Uhh, yeah, actually, you're wrong. We weren't at fullscale war with Iraq until we invaded them.
Uhh, yeah, actually, I'm right. The war we are presently engaged in is larger than simply Iraq. We have been ignoring the threat of terrorism and condoning complicity for decades...Iraq is one of the end results of this complacency.
Considering that I have not yet been rude in any way to you...you might consider changing your tone...unless you enjoy being smarmy to people simply because they disagree with you.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Not one of the hijackers was from there, not one of the people who planned the hijacking was from there. A bunch of Saudi Arabians under the direction of people who planned the attack in Afghanistan and Pakistan attacks us - and this means we should invade the weakest Muslim nation we can find that had nothing to do with it? How does that make any sense? Didn't you read the 9/11 report? No collaborative efforts between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
9/11 has much to do with the war in Iraq. Just not in the direct way you are attempting to view it as.
After 9/11 many people realized that we had been involved in this "war" with radical fundamentalist Muslims for decades and that no one in any administration had done anything to combat it and in fact, recent administrations like Clintons and HW Bushs had probably made it worse. (For proof of this look into Saddam's reaction to Bush leaving Iraq without entering Baghdad during the first Gulf War and Bin Ladens comments on that AND his comments on Clinton's pulling the troops out after the death of our soldiers in Somalia).
With that in mind, Bush was advised that one possible solution was to deal with the matter in an incredibly aggresive and long-term plan.
Invade a nation that was centrally located in the Middle East, one that was seen to be easily defeated, one that had a base population in great need of help and hopefully, one that wanted a chance to build a democracy, and one that had a goverment hostile to the US and possibly capable of causing the nation great harm. In time (again - Bush was not looking for a quick fix...but a permanent solution to dealing with terrorism) with a stable democracy starting to flourish in the Middle East other peoples in other nations would see its successes and begin to fight for their own independence. When people were given the choice to have the freedom to live their lives, not be oppressed, have a chance to provide for their families - choosing terrorism would become less of an attractive option.
Iraq met all of these requirements and more. It also was a nation ruled by a Dictator who had tried to assasinate a US President, enjoyed harboring known terrorists, paid the familes of suicide bombers, and had used chemical and biological weapons in the past. Additionally, most of the intelligence agencies of the world agreed that he was trying to build more weapons if he had not succeded already. Toss onto that HUGE HEAP of reasons to choose Iraq as a second front after Afganistan the fact that its incestuous relationship with France, China, Russia, and Germany had turned the UN into a den of slime and dirty money...and you have an amazingly sound reason to choose Iraq.
So when you were a kid, if someone in the schoolyard hit you, you retaliated by walking up to another kid that had nothing to do with it but that you knew you could beat and hitting them?
No...but if I knew this "innocent" other kid was paying the kids who hit me to do it, was teaching all the others how to hit me, was possibley getting ready to beat the shit out of me big time, AND if I beat up this bully I might be able to stop other people from picking on me...you bet your sweet bippy I'd kick that guy in the junk in a heartbeat.
To close, I'd just like to remind you (since you are so fond of accusing others of not reading reports) that you might want to look into some of the things Kay said upon his return from Iraq. I'm sure you were fascinated by the "No WMD" comments, as I was. However...rather than stopping at the headlines, I continued on...and was further intrigued by his statements to the effect of: It is more apparent now than ever before that we needed to remove Saddam. While he was not stockpiling WMD he was keeping everything ready...and as soon as the UN backed off, he was going to start again.
So you see...I could care less if the UN inspectors were done with their tours or not. Saddam was receiving phone calls from corrupt members of the UN letting him know exactly when people were coming and where they were going...and all he was doing was waiting them out. If not for Bush, the UN would have eventually tired of the game and left...and Saddam would have started everything up again. And you'd be touting it all as a wonderful success for the UN.
