(02-17-2015 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If he did it just to get re-elected, then he's scum of the earth.

We were already in Afghanistan.

I believe Bush Jr. was convinced that nation building would be successful as there were historical examples to base the plan on. That doesn't mean he wasn't hoping to get reelected by committing to war. Roosevelt, Lincoln both launched military actions that they both hoped would aid in their reelection as well.

And the US was already in Iraq too. Remember there were no fly zones that had to be patrolled.

(02-17-2015 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  so, one creates another.....you forgot about Iran and the ayotollah.....

just another stupid yepper in the clapping of the yapper of stupid warfare....

thank you reagan/bush/bush/cheney for all the above.....fkn morons.....

I think we can all agree the Cheney is a Sith Lord. And while I don't consider myself a hawk, do you really think Bush Jr. would have been reelected after 9/11 if he didn't commit to some sort of military action?

If he did it just to get re-elected, then he's scum of the earth.

We were already in Afghanistan.

yep.....it's disgusting how people knee jerk

the good from 9/11 was increased air transport security.....

the rest is just silly stupid....

(02-17-2015 02:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If he did it just to get re-elected, then he's scum of the earth.

We were already in Afghanistan.

I believe Bush Jr. was convinced that nation building would be successful as there were successful examples to base the plan on. That doesn't mean he wasn't hoping to get reelected by committing to war. Roosevelt, Lincoln both launched military actions that they both hoped would aid in their reelection as well.

And the US was already in Iraq too. Remember there were no fly zones that had to be patrolled.

teddy was a pompous ******* from serious money that had to 'prove' himself and lincoln was gay...secession was due to cotton and not slavery....but wtfe.....but that gets off topic and is completely irrelevant in today's world and the topic of this thread....

edit: bet ya didn't know a supposed 'stoner' knew that shite, did ya?

(02-17-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  so, one creates another.....you forgot about Iran and the ayotollah.....

just another stupid yepper in the clapping of the yapper of stupid warfare....

thank you reagan/bush/bush/cheney for all the above.....fkn morons.....

I think we can all agree the Cheney is a Sith Lord. And while I don't consider myself a hawk, do you really think Bush Jr. would have been reelected after 9/11 if he didn't commit to some sort of military action?

Well he needed to go after OBL in Afghanistan. He didn't need to go after Hussein though.

OK, lets say the US response doesn't include Iraq, finding OBL still proved to be a 10 year endeavor. Do you really think Americans would have been pleased would have been pleased with such a timeline, regardless of the result?

(02-17-2015 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  so, one creates another.....you forgot about Iran and the ayotollah.....

just another stupid yepper in the clapping of the yapper of stupid warfare....

thank you reagan/bush/bush/cheney for all the above.....fkn morons.....

I think we can all agree the Cheney is a Sith Lord. And while I don't consider myself a hawk, do you really think Bush Jr. would have been reelected after 9/11 if he didn't commit to some sort of military action?

Well he needed to go after OBL in Afghanistan. He didn't need to go after Hussein though.

OK, lets say the US response doesn't include Iraq, finding OBL still proved to be a 10 year endeavor. Do you really think Americans would have been pleased would have been pleased with such a timeline, regardless of the result?

then the media would've had nothing to stir at that point.....

do you realize how stupid it is to spend the amount of money spent chasing one's tail.....ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay

that's the real engine of destruction and corruption.....

(02-17-2015 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  so, one creates another.....you forgot about Iran and the ayotollah.....

just another stupid yepper in the clapping of the yapper of stupid warfare....

thank you reagan/bush/bush/cheney for all the above.....fkn morons.....

I think we can all agree the Cheney is a Sith Lord. And while I don't consider myself a hawk, do you really think Bush Jr. would have been reelected after 9/11 if he didn't commit to some sort of military action?

Well he needed to go after OBL in Afghanistan. He didn't need to go after Hussein though.

OK, lets say the US response doesn't include Iraq, finding OBL still proved to be a 10 year endeavor. Do you really think Americans would have been pleased would have been pleased with such a timeline, regardless of the result?

I seemed like within 3 or 4 years after 9/11 most Americans had moved on from OBL.

But are you advocating that going to Iraq, which cost about 4 thousand Americans their lives, and countless others with lifelong injuries was necessary to keep a post9/11 America happy?

(02-17-2015 02:26 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  so, one creates another.....you forgot about Iran and the ayotollah.....

just another stupid yepper in the clapping of the yapper of stupid warfare....

thank you reagan/bush/bush/cheney for all the above.....fkn morons.....

