[priv8ter]

By askig that question, I'm not really looking to debate our political reasons for us being in Iraq. It is my belief that we should be over there doing what we are doing.

I also want to make it clear that I have a 54-year old Uncle that was called up from the Army reserves. I value his life, and I feel great sorrow for the families of the 40+ American lives that have already been lost in Iraq.

I want to look at things from another point of view, though.

Vietnam was a long time ago, especially when compared to the career length of most military personel. While we have been involved in various peace-keeping activities, and the 1st Gulf War(which I think will be renamed as history rolls on), we have very few people in the military with any kind of stand-up battle experience.

So, could it be that despite the lives we are losing, and the wifes, children, mothers and fathers that are grieving, the resistance that Iraq is showing this time is doing more to help out military than if they had just folded like last time?

[Hkmp5sd]

I don't think we are getting "more resistance" from Iraqi troops this time than in '91. Back then, there were 6 weeks of bombing before the land war. I believe we are performing extremely well.

I also think this war is a wake-up call to the other terrorist sponsoring countries in the mid-east. Iran, Iraq, Syria, the PA/PLO, Egypt and even to an extent, Saudi Arabia, provide aid to terrorist groups. This is a fact and well documented.

By going in a removing Saddam, the other nations in the area will think long and hard about aiding terrorists, especially any terrorist group that attacks the US.

By projecting strength, we will be saving far more lives than appeasing Iraq for another 10 years. When Israel withdrew from Lebanon, the Arab nations viewed this as a sign of weakness, believing Israel was finally going under. This resulted in an increase in terrorism against Israel in an attempt to get them to do some type of retribution that would enrage the Arab nations, allowing them to join together and wipe Israel from the map.

Eight years of successful terrorism against the US resulting in a few cruise missile attacks on empty tents gave these nations the impression the US was weak and would not respond. This is the primary reason 9/11 occured.

And yes, I believe that the actual war will improve the overall performance of the military. You can do wargaming forever, but you really need some lessons learned to determine weaknesses and correct them.

[Pendragon]

Define "need".

I don't think a lot of government policy can be strictly looked at in terms of "need".

The war has several benefits as mentioned already:

1. Removes a major potential source of WMDs to terror.
2. Resolves the original Gulf War which was not ended with a peace treaty.
3. Projects strength and resolve to our enemies. Let them hate us if they will, but let them also fear our wrath.
4. Removes a gross violator of human rights. S.H.'s inhumanity is legendary. The people of Iraq need this relief.

This war has gone a long way to restoring the image of the US as a soverign, mighty nation that is willing to act in its own interest. It has also showed the world that have incredible firepower that is tempered by our concern for innocent life. This gives us a lot of moral high ground that other countries simply cannot rise to - for lack of will or money or both.

Sure there are many potential problems and negative consequences - just as there are to inaction. But you can bet the farm that a lot of heads of state are taking inventory and keeping their head down.

I think the world should fear the wealthiest and freest nation on the planet. Most of the world is run by self interested tyrants and socialist morons. They envy our strength and our wealth - both products of our freedom, but they do not understand that.

Look at the smaller, freer nations of the world - many of them have decided to join our coalition and be our buddy - I think mostly out of moral conviction and a sense that we are doing the hard right thing.

When the dust settles, it will be as it has always been - people will forget, the evil ones will spin and dispute and mock and deride, but we will emerge victorious we will go home - some will forget, some will not - but evil, like rust, never sleeps.

[Glock Glockler]

Need the war? No. Want the War, HELL YES!!!

Along with all the things Pendragon mantioned, this war allows us the opportunity to:

- Secure a bloody sh*teload of oil for ourselves and our allies.

- Remove a direct threat to one of our allies (Israel), which thus constitutes an indirect threat to ourselves. No more GI Bill funding from Iraq to suicide bombers. Prosperous Arab states in that region will give Arabs far more choice where to live and suceed. The less Arabs you have in Israel demanding whatever, the less strain there will be on us, as the foolish mediator in that mess. Perhaps Arabs wouldn't care so much that a few Jews inhabit a bite-sized morsel of land in the region if they're kicking it with some big screen TVs and a bunch of 40s.

- It gives us a luanching point to Iran, Syria, and Saudi. They had better not get stupid or we'll get violent. Maybe we can also subvert the nutjobs in Iran, by nurturing the reform movement under the table. In all truth, we really should be doing this sort of thing anyway.

