Anyway you look at it, Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions. The Clinton administration looked the other way for the entire eight years in power, (as Democrats usually do.) Iraq's reckoning day was way over due. Saddam should consider himself fortunate that we gave him as much time as we did. No sense in troubling our minds over it now anyway. Its all history now. GCJ

Actually it does matter how you look at it, why, because while the agrees that the man and his cohorts had to go, it is the intent, and the history that counts.

Why you may ask, simple. The analysis of why will be what the world in general judges the US and its partners by and more importantly it will be this premis which will further ignite feelings of ill will towards the US and its allies.

You people need to learn that if you shit on people they will shit back, and whether you like it or not more and more people and countries are feeling agrieved, and thus tention againt the US will grow along with resentment and ggression. If you wnat to ignor this it is your right, however this is what sowed the seeds of discontent. As for the comment that this is all histroy , is rather shortsighted, as it is history that will judge, and it is history that will determin the future direction of the future state of play, and relationships between the US and the rest of the world.

As can be seen in Europe already , many nations now oppose the US, not to mention Sth America and Asia. If I was a citizen of your great country, I would certainly be concerned about history and the activities of your government and military, not to mentions the likes of the CIA etc.

Maybe you should try reading and watching some forign commentators and media, and you may get a feel for just how much mistrust and resentment exists.

I agree totally with you Zerg. on all points...however Americans are hard-wired different and really don't care about " why" they went to war etc. It seems they got enough on their plates_trying to keep a job from being given to the mexicans, feed themselves and fight not getting sick beacuse they have no national health care insurance. Poor bastards.
This statement below, made by a real GEM, pretty much sums up the US apathy in regards to how they are viewed by the REST of the world. ( I know you don't all harbor these supremacist values)

No sense in troubling our minds over it now anyway. Its all history now.


here folks is how ( some not all) Americans truly feel about death, war, killing. stealing other countries resources/oil, installing puppet regimes they can easily control. They have been subtly brainwashed_kept STUPID by their own media ( who are an integral part of the evil plan for world domination)
I know because I am one and was kept stupid by the media for 26 years_until I got outside the braindrain. and saw for myself what America does for " it's people" 2/3'rd of all Americans have absolutuely NO CLUE about what their gov't does "in their name"...Geo politics receives a whole 5 minutes on what they call National news. Check the print media_check whats happening in the world_any large paper. See how they lump "nation" in with "world". nation SLASH world.
When I visit I am always astounded by this seeming apathy for whats happeneing in the rest of the world. The masses are kept this way, it serves their masters. Like slavery almost.
America is a great land with powerful potential to lead the world towards a greater good. In the hands of " the people" and not a few fat and powerful companies.
F=A-S-C-I-S-M anyone?

Bit harsh on America. It's not that bad.

To bring the thread back to topic...

I believe Iraq did pose a threat to the US but indirectly.

UK advisors informed the government that any Iraqi WDM were unlkikely to ever be used except in self defense (which the gov then omitted in it's public dossier, ops). I'm sure the US must have had the same info. Therefore they were NOT a threat.

They were also beginning to comply with UN resolutions and in no danger of invading any other country, so again no threat on the political or military front.

They were however a threat on the economic front when they changed their oil revenue payments into dollars. The threat was specific to the US dollar thoughn and not to anyone else.

A far more serious threat was the precedence that was being set. For years Iraq had ignored UN resolutions and appeared to be able to get away with it. At a stage where Iran and North Korea were both suspected of developing nuclear weapons, and many other rogue states were still considered a potential future danger the US needed to be seen to be strong. Attacking Iraq achieved this and could be argued to have played a role in bringing Libya and Iran peacefully back into international agreements. North Korea still has a long way to go but seems to be moving.

Iraq's indirect threats to the dominance of the dollar and the perceived response of the US were serious and hence the US acted. Other bonus achievements, such as control of Iraqi oil and placing a stable muslim democracy in the middle east tipped the balance.

Paul.

Sorry but it's hard to really take such nonsense seriously.

Which way is it? If the US is responsible for having built up Iraq then one could argue that the US had a moral responsibility for taking him down.

That is, however, not how I feel about it.

In all things, inertia is a powerful force. Iran was an enemy of the United States and Iraq was at war with it. So we tended to overlook some of Iraq's other issues.