I think we can all agree the Cheney is a Sith Lord. And while I don't consider myself a hawk, do you really think Bush Jr. would have been reelected after 9/11 if he didn't commit to some sort of military action?

Well he needed to go after OBL in Afghanistan. He didn't need to go after Hussein though.

OK, lets say the US response doesn't include Iraq, finding OBL still proved to be a 10 year endeavor. Do you really think Americans would have been pleased would have been pleased with such a timeline, regardless of the result?

I seemed like within 3 or 4 years after 9/11 most Americans had moved on from OBL.

But are you advocating that going to Iraq, which cost about 4 thousand Americans their lives, and countless others with lifelong injuries was necessary to keep a post9/11 America happy?

It might have been...The US invaded Iraq less than 18 months after 9/11 and terrorism was still very much on the minds of many Americans. Add in the already widespread disdain for Hussein across the world and the various atrocities his regime had been committing and there was a majority support for OIF amongst Americans. Hindsight is 20/20 and Iraq certainly turned into a bugaboo after Saddam was captured and you can also link the rise in ISIL with America's withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which was also a decision a majority of Americans agreed with.

In short, both citizens and leaders in the US don't understand the complications of the middle east and no presidency since maybe Ford hasn't seen a major US blunder help either proliferate or create an islamic terrorist network.

Iraq was part of a larger concept. At the time there was relative stability in the middle east. Libya was under control, as was Egypt and Syria. Israel could actually trust the US, Turkey was stable, and Saudi Arabia and the peninsula were economically viable. Bringing stability to Iraq by getting rid of Saddam and the Al-Qaeda training bases there would have stabilized the entire region from Iran west to the Mediterranean. Now, couple that with a semi-ally in Pakistan the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and suddenly Iran finds themselves as the lone troublemaker in the region. Iraq and Afghanistan would have had leaders that could have been held in check by a strong US presence like Libya, Egypt, and Syria. US interests protected, relative peace in the least peaceful place on earth, a stable oil market, and no place for groups to organize attacks against the US. It just didn't turn out as planned, particularly when someone decided to announce when the US was essentially giving up and began sympathizing with Islamic extremists and terrorists.

Just my .02, doesn't matter anyway because it really has no bearing on the article or discussion. WMD's were there. Theses were older chemical weapons Saddam had been using on Kurd for decades and there was enough reason to believe he may have also been producing new chemical weapons or trying to acquire technology to develop nuclear weapons. I would have rather the war been fought there when it was, than after a major US city was attacked with chemical or other weapons because of ignorance and complacency.

(02-17-2015 02:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  yep.....it's disgusting how people knee jerk

the good from 9/11 was increased air transport security.....

the rest is just silly stupid....

A full scale military response wasn't required in response to 9/11. But if I thought that Americans could have maturely handled the aftermath in a rational manner, then I wouldn't have spent most of my naval career lobbing TLAM's into Afghanistan. There was palpable blood lust in the US that had people demanding an aggressive response.

(02-17-2015 02:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  teddy was a pompous ******* from serious money that had to 'prove' himself and lincoln was gay...secession was due to cotton and not slavery....but wtfe.....but that gets off topic and is completely irrelevant in today's world and the topic of this thread...

I probably should have specified that I meant both TR and FDR. And I was only trying to counter Fit's position that using the military for political gains and security is hardly a unique tool amongst President's.

Quote:edit: bet ya didn't know a supposed 'stoner' knew that shite, did ya?

I've never considered you a stoner. Based on the syntax of your posts, I much prefer to think of you as a sophisticated computer program that has achieved sentience.

(02-17-2015 02:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  yep.....it's disgusting how people knee jerk

the good from 9/11 was increased air transport security.....

the rest is just silly stupid....

A full scale military response wasn't required in response to 9/11. But if I thought that Americans could have maturely handled the aftermath in a rational manner, then I wouldn't have spent most of my naval career lobbing TLAM's into Afghanistan. There was palpable blood lust in the US that had people demanding an aggressive response.

(02-17-2015 02:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  teddy was a pompous ******* from serious money that had to 'prove' himself and lincoln was gay...secession was due to cotton and not slavery....but wtfe.....but that gets off topic and is completely irrelevant in today's world and the topic of this thread...

I probably should have specified that I meant both TR and FDR. And I was only trying to counter Fit's position that using the military for political gains and security is hardly a unique tool amongst President's.

Quote:edit: bet ya didn't know a supposed 'stoner' knew that shite, did ya?

I've never considered you a stoner. Based on the syntax of your posts, I much prefer to think of you as a sophisticated computer program that has achieved sentience.

fair enough....kudos and

(02-17-2015 02:26 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  I seemed like within 3 or 4 years after 9/11 most Americans had moved on from OBL.