- We can now tell the Saudis to go to hell, as we don't need their airfields anymore, and we can also tell them to know off their under the table support for terrorist leaning groups.

- After we remake Iraq into a democratic Capitalist country, the rest of the Muslim world will begin to ditch their fundamentalist nonsense and get on board because they want a piece of the action. Kill radical Islam

Look at the bright side of war:)

[trapshooter]

Well, from strictly a readiness perspective, the real deal beats the poo out of a training film.:evil: :neener: :what:

[10-Ring]

Need? Absolutely!

[JimP]

First Bagdad, then france. The war may not be much, but its the only one we have right now.

[JoeSF]

The war came to us. We were attacked how many times? World trade towers twice, the USS cole, the embassy,....

[Blackhawk]

It's the only one we've got despite the misnamed War on Drugs, etc. :rolleyes:

[Drjones]

Pendragon as usual with his great posts. :)

3. Projects strength and resolve to our enemies. Let them hate us if they will, but let them also fear our wrath. Some saying comes to mind, along the lines of "it is best to be feared" or something like that.

PAX, where are you??? :)

The war came to us. We were attacked how many times? World trade towers twice, the USS cole, the embassy,.... AMEN. People forget history all too easily...

First Bagdad, then france.

:D :D :D

LOL!!!

[Khornet]

you may be thinking of

"Oderint dum metuant"--Let them hate us, so long as the fear us.

Said by a Roman in the days of empire.

[agricola]

in short, no:

1. Removes a major potential source of WMDs to terror.

prior to this Saddam was one of the countries least involved with terror in the Middle East. Ignoring known WMD states like Iran and Syria, the chances of terrorists getting WMD from the old Soviet Union successor states are far higher than them getting them from Iraq are.

2. Resolves the original Gulf War which was not ended with a peace treaty.

I take it North Korea is next then?

3. Projects strength and resolve to our enemies. Let them hate us if they will, but let them also fear our wrath

so Iraq is being attacked pour encourager les autres? most sane people realised that the US was an overwhelming military force before this; now due to the reporting in all likelyhood they probably think less of that power.

4. Removes a gross violator of human rights. S.H.'s inhumanity is legendary. The people of Iraq need this relief.

which is true enough; except that it doesnt acknowledge that almost all of the West traded with him when he was "our" dictator even after 1991.

- Secure a bloody sh*teload of oil for ourselves and our allies.

doesnt this statement totally damage the image of the US as the sole country to promote freedom around the world - I'm thinking of Colin Powell's statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury - and turn you into the very pirates you've been condemning?

- Remove a direct threat to one of our allies (Israel), which thus constitutes an indirect threat to ourselves. No more GI Bill funding from Iraq to suicide bombers. Prosperous Arab states in that region will give Arabs far more choice where to live and suceed. The less Arabs you have in Israel demanding whatever, the less strain there will be on us, as the foolish mediator in that mess. Perhaps Arabs wouldn't care so much that a few Jews inhabit a bite-sized morsel of land in the region if they're kicking it with some big screen TVs and a bunch of 40s.

so, in essence, youre attacking one bloodthirsty war criminal to defend another one?

-It gives us a luanching point to Iran, Syria, and Saudi. They had better not get stupid or we'll get violent. Maybe we can also subvert the nutjobs in Iran, by nurturing the reform movement under the table. In all truth, we really should be doing this sort of thing anyway.

which again states that this is not going to be a liberation of the Iraqi people, but rather the occupation of their land by the US. Or will you leave when they ask you?

- After we remake Iraq into a democratic Capitalist country, the rest of the Muslim world will begin to ditch their fundamentalist nonsense and get on board because they want a piece of the action. Kill radical Islam

actually these democratic, liberal Muslim countries have a history of being attacked by Israel and turned into wastelands. what happens if the people of Iraq dont want to kick back with chili dogs and watch the big game? this action has done more to boost the rep of fundamentalist Islam than a million Bin Ladens.

The war came to us. We were attacked how many times? World trade towers twice, the USS cole, the embassy,....

there has been no evidence that links Iraq with al-Qaeda, which is why if you go googling you find stories dating from the immediate aftermath of 9/11 stating "first link between Iraq and al-Qaeda found" all the way to the "discovery" of the al-ansar base in Northern Iraq showing "first link between Iraq and al-Qaeda". There is no link, as anyone who knows the middle east knows.

