DescentBB

Goob, it's war. Rushed or not there are going to be casualties. Anytime a war is issued people on both sides are going to die. The war is OVER though. This is like the umpteenth time I've said it. It's been done with for over a year now. The insurgency conflict is just that, a conflict or if you like perhaps a skirmish. It isn't full blown war and people still will lose their lives.

They're sustaining higher casualties then we are though and thats the point. Also "The army we have, not the army we want" is the best military force on this planet at even just 70%. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact that we wanted to keep civilian casualties down over there we could have just carpet bombed the place from the sky instead of using smartbombs and no ground troops would have even needed to be there.

I agree that too many people have died due to the insurgents. I just think that the whole picture is overblown. We as a country though have kept our resolve even through the turmoil of our own elections where the media hype was even more overblown in attempts to garner sympathy for the troops to bring them home then and there and to elect "Anyone but Bush". The troops can handle themselves and they're much more efficient at fighting then a 14-20 something year old carrying semi to fully automatic rifles. These car bombings and suicide attempts are something that we as a society and as a military have overcome before. It is however something we aren't used to dealing with, so there will be a loss of life.

This will play out and it will have a better outcome then anyone expected. When we get involved we get involved for keeps. WMD or no WMD a lot of people felt it was the right thing to do. Even though I feel we let Bin Laden escape from our sights because of this, I still feel it was the right thing to do and over a decade too late. Better late then never. Even while Bin Laden has slipped away temporarily the hunt is still on for him as events in Iraq take place. The whole situation will be dealt with eventually. I just hope both scenarios play out before another attack on US soil can happen.

Gooberman wrote:...However it really bothers me as a nation how so many shrug off there being no WMD. Would you agree that it was only the WMD that made us go now?...

I would agree that, as Bush said, we went to make sure Saddam didn't get to the point where he could use or sell or give away any WMD's to anyone. Yea, I'd agree that we went and succeeded right on time to meet that deadline.
Would I accept the false premise that we only went there because Bush told us Saddam had missile lock on us and was about to launch WMD's at america any minute? Of course not! Who would be so silly as to say that?

Woooosh

Gooberman, do you think Bush said we had to go because:
A] 'Saddam was going to use WMD's that he had'
Or do you think Bush said:
B] 'We have to go now before Saddam can get to that point'?

I know a lot of people like to spin it as A] but if you actually read his words it sure sounds like B]

(borrowed from Bold Decievers post above)
*******************
Here's the quote:

"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. (Emphases added.) [/quote]"
************************

With that in mind I think my answer is dead on the mark. Here it is again regarding your question of 'did we go to war "now" because of WMD's'.

I would agree that, as Bush said, we went to make sure Saddam didn't get to the point where he could use or sell or give away any WMD's to anyone. Yea, I'd agree that we went and succeeded right on time to meet that deadline.

I just wonder in 6-12 months when someone attacks Iran for non-compliance regarding WMD's (nuclear) that we will be having this same sort of discussion.

Oh, just for your info...I am not a jewish mother though sometimes I play one on t.v.

Will,

You honestly believe that Sadamn could have gone from no WMD, to enough to pose a real threat to the united states; sooner then we could have properly armored the humvees that we already have, and then invaded?

I don't. I doubt you do. (Seriously, a 3rd world country isn't going to out manufacture the U.S.: and thats ignoring the fact that they were behind to start with). This post is about WMD. Whenever I discuss WMD with conservitives they whip out a stocked list of other reasons we should have gone to war.

I havn't been talking about the legitimacy of the wars creation. Only the timeline of its initiation.

I am soley talking about the repercussions of that one reason not being accurate. And it wasn't accurate, and there will be consequences for it! In the first (real) post I made it was about how it could cost lives in the future. In the other it was how it has cost lives in the past.

Zero in on the topic. As far as that fear mongering bolded quotes from BD name one single person or country that that doesn't apply too. The reality is that its pretty damn hard to get enriched uranium without someone noticing. And the quote also applies to Iran, N.Korea, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, and every single other unstablaized country. It obviously hasn't been so urgent that we hit them.

So please, no more fear tactics.

WMD is what caused us to go to war now and not wait a few months, maybe a year, until our army was properly armored. The WMD weren't there. It was a mistake that cost american lives. It needs to be taken more seriously. If you get out of 'war justification defence mode' I think you would agree with alot of what I have been saying.

