Algore would have invaded Iraq

National Post gives stupidity a bad name


A week after CBC broke the story, McParland, foreign editor of the National Post, wrote a column in which he not only admitted to being the one who doctored the Reuters copy, but defended his action.† He said he did so because he wanted to convey to readers the real nature of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade: “[It] is dedicated to destroying Israel, and aims to achieve that goal through a campaign of violence. Though it originally targeted members of the Israeli military, two years ago it began killing civilians as well.”

Actually the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, regardless of who became president.

Doesn't seem like much of an infraction to me.

Anyways, in this column he basically reports about a study. Unless you can show where he made things up about the study I don't see any reason to discount the conclusions of the study.

Would you be willing to speculate that theory, even if Nader or Kucunich had been President? Since you've thrown the Gore argument out the window, your current one has become that there was no other choice but to invade. I shall look at every argument you present and counter every one but not now as I am too sick.

I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.

Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.

I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.

Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.

There was no reason TO invade Iraq.

Here are your alternatives of going to war:


1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.


2. Lift the UN sanctions against Iraq and allow Saddam to freely participate in worldwide trade and commerce. This might eventually save hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from certain death brought on by starvation and lack of medicine, depending on whether Saddam diverted money to these problems. But it would not necessarily halt Saddam's mass murdering. It would also allow Saddam to develop his oil fields, bringing in huge profits to be spent as he pleased. Of course this would include building his military, developing his WMD programs, including reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, and resuming his harboring, training and funding of international terrorism. This would most certainly have been seen by other rogue countries and terrorist groups as a complete capitulation by the West, and that America and the West could be defeated.


So now what is your choice? The cost of the war has undoubtedly been high for America in terms of casualties, money and reputation. But what of the costs of the alternatives? Would either alternative have saved casualties, money or America's reputation? 9/11 alone cost America over 3,000 of her citizens and almost two trillion dollars in the financial markets (*11). Would have being branded as paper tigers reduced the likelihood of further terrorist attacks on American soil and throughout the world? Or would it have encouraged even more terrorism, especially with an emboldened Saddam Hussein harboring, training and financing further terrorism, and potentially supplying terrorist groups with WMDs? And what of Iraq's innocent citizens? After the fiasco of the hundreds of thousands mass murdered in Rwanda (*12), and the hundreds of thousands of already needless deaths in Iraq, would you have been willing to turn your back on hundreds of thousands more in Iraq? These were your choices: Invasion with thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and a suffering of America's reputation. Or a retreating America seen as ripe for defeat by emboldened rogue nations and terror groups, likely resulting in increased worldwide terrorism, maybe eventually with Saddam supplied WMDs. No doubt that WMD terror attacks would have spawned new wars and destroyed the worldwide economy if the response to 9/11 is any indication. And would Libya and North Korea have voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons programs? Not likely. Can anyone reasonably argue that the world would be safer and more stable if Saddam had been allowed to continue as ruler of Iraq? (*13)

Richard Clarke didn't come out of all that with much integrity, so I don't buy that. But as I said above Algore isn't my argument, but that of the author of the study.

Anyway, would you care to address the choice I gave as to your recommendation to president Bush?

So what would your recommendation to Bush have been? Here I'll post them again:

Only in the minds of cons did RC do anything wrong.

The same as many told him. There is no reaons to go into Iraq and it will just be an utter mess if you do.

The truth is they wanted to do Iraq. Their reasons had nothing to do with the countries security.