Look at the smaller, freer nations of the world - many of them have decided to join our coalition and be our buddy - I think mostly out of moral conviction and a sense that we are doing the hard right thing.

they wouldnt have been bribed into it at all would they? hats off to the Turks for having the moral conviction to reject your money.

personally i am against the war. not because of the removal of Saddam Hussein, who is one of the vilest men in existence and deserves to face justice at the hands of the people he has oppressed through the years; nor because of I dont think the Iraqi people should be liberated, because it would be a salutary example for the rest of the world if the West stood up and said we will no longer accept oppression, torture and murder of people.

sadly though the war is being fought for the reasons Pendragon states. its a war which hides behind humanitarian values, its real purpose being to seize Iraq as a base in the middle east that can fund its own occupation. this imperialism was wrong when we did it and wrong now, except that we at least acted when the rest of the world was doing it. also the damage that this is doing to moderate opinion in the Arab world and the consequent boost to the fundamentalists cannot be ignored.

osama bin laden attacked the world trade centres to kick off a war between the West and Islam. you are playing right into his hands.

[Art Eatman]

agricola, it is well-known that our basic quality of life depends on relatively inexpensive energy. (So does yours, for that matter.) Thus it is in our national interest to have a better platform from which to project our strength into the middle east. (IMO, we have no national interest in the Balkans. Your neighbors in France and Germany do, due to the oil/gas pipeline routes through there. We went in there because of Clinton's oil buddies.)

This Iraq thing is not a war. It is but a battle in an ongoing war which began when Arabs began suicide attacks against Israel. Other skirmishes and battles include the bombing in Lebanon which killed 239 Marines, the Olympic Games murders, WTC I in 1993...You get the picture. It's a war of the barbarian mentality and primitive emotions against organized civilization. We're in Iraq because of Hussein's support of such as Al Quaida and Hamas and others of that ilk.

As far as our arming of Hussein in the past, we merely used the ancient Arabic philosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." At that time, our enemy and his was Iran. Same deal in Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden. The U.S. problem is that our State Department people don't realize that this condition is not permanent.

Art

[gburner]

Flush out your burnoose agricola, this war is needed and delivery is past due.
At any point along the continuum, Saddam could have lived up to the aspirations of the Iraqi people, to the commnity of nations and to his pledges made to earn a cease fire after the liberation of Kuwait. He refused to do so, spent a decade + testing the resolve of the UN,
threatening the west, supporting terrorists both materially and financially, splitting the alliance arrayed against him by his criminal dealings with France, Russia, Germany and China and daring anyone to do anything about it. Time for instant kharma.

There is no doubt that the US is the preeminent military power in the world.
That is not the point. The point is that Saddam rolled the dice betting all that we would not have the resolve to use that might in this cause. He chose unwisely. The fact that this fundamentalist group was operating freely inside Iraq, a police state of Stalinist proportions, is defacto proof that it was, at the very least, condoned by Saddam, if not wholeheatedly embraced.

Lastly, no matter how much you sympathize, rationalize or attempt to justify Islamofascism, you need to realize that it does not exist in a vacuum and that, if given the chance,
adherents to it would kill you just as quickly as any other westerner, with the possible exception of Peter Arnett.
Perhaps you'd have a different point of view if the aircraft had destroyed Parliament, Buckingham Palace or #10 Downing. WAKE UP

[dance varmint]

Did anyone notice that Glock Glockler was sarcastically supporting the war (his/her first reason was a troll giveaway) and agricola went off on those arguments?

[agricola]

gburner,

Perhaps you'd have a different point of view if the aircraft had destroyed Parliament, Buckingham Palace or #10 Downing. WAKE UP

you forget that this country has been attacked by terrorists for the past thirty years as a result of its holding territory. three thousand people lie as dead as those in the WTC and Pentagon attacks. As a result we have a keen awareness of terrorists and what they represent (of course, the fact that these terrorists were supported by people of your country, like some Saudis support al-Qaeda, is a separate but relevant point).

