The most pertinent comment, perhaps.

The violations to my knowledge were not serious.

So you concede there were violations. Cease-fire violations alone justify resuming the war.

And if true, it was grounds for bombing (like Clinton did), and perhaps other destabilization initiaitves.

An assasination attempt against an ex-President is an act of war. As with the cease fire violations, it alone justifies resuming the war. Clinton’s bombing was a useless, futile gesture which only served to demonstrate yet again America’s weakness.

And speaking of “feverish imaginations”, you support your argument by linking to Hersh? Come on.

BTW, here’s a working Hersh link:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

Only solid evidence of Hussein’s ties to terrorist groups was his allowing Abu Nidal

Wrong. There is a mountain of credible evidence against Hussein that goes well beyond Nidal:

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004906

You’re worse than an OJ juror.

If there WAS something solid, don’t you think Bush would be talking about it 24/7

No, because any uncertainty in the intelligence will be blared 24/7 by DNC media mouthpieces at ABCNBCCBSCNNNYTimesLAWaPo, Inc. The Bush administration wants to connect dots, and the Democrats want to blur them. The Democrats have the by far the greater propaganda infrastructure and would win that fight.

And he would have been taken out if he made real progress toward developing them.

Yeah, right. Just like we’re doing in North Korea and Iran.

Yes, a nuclear black market…But what is the Iraqi connection?

Libya capitulated when Saddam was pulled out of is spider hole and then provided information on that allowed us to roll up the AQ Khan network. There is a direct, linear cause and effect relationship.

As for Hitch, don’t include me among his fans. He may be right about Saddam, but he is still a Marxist. The broken clock theory applies. I’ll give him some further credit for having the courage and honesty to admit he is a Marxist, which most don’t.

HA –

“BTW, Markus, I’ve seen you make actual arguments in the past. Your post above is little more than ad hominem.”

I don’t see anything I wrote that attacked or criticized without explaining why. And I do have an ‘actual argument’: that the most compelling reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 were fundamentally progressive ones, and the most compelling reasons against invadion were those made from a nationalist conservative viewpoint. (Cheney stated them better than anyone, IMO, back in 1991) I probably could have fleshed out my argument more, but then again you could have done the same with yours. Let me respond to your claims, as a consistent conservative ought to:

1. “Saddam continually violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement.”

The violations to my knowledge were not serious. Basically, the UNESCOM inspection regime was effective. Saadam was in a box. We were foolish to try to use the regime for spying purposes, and after Saadam used its discovery as a pretext for kicking us out, we had to get the inspectors back in. Threatening war in order to force Hussein to accept unfettered inspections IMO WAS justified from a conservative viewpoint.

2. “He tried to assasinate an ex-President.”

Inconclusive evidence.

http://www. newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

And if true, it was grounds for bombing (like Clinton did), and perhaps other destabilization initiaitves. But in and of itself, insufficient grounds for an intervention and occupation that doubtlessly will cost us a trillion bucks.

3. “He supported terrorists and terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda. This includes proven ties to the 1993 WTC bombers and highly suggestive ties to the 9/11 attackers.”

And when everyone actually lays their cards on the table, we find nothing solid and conclusive at all, except in the feverish imaginations of Laurie Mylroie and Stephen Hayes. If there WAS something solid, don’t you think Bush would be talking about it 24/7, instead of watching his approval ratings fall from 70+% around the time of “Mission Accomplished” to 40% and dropping today?

Only solid evidence of Hussein’s ties to terrorist groups was his allowing Abu Nidal to have a place to stay when he retired, and his giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. There possibly were legitimiate reasons for ISRAEL to attack Iraq. But even Israel wouldn’t have done so, absent strong REAL evidence of WMD development. Israel had/has too many other greater priorities.

4. “He had a mothballed WMD program that he would have restarted once his French, Russian and Chinese agents on the UNSC managed to get sanctions and inspections removed.”

And he would have been taken out if he made real progress toward developing them.

Then you claim we have gained stability in the region. Where? You talk about Libya, though Gaddafi hadn’t been a threat since the late eighties, and AQ Khan, a Pakistani. Yes, a nuclear black market, particularly one involving Pakistanis with connections in the current nuke program or involvement in its earlier development, is a very good thing to worry about. But what is the Iraqi connection?

