U.S Withdrawal from Iraq

[Roughrider1]

As you may know, the U.S. is pulling out of Iraq. It can be argued that America has been there long enough, but, on the other hand, a decreased U.S. presence could possibly foster increased terrorist activity.

This article voices some of those concerns. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45451405/ns/
world_news-christian_science_monitor/#.T tJx01ZczCY

What do you think?

[All-American-Badass]

I think we've done everything there we could do, it has stabilized substantially over the past several years I think Iraq is competent enough to deal with their own problems now.

[Camarohusky]

Finally. 8 years too late if you ask me.

Oh, and on the terrorist point, we created the breeding ground by being there.

[adrshepard]

At 11/27/11 12:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Finally. 8 years too late if you ask me.

Yeah, fuck those Iraqis. As soon as we determined there weren't any WMDs, we should have just pulled out and let the anarchic slaughter commence. It's not like they're Americans or anything. We would have garnered great respect in the Muslim community then.

Oh, and on the terrorist point, we created the breeding ground by being there.

Yes of course, the famous homegrown Iraqi nationalist terrorists, who hate the US so much that they suicide bomb...Iraqi civilians and target...Shiite Muslims and launch international terrorist attacks in...Spain, England, and Indonesia.

I suppose you'll say next that the Sunni Awakening didn't happen.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

You can't preempt terrorism, you will always have terrorism where you have unenlightened, fundamentalist, unwesternized Islam. Our best bet lies in our defense rather than offense. It is possible to keep ourselves safe from these threats instead of;

A. Wasting young blood and precious treasure with a return-fire only policy for our military (insulting to them)
B. Trying to appease, grovel and otherwise lick the boots of the people who put on a mask of diplomacy one minute, and when our back is turned, look for a way to plant a dagger in it.

So we can either impose a military state on 1billion and climbing people, or simply build better walls (so to speak) I mean, it worked for Troy, didn't it?

[Arrow101]

The withdrawal of troops from Iraq is one of events I'm up in the air over. On the one hand i'm happy to see the troops home. But on the other would hate to see our investment in Iraq, with so much treasure spent and many troops lost in combat, lost to Iranian influence. I suspect that the timing of the troops withdrawal coincides with the coming election. Will it help or does it even matter, with the Presidents re-election efforts or in Iraqs stability? I guess time will help. Recall Charles Krauthammer had a nice article about the politics of Iraqi troop withdrawal.

"Who Lost Iraq? He Who Was Handed Victory"

http://news.investors.com/Article/590436 /201111031725/Who-Lost-Iraq-He-Who-Was-H anded-Victory.htm

I think one of the reasons why we are invested in the middle east is also due to the large oil reserves found there. Feel it would help our nations security if we increased our oil usage from domestic sources. It would be nice if the oil pipeline from Canada to the US was built. Believe it would be troubling if the Canadians decided to sell to China instead of us. Liked this article from Walter Russell Mead about the problem.

"China Open to Canadian Oil"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/w rm/2011/11/25/china-open-to-canadian-oil /

"This is what bad energy policy looks like: as the US dithers over Canadian tar sands oil, China is ready to buy. Access to reliable oil from a friendly neighboring country like Canada is one of America's greatest geopolitical blessings. Throwing this away would be the height of folly; those seem to be heights we are eager to scale.
Perhaps America's profoundly dysfunctional and confused green movement will come to its senses as the reality that the US cannot stop Canadian tar sands development sinks in. The question is not whether this oil will be produced; the question is whether the US will get direct benefits from it like geopolitical security and refining jobs. It is not only in America's interest to have this oil ourselves; it is in our interest for China to have to scramble for oil in sketchy, unstable places while US crude comes from safe and convenient ones.
The greens, like the clueless disarmament and peace advocates in the 1920s and 1930s who unwittingly made it possible for Hitler and Stalin to murder tens of millions of people, are making the 21st century a more dangerous place. Those who care about world peace and the prosperity of the American middle class need to take a stand."

[AKACCMIOF]

Its interesting how this pans out, because the Iraqi common folk have demonstrated that they really care about democracy (over 60% turnout with poll-station bombing). We will see this dedication tested, and hopefully we'll see Iraq recover and blossom.

Hopefully.

[Scarface]

At 11/27/11 12:37 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I think we've done everything there we could do, it has stabilized substantially over the past several years I think Iraq is competent enough to deal with their own problems now.