Gooberman wrote:..You honestly believe that Sadamn could have gone from no WMD, to enough to pose a real threat to the united states; sooner then we could have properly armored the humvees that we already have, and then invaded?...

Yes I do. Not that I think he could have built up a nuclear arsenal with long range missiles without us catching a clue before we could go after him. But that he could have obtained a device from N. Korea or one of the ex-Soviet states who are openly trying to sell off that stuff. We had satellites and spy planes concentrated on Iraq and all we can say about the convoys of trucks seen going into Syria is they probably had something on them!
If that's the best we can do with such a high concentration of assets focused on Iraq do you think if we stayed in the pre-9/11 containment mode of Iraq we would catch one truck load of a missile or warhead, or canister of gas etc. going into or out of Iraq?
Be realistic Gooberman, there were truck loads of equipment and arms entering and leaving Iraq all during the 11 years of "containment" and even up to the eve of invasion! French jet engine parts, french helocopter parts, russian nightvision googles just a week before we invaded...etc. etc. all those things we found out about after it was too late!

So with that in mind I think it's not just possible but painfully obvious that while you were armoring the humvee's something would have slipped in or out if Saddam wanted it too.

Bold Decievers highlighting of Bush's words aren't fear mongering they merely accent the tense of the threat Bush was concerned with...pre-tense as in 'Let's get in there and put this problem child away before he can do something we all regret later'.

Read those words by Bush again with an open mind and you'll see he was saying there is a worse case scenario that is not worth gambling on. Why gamble on letting a criminal with his resources run free any longer with him so closely allied with radicals who are in the attack mode?
What good would it do to prolong the attack on Iraq? No matter how much you prepare good men will die in the invasion, would having them die after some nerve gas was smuggled out of Iraq and into Central Park make it all more palletable to you?

You know Goob, a little googling is something you might try and do before stating a position (note; cw=chemical warhead, bw=biological warhead):

"Examples of the problematic sites:

Falujah site

Iraq declared in 1997 that 10 CW warheads had been excavated at Falujah, brought to Nibai on 10 July (4:00 AM) and destroyed at P3.

The imagery displayed does not support this declaration as no excavation activity was evident at Falujah on 11 July 1991--i.e. after the declared removal of warheads from this site.

Where were these warheads actually hidden?

Tigris Canal site

Iraq declared in 1997 that 15 BW warheads stored at this site had been transported away on 7 July 1991 for decontamination at another location.

The imagery displayed shows that warheads were removed from the hide site some 10 days before the declared date.

Why were they removed? Where did they go?

Basic questions: Should the commission accept incorrect declarations? Why would Iraq provide inaccurate declarations?

Lack of realism in the declarations complicates the verification work. Such issues need to be resolved by Iraq to allow the Commission to report with confidence on Iraq's compliance."


http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/jn98msl.htm

Gooberman wrote: Zero in on the topic. As far as that fear mongering bolded quotes from BD name one single person or country that that doesn't apply too. The reality is that its pretty damn hard to get enriched uranium without someone noticing. And the quote also applies to Iran, N.Korea, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, and every single other unstablaized country. It obviously hasn't been so urgent that we hit them.

So please, no more fear tactics.

So being afraid of what a total irrational nutjob might do as head of a country if he (Saddam) had nuclear, biological or chemical weapons was not reason to formulate a military response policy? Should we only plan to attack enemies we ar not afraid of?

Saddam was a lunatic gangster in charge of a whole country. He had obtained and used WMD in the past. He had invaded and annexed one of his neighbors. If Saddam had been a genius he would perhaps have welcomed the inspectors with open arms, led them around personally to any weapons site and then helped them fill out the paperwork. After fulfilling the resolutions he could have gotten the sanctions dropped and then continued to rape and pillage his own country. But he wasn't a genius - he was a moron. W finally drew a line in the sand and SH crossed it.

And I don't know how difficult it might really be to obtain nuclear material nowadays. Ex- soviet material may not be too hard to come by for someone with a big enough checkbook.

Gooberman wrote:

BD wrote: What's your solution?

However it really bothers me as a nation how so many shrug off there being no WMD. Would you agree that it was only the WMD that made us go now?

I'm fascinated by the gaping inability for the left and right to connect on this issue. Thanks for answering my question -- I think you're right when you say to stay the course.