But are you advocating that going to Iraq, which cost about 4 thousand Americans their lives, and countless others with lifelong injuries was necessary to keep a post9/11 America happy?

My preferred strategy was that the US not commit to any overt military action and that we rebuild our intelligence networks. But the American psyche was clearly frayed after 9/11. I don't think the option to not retaliate was on the table. The people demanded blood. Instead of calling Bush a warmonger he'd have been labeled a coward if he did what some more cooler heads advocated.

(02-17-2015 02:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  then the media would've had nothing to stir at that point.....

do you realize how stupid it is to spend the amount of money spent chasing one's tail.....ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay

that's the real engine of destruction and corruption.....

I agree, but I know you remember those days following 9/11. There wasn't even a soul on MSNBC that dared advocate restraint for fear of castigation. To me, laying the blame for the the past 15 years at the feet of Bush Jr. and Neocons just seems like a cop out. The people of the US, myself included, all tacitly enabled those wars to be fought and are responsible for all the deaths that occurred.

(02-17-2015 02:52 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:23 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  then the media would've had nothing to stir at that point.....

do you realize how stupid it is to spend the amount of money spent chasing one's tail.....ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay

that's the real engine of destruction and corruption.....

I agree, but I know you remember those days following 9/11. There wasn't even a soul on MSNBC that dared advocate restraint for fear of castigation. To me, laying the blame for the the past 15 years at the feet of Bush Jr. and Neocons just seems like a cop out. The people of the US, myself included, all tacitly enabled those wars to be fought and are responsible for all the deaths that occurred.

that's fair.....I watched the second one get hit live....I was beyond shocked and pissed too....

however, it's so easy to prey upon the masses when a few thousand die.....so many more died for better reasons in past wars.....that's what the media knows and uses to nth degree that is driven by 'agendas'

I'm immune to these tactics at this point....so many more are realizing the same....

please realize I (all) feel safe traveling these days.....IMO, that is the most important result from that attack.

I hope that helps explain my sentiments regarding this topic.

(02-17-2015 02:45 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:26 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  I seemed like within 3 or 4 years after 9/11 most Americans had moved on from OBL.

But are you advocating that going to Iraq, which cost about 4 thousand Americans their lives, and countless others with lifelong injuries was necessary to keep a post9/11 America happy?

My preferred strategy was that the US not commit to any overt military action and that we rebuild our intelligence networks. But the American psyche was clearly frayed after 9/11. I don't think the option to not retaliate was on the table. The people demanded blood. Instead of calling Bush a warmonger he'd have been labeled a coward if he did what some more cooler heads advocated.

at that point.....you're probably right.....

that wouldn't be the case today.....e.g. ISIS

(02-17-2015 02:34 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:26 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I think we can all agree the Cheney is a Sith Lord. And while I don't consider myself a hawk, do you really think Bush Jr. would have been reelected after 9/11 if he didn't commit to some sort of military action?

Well he needed to go after OBL in Afghanistan. He didn't need to go after Hussein though.

OK, lets say the US response doesn't include Iraq, finding OBL still proved to be a 10 year endeavor. Do you really think Americans would have been pleased would have been pleased with such a timeline, regardless of the result?

I seemed like within 3 or 4 years after 9/11 most Americans had moved on from OBL.

But are you advocating that going to Iraq, which cost about 4 thousand Americans their lives, and countless others with lifelong injuries was necessary to keep a post9/11 America happy?

It might have been...The US invaded Iraq less than 18 months after 9/11 and terrorism was still very much on the minds of many Americans. Add in the already widespread disdain for Hussein across the world and the various atrocities his regime had been committing and there was a majority support for OIF amongst Americans. Hindsight is 20/20 and Iraq certainly turned into a bugaboo after Saddam was captured and you can also link the rise in ISIL with America's withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which was also a decision a majority of Americans agreed with.

In short, both citizens and leaders in the US don't understand the complications of the middle east and no presidency since maybe Ford hasn't seen a major US blunder help either proliferate or create an islamic terrorist network.

I defiantly think our arrogance was our biggest downfall. We assumed because we were America, we could just roll in and everything would run smoothly. We were effed from the beginning by ignoring Shinseki recommedation of an occupying for of 500,000 soldiers and implementing debaathification which left a lot of experienced bureaucrats and Iraqi military personnel out of the rebuiding process and unemployed. We didn't even understand something as basic as animosity between Shia and Sunnis (imagine an army invading N.Ireland in the 60s/70s and assuming Catholics and Protestants were pretty much the same)

I think its too easy to lay it all on Bush, though this was his war and win or lose would define his presidency and legacy. As I recall the democrats and media pretty much fell in line with whatever he said, and as you said Americans were all for it (of course its easy to be for a war that doesnt require any personal sacrifice like past wars have required)

So Democrats cant pin this solely on Bush's initiation of the war, and Republican cant pin this solely on Obama's exit of the war. In the end America has learned the lesson that a lot of others have in the past: Invading and occupying a country, no matter how much advantage you have over them, is never going to be easy.

