In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

What if Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, head of Iraq’s WMD programs, not defected in August of 1995? UN WMD inspectors were surprised by what they learned from him: “Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents and deployed biological weapons for combat use.” The admission was thanks to our luck in the defection; not in the luck of inspectors.

Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Saddam Hussein– an evil, ugly twisted US puppet we kept him in a box for a dozen years; he was no threat to us or his neighbors.

As Mata points out, part of the danger is in his willingness to work with and carry out common interests through Islamic terrorists.

In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

Do you really think gambling on this sort of cat-and-mouse game, we’d indefinitely come out the winners? Out of that which we now know:

In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq’s biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

“We did not reveal all that we have,” he says. “Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct.”

There’s more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq’s plasma uranium program ? something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.

This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

“What was most disturbing,” said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, “was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq’s WMD programs).”

Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using “proxies” in a terror attack.

…there’s a lot we don’t know. Many documents and records were destroyed during Invasion.

stayed with containment, instead of coopting what the Brits endured, how the Iraqis have suffered,

Were we not blamed for 500,000 Iraqi children who suffered and died under the policy of “containment”? While Saddam built palaces for himself in every city and his regime’s coffers filled with “food-for-oil” farce, his people suffered….and we were blamed and held responsible for it.

Damned if we did…damned if we did not.

Mata brings up “Food-for-Oil”. How was that working out? Any UN and French officials being bribed? Working with Saddam behind the scenes to eventually have sanctions lifted?

If we continued on with the status quo of “containment”, knowing the possibility of his allying with Islamic terrorists to use as proxies, where might we be today? Would sanctions still be in place? And what did the Duelfer Report warn us of, should those sanctions have ended?

Now it’s all about Iran. One should never forget that Iran is now what it is because of our invasion. We emboldened and strengthened them; we did that while we weakened ourself, over staining our forces, resources, alliances.

Why not go further back in time to Carter’s Administration? The Shia half of the rise in Islamic militancy can be traced back to Carter’s blunders.

Had we not removed Saddam, would the world be in a better place today? Cancer treatment is not without going through a period of pain…especially if not detected and treated early on. How much longer should we have allowed Saddam and his sons to metastasize?

One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive; it’s the will-to-life that precedes the Will-to-power on a social scale. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure “Iran will be”, as Hillary so blunted put it, “obliterated.”

But how real is the “Ahmadinejad belief” in the 12th Imam theology? Given that- given the willingness of Islamic Holy Warriors to martyr themselves to serve Allah- can religious fanatics in control of Iran be trusted not to behave…suicidially if it brings about “God’s plans” and ushers in a whole new era of a super caliphate?

How many Americans do you have to kill to make it a terroist act???? 3 according to the FBI….
So anymore than that and it’s a terrorist act…..
If it was your mom or dad or brother or sister …. then how many does it take?

I was in the military draw down during the clintoon administration… I know the facts I was there…
All of you stupid libs like to point you grubby little fingers…. but we (the United States,,, look it up) were perceived as weak because of clintoon much like carter….. and so we were hit…

You stupid f#$ks have no concept of what it takes to make this country safe for all you idiots to go about your daily lives safely ……
You whine and cry about this and that….. but you’ve never given anything… I have, my friends have and you should be grateful to them… not me.. them…

If our opponents percieve us weak they will attack… as soon as any one of these terrrorists have a nuke they will use it….
God help you if it’s in your town….

You can go suck off Barry and “feel” good about yourself but at the end of the day you will still be a POS..

You might have to get one of the other FA’ers here to play with you. One blessed with more patience for gutteral debate.

To be consistent, however, the Right will need to blame Bush for anything that might happen during a hypothetical Obama presidency, as Clinton has been the whipping boy for everything bad that happened on Bush’s watch, even years after Clinton left office.

So why don’t you ask yourself your own questions

Well, because I’m not the one blathering on about how this or that Left-wing idea is going to cause the next 911, and I’m not the one pretending–as you are–that I have all the answers to the questions.

