Wow, if I only had the stuff I've been hearing on my TV to go by. I would think that this report said exactly the opposite of what it does.

I guess the only thing that doesn't jibe with the terrorist threat from Iraq is the statement that conflict with Iran was the main motivator.

Well, and the imminence of the threat, based on the fact that Iraq had no WMD.

But in the final analysis wasn't Saddam acting like he had WMD? And under those circumstances, given his past history, wasn't it prudent to assume he had WMDs?

And under those circumstances, given his past history, wasn't it prudent to assume he had WMDs?

Yes, exactly.

Ok, the US doesn't know if Hussein has WMDs or not due to all of his BS since the end of the original Gulf War. Hussein then buys influence at the UN to get what he wants, which was the eventual elimination of the sanctions. If the US had continued to play along with the inspections game then at some point the lack of a WMD find would have provided the pressure to end the sanctions as well as for the US to scale back its military presence. Then within 2 years or so Hussein would have had his WMD arsenal.

The Iraq invasion was first and foremost based on the fact that Hussein had never confirmed what he did with his WMDs.

He was a serious threat and he needed to be dealt with. Bush made the responsible decision. Otherwise Hussein's friends in the UN would have led the drive to eliminate the sanctions and then he'd be back in business.

Or,
by continuing to pressure him and actually completing the inspections, we prove he has no weapons as he has been posturing all along, thereby humiliating and marginalizing Saddam in the region. And maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis (possibly the military, who knows) would take control of the country for themselves. Seems about as likely to me as us installing democracy at gunpoint.
Just a suggestion.

by continuing to pressure him and actually completing the inspections

BINGO, This is exactly what Bush did. Or, do you think that Saddam would have bowed to anything other than military pressure?

Except Mantis, that Saddam was continually playing games with the inspectors.

As for a coup, Saddam routinely had purges, about the only two who could have taken him out were Uday and Qusay. I don't think I'd want either of those in power. You're right tough, democracy at gun point never works. It didn't in Germany, Japan, South Korea. Bush would probably be stupid enough to try and hold elections in Afghanistan too.

Dre, abruptly ending diplomatic efforts, pulling out inspectors, and invading the country is, yes, completing the inspections in a way, but not the way I meant. Context, friends, context.

thereby humiliating and marginalizing Saddam in the region.

Mission Accomplished

Actually, Robert, I didn't say democracy at gunpoint never works. I thought the Afghanistan war was a good idea and I think that what's happened there this week is fantastic, to Bush's credit. However, Iraq is not Afghanistan, and I don't know if you recall how much money and military presence it took to foster democracy in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. I don't think that it will be the same story in Arabia.

If Hussein was "belittled" don't you think he would have stepped up his efforts to get WMDs after sanctions were ended even moreso? France, China, and Russia had a lot riding on Hussein remaining in power.

No WMDs found by the inspectors = rehabilitated Saddam.

Yes, yes Dre, very nice. See, I meant without all the invading and the billions of dollars and dead US soldiers. Maybe I'm wrong.

the Iraqis (possibly the military, who knows) would take control of the country for themselves

I think Robert may actually be Colin Powell yanking our chain.

I think that two of the biggest arguments for taking Saddam out of power via military force were the facts that rebellion was almost impossible with his multi-tiered security apparatus, and the fact that he had two psycopaths in waiting ready to take the wheel for another generation.

Correction: one psycopath, one sociopath.

You may be right, VK, I just didn't think it was really worth the risk, especially considering that his neighbors (Iran, maybe) might have had some interest, once they found out he had none, in keeping him from acquiring any WMD.

RE: Argument for military force

And that everything else had been tried over the course of 12 years.

You can't come to a diplomatic solution if your opponent has an extremely high resistance to diplomacy.

Actually DR. Dre the " the Iraqis (possibly the military, who knows) would take control of the country for themselves" quote is from Mantis, not me. And, no I'm not Colin.

And Yes Mantis, trying to foster democracy in Iraq & the rest of the Middle East is a risk, but not as big a risk as continuing the status quo over there. The only two exports from the Middle East in the 20th Century were oil and terrorists. That's not a recipe for long term stability. It was high time to change the dynamic over there.

Sorry about the misattribution.

No problem. Just the librarian in me.

Check out the three part (so far) The Shadow Party at www.frontpagemag.com by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

Scary.