This. It seems like we can't do much else there but piss everyone off.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/27/11 12:37 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I think we've done everything there we could do, it has stabilized substantially over the past several years I think Iraq is competent enough to deal with their own problems now.

I agree. Although I'm not sure if Iraq is, I sure HOPE so though. But yeah, I think we've done all we can, and now that it's them asking us to go, I think we really don't have a choice. The message was always that we were there to topple the regime, dismantle WMD's, and help Iraq build itself a stable government. With that government now asking us to leave, we really can't say no and be true to the idea that we were there to help Iraq.

[Camarohusky]

At 11/27/11 01:10 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yeah, fuck those Iraqis. As soon as we determined there weren't any WMDs, we should have just pulled out and let the anarchic slaughter commence. It's not like they're Americans or anything. We would have garnered great respect in the Muslim community then.

Really? We had no evidence that Saddam posed a threat to anyone but Israel.

Yes of course, the famous homegrown Iraqi nationalist terrorists, who hate the US so much that they suicide bomb...Iraqi civilians and target...Shiite Muslims and launch international terrorist attacks in...Spain, England, and Indonesia.

Simple equation. Prior to our invasion there was no terrorism. After our invasion terrorism was rampant.

I suppose you'll say next that the Sunni Awakening didn't happen.

I went from point A to point B. How the hell did you make it all the way to Q?

[Ranger2]

At 11/27/11 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Really? We had no evidence that Saddam posed a threat to anyone but Israel.

UN Resolution 1441 stated that the Iraq government had not proven that they had destroyed their WMDs. The head of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, Russian, American, and British intelligence all confirmed that he had WMDs. Saddam admitted after his capture that he thought Bush was bluffing, and exaggerated his claims of WMDs as to not appear weak against Iran.

Yes of course, the famous homegrown Iraqi nationalist terrorists, who hate the US so much that they suicide bomb...Iraqi civilians and target...Shiite Muslims and launch international terrorist attacks in...Spain, England, and Indonesia.

Simple equation. Prior to our invasion there was no terrorism. After our invasion terrorism was rampant.

Didn't you just say that Saddam Hussein was a danger to Israel? Iraqi Army troops weren't marching in; Saddam supplied Palestinian suicide bombers. And while Saddam may not supplied or aided Al Qaeda directly, there were some Al Qaeda operatives in Ba'athist Iraq. Not enough to say "Saddam loves Bin Laden" but still.

Saddam was a terrorist ruler.

[WallofYawn]

People say it was about oil, but we all know it was mostly some dumb ass excuse for Bush Jr. to finish what his father started. Bush's goal from the beginning was to go after Saddam, at any cost.

In reality, yes, these people are evil, mass murdering dictators, but the USA is not some guardian angel to the rest of the world. It is not our place to decide, or enforce, what other countries should do. The UN can put sanctions, embargos, etc. on them, but the US invasion of Iraq, was such a terrible idea.

Now that we've spent billions of dollars over there for the past 8 years, we're finally done shilling out dough like it's pieces of candy. Now we have a bigger issue:

200 something thousand soldiers returning from duty in Iraq with NO jobs, and not enough benefits. That's the biggest issue. Either keep them there and increase our debt, or bring them home, and have them jobless and broke. The smarter choice would have never gone to that country in the first place, but now we have to live with the consequences I guess.

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/28/11 10:10 PM, Ranger2 wrote: UN Resolution 1441 stated that the Iraq government had not proven that they had destroyed their WMDs.

Ok.

The head of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, Russian, American, and British intelligence all confirmed that he had WMDs.

I've just finished a book on the war planning that went into Iraq (Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward) and Blix over and over said they were not finding WMD in their inspections. They however admitted they may not be seeing everything. Certainly there was a feeling Blix and company were not doing the job correctly. The CIA had sources, well placed, within Iraq...but yet were still forced to admit they fucked up and there were no WMD to find. The other intelligence services I'm not as sure on...can you source those claims please? Because I was left from my reading with a feeling that America drove this war, the allies that did go, were willing to go, but maybe more from the shared belief Saddam was a threat currently, or would be a threat down the road.

Saddam admitted after his capture that he thought Bush was bluffing, and exaggerated his claims of WMDs as to not appear weak against Iran.