Please, General Einstein, shower us with your wisdom. Maybe a President McCain will appoint you to the Joint Chiefs.

With fine, upstanding citizenry advocating trading surrender for peace - like yourself - being the country’s “majority” (so you tell us…), it’s unlikely this nation will engage in preemptive protection while under your choice of POTUS.

However, the tea parties of talk will abound. Put the int’l caterers on alert…

And while no one can guarantee we will never be attacked, returning to the vunerable state we were Sept 10th is dangerous retrograde. Disengaging battle with the jihad movement in order to have a friendly chat with persuasion is a suicide pact.

So why don’t you ask yourself your own questions… then get back to someone who may give a damn.

We will sit back and wait for another 911

To make the discussion meaningful, it would be helpful if you were to define your terms. For an attack to qualify as “another 911,” it have to have a certain death toll? Does the target need to be of a minimum size? Or does any terrorist attack on American soil count as “another 911″?

Tell us, General Einstein, what is your recipe for guaranteeing that we will never be attacked by terrorists again?

Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Stalin and Mao –both unbalanced and evil dictators with nuclear weapons; both formidable tyrants with wicked dreams of world domination.

Yet they were a state enemy… not a rogue group of cockroaches running from friendly territory to friendly territory. Nor were they spread out across such a wide region as the Middle East and Africa as the global Islamic jihad movement. Add Indonesia etal as well.

Different enemy requires different tactics.

Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Saddam Hussein– an evil, ugly twisted US puppet we kept him in a box for a dozen years;

Really? IAEA was booted out in 1998. When they were there, they were led around like monkeys on a lease to prepared locations. I have to wonder how he obtained those Samoud missiles they rapidly discarded in the Netherlands junk yard… and the rest of the various proscribed stuff we can’t find and isn’t accounted for? And the Oil for Food scandal helping him to thwart sanctions is not of our imagination. So I question your definition of “containment”, Doug.

This Americans now learned the hard way. Now they understand preemptivity as fool’s gold; they are more patient, more skeptical, more sober. It’s the pre-emptive contingent hawks that still don’t grasp these basic points.

Yes, Doug. The nation is in that frame of mind. We will sit back and wait for another 911.

Yet if that “preemptive” strike on Iraq takes hold, and AQ enjoying less support because of them proving to the world they are un Islamic animals by their warfare on the Iraq battlefield, we may have done enough shift in their nests to hold it off for awhile. We can only hope it’s for generations and that the new Muslim youth are not raised on jihad and hate.

We aren’t pussies.

Agreed wholeheartedly… for now. I’ll hope that remains the case thru future POTUS terms. It is not a given anymore.

Just as in 2002 there was a push on us to paint those who favor containment of unfriendly regimes as somehow “pussies”, times haven’t changed all that much for the ‘pushers’ of war, we’re still seen as lazy mother hens. But if one looks past the label…

Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Stalin and Mao –both unbalanced and evil dictators with nuclear weapons; both formidable tyrants with wicked dreams of world domination. Yet we managed to preserve our security without resorting preemptive war.

Sometimes it’s too easy to forget containment worked against Saddam Hussein– an evil, ugly twisted US puppet we kept him in a box for a dozen years; he was no threat to us or his neighbors. In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

And sometimes it’s too hard to remember, due to the pain, that if we had understood the complexities of Iraq, stayed with containment, instead of coopting what the Brits endured, how the Iraqis have suffered, came to oppose our occupation, we then might have not have done the invasion.

But that’s just history.

Now it’s all about Iran. One should never forget that Iran is now what it is because of our invasion. We emboldened and strengthened them; we did that while we weakened ourself, over staining our forces, resources, alliances.

So now do we want another preemptive war? Are the Iranians are too crazy to be deterred from using nukes against Israel or giving them to terrorist groups to use against us?

One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive; it’s the will-to-life that precedes the Will-to-power on a social scale. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure “Iran will be”, as Hillary so blunted put it, “obliterated.”

We aren’t pussies.

