Terratogen wrote:
] If you remember, Bush gave Suddaam a 3 day ultimatum to
] surrender the weapons of mass destruction he *knew* had to be
] in Iraq.

For the record, the final ultimatum was not a 3-day deadline to surrender WMD, it was a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the country: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2857789.stm

] Blatently, the reasons we're in Iraq were not publicised by
] those who made the decision

I beg to differ. The world's unhappiness with Iraq was extremely well publicized and debated. The U.N. passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq. Iraq wasn't a country that we were worried *might* use chemical weapons, Iraq was a country that verifiably *had* used chemical weapons, on multiple occasions, on thousands of people, military and civilian, including people in its own country. It wasn't a suspicion of something that Saddam *might* be capable of, it was a proven fact.

I supported the war in Iraq not just because I thought there were stockpiles of WMD there. I supported the war because there was a long history of Iraqi deception, U.N. resolutions were being blatantly ignored, and it was clear that Saddam had no intention of cooperating. I felt sure then, and I still feel confident now, that if left alone, Saddam would have continued to build arsenals, and would have done his best to build his empire by violent means. We already had military in Iraq from the last time he had invaded a neighboring country, Iraqis were regularly shooting at us over the no-fly zones, and I saw no circumstances on the horizon that would have allowed us to say, "Okay, things are better now, we can leave."

Now having said that, I will also agree that some of our intelligence was flawed, and that some things were said, by Bush and others, that later analysis has now shown was probably incorrect. I do not think that this means that they "lied", I think it means that they got their hands on some bad info. But there were still plenty of things that were said that *were* correct, and there were things that we had suspicions of, which have since been verified a hundred times over. Saddam really did have WMD at one point, and he was doing his level best to get more. Secrets really were being kept from U.N. Inspectors and from the world. Saddam had *not* given up on the idea of building an empire... He was just waiting for world scrutiny to go away.

So, I continue to stand by my original belief:

- The world's demand for the last many years, including in early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to disarm.
- Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.
- Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have the balls to do it.
- We did.
- The war was justified.
- And the world is a better place without Saddam.

Elonka

RE: Blair Defends War Decision