Let me answer your question.

I do not agree that WMD was the only reason we went to war. I DO AGREE that the threat of harm to the United States through the use of Iraqi WMD was the most compelling reason we went to war, and without which, we probably would not have gone to war.

Yes, I am disturbed, from an intelligence standpoint, that we have found no stockpiles of WMD. But I make a living analyzing available evidence, gauging its probative value, and predicting consequences and results. I know that analysis is an imperfect science -- sometimes it's more like an art.

The difference between us, I think, lies here: Hussein/Iraq was an enemy who possessed WMD; he had deployed (really, tested) WMD against his own unarmed citizens, including small children; he had demonstrated nuclear ambitions going back a quarter of a century; he was actively trying to secretly advance that program; he plotted to assassinate your commander-in-chief; and most importantly he refused to comply with multiple U.N. Resolutions that would show -- once and for all -- that these were all things of the past (see, e.g., Libya).

Against that background, and even with the knowledge that our intelligence re WMD could be flawed or just flat wrong, failing take military action against a dictator who tries to conceal the status of his arsenal would be grossly negligent. The fact that history may prove that Iraqi WMD had been destroyed months or years before the war only points up the need to have better intelligence. It doesn't eviscerate the key reason for the war, which is the threat discernable through a pattern of hostile, violent, dangerous conduct -- coupled with the WMD. (That's why we aren't concerned, for instance, that India is about to launch a nuke at us -- there's a difference I hope you can see.)

If no WMD is found, it is not a war based upon a a "mistake". It is a war fully justified.

Back to analogies -- it is no "mistake" for a police officer to shoot and kill a person brandishing what turns out to be an empty gun or, alternatively, making furtive movements with his back to the officer, and refusing to put his hands in the air when commanded.

BD

so shoot first and ask questions later huh BD?

Ferno your analogy really doesn't apply. If a dangerous suspect assumes a threatening posture and refuses to back down when confronted by a police officer he doesn't give a cop a chance to gamble on his next move. There would be no safe time for further "questions".
This applies to Saddams antics as well.

Ferno wrote:so shoot first and ask questions later huh BD?

In that context - precisely.

BD

/me shakes head

Ferno wrote:/me shakes head

why the sudden concern for Hussein's well being?

don't pull that BS on me Flip.

The problem with everything is that Bush thinks that "the goal justifies the means".

During the pre-war period, I agreed it would be better with Saddam taken away from power. However, I also thought it was nobody's authority to do so.

Nobody except Birds seems to have a problem with the justification of this war. The war is a good thing so the justification prior to it no longer counts, no longer has to add up? I disagree forcefully.

I repeat, even though the president was inclined to believe WMD were present in Iraq through gathered intel, his level of responsability does not allow him to make mistakes. Period. Even if there is no personal blame with the president.

It's not what Bush does that is problematic, it's the way he justifies it, the way he blows up diplomatic connections, the way he does what he wants, unchecked, the way he spends money that isn't there, etc.

He still has the biggest country to run. Even though it's not my country, I don't feel he's doing a good job.

Now thats some WMD with class, roid

Tricord wrote:
I repeat, even though the president was inclined to believe WMD were present in Iraq through gathered intel, his level of responsability does not allow him to make mistakes. Period.

Precisely. The presidents first responsibility is to protecting his fellow citizens. Allowing Saddam in power after 9/11 would have been Bush's biggest mistake. All of you who think going to war with Iraq was a "mistake" would have been the first to call for Bush's head if another attack on the U.S. emanated from Iraq.

ARGH

oops

Tricord wrote:During the pre-war period, I agreed it would be better with Saddam taken away from power. However, I also thought it was nobody's authority to do so.

We had a cease fire agreement with Saddam which he didn't honor so technically we had the authority based on that alone!

...It's not what Bush does that is problematic, it's the way he justifies it, the way he blows up diplomatic connections,...

Like the diplomatic connections we had with France who was telling Saddam in private they would never vote to allow reprocussions to occur from the very sanctions they were publically voting for in their capacity as a security council member. And they were allowing arms to go to Iraq against those same sanctions....and they were accepting bribe money via the Oil for Food scam...or the way they threatened the new european countries with losing their chance to join the European Union if they voted in favor of the war....
Gee, what great friends we have lost there!

