer talk about Iraq being a threat.  They do
not have the word imminent or something similar in them.  They do state
that Iraq was a threat and it was.]



Second, it is indeed true that he didn't connect Iraq to 9/11 (which is
not what I said), although he and other members of his cabinet made
strong, unequivocal statements that there were connections between
Hussein's government and Al Qaeda as well as world wide terrorism. GWs
use of the more subdued language of 'grave and gathering' after it was
clear that wmd would not easily and quickly be found. It was not doubt
intended to evoke images of Churchill's decision.

[DPB: There absolutely is a very strong and long-term link between Iraq
and Al Qaeda.  You can refuse to believe it all you want but it doesn't
change the facts.  Here is another link for you to peruse.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/197/world/Intelligence_report_Jordanian_
:.shtml

Wow look at that, Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Iraq before the war.

BTW, we are going to hear about more and more links between the two
factions as we learn more about Iraq since the liberation.  I also
suspect as we get closer to the elections more things will be released.]


The links site information painting a picture of a man who was so
completely committed to his own aggrandizement that he would do
virtually anything to anyone in order to achieve it. There really is no
doubt nor has there been for sometime that during Hussein's ascent to
power and subsequent presidency that a significant danger existed in
Iraq. This danger as in the grave and gathering danger of Adolf Hitler
was not something that the US and other nations could afford to ignore,
nor stand idly by watching. The similarity between the two situations
ends there however. Churchill's actions were taken after a real and
demonstrated threat became clear through actions taken by Nazi Germany.
Hussein's Iraq however was very significantly hampered in its efforts
and ability to carry out military or terrorist activities.

[DPB: Another great attempt to rewrite history.  Pretty soon you will be
arguing that the UK were the one actually sending vitals supplies,
weapons, ammunition and fuel to the US under Lend-Lease.  Churchill was
railing against Hitler and Germany for years before the war started.
Neville Chamberlain was the British PM during the period leading up to
the war.  Churchill, if memory serves, was a backbencher in the House of
Commons.  After Hitler attacked Poland on 1 September 1939, Chamberlain
pondered for a few days and then declared war on Germany and resigned.
Churchill was asked by the King to form the next cabinet.  I am tired
and my memory is a little fuzzy on the exact dates and stuff but I am
sure one of our erudite UK friends can fill in the details.

Wait for the wrap-up at the end of the message.]


Based on the contentions of Iraq's imminent threat and it's connection
to Al Qaeda and terrorism a majority of US citizens believed that action
needed to be taken and that that only appropriate action was to attack
Iraq.  Additionally US citizens believed that the conflict would quickly
be over, there would be few casualties, and that it would be done with
relatively little financial impact on the US. These beliefs, once again,
were based on statements made by GW, DC, DR, CR, CP, and others.
Additionally those who questioned the wisdom and need of going to war
were suggested to be unpatriotic, unwilling to take action against evil
and in defense of the country. IMO no fair and balanced reading of
statements made and the actions taken by GW and his administration can
lead to any other conclusion whether one is in favor of going to war in
Iraq or not. It may not be very comfortable for those in favor of going
to war to admit this now but it is unfortunately for them the reality of
the situation.

[DPB:  I do not know of anyone who thought the conflict would be over
quickly.  When one goes to war, anything can and does happen.  You
should remember that the (leftist) mainstream media and most of the
media outside the US were predicting a horrible carnage and a long war.
Hell, even after a few days, we started hearing the word quagmire.
Don't you remember?  It wasn't that long ago.  We were also told by the
media there would be a huge refugee problem, that oil fields would be
ablaze and that thousands of our soldiers would die.

The administration was steadfastly saying that the war would take some
time.  They never said it would be quick and painless.

As for patriotism, let's be clear here.  I have absolutely no problems
with any dissenting view.  Never had, never will.  However, when the
rhetoric starts being inflammatory and when these people go demagogue
against the US on foreign soil during a time of war, I start getting
uncomfortable with it.  Somewhere along the line, for someone to wish
that our soldiers get killed in great numbers because they disagree with
the administration, goes beyond the line.