Ok, so again, it begs the question how and why the various intelligence services who continued to pound the idea that WMD was present, dangerous, and a reason for war (George Tenet called the case a "slam dunk") could have gotten their information so completely and catastrophically wrong.

Didn't you just say that Saddam Hussein was a danger to Israel?

What does that have to do with terrorism?

Iraqi Army troops weren't marching in;

But they could have had Saddam ordered it, same with Iran.

Saddam supplied Palestinian suicide bombers.

Source?

And while Saddam may not supplied or aided Al Qaeda directly, there were some Al Qaeda operatives in Ba'athist Iraq.

Source? Names?

Not enough to say "Saddam loves Bin Laden" but still.

But still, sources, names? You tend to exaggerate and get stuff wrong so often (terrorism is WW3! Being the most recent example of both faults colliding) that I really need to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

Saddam was a terrorist ruler.

[Warforger]

At 11/28/11 10:10 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 11/27/11 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Really? We had no evidence that Saddam posed a threat to anyone but Israel.

UN Resolution 1441 stated that the Iraq government had not proven that they had destroyed their WMDs. The head of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq, Russian, American, and British intelligence all confirmed that he had WMDs. Saddam admitted after his capture that he thought Bush was bluffing, and exaggerated his claims of WMDs as to not appear weak against Iran.

Erm yah, the WMD's though were scheduled to be destroyed anyway and weren't really usable, he did however keep the launchers for these weapons which would not make him weak. I still don't see how this justifies a war that has drained out budget, dented Social Security and contributed to an Economic crisis, that also hurt our relations in the Middle East with other nations in the process.

Didn't you just say that Saddam Hussein was a danger to Israel? Iraqi Army troops weren't marching in; Saddam supplied Palestinian suicide bombers. And while Saddam may not supplied or aided Al Qaeda directly, there were some Al Qaeda operatives in Ba'athist Iraq. Not enough to say "Saddam loves Bin Laden" but still.

He was however firing missiles at Israel.

Saddam was a terrorist ruler.

No more in anything less than the dictators the US supports, just look toward Central Asia, Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan has an obsession with torture and has discussed his favorite methods of torture, which was boiling people alive. Yah that's the kind of people the US just tries to make as happy as possible, yah Karimov fights Terrorists, or people he calls terrorists who in reality are just Islamic-oriented freedom fighters.

[animehater]

The withdrawal from Iraq forces us to look deeper into the crisis in Syria which is Iran's closest Arab ally and what many think Iraq may become. I think if Assad falls then maybe it will weaken Iran's influence enough to allow Iraq to act more independently of them than they currently do.

[Ranger2]

At 11/29/11 12:54 AM, Warforger wrote:

I still don't see how this justifies a war that has drained out budget, dented Social Security and contributed to an Economic crisis, that also hurt our relations in the Middle East with other nations in the process.

WWII destroyed Britain's cities, weakened its relationship with its colonies, and left its purse empty. Therefore Britain wasn't justified in fighting WWII. That's your logic right there.
I never said that we should have gone into Iraq. We were justified, but just because you're justified doesn't always mean you should. I would have been content with bombing Baghdad with cruise missiles and expanding Operation Southern and Northern Watch.

He was however firing missiles at Israel.

If someone was firing missiles into France, do you think Britain would be justified in invading? Friends help friends, right? That is the essential logic behind NATO going into Afghanistan. I support the invasion of Afghanistan completely. Not so much Iraq.

No more in anything less than the dictators the US supports, just look toward Central Asia, Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan has an obsession with torture and has discussed his favorite methods of torture, which was boiling people alive. Yah that's the kind of people the US just tries to make as happy as possible, yah Karimov fights Terrorists, or people he calls terrorists who in reality are just Islamic-oriented freedom fighters.

And what does Uzbekistan do for us that would warrant us helping it? And last I checked we condemned Karimov's election in 2000. You should check up the facts first.

[aviewaskewed]

Not willing to respond to my post Ranger? That's a little hurtful :)

[adrshepard]

At 11/28/11 11:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Saddam admitted after his capture that he thought Bush was bluffing, and exaggerated his claims of WMDs as to not appear weak against Iran.

Ok, so again, it begs the question how and why the various intelligence services who continued to pound the idea that WMD was present, dangerous, and a reason for war (George Tenet called the case a "slam dunk") could have gotten their information so completely and catastrophically wrong.

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf

Saddam supplied Palestinian suicide bombers.