Ditto for Russia accepting bribe money and the night vision goggles they shipped Iraq just 2 weeks before our troops entered Iraq...

Yea, Bush is the only one to test diplomatic relations

woodchip wrote:Precisely. The presidents first responsibility is to protecting his fellow citizens. Allowing Saddam in power after 9/11 would have been Bush's biggest mistake. All of you who think going to war with Iraq was a "mistake" would have been the first to call for Bush's head if another attack on the U.S. emanated from Iraq.

Well, here's the biased pre-emptive thing again.
You may have been personally convinced that Saddam was an imminent threat at the time, but I and along with me 3/4th of the world wasn't!

9/11 made the US over sensitive to anything that even remotely potentially could have anything to do with terrorism. Saddam was brought back in front of the US public opinion and many aspects in which he posed a threat were unnaturally magnified -- WMD being the most flagrant example.

It's become "war on terrorism at all costs". Doing stuff pre-emptively is dangerous. If you reverse offense and defense you lose all causality and thereby all consistency.

Also, you could go very far in pre-emption. Next thing your president convinces you about the need to nuke your own buildings so that terrorists won't be able to! The thought is ridiculous, yes? Well, so is "regular" pre-emption to some.

Tricord wrote:You may have been personally convinced that Saddam was an imminent threat at the time, but I and along with me 3/4th of the world wasn't!

So you and your countries don't have to go after him. Nobody forced Belgium to participate!

Next thing your president convinces you about the need to nuke your own buildings so that terrorists won't be able to! The thought is ridiculous, yes? Well, so is "regular" pre-emption to some.

When somebody makes an analogy that's this far gone, there's no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion any more...

I am glad I didn't have time to post until today--Bold you basically said what I wanted, what the whole point of this thread was:

I DO AGREE that the threat of harm to the United States through the use of Iraqi WMD was the most compelling reason we went to war, and without which, we probably would not have gone to war.

Thank you for your honesty, you earn my respect with that. That's all this thread was about for me. I see the other points in your argument to go to war, and I respect your viewpoint, although I disagree.

It's a good bit different, really, isn't it? - Bold, replying to my analogy

Yes, it is. I knew the difference between the two when posting, but the spirit behind the analogy is unchanged regardless if they are complete parallels.

The fact the gun could be empty isn't a basis for spawning another 11 years of "negotation" on the question. -Bold

I think we could have waited though--for many reasons, some of them economic, some of them diplomatic. I see your point, but I did not feel the urgency implied by bush et al.

With the benifit of hindsight you convieniently accent the missing WMD's but don't bother to use the same hindsight to consider the inevitable failure of the U.N. resolutions and the inspections that did not suceed in bringing Saddam into compliance.
-Will

Hindsight? I thought they were greatly overstating the threat of WMD "stockpiles" which I failed to see the evidence for before the war happened.

them, he bribed a number of the security council members! He was soon to be free to carry on where he left off! Can you not honestly address where he was when he left off and try to explain how he wasn't going to once again be a threat!

Sure. The entire world was staring at him--quite good security. We had him contained. I would have just waited for him to die, or other countries to sober up.

Even if he really didn't have any WMD's, a highly unlikely scenario

Do you realize the US Government itself ended the search for WMDs? Why do you continue to hope for them?

With regard to your assertion about the "BS" concerning mushroom clouds, Bush did not state that Hussein had present capacity to deploy a nuclear weapon.
-Bold D

I agree with this statement. It was used however as a fear tactic. WMDs was the driving reason for the war, as you admit yourself. Bush planted the greatest fear in everyone's mind. He played off that like an insurance salesman cold-call selling life insurance policies to parents. I have read the whole quote you posted, including the speech. It was a scare tactic, pure and simple--part of the overstated case for WMDs.

The majority of americans heard that as a lame argument, a bit of whinning over a trivial piece of the puzzle not relavent to the total picture that we could see. -Will

I feel like you are closed to the idea that Bush didn't *grease* some of the evidence. Sure, there is no proof of it. I just think our intelligence and leaders are smarter than they are made out to be. I think they had a belief, based on history, that saddam may still have some capacity of WMD. Then on a well-intentioned guess, they exaggerated shakey pieces of evidence as a fear tactic to boost their case. Nope, I cannot prove it, but it wouldn't be the first ends-justifies-the-means tactic in politics.