I would remind you that during WWII, the US incarcerated a whole bunch
of people and nobody said anything then.  The US mainland had not even
been touched.  Somehow I do not think that if a bunch of people had
demonstrated in favor of leaving Hitler alone after Pearl Harbor, they
would have been well received by the population.  Notice that it was not
Adolph Hitler who attacked the US, it was Hideki Tojo and Imperialist
Japan.

Let's get a sense of balance here.]


Am I glad that Hussein incarcerated, two of sons dead, his political and
security apparatus destroyed? Absolutely! Am I glad that Iraqis can now
begin to fashion a government and life of their choosing and they have
the potential to end the tyranny of Hussein's reign, bring to light the
extent of his inhumanity, redress in some measure the wrongs committed.
Absolutely! Am I hopeful that Iraq will develop, as quickly as possible,
into a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Absolutely!

I think, Denys, instead of enhancing US and world wide security we have
introduced the possibility of significant instability and insecurity and
in the process of doing this we seriously damaged our own ability to do
otherwise. The tab is fast approaching 200 billion dollars with no end
in sight. We are spending this money when our borders are not secure,
when water supplies, power supplies, mass transit systems, computer
networks, financial institutions are not effectively secured. We are
spending this money when intelligence gathering is so obviously in need
of reorganization. We are spending this money after a lesson in how
easily and inexpensively someone willing to die and motivated can
inflict damage of huge magnitude. This unfortunately is not a
description of Saddam Hussein and his government. We are spending this
money after having turned our gaze from Afghanistan which has not been
secured. Days before he was assassinated and the 9/11 attacks, Ahmad
Shah Massoud was interviewed. He is quoted as saying that the Taliban
and subsequently Al Qaeda was allowed to establish themselves in
Afghanistan because the US lost interest after the Soviet Union left.

I remain unconvinced but still willing to listen.

[DPB for the remainder: I am glad you agree that Saddam and his sons out
of power and/or gone is a good thing.  I have been listening to many
commentators, pundits and politicians and I sometimes get the feeling
they are sad Saddam is no longer in power.  And this is in our own
country.

At any rate, I agree with you about the borders, they should be much
more secure.  However, if the US makes a move to secure its borders,
this will immediately been seen by the left as a racist and inhumane
policy.

Intelligence gathering was effectively neutered in this country by the
Democratic Party and the likes of John Kerry, Bill Clinton and a whole
laundry list of party luminaries.   How can one forget the Senate bill
whereby the CIA could not hire or talk to "unsavory characters"?

Let's face it, we let the terrorists do this to us and we facilitated
their job by preventing the FBI from talking to the CIA and other law
enforcement agencies.  We erected a wall between our government agencies
so as to prevent our LEOs from defending this country.  Actually the
wall was erected by Jamie Gorelick in 1995, when she was deputy Attorney
General.  She now sits on the 911 commission panel instead of being
questioned by the 911 commission.

We continue to do things to ourselves to impede any proper effort to
secure the country and investigate what really happened.

On the other hand, I disagree with you very strongly about the stability
and security of the world being worse now.  Indulge me...

Far from being the idyllic paradise that some in the media are now
saying Iraq was under Saddam Hussein, the place was actually a veritable
slaughterhouse.  It was also a clearing house for terrorists worldwide.
Abu Nidal, and many other wanted terrorists were residing in Iraq.
After the first WTC attack (carried out by Iraqi citizens,) the bomb
maker of that group fled to Iraq and lived in Baghdad.  Al Qaeda was
coming and going into Iraq at will.

The Russians recently reported that Iraq was planning operations against
the US.

Saddam Hussein was giving $25,000 to the family of any Palestinian
suicide bomber who would blow himself up in Israel.  (BTW, how many of
those attacks have there been since Saddam exited the scene.)

Everyday for the last several years, Iraq was taking potshots at
American and British planes patrolling the two no-fly zones (operations
Northern and Southern Watch.)  Did you forget about those?