Source?

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf

And while Saddam may not supplied or aided Al Qaeda directly, there were some Al Qaeda operatives in Ba'athist Iraq.

Source? Names?

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf

But still, sources, names?

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf
It's all there, look for the bolded U sections.

[Warforger]

At 11/29/11 01:01 PM, Ranger2 wrote: WWII destroyed Britain's cities, weakened its relationship with its colonies, and left its purse empty. Therefore Britain wasn't justified in fighting WWII. That's your logic right there.

No. WWII was for a clear goal (PROTECT YOUR OWN GODDAMN INDEPENDENCE), a unavoidable cause(YOU'RE BEING BOMBED TO DEATH) and all the benefits being already listed(INDEPENDENCE), what was that for Iraq? Overthrow Saddamn and after that crush the insurgency? We can leave at any moment and our presence doesn't seem to be ending the insurgency any time soon, and this whole "insurgency" is so large and divided dealing with it as though it were one organization is extremely difficult. For the West it doesn't make sense, for Iraq? It makes tons of sense to go at any length to stop it.

I never said that we should have gone into Iraq. We were justified, but just because you're justified doesn't always mean you should. I would have been content with bombing Baghdad with cruise missiles and expanding Operation Southern and Northern Watch.

"Justified" in the sense that Saddam had served his purpose a while ago and now he needed replacement.

He was however firing missiles at Israel.

If someone was firing missiles into France, do you think Britain would be justified in invading? Friends help friends, right? That is the essential logic behind NATO going into Afghanistan. I support the invasion of Afghanistan completely. Not so much Iraq.

..........What? I was just saying how Iraq was a military threat to Israel.......

And what does Uzbekistan do for us that would warrant us helping it? And last I checked we condemned Karimov's election in 2000. You should check up the facts first.

You mean other than launching our invasion of Afghanistan from there?

[bcdemon]

At 11/28/11 10:10 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The head of the UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq.....confirmed that he had WMDs.

Wow, really? Do you honestly "think" that?
Hans Blix stated in his March 19 2003 report to the UN that:
I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq, that no more time is available for our inspections and that armed action now seems imminent.

This was the entire reason for Bush and Blair to run off to the Azores (autonomous region) and sign a war pact.

[Ranger2]

At 11/29/11 07:07 PM, Warforger wrote:

No. WWII was for a clear goal (PROTECT YOUR OWN GODDAMN INDEPENDENCE), a unavoidable cause(YOU'RE BEING BOMBED TO DEATH) and all the benefits being already listed(INDEPENDENCE), what was that for Iraq?

You didn't mention any of those, you just said that the war in Iraq cost us a lot of money, therefore it wasn't justified. You didn't get into other reasons why, you just said "the war cost X, therefore we shouldn't have gone in."

"Justified" in the sense that Saddam had served his purpose a while ago and now he needed replacement.

No, justified in the sense that he was threatening an ally, flouting the UN, and supporting terrorism. Not to mention killing and brutalizing his own people.

[camobch0]

Well the problem is, we're still leaving 10,000+ security contractors, so we'll still have an army there. It'll just be a private army. We'll also have several hundred military personnel for *defending U.S. outposts* and several thousand CIA for other miscellaneous bullshit. And of course, the Iraqi military is basically under our thumb 100%.

So we still have absolute fascist control over their country, it's just secret.

[Flashchildren]

We've done more harm than good. Mission accomplished!

[aviewaskewed]

At 11/29/11 06:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf

3 things wrong with this on a cursory reading, and really, this should be coming from Ranger2, whom I asked to provide sources, not you. Don't bail out somebody who can't bail himself out. Let's get to what's wrong:

1. This is from the CIA, and it is clearly an ass covering move.

2. As it is coming on the heels of the agency in question, and reads like ass covering, I have to question the bias's involved.

3. Ranger stated multiple intelligence services came to the same conclusion, so I clearly asked for something to show how all these sources got their shit so completely wrong and went to war on a pretext that turned out to be false. This only address America, no one else.

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf

Again, I asked Ranger to source. I want HIM to prove he knows what he's talking about and not just speaking out of his ass. This is why I tried to refrain from butting into his debates with warforger (though I was sorely tempted). This also is more from the same people that botched the WMD situation, and even the table of contents uses assumptive words like "maybe". Saddam was notoriously good at keeping the CIA out, and making information scarce.

http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqrepor t2-textunder.pdf

See above and I'm just going to go ahead and not even bother with the last link because I'd just be yet again repeating myself.