If it was true that Bush had lied, completely fabricated the connection between Saddam and terrorism we wouldn't have seen him get re-elected.

Now now will, don't be so black and white. Listen to what I am saying.

You either don't get it, which I doubt because you too are a grown man and clearly have the capability, or you choose to deny it.

Black, white...

Birdseye, I'm not closed to the idea that Bush and company may have taken shakey evidence and offered it as examples of what Saddam might be up to...
I believe they would take conflicting reports and choose the one that supports the scenario they were trying to "scare " us with....

I'll go that far. But I think they did it in the open and declared context that they were afraid of what he *might* be doing or capable of doing. If you are trying to describe a hypothetical and use information that is not a sure thing you haven't departed from the truth. You were always describing an unknown to begin with!

I think the reason you don't see it is you don't accept the premise that Bush said it was important to go *before* Saddams capabilities to deliver WMD's were developed. You keep saying Saddam wasn't an immediate threat as if that's proof Bush was wrong. Bush merely said he either is or will be and we shouldn't wait to see because that evidence could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
I understood the "mushroom cloud" reference to be both a hyped up worst case scenario and yet factually possible and when you consider the consquences of that scenario unfolding and the course of action to prevent that from happening is to go ahead an arrest a criminal it seems like a no brainer to me. Go bust the dude and the problem is solved. Period.
When you get the criminal in custody and find his gun unloaded and rusty...BIG DEAL he was still the potential threat Bush described. His temporary out-of-ammo status is just that, TEMPORARY!

You completely ignore the fact that Saddam was poised to resume his WMD capability and was succesfully circumventing most of the U.N. sanctions and the so called containment was about to completely fall apart! Was he really going to leave all his WMD's stuff on hold once he was free of U.N. or U.S. intrusion?

It's not what he had at the moment we went to war, it's considering what he has done in the past, what he was doing presently, and calculating what he is likely to do in the future.
You really haven't given that point fair consideration, you keep your narrow focus on what he had at the moment because only within that narrow focus does Bush come up short.

*The sanctions were weak at best and soon to crumble.
*He had bribed enough of the U.N. security Council to avoid enforcement by the U.N.
*He had WMD capability on hold and the materials on hand to resume.
*He was involved in promoting and sponsoring terror against us.
*He openly invited bin Laddin to work with him. Although bin Laddin rebuked the offer when he was the silent leader of Afghanistan bin Laddin was then chased out of Afghanistan and looking for sanctuary....'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'
*bin Laddins people had used training facilities in Iraq
*Saddam had given sanctuary in Iraq to numerous terrorists

We were engaged in a war on terror and Saddam was a terrorist.

How can you not see that it was possible, as Bush said, that Saddam could deliver WMD's to our enemies?
Why would you want us to fight a war on terror and exempt the biggest and yet most vulnerable terrorist on the battlefield?

Birdseye wrote:We had him contained.

That's an important statement, for purposes of divining the ideological differences here.

And on whose intelligence do you base your assessment that "we had him contained"? Not the same U.S. intelligence that was alleged to be the flaw in our reasoning in the first place? You are surely aware that our own intelligence had severely underestimated Hussein's progress toward nuclear capacity, which was discovered after the Gulf War. That same intelligence?

I think your statement that "we had him contained" is watershed divide on this issue. I mean, hey, we don't even have Iraqi borders contained now. We don't even have our own borders contained. But back then we had Hussein contained, in the sense he was incapable of causing harm, or assisting others to cause harm? What am I missing here?

A watershed divide. Maybe what you mean is that he was "pretty much contained". That in ten years hence, he only might get his hands on some fission material; or he only might get his chemical and biological weapons program up and running.

Not while I can vote. The fact is it would have been grossly negligent to assume containment in the context of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. As Will correctly points out, had Iraq or Hussein been implicated in another attack on the U.S., post-911, there would have been a hue and cry for Bush's head -- and rightly so.

One can't have it both ways, in my opinion, when it comes relying on intelligence. In the context of that which we knew to be true, and that which we deduced to be true (be it true or untrue), an attack was not merely justified; it was required.

Here's an analytical tool that is used to estimate a person's duty (in the context of negligence). I think it has application here, in the context of the government's duty to protect the soveriegn.

