From: "Mark" 


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:4144222a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Bigger picture? Ok I'm game, why did we attack Iraq?

First and foremost? For me that would be to eliminate the perception that
anything goes, that it is possible to thumb one's nose at the world without
any repurcussions, as I've said at length in the past, that merely
encourages the stateless terrorists from the point of view of "if they
won't do anything about Saddam and they know right where he is, they'll
never get us"

> Remember me, I was the guy here arguing in favor of attacking Iraq because
> of
> the "bigger picture", but now it appears the "bigger
picture" as presented
> was
> a shadow of an enigma at best and a flat out lie at worst..

The primary justification in taking out Saddam was not whether or not he
had WMD, it was his refusal to cooperate, willingly, with the many
resolutions that were enacted as part of the cease-fire during the first
Gulf War. He refused to comply with the conditions of that cease-fire, so
hostilities resumed.
>
> You know me, I like stuff that makes the US look good. So explain to me
> this
> bigger picture that doesn't make Iraq look like a major fuckup that cost
> thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. I'd really
> appreciate
> it if you could do that.

Absent 9/11 we would have continued enforcing the no-fly zones for another
dozen years and as many resolutions, with 9/11 it became impossible for us
to allow his flaunting of the conditions. The sanctions were already being
undermined by other countries and would have been officially lifted in not
too long a time. Any president of the US would not be acting responsibly in
protecting the country if he'd allowed that to happen. That it appears that
he had no weapons is secondary and based on hindsight and does not address
the potential threat he posed. I simply cannot think of any good that would
have come out of leaving him in power.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5