wilkes

i know what the u.n. resolution was. we had several thousand troops in kuwait and saudi arabia. plus the air force, and the carrier planes. his army was pretty much useless after the air campaign. it's as plain as the nose on your or my face. we SHOULD have gotten him then. W didn't listen to the u.n. his daddy shouldn't have neither.ray charles could see that.

Of course Saddam did bad things. He just didn't do them TO US! Justifying invading Iraq because Saddam was involved with "Islamist terrorist groups" is like suggesting we invade Montana because Militia members ("Christian" terrorist groups) brought assault rifles to presidential appearances, or blew up the federal building in Oklahama City. McVeigh, claiming to be a CHRISTIAN, committed the second worst case of terrorism within out country. He was Christian, and a veteran. But I hate neither Christians (I am one), nor the military (wouldn't have me, I'm legally blind, but I've had plenty of family members there), nor veterans!

When committing US forces to die, we must DIRECTLY connect the dots, not just come close. We sholdn't attack a country like Iraq because there's an actual military structure there to fight, and real cities, unlike Afghanistan. More than 4,000 US military have died, and perhaps as many as 100,000 Iraqi citizens. But perhaps the biggest story this hugely Christian country seems to miss is that in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, there was an ethnic cleansing of nearly every Christian. Christians were told by local Muslim leaders to leave, or be killed. Most left. Lots were killed. And no, I'm not blaming out military. They were following orders...specifically orders not to interfere with what were considered local political, and religious issues. Don't take my word for it, ask someone who was in Iraq about four to five years ago when this was happening. It's tragic!

No, Saddam wasn't a saint. He imposed order on the streets at penalty of death. He would not tolerate political dissent for even a second. Ask the Kurds! But he was NOT a religious man, at least until he knew his time was up! He didn't care what religion his people practiced, as long as there was order in the streets, and the work was done. Christianity was tolerated by Saddam, so those who would persecute Christians did nothing. But given new freedom, they used it to kill or drive out Christians. Muslim fundamentalists aren't, after all, really big on Christians (though they consider Christ a Muslim prophet).

The real tragedy in Iraq is not that we didn't "win the war". By any military definition, we rolled over the Iraqi military in very short order. Bravo! The tragedy is the seven and a half years AFTER the war was won, when there was no planning to rebuild the infrastructure, when there was no Iraqi military because we dismissed them all (one of our stupidest errors! They were loyal to their country, not to Saddam.) These military professionals, sent home with their weapons, but with no paychecks, BECAME the insurgency. We didn't create it, of course, but we allowed it to happen.

Next time we plan on breaking the infrastructure to a country, we should have a plan to fix it IMMEDIATELY! You can't leave people in the desert with 120 degree temperatures, and no electricity (and especially no air conditioning), no running water, and no police, and expect things will work out just fine. HOW WOULD YOU TOLERATE 120 DEGREE TEMPERATURES, AND NO AIR CONDITIONING, FOR AT LEAST SEVERAL HOURS A DAY FOR YEAR AFTER YEAR??? Iraqis are, after all, human beings, with needs which must be met.

A final question. How long would you tolerate a foreign military power, even a friendly one just trying to help, occupying the US? Would it matter a single bit that they were here to help? Iraqis love their country, just as we love ours. They are one of the world's oldest civilizations. They may need us, but they sure don't want us. Can we really blame them? It's been almost eight years, after all.

We should have listened to our friends the French. They've largely been where we've been (preceding us in defeat in Vietnam). They told us Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and no nuclear program. They told us Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. They helped with Afghanistan, but not with Iraq...because Iraq was a mistake. I know I'm weakening my argument with many by bringing up the French, because the easy, mindless thing to do is to make them out to be a joke. When it comes to terrorism, EVERY western European country knows more about it than we do, because the attacks they've endured fill volumes, not just a single page (as do ours...a tragic page, nontheless!)

We should also have listened to Colin Powell when he said "Never go into a conflict unless y ou know how you will get out. But if you do go in, do it with overwhelming force." We had plenty of force to defeat the Iraqi military, but far too few troops to secure a country that large, prevent vandalism, looting, and worse. And we had NO plan for getting out. We still don't have much of one...something the president MUST address. THAT (and health care) is what he was elected to do.

Finally...as for the Dixie Chicks tossing off one line about politics, DEAR GOD, TOBY KEITH PERFORMS ENTIRE SONGS ABOUT POLITICS! Charlie Daniels spouts right-wing politics at every opportunity. So what? Performers are people. Songs are about emotions. Artists are paid to express emotions. Obviously there are going to be some political overtones. They're there whenever PEOPLE gather. If I'm at a concert and an artist tosses off a line or quip that's political in nature, whether I agree with it or not, SO WHAT? Now if I go to a concert, and it becomes more political than musical, even if I AGREE with the politics, that's something different.

The litle comments between songs are what makes a concert real...more like a visit with someone whose work I enjoy. I get to know them. Often I won't like what I learn. Do you like everything about even your best friend? Your spouse?

Finally it's just silly to say there's somehow something wrong with criticizing our president in a country that's our greatest ally. How many conservative reporters and commentators went with President Obama on his recent Middle-Eastern trip, and criticized him from countries that really are hostile? If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. We can't be expected to snap-to attention with unquestioning respect for presidents of one party, and not the other. Frankly I don't think it matters much where the criticism takes place. What matters is context. Criticizing the president at a concert, or on a news broadcast beamed to America, is fine with me from anywhere. Criticizing him (or hopefully her, some day!) to the leaders of a hostile country, or on the media of a hostile country, THAT is a problem. THAT is unpatriotic. Everything else is, quite simply, just blowing off steam.