The (Probability of Harm) x (Gravity of Harm) = (Burden of Adequate Precaution).

We know that since WWII, the probability of harm from a terrorist attack has increased. It is simply indisputable that great death can be deployed from small packages. That means that great death can be deployed by an individual, or group of individuals, without an Enola Gay or ICBM.

The flip side of that coin is that the Gravity of Harm has increased dramatically as well. Biological weaponry and chemical bombs are not only easier to obtain than ever before, they are deadlier. Radioactive material can now be used, not as a nuclear device, but as a "dirty bomb" which, if properly deployed, would keep downtown Los Angeles empty for years. And of course, al Qaeda gave us 911 as an example of truly creative thinking when it comes to mass death.

You can keep plugging in more pertinent factors, such as Hussein's prior bad acts (set forth in greater detail above), ill-will toward the U.S., covert attempts to develop weaponry, shady associations with terrorism, etc. Pretty soon, when you multiply the Probability of Harm against the Gravity of Harm, the numerical value you assign to the Burden of Adequate Precaution is going through the roof.

We can disagree about what that Burden should be. But I wouldn't blithely assign improper motives to the President's actions, especially in the context of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Nor would I bet the safety of my countrymen on a hopeful prayer for impenetrable containment. Instead, I think it more prudent to blow the guy, and all of his buddies, off the face of the planet.

BD

Birdseye wrote:WMDs was the driving reason for the war, as you admit yourself

Not quite, but close.

Again, I agree that the threat of harm to the United States through the use of Iraqi WMD was the most compelling reason we went to war, and without which, we probably would not have gone to war.

It may seem like a fine distinction, but it's a distinction with a difference. Hussein refused to voluntarily disclose and disarm. So the world you seem to imply, of "No WMD = No War" -- it just didn't exist. Nor was it within our power to make it exist -- because the decision belonged to the dictator. Which brings us back to the analogy of the fleeing felon waiving his empty gun at police. Do you fault the policeman for shooting him?

The only way out for Hussein/Iraq was complete and utter capitulation (see Libya), and that just wasn't coming.

Again, the fact that history may prove that Iraqi WMD had been destroyed months or years before the war only points up the need to have better intelligence. It doesn't eviscerate the key reason for the war, which is the threat discernable through a pattern of hostile, violent, dangerous conduct -- coupled with the WMD.

BD

Containment...Hmmm. I guess Bird you have not been following the Oil for Food scandel very close.

How long 'till Iran falls into all the categories that Iraq did?

When they invade Kuwait, fail to cooperate with the U.N. sanctions and resolutions for over a decade and break the cease fire agreements following a defeat at the hands of a coalition of western forces.
All the while continue to harbor and aid terrorists.

Right about that long I'd say.

Will wrote:....fail to cooperate with the U.N. sanctions and resolutions for over a dacade....

So you would oppose Bush going to war with Iran in the next 10 years?

Only Congress has the authority to take the country to war, not the President.

Bash wrote:Only Congress has the authority to take the country to war, not the President.

Did Congress ever get around to declaring Vietnam a war? Korea? And Explain to me for both of those how we had "POW"s.

Please

Vietnam never received a formal declaration of war from Congress. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which Johnson (D) pushed through Congress authorized reprisal. From there it grew into a full-scale war. Korea was not an American war, although we carried most of the weight in financing and fighting. It was instigated by the UN. Truman (D) argued that our obligations to the UN superceded Congressional approval. Both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom were authorized by Congress.

Vietnam never received a formal declaration of war from Congress.

So you would oppose Bush going to war with Iran in the next 10 years?

Zuruck wrote:How long 'till Iran falls into all the categories that Iraq did?

I think that practically speaking, they already have.

Gooberman wrote:

Will wrote:....fail to cooperate with the U.N. sanctions and resolutions for over a dacade....

So you would oppose Bush going to war with Iran in the next 10 years?

No, just the number of years they were in violation isn't a threshold certain, in fact that's about as insignificant as the exact number of WMD's he had. It's the sum of the total that defines the threshold.

I would oppose going to war if we weren't going to stop bad guys from doing bad things on a scale that warrants my concern. Saddam crossed that line and Iran is close to, or possibly has, crossed it. See Hezbolla for example...
A big part of it is what I think will happen next if we don't stop them.
With Saddam there was no sign he would become less of a problem...