(02-17-2015 03:12 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:34 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:26 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:20 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well he needed to go after OBL in Afghanistan. He didn't need to go after Hussein though.

OK, lets say the US response doesn't include Iraq, finding OBL still proved to be a 10 year endeavor. Do you really think Americans would have been pleased would have been pleased with such a timeline, regardless of the result?

I seemed like within 3 or 4 years after 9/11 most Americans had moved on from OBL.

But are you advocating that going to Iraq, which cost about 4 thousand Americans their lives, and countless others with lifelong injuries was necessary to keep a post9/11 America happy?

It might have been...The US invaded Iraq less than 18 months after 9/11 and terrorism was still very much on the minds of many Americans. Add in the already widespread disdain for Hussein across the world and the various atrocities his regime had been committing and there was a majority support for OIF amongst Americans. Hindsight is 20/20 and Iraq certainly turned into a bugaboo after Saddam was captured and you can also link the rise in ISIL with America's withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which was also a decision a majority of Americans agreed with.

In short, both citizens and leaders in the US don't understand the complications of the middle east and no presidency since maybe Ford hasn't seen a major US blunder help either proliferate or create an islamic terrorist network.

I defiantly think our arrogance was our biggest downfall. We assumed because we were America, we could just roll in and everything would run smoothly. We were effed from the beginning by ignoring Shinseki recommedation of an occupying for of 500,000 soldiers and implementing debaathification which left a lot of experienced bureaucrats and Iraqi military personnel out of the rebuiding process and unemployed. We didn't even understand something as basic as animosity between Shia and Sunnis (imagine an army invading N.Ireland in the 60s/70s and assuming Catholics and Protestants were pretty much the same)

I think its too easy to lay it all on Bush, though this was his war and win or lose would define his presidency and legacy. As I recall the democrats and media pretty much fell in line with whatever he said, and as you said Americans were all for it (of course its easy to be for a war that doesnt require any personal sacrifice like past wars have required)

So Democrats cant pin this solely on Bush's initiation of the war, and Republican cant pin this solely on Obama's exit of the war. In the end America has learned the lesson that a lot of others have in the past: Invading and occupying a country, no matter how much advantage you have over them, is never going to be easy.

so many here have said this before.....you don't fight a war that you don't intend to win.....

that's where cheney and bush screwed us.....it was never about the blue or the red....it was only about using the military as a demonstration of strength to put monies in certain pockets....

does one not find it strange that they rarely talk on camera? ....or the media doesn't push 'that' button and try to call 'em out?

(02-17-2015 03:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's fair.....I watched the second one get hit live....I was beyond shocked and pissed too....

however, it's so easy to prey upon the masses when a few thousand die.....so many more died for better reasons in past wars.....that's what the media knows and uses to nth degree that is driven by 'agendas'

I'm immune to these tactics at this point....so many more are realizing the same....

please realize I (all) feel safe traveling these days.....IMO, that is the most important result from that attack.

I hope that helps explain my sentiments regarding this topic.

Not to minimize the importance of travel safety, but this immunity is of greater importance if only because it is the only thing that can possibly honor the sacrifices of those that have died. That restraint is evident on both sides of the aisle for various reasons, but it's sign that mature people realize that war is not something lightly trifled with.

If we are going to fight ISIS then it has to be with the knowledge the we are about to commit a brutal act that will kill some innocents but ultimately increase liberty. Until America and the rest of the world reaches that point, we need to hold fast on taking any action against ISIS. The brutality that will be required to root ISIS will make the actions of the past 15 years seem congenial by comparison.

(02-17-2015 03:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 03:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  that's fair.....I watched the second one get hit live....I was beyond shocked and pissed too....

however, it's so easy to prey upon the masses when a few thousand die.....so many more died for better reasons in past wars.....that's what the media knows and uses to nth degree that is driven by 'agendas'

I'm immune to these tactics at this point....so many more are realizing the same....

please realize I (all) feel safe traveling these days.....IMO, that is the most important result from that attack.

I hope that helps explain my sentiments regarding this topic.