[Ranger2]

At 11/30/11 11:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

3 things wrong with this on a cursory reading, and really, this should be coming from Ranger2, whom I asked to provide sources, not you. Don't bail out somebody who can't bail himself out. Let's get to what's wrong:

I think I'm being insulted here.

3. Ranger stated multiple intelligence services came to the same conclusion, so I clearly asked for something to show how all these sources got their shit so completely wrong and went to war on a pretext that turned out to be false. This only address America, no one else.

You want sources? Here's sources. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G EN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenEleme nt
This is the text of UN Resolution 1441, saying in the first few pages that Iraq had not been truthful about its disarmament and that they still possessed illegal weapons.

Again, I asked Ranger to source. I want HIM to prove he knows what he's talking about and not just speaking out of his ass. This is why I tried to refrain from butting into his debates with warforger (though I was sorely tempted). This also is more from the same people that botched the WMD situation, and even the table of contents uses assumptive words like "maybe". Saddam was notoriously good at keeping the CIA out, and making information scarce.

avieaskewed, I think you're missing my point. Here's my viewpoints:

-Invading Iraq was justified; however, we should not have because it was irresponsible to launch another invasion before we had cleaned up Afghanistan, and because Iraq wasn't as big a threat.

-Saddam did NOT have WMDs at the time. I'm not arguing that he did. He was, however, in violation of UN laws, did not fully prove that he had destroyed his WMDs, and deliberately misled the world because he thought Bush was bluffing and didn't want to seem weak against Iran.

[Iron-Hampster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vk K4

remember what this was about? we set a deadline, and we are now honoring that deadline.

oh wait, SHOE!

[adrshepard]

At 11/30/11 11:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: 3 things wrong with this on a cursory reading, and really, this should be coming from Ranger2, whom I asked to provide sources, not you. Don't bail out somebody who can't bail himself out. Let's get to what's wrong:

I don't see why that matters. Aren't you more concerned with the substance of what he's saying?

1. This is from the CIA, and it is clearly an ass covering move.

It's not from the CIA, it's from the Senate Intelligence Committee, made up of a bunch of senators.

3. Ranger stated multiple intelligence services came to the same conclusion, so I clearly asked for something to show how all these sources got their shit so completely wrong and went to war on a pretext that turned out to be false. This only address America, no one else.

Well, America is the big one, and it does mention in some places when foreign intelligence agencies contributed information.
I think there was an investigation in Britain called the Butler report or something. I

[HooglyBoogly]

It really doesn't matter if we pull out most troops from Iraq. All we're doing is relocating right down the road to Afghanistan.

I'm sure most of you have heard of the most recent NATO assaults in Pakistan. This time, it was against the same "government" we provide assistance to. They're keeping a strong presence in the area because of that, and Iran.

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/1/11 09:11 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I think I'm being insulted here.

Slightly. Since I figured you're silence on my post, but then immediately replying to somebody else suggested that you had no actual rebuttal, or way of defending your points and assertions.

This is the text of UN Resolution 1441, saying in the first few pages that Iraq had not been truthful about its disarmament and that they still possessed illegal weapons.

They had deactivated illegal weapons. Stuff that no longer worked or posed a threat. Weapons they could not use. The American assertion all along was that they either had the weapons (which in speeches by folks like Cheney was unambiguous in saying they had the weapons) or that they were very very close to having them. Also the main thrust of 1441 was to give the US pretext for invasion should inspections fail to turn up the weapons they were so damn sure were there. Also 1441 does NOT address what I said about the fact that we clearly know now that Saddam did NOT have weapons, and the supposed "slam dunk" of this case was not a slam dunk at all. That the American CIA operations in Iraq failed in it's intelligence gathering, asserting the evidence was there, but when we were in and investigating, we came back with the same conclusion the weapons inspectors the administration didn't trust did: No weapons.

avieaskewed, I think you're missing my point. Here's my viewpoints:

Perhaps. I'll go back and re-read your post just to be sure though.

-Invading Iraq was justified; however, we should not have because it was irresponsible to launch another invasion before we had cleaned up Afghanistan, and because Iraq wasn't as big a threat.