However, as soon as they started using poison gas and such, the US cooled its relations very rapidly with it. When they "Accidentally" missled the USS Stark things became evencooler. When it invaded Kuwaitt, that was the last straw. The US and a coalition of other nations liberated Kuwaitt.

Iraq agreed to do certain things in exchange for it being allowed to continue with its current government in 1991. It violated those things and became an open supporter of Palestinian terrorists. Clinton didn't choose to do anything about it.

But after 9/11 it became clear that such dangerous men in that part of the world (literally the geographic middle of Islamic terror -- Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia all being its neighbors) that the US no longer had the luxury of following the inertia of history and needed to act.

But to act it needed to have some sort of legal reason to do so besides just saying "This is a bad man and we need to get rid of hm because after 9/11 bad men in the middle east can no longer be tolerated."

That's where the UN resolutions came into play. Like it or not, the US had UN legal cover for what it did.

But ultimatley, it boils down to this universal truth: Nations will do what is in their best interests. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was in the US's best interests. France was against the action because Iraq was a client state of theirs. France acted in its own best interests too (as its invasion of the Ivory Coast during this same period demonstrates).

You may not like it but that is the way the world works.

You know Brad, in certain part of Africe there is a bird which has some similarities to you, the one that springs to mind is , shoving one's head in the sand.

For an intelligent person, running a large business, a a strong background in History, you really do disappoint at times with your debating.

To say my comments are nonense would imply to me that either you are quite happy to put your head in the sand, and ignor the fact that the forign policy of your country may have some flaws, you ignor the reality that many of the actions against your country are from resentment from the said policy, and whilist not right, will continue to happen until the US changes its aggroant attitude to others..

The reality is Brad, you can sit in you happy little bubble all you like, but the reality is that this is a big world, and only 300 million of us live in the US, the rest 6 billion or so don't and it is these people who are becomeing resentful and mistrustful of the US attitude to its neighbours.

Finally I do not for one minute swallow you version of events, the US supported this Government, and all it di to its own and its neighbours, which you seem to think is no problems, and even after the action against the Kurds the support was not withdrawn, then the invasion of Kuwaitt occured, perfect time to clean up then, even if this only meant support for the rebels, however the US chose to ignor this and wait another decade before action. The facts are pretty plain Brad, better the devil you know , as for my comments being nonsense sorry but most people don't buy the US good guy line, nor the world sherif line, and the sad reality is that every time your government does anything in the future the reasons behind it will be tinged with mistrust and resentment.

You only have to look at the protests before and during the Coalitions attack on Iraq, while the US may have support from a few governments, it had no support from the general populace , or UN or Governments.

I have to object to a comment made by both Joe & Brad -- that the Clinton Administration didn't do anything about Iraq. In fact, the Clinton Administration sustained and even strengthen the policies of containment that the senior President Bush had initiated after the first Gulf War. They maintained Iraq's diplomatic isolation. They maintained and even strengthened the economic sanctions. They maintained the air patrols over the north and south -- and continued to attack military targets in Iraq. When Saddam moved some of his military forces into a threatening position in the south, they moved additional American forces into the area in response. At the end of the Clinton Administration, they had significantly diminished Iraq's military and economic power. After our invasion of Iraq, the success of the the decade-long containment policy (BEGUN BY PRESIDENT BUSH) is obvious -- its military was a joke, there were no WMD, the country's infrastructure was in shambles. So suggestions that Clinton "looked the other way" or "didn't choose to do anything about it" is simply inaccurate.

I was particularly amused by Joe's comment that Democrats usually "look the other way" in these confrontations with foreign leaders. After all during the 2000 presidential election, it was George W. Bush and the Republicans who relentlessly attack Clinton & Gore for their foolish "nation-building" efforts in the Balkans and Africa. Bush swore that he wouldn't waste his time on such things as standing up to a Serbian leader who was committing genocide in his own country.

Yes whilist I am generally sceptical about most US administartions, I do have praise for the Gore/Clinton Administration, imagin what the world would have been had the president that the people elected won power instead of the one "Jeb Helped", that should raise a few Republican Neck Hairs, however "If it looks like shit, and smells like Shit and tastes like Shit, then it must be Shit"

And you guys wonder why the rest of the world no longer trusts the Washington, especially the current Administration.

Not that I suppose that most Australians support our Pm, who when last seen, still had his head and a fair amount of his upper body firmly implanted in GW's rectum.