This Iraq thing is not a war. It is but a battle in an ongoing war which began when Arabs began suicide attacks against Israel.

from the middle east perspective the war began when the state of Israel was founded, and the current wave of suicide attacks date from the start of the second Intifada, directly and deliberately caused by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

The fact that this fundamentalist group was operating freely inside Iraq, a police state of Stalinist proportions, is defacto proof that it was, at the very least, condoned by Saddam, if not wholeheatedly embraced.

the group operated inside the Kurdish controlled part of Iraq, and the latest evidence specifically stated that there was no link with Iraq, but plenty with Iran. besides, would the US have supported an Iraqi incursion into the Kurdish controlled territory with the aim of attacking al-ansar? i think we all know the answer to that.

This Iraq thing is not a war. It is but a battle in an ongoing war which began when Arabs began suicide attacks against Israel. Other skirmishes and battles include the bombing in Lebanon which killed 239 Marines, the Olympic Games murders, WTC I in 1993...You get the picture. It's a war of the barbarian mentality and primitive emotions against organized civilization

to that list you can add Sabra and Shatila, the IranAir shooting down, Halabja (which of course was carried out when Saddam was the west's friend, and initially covered up by the US) and all the little "accidents" that the IDF and (now the US in Iraq) get up to in the Occupied Territories. Besides, Iraq is by far the most secular regime in the middle east, and thus hated by any Islamic fundamentalist. Also, aggressors have always tried to denigrate and dehumanize their opponents - i mean even the word "barbarian" is proof of that. Islamic civilization is the equal of that in the West. Have none of you been to Granada?

Lastly, no matter how much you sympathize, rationalize or attempt to justify Islamofascism, you need to realize that it does not exist in a vacuum and that, if given the chance adherents to it would kill you just as quickly as any other westerner, with the possible exception of Peter Arnett.

true, however nothing that the Coalition is doing inside Iraq is going to lessen the risk of further terrorist attacks (in fact quite the opposite). Islamic fundamentalism exists largely because of the fact that, in most Muslim countries, political discussion and activity is limited by the regime (which are and remain supported by the West - SA itself, Bahrain, Qatar and Pakistan being the most notable examples) in question, so the only oppurtunity for any kind of protest takes place in the mosque, thus giving it its religious air. These people look at the blatant injustice and hypocrisy in their lives and their part of the world and make the asssumption that it is a battle of good between evil, they are good and you and their regimes are evil. Islam itself is not the problem - look at how well societies have integrated with it - but the attitude and behaviour of the West is.

[Braz]

"deliberately caused by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount."

Why can't AS visit the Temple? See the problem?

SH has stashed away billions in oil money as his people starve. His palaces and refusal to comply with the UN has brought this hell on his people. This is easy to understand, isn't it?

He hates Israel and the US. He has billions to fund WMD, and has shown the will to use them on his own people. Why would you want to wait until someone parks a nuke or bio weapons in NYC?

Imo, this conflict is about radical Islamic criminals, who live in the 16th century, and their wish to dominate other cultures. Look around the world at all the destruction they are commiting.

They started it, we'll finish it. When an WMD attack happens in the US, the result will be more terrible than you can imagine.

[gburner]

Agricola,

The people who were killed for your country holding territory were killed as a result of the English attempting to impose the protestant minority will on the catholic majority, backed by the might of jack booted thugs. (Britannia's huns with their long range guns sailed in thru the foggy dew.). And was it not Winston Churchill who ordered the aerial bombardment of Ireland. The only way that your analogy is even remotely accurate is to compare this to Saddam's
Sunni Baathist thugs intimidating, terrorizing and murdering the Shia majority.

It was your bloody country and their machinations in the mid 1900's which created the environment for Saddam to come to power. Holier than thou rings kinda hollow in that context.

We do not seek riches, nor land, but the elimination of groups who would murder us in our beds, the termination of governments that support same, the liberation of a subjugated and terrorized people, and the opportunity for peaceful coexistence.

[agricola]

gburner,

well its nice to know that such blatant hypocrisy can float to the surface so quickly when summoned:

The people who were killed for your country holding territory were killed as a result of the English attempting to impose the protestant minority will on the catholic majority, backed by the might of jack booted thugs.

are these the people in Omagh? or the two children in Warrington? the WPC blown up outside Harrods? the men taken off a bus and shot in the back of the head at Kingsmill? all the people on both sides disturbed from their beds by paramilitaries and shot before their children, because of what they believe or who they happen to work for? or Bloody Sunday?

all terrorists are vermin; the problem is you seem so able to justify the actions of them, and yet reserve the right to destroy people who you think are connected with other terrorists. IMHO if we are bombing Iraq cos of that then the next target of the Coalition should be anyone that supported NORAID.