Not to minimize the importance of travel safety, but this immunity is of greater importance if only because it is the only thing that can possibly honor the sacrifices of those that have died. That restraint is evident on both sides of the aisle for various reasons, but it's sign that mature people realize that war is not something lightly trifled with.

If we are going to fight ISIS then it has to be with the knowledge the we are about to commit a brutal act that will kill some innocents but ultimately increase liberty. Until America and the rest of the world reaches that point, we need to hold fast on taking any action against ISIS. The brutality that will be required to root ISIS will make the actions of the past 15 years seem congenial by comparison.

I've always been for the viking style of conquering with our technology......however, that just doesn't play out well in the civilized world/global economy at this point....

I'm all-in letting the surrounding countries take care of this business and jump in if they need our help.

In no way would I support full engagement.
_______________________________________________

It's time for crayfish @ 5/lb.....my arse has to work continually for many hrs for the next 9 mos. starting next week.....so I'm gonna treat myself to a toddy and some mudbugs.....

(02-17-2015 02:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 08:51 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We weren't sold the war on weapons. But it was part of the discussion. We were told they were there. And they were.

Regime Change
WMD's
Iraqi Freedom
Al Queida

It doesn't matter what excuse the administration used. It was a blunder. It's the reason why American's are unwilling to go to war against ISIS.


Thanks Bush

Why is going to war against ISIS better than fighting Al Queida and killing Saddam?

We were fighting Al Quieda in Afghanistan. We took our focus off off them however to fight Saddam. We had Saddam in check. Removing him simply created a vaccum that eventually led to all the unrest in the Middle East which in turn created ISIS.

But there was no winning strategy for Afghanistan save for creating chaos and disorder that would happen the Taliban and other terrorist groups from organizing and reduce their power projection capabilities. Much like Cuba, keeping Saddam in check wasn't getting him to change and the people of Iraq were just as miserable and destitute as they could be. The vacuum was supposed to be filled by the US moving CENTCOM to permanently occupy the region. Now Miko argues that world wasn't facing such global threats that such nation building was required. But that was the plan and executing the it proved to be unpalatable.

OK. I was wrong about WMDs being in Iraq. I was relying on everything we knew that was publicized until this story now states otherwise. But my point about nation building in the other thread still stands. Even with the chemical weapons in Iraq, that wasn't the reason we were told that we needed to go in there. We were told that Saddam was actively working with AlQueda and that he was part of the 9/11 planning. To my knowledge, that link is still not proven to have been true. Bush said we had to go into Iraq because of Al Queda. But it looks like Al Queda in Iraq did not materialize until after Saddam was taken out, and the Bath party operatives and Republican Guard had no where else to go - so they joined this new organization. Nothing here that proves that it was the same circumstances we faced with the USSR poised to go after as much land in Eastern and Western Europe as possible.

(02-18-2015 01:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 02:04 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 01:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Regime Change
WMD's
Iraqi Freedom
Al Queida

It doesn't matter what excuse the administration used. It was a blunder. It's the reason why American's are unwilling to go to war against ISIS.


Thanks Bush

Why is going to war against ISIS better than fighting Al Queida and killing Saddam?

We were fighting Al Quieda in Afghanistan. We took our focus off off them however to fight Saddam. We had Saddam in check. Removing him simply created a vaccum that eventually led to all the unrest in the Middle East which in turn created ISIS.

But there was no winning strategy for Afghanistan save for creating chaos and disorder that would happen the Taliban and other terrorist groups from organizing and reduce their power projection capabilities. Much like Cuba, keeping Saddam in check wasn't getting him to change and the people of Iraq were just as miserable and destitute as they could be. The vacuum was supposed to be filled by the US moving CENTCOM to permanently occupy the region. Now Miko argues that world wasn't facing such global threats that such nation building was required. But that was the plan and executing the it proved to be unpalatable.

OK. I was wrong about WMDs being in Iraq. I was relying on everything we knew that was publicized until this story now states otherwise. But my point about nation building in the other thread still stands. Even with the chemical weapons in Iraq, that wasn't the reason we were told that we needed to go in there. We were told that Saddam was actively working with AlQueda and that he was part of the 9/11 planning. To my knowledge, that link is still not proven to have been true. Bush said we had to go into Iraq because of Al Queda. But it looks like Al Queda in Iraq did not materialize until after Saddam was taken out, and the Bath party operatives and Republican Guard had no where else to go - so they joined this new organization. Nothing here that proves that it was the same circumstances we faced with the USSR poised to go after as much land in Eastern and Western Europe as possible.

you just defined why there is a brian williams and reagan poster on your bedroom ceiling....

it's scary what people believe b/c 'they' are 'told'