If Saddam would have acted in accordance to the peace treaty after the first Gulf War there would have been nothing the US could have done. we have oppossed Castro for 0ver 5 decades and is he gone? the UN was bending over backwards to get Saddanm to comply and he refused constantly. As far as references the day you give me a reference from a reputable historian or political scientist that claims that Qaddafi was an equal threat to peace as Saddam in 2003 I will follow your wishes. You also might loof for the signs that saddam would ever comply even remotely fully with what he was obliged to do. 12 years of waiting was long enough. If he did what Qaddafi did, admit the extent of his wmd and allow inspectors FULL access this war would never had happened, whatever any American President wanted. It was his acts that brought on the need to remove him, not the other way around. List for me the equivelant actions that led you to claim qaddafi and Saddam were equivelent. You have got two invasions and millions of Arab and Persian deaths to match up to. Good hunting.

Several simultaneous aims in the ME: to take out a sadistic and avowed enemy of the US; to combat the growth of Islamofascism by killing off all-comers and seeding democracy by example; to “address” Syrian/Lebanese issues with our presence, intell and agents; to pull out our troops of the KSA and keep a close eye on the civil war being waged there behind the tent silks; to flank Iran on two fronts and encourage grassroots democratic activism whilst we surveil and do god knows whatever else out of warranted concern over the Mullahs’ nuke program; and other good stuff such as to prep the way for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement in our lifetimes by doing the above and working with Israel behind the scenes, but I’m out of time to think up the rest.

You keep saying you supported the war but that we really should not have removed Saddam militarily. You inadequately convince anyone here that you have a specific strategy on democratizing the ME and addressing the Islamist threat. You cannot stop an aggressive cancer with a Flintstone vitamin, especially if the patient refuses to take the pill or sells it on the black market. Corruption, no hope, a growing death culture, and the unacceptable threat to our own security that the ME poses has forced us into a drastic intervention there.

“working more effectively” — By and large, YES. (excepting perhaps the recent elections in Iran, in which our presence may have hurt reformers.)”

(1) A distinction without a difference.

(2) If it is an “election” when the government selects the candidates, then what do you call it when the people select the candidates?

The 1998 bill came about because of Saddams actions, not out of some Clintonian fit of pique, oh and trying to kill ex President Bush had a slight influence.After the first gulf war he was allowed to keep his army intact, he was allowed to stay in power keeping to the oil for stability policy, and yet he still failed to comply with the terms of a generous UN brokered peace deal and continued to fund Palestinian suicide bombers, when the embargo was going on and his citizens were dieing from neglect he could have allowed the inspectors to operate according to the agreement he signed, but this rational peace partner you think could have been counted on refused to. Even during the runup to the war he could have backed down and comply with all the terms of the generous UN sponsored Gulf War I peace treaty terms and stopped any rational that Bush and Blair could bring up but even facing the destruction of his reign he was so deluded, and of course was counting on the previous gutless actions of the world towards his rule, that he refused almost every attempt by the UN to give him a chance.

After the first Gulf War he was given the chance to stay in power but his actions forced Clinton’s hand. You bring up the 98 bill as if it was produced out of thin air because the US wanted it. The world was willing to let Saddam do almost anything to his own people as long as he gave up trying to foment terror in the region and give up his delusions of glory.He refused., He couldn’t because he was mad. Qaddafi could because he was a realist. How many UN resolutions did he ignore? Your Saddam is the equal of qaddafi comparison is still absurd.

“only working” — NO

“working more effectively” — By and large, YES. (excepting perhaps the recent elections in Iran, in which our presence may have hurt reformers.)

The Arab spring, and the removal of our troops from Saudi Arabia (per Bin Laden’s wishes) are the two best things to have come out of the war so far.

Also, why wouldn’t we want some kind of a (low-key) military presence in Iraq over the next unknowable number of years? Imagine the Iraqi government would be (quietly) amenable to a good working regional security relationship with us. Win-win for both our countries.

And don’t you think the non-military means we’re exploiting to push for democracy in the ME are only working, or working more effectively, because of the military resolve we showed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Be honest!

When? My understanding is that even before the “Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998″ was that U.S. would never vote to lift sanctions unless he was first overthrown? Am I wrong about this? If not, when could he have had Q’s deal?

That one sentence prooves you are not living in reality world.

Saadam behaved quite well toward the U.S. in the eighties, back when he was busy killing radical Islamists from Iran and gassing Kurds. Even Rumsfeld thought so.

There are all sorts of non-military means to encourage Arab democracy. Bush to his credit is doing many of them: tying aid and trade benefits to political reform, pushing Palestinians toward democracy (and Israelis toward accomodating the indigenous inhabitants of ‘eretz israel’), improving U.S. communications outreach (Radio sawa, and the like), talking tough to autocratic allies like the Saudis, using trips like Condi’s visit to promote reform, etc…

Finally, I find leftist sites very boring and/or frustrating. Almost as bad as conservative sites. I’ll be sticking with debate among the thoughtful denizens of thoughtful centrist blogs like Michael Totten’s.

Q was a piker compared to Saddam. Count the number of Arab and Persian deaths between the two.Q was a source for terror funding but most of that was in the seventies and eighties and was small in scale compared to Saddam. How many invasions did Q launch. And even though he is a human rights violater go to HR and AI and you will see that Libya pales in comparison. And in the most damning fact that proves your equality idea absurd look how he responded to pressure. He folded. Saddam continued to fight even with foreign troops on his soil.Twice. Q is a prick and a scumbag but he is more concerned with self preservation rather then Pan Arab domination. Saddam could have had Q’s deal on many occasions and never took it.That one sentence prooves you are not living in reality world.