I agree the invasion was irresponsible, and poorly handled and planned for the after the military campaign. The military end was planned very well...but I think as much planning as went into that, is how little planning went into the after. As far as justified? Again, when you get in there and find out the entire reasoning and pretext used to launch it (a stated certainty that he was violating UN protocol and that inspectors were not finding the sure evidence that must exist) is totally absent? I think that pretty much obliterates the idea that you were justified.

-Saddam did NOT have WMDs at the time.

Nope.

I'm not arguing that he did.

You are however, erroneously saying that weapons inspectors said he did. Hans Blix (head of the weapons inspectors) clearly and repeatedly said that his inspectors weren't finding any.

He was, however, in violation of UN laws,

Who isn't?

did not fully prove that he had destroyed his WMDs,

But was at least making some effort to show he did not have them. The idea that he did was not coming from UN sources, it was coming from CIA operations embedded in Iraq and they're informant network.

and deliberately misled the world because he thought Bush was bluffing and didn't want to seem weak against Iran.

Which was wrong on his part, but understandable as to why he bluffed. Any country in his position would have. Nobody is going to go on the record and tell the world "yeah, we aren't really all that dangerous at the moment" especially if you're a globally hated scumbag like Saddam was. At that point all you have going for you is the idea that if somebody were to try and take you out is that it's going to end very badly for them.

Also you've skipped over proving he was a "terrorist leader" or showing anything for his terror connections. Perhaps it's in the source you linked that my computer is telling me cannot be read? :)

[Ranger2]

At 12/5/11 08:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Slightly. Since I figured you're silence on my post, but then immediately replying to somebody else suggested that you had no actual rebuttal, or way of defending your points and assertions.

If you're going to talk badly about me, or imply something negative, say it to me.

They had deactivated illegal weapons. Stuff that no longer worked or posed a threat. Weapons they could not use. The American assertion all along was that they either had the weapons (which in speeches by folks like Cheney was unambiguous in saying they had the weapons) or that they were very very close to having them. Also the main thrust of 1441 was to give the US pretext for invasion should inspections fail to turn up the weapons they were so damn sure were there. Also 1441 does NOT address what I said about the fact that we clearly know now that Saddam did NOT have weapons, and the supposed "slam dunk" of this case was not a slam dunk at all. That the American CIA operations in Iraq failed in it's intelligence gathering, asserting the evidence was there, but when we were in and investigating, we came back with the same conclusion the weapons inspectors the administration didn't trust did: No weapons.

Saddam Hussein also kicked out the weapons inspectors on multiple occasions. Why do that if you're completely clean?

I agree the invasion was irresponsible, and poorly handled and planned for the after the military campaign. The military end was planned very well...but I think as much planning as went into that, is how little planning went into the after. As far as justified? Again, when you get in there and find out the entire reasoning and pretext used to launch it (a stated certainty that he was violating UN protocol and that inspectors were not finding the sure evidence that must exist) is totally absent? I think that pretty much obliterates the idea that you were justified.

I think we have a different idea of what's justifiable and what's not. If someone is torturing his own people, flouting UN rules, paying terrorists (Palestinian suicide bombers) and firing on your aircraft in violation of the agreements after the Gulf War, then he deserves to be taken down.

You are however, erroneously saying that weapons inspectors said he did. Hans Blix (head of the weapons inspectors) clearly and repeatedly said that his inspectors weren't finding any.

He also noted that Saddam wasn't being honest and truthful about his programs, and that he was hiding weapons.

But was at least making some effort to show he did not have them. The idea that he did was not coming from UN sources, it was coming from CIA operations embedded in Iraq and they're informant network.

So the CIA is untrustworthy? The President doesn't have an iron fist control over the CIA. Ask anyone present during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Bay of Pigs.

Which was wrong on his part, but understandable as to why he bluffed. Any country in his position would have. Nobody is going to go on the record and tell the world "yeah, we aren't really all that dangerous at the moment" especially if you're a globally hated scumbag like Saddam was. At that point all you have going for you is the idea that if somebody were to try and take you out is that it's going to end very badly for them.

If you're rightly accused of stealing from the cookie jar, you're going to deny it, right? Doesn't make it right.

Also you've skipped over proving he was a "terrorist leader" or showing anything for his terror connections. Perhaps it's in the source you linked that my computer is telling me cannot be read? :)

Read this. Saddam Hussein pays families of suicide bombers for a job well done.