[Delmar]

IMO-the reason we are in Iraq right now is not because of oil, nor a secure base in the middle east. We have that with Kuwait as it is and have been able to stage out of Diego Garcia for some time. Why this North Korea arguement keeps coming back like a bad pick up line is beyond me. They did not start their trouble making until GW called them what they are. Too bad-if the shoe fits, wear it.
The escalation of terrorism has gone way too far as it is, and if we sit back and only launch the occasional cruise missile at the wrong targets, the terrorists are just going to have more time to get stronger and better organized.
What we should have done 5/10/50 years ago is a moot point-we're here, its now, and the bad guys have been put on notice by an oil rich red-neck who doesn't like having his turf attacked that he is going to use his power as CinC to chase them down and kill them.
Pointing fingers as to who did or didn't do whatever is not going to take the problem away. The only thing these criminals understand is force of arms. To parphrase Sherman-war is the remedy they seek, and I say, give them all they want.
I could care less if they like us-they should be pounded into the sand until it will be another couple of hundred years before they try this stunt again.
We don't want to take over your oil fields-we want you to use it to build up your own country.
We don't want to exterminate your religion-we have many to choose from here, should an individual be so inclined.
Liberation of Iraq is a side benefit-we want to kill every terrorist we find.
The world and the UN made a big mistake by letting people like Pol Pot and others like him do what they did without doing something about it. Thats why we have the arguements we see and hear from those who say its not our business. The terrorists made it our business, and business is good.

[M1911]

Ah, the old canard about the arming of Iraq. First, as you know agricola, the US sold relatively few armaments to Iraq. In dollar terms, we were at least a couple orders of magnitude behind France and the USSR. The Iraqies tanks? T-55, T62, T72, all from the USSR. Their APCs? From the USSR. Their small arms? AKMs (nee AK47s), RPGS, and RPKs from the Soviet Bloc. Their SAMs? From the USSR. Their aircraft? Mirages from France, Migs from the USSR.

Suppose you don't believe that. Suppose you believe (contrary to all reports) that the US really was one of the major suppliers of arms to Iraq. Well, if Saddam was our creation, doesn't that make it even more of a moral imperative that we take him out and clean up the mess that we made?

[Khornet]

keep your hands where I can see 'em....back away from the table. I'll remove the paper, and in a few hours you'll be recovering.

Next, read a few other things, like the history of Israel. Your blind spot is showing, and it discredits the rest of your case.

Oh, the Temple Mount thing--a setup, with the intifada planned well in advance of Sharon's visit. To a Jewish holy place. By a jew. How heinous.

You learn stuff like that when you broaden your reading.

[agricola]

khornet,

Sharon always has aimed to present himself as the man who can keep Israel safe, protected from hostile arabs and palestinians at home who would destroy it; the fact is that at that time the Israel-Palestinian issue had never looked closer to some form of peace, and that everything has done since then has been to maintain the current status quo, without which Israelis would realise that the economy is in a mess and his handling of the country has been a total and utter disaster. he had to create a security problem so that he could come in and "deal with it", which is what happened.

As for his visit to the Temple Mount, Palestinians (indeed many Arabs) view him as you view Osama. What would happen if the US government allowed Osama to walk around NYC? Sharon is not a stupid man and he must have understood the effect his visit would bring, indeed thats probably why he went there in the first place. Countless other Jews visited the Temple Mount without it kicking off after all.

M1911,

yes, but the fact is that both the US and UK did arm him and did provide material assistance during the Iran-Iraq war, and had he not invaded Kuwait we probably would still be doing so.

delmar,

you may not be at Diego Garcia for much longer, judging by the latest decision of the High Court.

[gburner]

I see no hypocracy here....however, your posts, agricola, have the stench of appeasement which is nectar to the tyrant and ambrosia to the despot.

Being lectured to about the injustice of empire by a Brit is rather like listening to a catholic priest preach against pedophelia.

[Glock Glockler]

dance varmint,

For starters, my support for this war is not sarcastic but genuine, your interpretation as such means that I have poorly conveyed my sentiments, and for that I am sorry. I actually half wish I was there right now.