For someone who hates socialism as much as you say you do, I didn’t know you supported so much federal aid to schools, in Iraq that is. Seems like you’re in bed with a bunch of Trotskyites right now:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html

That is right, the Carter Doctrine and the Iraqi Liberation Act both written by Democrats make it plain that Iraq and the middle east are too important to the national interests of the US to ignore.

How soon they forget.

That is an opinion, not a fact! Your side has based its entire anti-war argument on an opinion. People looked at history and decided that insane, warlike, unbelievably wealthy dictators usually end up causing the world a heap of trouble. This is why Bush won the election.

I replied to Eric the way I did because I wanted him to know that whether or not he likes Bush had nothing to do with liberating Iraq.

I remember when Clinton went after Slobo,there was not threat to the US, none. But I did support Clinton for the simple reason that I thought innocent people were being slaughtered.

In Iraq I think that dozens of violations of mandatory UN resolutions, the violations of the cease fire agreement, the refusal to even acknowledge sanctions and in fact the outright thievery of funds intended for his people through an international humanitarian aid program, the support of terrorists both domestic and international as well as maintaining and concealing an illegal weapons program all made Saddam more of a threat to more people than Milosovic could ever be.

The amazing thing is watching the far right and far left come together into a sort of Saddam fan club.

It is also amazing to hear and see people who say they are great believers in international law excusing the total disregard Saddam showed for any and laws that did not suit him.

We are facing the ultimate Totalitarism…a mix of all TOTALITARIAN EXCREMENT concocted East and West in a great turd of hate ideology so Beetles like the Ayatholas and the Baath in Syria and Iraq could find a savory tasty entree for consumption.

So yummy in fact that other Beetles, Neo MArxists/Neo fascists in Europe, Latin America and the United States join since they also find something in the ball. That makes them roll the ball riding astride and on top,so you dont really see the new totalitarian excrement ball, you see your average Red/Black and Yellow types doing the political action.

Power sharing? Bah,backstabbing–decapitation really– will come when the time is right. What would have happened with a world dominated by Japan in one end and Germany/Italy and friends on the other side? The Turd of Islamic Fascism, the new 21st C. Totalitarism,would absorb all.Useful fools to be hangued with their own rope. Well learned from V.I.

So, after the septic tank was upset in Afghanistan, one Beetle was crushed in Iraq. A no,no, mind you. A major ear lenderer to the benefits of rolling the excrement ball while having such a rough time after his Mother of All Battles gone? Gone from a center of regional gravity? Loose such a big launching pad to roll the ball down hill into the Arab World,into the Yankee-Sionist Neo-colonialist Entity and then onwards to the Grater Umma?

No way.

So there you see what were at stake, what is at stake.

If one do not understand that we are fighting an ideology not any individual or regime one may not see how Saddam,Al Qaeda,Iran,Jihadism the world over were/are related.

Our vital interests were, are and will be at stakes at Iraq since we are fighting a war against an ideology, Islamic Fascism.

The Baath is the secular extreme on the Islamo Fascist scale, the Islamic Revolutionary Fundamentalism the other end.

Because of the failure of Baath and Khomeinism in redeeming Islam and relieving the downthrodden, there surged a “Third Way”, the form of Fascism,the one called as a propper names of Islamism,Islamic Fascism or Islamo Fascism. National Socialism,Arab National Socialism, Islamic fundamentalism, revolutionary Islamic fundamentalism, Anti Semitism,Anti Colonialism,Anti Imperialism,a sprinkle of radical socialism in a big melting pot of hate made into a political project defined by a greater Muslim national identity which uses religion to strenghten the revolutionary in ways Nasser couldnt have dreamed of while providing the Jihadi new tools for achieving the ultimate goal.

Basically they have no qualms in using the Khoran side by side the Red Book of Mao and Mein Kampft( the passe Ayathola would have infarted—not that they have not taken a couple of non Islamic things here and there but this Third Way pale in comparison)or in forming alliances of convenience with the Neo MArxists and non Muslim fascists. They are internationalist,if you have “submitted” and are part of the Umma you can join the defense and exapnsion of true Islam

Peachy,isnt it?