Britain is our greatest ally. And they were our PARTNERS in Iraq. They're our "cousins" in a very real (and sometimes literal) way. They're family. Family discusses everything. EVERYTHING!

I could care less what they say about anybody I have never liked them They don't hold a candly to the real girl bands that has been out their like Heart- abba-the go gos-and so on I thing they sux

no wmds....but wasnt there a money trail through iraq linked to terrorists? ....i am really asking....

The Dixie Chicks should all get awards for seeing though the bull

No Kilgore, if I had paid money to see his show it would have been to hear him sing NOT to hear his political opinions/views. Just like the Dixie Chicks, I don't buy his records either.
In addition, given the records and ideals of the most recent administrations, I have become a very anti-government person. I honestly believe they are all self-serving dishonest persons interested only in padding their own pockets.

It is disgusting that we all work and work to try and stay afloat and all the politicians are concerned about are the special interest groups and minorities they can get registered to vote.

Your last paragraph about why Bush Sr didn't invade is accurate and the points are well taken. It sadly is pretty much an outline of what happened when Jr invaded, right down to the tired horse and lack of coalition support. I am in no way criticizing our troops, but you don't send one man to do a job when he needs at least three to do it right. Given the size of the force we sent in it's a credit to our troops they were able to do what they did.

Re the terrorism accusation I'd have to disagree. I'm sure Sadam Hussein was thrilled about 9/11 and was happy anytime something bad happened to us. That doesn't mean he was linked to any of it. Plain and simple he just wasn't a significant player on the terrorist front.

Saddam's regime was linked to Islamist terrorist groups.

"The redacted version of "Saddam and Terrorism" is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East."

Bush Sr. should have done it during the 1st gulf war? WRONG. The coalition had agreed to get Saddam out of Kuwait and that was all. They would not have backed a move into Iraq. Also , think about what a build up it took to go into Iraq. It would have been like entering a horse race but riding your horse to the race. He wouldn't have been 100% and ready .

American Thinker ? ROFL

Good one

even this article (as full of BS as it is) doesn't mention Libya or the Plames

Mtnbiker, you are absolutely correct. Thanks for the clarrification. 5.5 tons were never found. I was referring to the 550 metric tons of yellow cake. Still, this proves nothing, Sadam Hussein wanted the yellow cake for the same reason that Iran wants it, for the peaceful production of electricity, even if he wasn't allowed to have it by U.N. mandate and was sneeking around, who is America to judge?

The NEO-Cons love to say that we all already knew about this and ignored it anyway, but it is just a distortion of the truth.

http://www.americanthinker....

President Bush the first made the decision to not invade Iraq during Desert Storm because he wisely recognized the country would be in a state of chaos and he didn't want to commit the U.S. to a long term occupation.

Oh but if the son had been as wise as the father.

i thought they were dead on , with the comment. we shouldn't be in iraq today. we should have got hussien in desert storm. that would have saved a lot of lives and a bunch of money also.

ROFL

yeah? do tell !

I guess the anti-freedom, anti-Bush forces managed to keep it out of the press too ... or was it just the leftwing media?

Even if we found five and a half metric tons of yellow cake that Valerie Plame and her husband said that Sadam Hussein did NOT try and get in Libya.

terrorist attacks are not the same as invading a country Eleanor; and any intelligent person knows Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

we invaded them by choice, not necessity

all the bluster about WMDs notwithstanding, Iraq was never anymore a threat to America than many other countries ... we can't invade everybody just because we don't like them; otherwise we'd have gone into Libya, N. Korea, Iran, etc etc which are all more dangerous to our well being than Iraq ever was EVEN IF the WMD charges had been true

MtnBiker writes: " If more Americans had the courage and foresight to have criticized Bush at that time who can say how many lives would have been saved."
Perhaps we should also note the numerous terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton administration: 1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing,1995 - Attempted crashing of plane on White House,1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia,1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania,and 2000 - USS Cole Bombing - Yemen. How I wish more Americans had had the courage and foresight to criticize Clinton on his lack of action on all those tragedies. Perhaps we could have avoided the loss of almost 3000 lives on September 11, 2001.

AMEN Radiogiant! The Dixie Chicks were right on the money!

So, Countyline, you also disagree with Toby Keith's behavior at concerts during that same period? That he shouldn't have juxtaposed Natalie Maines' picture with Saddam Hussein's?

I went out and bought all their albulms.

Joe Wilson's comment was in very poor taste and showed a lack of control on his part. The difference is that it was made in a political arena. Doesn't justify it, but somewhat more expected in that group of company. I find it funny how all those old fart politicians will cheer and clap when they probably just needed to make sure the old fart sitting next to them was still breathing.

I didn't and do not agree with much of the Bush administration policies.
The Dixie Chicks are entitled to their opinions and should have joined whatever protest marches they chose but they should have done it on their own time...not while they were at work.

How many of our employers would allow us to stand up in a meeting and make very political statements that may very well offend a client? I know mine would frown on it and I need a job too badly to run my mouth and jeopardize it.