I also think you should do a search of my posts and get an idea of what I'm about before you start labeling me as a "troll", but then again I really don't know what you consider to be a troll.

Our country is dependant on energy, and we are not yet free of fossil fuels as a means of it. Until we transition over to alternative means of fuel, we are vulnerable to those who would like nothing more than to see us dead, and I cannot allow that. If it takes invading Iraq to insure my nation's security, so be it.

I suggest you use your words a bit more carefully

[Shalako]

Since we've done logic, how about something abstract:

America is a big bullmastiff on a chain. The chain is the self-implemented guilt of America’s success. People used to fear and respect that big dog until they got used to it being on the chain. Now they laugh at it and tease it. They poke sticks at it and run and laugh and hide behind its short length of chain. They revile the dog and all of its power and feel comfortable throwing rocks at it because of the chain. The chain is the pacifists bent on submission, the folks that say fighting back is wrong, and those that would sabotage our success in lieu of anyone else. The chain balances out the overwhelming power encompassed by the dog. The chain is supposed to make people love the dog and not fear it. A more idealized view of humanity there could not be. Just see for yourself how the neighbors have treated the dog during its confinement on the chain. Imagine the surprise when they showed up to harass the dog and found the chain gone. They made their choices when they thought the chain would always be there to protect them. They chose not to befriend the dog. The chain was a tool to let the neighborhood show their true colors. Now they are dinner and the chain is for sale.

Or something like that...

[Hkmp5sd]

Sharon always has aimed to present himself as the man who can keep Israel safe, protected from hostile arabs and palestinians at home who would destroy it; the fact is that at that time the Israel-Palestinian issue had never looked closer to some form of peace, and that everything has done since then has been to maintain the current status quo, without which Israelis would realise that the economy is in a mess and his handling of the country has been a total and utter disaster. he had to create a security problem so that he could come in and "deal with it", which is what happened.

As for his visit to the Temple Mount, Palestinians (indeed many Arabs) view him as you view Osama. What would happen if the US government allowed Osama to walk around NYC? Sharon is not a stupid man and he must have understood the effect his visit would bring, indeed thats probably why he went there in the first place. Countless other Jews visited the Temple Mount without it kicking off after all.


The REAL story:

Ariel Sharon's famous visit to the Temple Mount on September 28,2000, was not the beginning of the Intifadah al--Aqsa, notwithstanding all the political recriminations and media assertions to the contrary.

...by the time he set foot on the Temple Mount, the fighting had already been going on for almost a week. Furthermore, the Intafadah al-Aqsa (the al-Aqsa Uprising), as it was initially called, or subsequently the Intifadah al-Istiqsal (the Uprising for Independence), was but one component of the strategic dynamics throughout the Muslim/Arab world. In the summer and fall of 2000, Arafat saw a golden opportunity to instigate the regional war everybody was yearning for but afraid to launch-the
war that would allow the Arab world not only to destroy Israel but also to rid itself of the stifling US-led Westernization drive.

...Enter Ariel Sharon. Although his positions and opinions are objectionable to some, he is also an Israeli Jew and, as such, entitled to the full scope of rights to be guaranteed by Arafat and his negotiators. In mid-September, Sharon sought to put the proposed system to the test.

...Barak ordered GSS Chief Ami Ayalon to approach Jibril Rajub with a special request to facilitate a smooth and friendly visit. Rajub promised it would be smooth as long as Sharon refrained from entering any of the mosques or praying publicly. Ayalon agreed that Sharon's visit would be smooth and friendly.

...Barak personally approached Arafat and once again got assurances that Sharon's visit would be smooth as long as he did not attempt to enter the Holy Mosques.

In fact, Rajub's people and Sheikh Ikrama Sabri's young mob, the Shabab, were preparing for Sharon's visit by collecting large quantities of stones, bottles and metal rods.


"The High Cost of Peace" by Yossef Bodansky

[M1911]

yes, but the fact is that both the US and UK did arm him and did provide material assistance during the Iran-Iraq war, and had he not invaded Kuwait we probably would still be doing so. We provided Iraq with minimal assistance during the Iran-Iraq war, on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Our assistance at the time was quite limited -- we gave Iraq some intelligence -- and Iraq lost that war.

Your assertion that we would still be doing so is your opinion and nothing more.