So,lets continue our internationalist(red and black fascists cringe with this) duty and lets stop the fixations with how Bush looks, stop the teh spinning, stop the partisan bickering, stop requesting the finding of Saddam’s signature on WMD buying /production and land lease for terror trainig camps (they are right besides Hitler’s written authorization for Holocaust-tough you can find many checks paid to the families of Palestinian Arab homicidal terrorist suicidal bombers )and lets start taking this matter seriously.

Eric seems to be coming at things from a conservative and AMERICAN nationalist viewpoint (are you reading, HA?)

Yes, I’m reading and I think Eric is Moby.

An INFORMED conservative nationalist would support overthrowing Saddam for the following reasons:

1. Saddam continually violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

2. He tried to assasinate an ex-President.

3. He supported terrorists and terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda. This includes proven ties to the 1993 WTC bombers and highly suggestive ties to the 9/11 attackers.

4. He had a mothballed WMD program that he would have restarted once his French, Russian and Chinese agents on the UNSC managed to get sanctions and inspections removed.

5. He was destabilizing the entire Middle East.

The strategic gains America has achieved include:

1. Restoration of the deterrent effect of American power.

2. Removal of a regime that threatened vital American interests.

3. Surrender of Libya’s WMD program

4. Roll-up of the AQ Khan nuclear black market.

Unfortunately, because the dominant media are DNC mouthpieces, the American electorate is mostly ignorant of these facts. Too many people have bought into the bogus narrative you presented.

BTW, Markus, I’ve seen you make actual arguments in the past. Your post above is little more than ad hominem. I suppose you see this as fighting fire with fire. I expect a better argument from you, even if I disagree.

The word “progress” reminds me that I supported the war initially as a mainstream liberal, one who has internationalist sympathies. As such, I’m a sucker for idealistic big-government social engineering projects, which sure as hell is exactly what our Iraqi adventure has been and is.

Eric seems to be coming at things from a conservative and AMERICAN nationalist viewpoint (are you reading, HA?), and I must say, I can’t imagine someone having strong views along those lines and NOT being appalled at the whole Iraqi initiative.

To friggin’ whit: there were no vital US interests at stake. The fear that Saadam would manage to create a nuclear device through some clandestine tinpot WMD program — while manageing not to get taken out in the process by Israel –and that he would then choose to give these materials to Al-Qaeda was GROUNDLESS and ABSURD, in the opinion of everyone who knew anything about him and wasn’t looking for a “noble lie” in order to sell war to the American people. And while he certainly had his fascist boot on the throats of his subjects, since when is such thuggary something that AMERICAN nationalists are supposed to get exercised about?

Terrye — just checking here for the first time, I must take you to task for two of your comments. First, you tell Eric, “I don’t care about the fact that you don’t like Bush”. Well, if you don’t care, why are you bothering to reply? That was just a gratutitous insult. Then you get all obnoxious about Coisty as a non-American having a critical opinion of this country. As if you don’t have a million opinions about other countries and other peoples yourself.

Why don’t you just simplify things, and say “I hate when people disagree with me, and I reserve the right to insult them and behave like a hostile jerk in lieu of a debate”?

Election to ratify constitution for a democratic Iraq – October 14, 2005

That’s two years and seven months.

US Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

Completion of US Constitution – September 17, 1787 (took effect 1789)”

Are you serious? What does that have to do with anything? Is this your barometer for progress in Iraq? To echo an earlier comment, the colonies already had representative governments. The situation in Iraq and the Revolutionary war have essentially nothing in common.

Just because the Iraqis might be getting a constitution doesn’t mean they’ll stop killing each other and it certainly won’t end the possibility of a full-blown civil war.

Oh, and the Articles of Confederation, you know the actual first American governing document, was written in 1777 and ratified in 1781.

How about this timeline:

Bush’s mission accomplished speech: May 2, 2003

Election to ratify constitution for a democratic Iraq: October 14, 2005

Ratification of Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781

Treaty of Paris: September 3, 1781

But you know what, my timeline is just as meaningless as yours!