Preemptive hawks like to brush us aside for their various reasons, they never think we are “getting it;” unless we summon their ‘free “military” spirits’ that can cause citadels to fall and new empires to reign out of their destructive creativity, then we are ‘old-school’. Thus, anyone that doesn’t accept their post 911 mindset they regard as a fool.

However, preemptivity is a dangerous path to travel –philosophically, historically and politically. We’ve now seen how it can go wrong. I don’t care how preemptivists may perceive the facts of this; they actually don’t matter; who matters is everybody else! …perception and perspective rule here! Politics is the art of perception; war is the height of political engagement; thus, war is perception. If you can’t manage the media wheel, you have lost the war, your enemy has gained advantage and it is just time and resources before you lose.

This happened to Europe and now it’s happening to Americans; the public turned against a war that the media –rightly or wrongly– controlled and reflected back to us our discontent and opposition; it solidified our sentiment against the war and the administration… and congress when it would not stop the war, when it was elected to do so.

These Americans have learned the hard way. Now they understand preemptivity as fool’s gold; they are more patient, more skeptical, more sober. It’s the pre-emptive contingent hawks that still don’t grasp these basic points.

One, three, five years from now, Iraq will lean closer and closer to Iran; they will because they have a common history, religion, culture, …. As that happens, we will have “lost”. Not because we didn’t bomb Iran, or, win with the surge, or any other military action. We will have lost because the public/political/polis turned against us as we ‘perceived’ it in the media mirror.

That is why preemptivity is risky business and containment a wiser option.

My gun’s always loaded, and I’m really quite patient before pulling the trigger, so not guilty. But if it’s my post that has you befuddled, just look at the two questions.

You can’t honestly believe that “containment” as applied to Zarqawi and thug/comrades alone was either going to be internationally sanctioned, OR a productive progress in battling jihad elements present in Iraq and elsewhere.

Or do you??

And nope… while we see differently on most aspects, I don’t think you’re a media conformer. Thus my surprise at your “containment” comment.

I have no idea what you are accusing me of, but if it happens to be a media conformist, then you are the first to ever brand me of that; and might i say, falsely, too.

The Japanese attacked us in 1941,,, so we went after them all over the Pacific…

What’s the freaking problem?????

Christ,,, good men and women volunteer to defend this great country everyday,,
Some give all, and some will live with injuries the rest of their lives.

Screw you whiny ass liberals and your BDS… almost everyone of your socialist leaders voted for the war….
Most didn’t even read the information they were given but did it out of the selfish notion that it would get them votes and keep their commie asses in office.
Then,,,,, they flip flop..

I’m sick of Rinos and liberal/socialists… quit trying to bring this Republic in to the communist ideal.

In essence, containment was overturned by an interest, for whatever reasons, to invade and Zarqawi was needed to establish this goal.

Doug, you disappoint me, guy. Zarqawi had been operating bio/chem training camps in Iraq since 1998 (from my reading in early 2003). And I have little doubt that intel… what little we had at our fingertips after the 90s bloodbath of HUMINT … would have also been available to Teflon Bill and Not-So-Albright of his existence and camps there.

Are you suggesting that:

1: the US would have had no problems bombing just Zarqawi’s facilities post 911 with the int’l world?

2: that the destruction of his training camps would have stopped Saddam’s association with Zawahiri (a much bigger and more powerful fish…) and other militant groups sympathetic and willing to work one on one with AQ?

If you buy this as an argument, you are the fool the media took you for, and your thought processes disappoint me greatly.

The reason’s GWB went in are for the reasons we see in the Iraqi Study Perspectives recently released. They, in fact, confirm the int’l intel we used as the foundation - and were supplied to he and Congress (thus their approval of AUMF) and not to the public. Only now are you getting a clue…. except you’re not getting a clue!

The simplistic American needs a simple answer… oh, it’s Zarqawi or WMD… it’s because Saddam wears a silly beret. Anything to occupy them for 2 seconds so they can return to Entertainment Tonight and American Idol. Load ‘em up with real facts, and their eyes glaze over…. just as aptly demonstrated now by oh so many.

But this from you? I gave you more credit, I guess.