Saddam was using money from the oil-for-food program to buy off the
French, the Russians, the Germans and many others.  He supported a
veritable slew of leftist organizations that opposed the war.

Saddam was working very hard at getting the sanctions against Iraq
lifted for good.  He also wanted the inspectors gone for good.
Dominique de Villepin was working with Saddam to get those sanctions
lifted.  They were getting close.

Now, if the sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would have been free to do
whatever he wanted, once again.  The Kay report details the fact no
piles of WMDs were found.  The report also states that Iraq was a more
dangerous place than had been thought.  The industries, the programs,
everything to manufacture WMDs were in place, ready to go, and with all
the chemicals needed.

With the sanctions lifted and the inspectors gone for good, Iraq would
have quickly become an imminent threat to everyone.  They had the
weapons and the knowledge, they had the delivery systems (terrorists,)
it would have been unbelievable.

Also, you seem to forget that Libya, upon seeing what had transpired in
Iraq quickly changed its mind and revealed all its weapons programs.
There were a number of surprises there.  Now Libya has divested itself
of all of this junk and I think the world is safer for that.

The war in Afghanistan and the one Iraq are closely linked.  It is all
part of the war on terrorism.  In fact one could make the case that this
is World War III and it is being fought on many fronts.

Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was not directly linked to National
Socialist Germany, yet the US went to war against Germany.  Sure Hitler
declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, but he didn't
attack the US.

Finally, let's examine why so many countries were opposed to the
liberation of Iraq.  Well, we have since found out that Germany, Russia
and France (and many others,) were being bought off by Saddam.  But
there is more to it than that.

Ask yourself these questions.  Why didn't Europe take care of the Kosovo
problem by itself?  Why did the US have to do the heavy lifting,
bombing, and invading over there?

Russia had evidence of Iraq plotting against the US, yet it did not want
Saddam removed.  Well, Russia is owed a lot of money by Saddam.  Russia
also has a terrorist problem of its own that it can't seem to deal with,
Chechnya.  It can't handle that little problem; it surely cannot
participate in Iraq.  Russia without its nuclear weapons is nothing.

Germany also has a problem with its armed forces, they are useless.
They had to rent Ukrainian transport planes to get their few soldiers to
Afghanistan to replace some of the US troops over there.  Germany is in
no position to participate in Iraq.  If you are the biggest economic
power in Europe, you do not want to show that you have no military power
to speak of.

It's the same thing in France; their armed forces are a mere shadow of
their former selves.  Desert Storm finished them off.  They planes were
old, the tanks useless and they never replaced them after that war.
They spent an inordinate amount of money on an aircraft carrier and it
is still not in operation.  France could not participate in Iraq either,
even if it wanted to.  They even had to ask the US to take care of their
problem in Africa a few months ago.

The only real military power in Europe is the UK and whilst they are not
very numerous, they are just about some of the best trained and led in
the world.  They could go to Iraq and they did.  They performed
brilliantly.  But they could not go to Kosovo by themselves.  The last
time the UK did an operation by itself, without the direct assistance of
the US (logistics or whatever,) was 1982, the Falklands war.

Virtually all other countries around the globe are in the same way, they
can't defend themselves and they surely could not stop Saddam at any
time.  The few exceptions are the Chinese and the Israelis.  The Chinese
could care less about Saddam Hussein but they would not make anything
the US wants or needs to do easy.  I leave it to you to figure out why
the Israelis did not participate in removing Saddam, though they kicked
him hard, back in the early 80s when they took out that French-built
nuclear reactor, Osirak.

Now that Saddam is gone, we can play games for ever about whether we
should have gone to remove him and whether is was legal to do so.
However, I do not hear the same discussions about Milosevic.  I have
never considered Kosovo to be an imminent danger to the US.  I do not
know of any WMDs ever being used by Milosevic.  I do not know of any UN
resolution calling for Milosevic to come clean on his programs or get
removed.  I do not think that Milosevic would ever have been a threat to
the US.  So tell me, did you argue against his removal?]

I leave you with one more link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp

Enjoy and good night.

Denys...

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *