More purple-stained fingers.

 

So if this takes, and it looks like it might - does this validate Bush's invasion?  Granted the war was mismanaged and whatnot, but if the result is a functional democracy in Iraq, is that not a resounding victory in the eyes of history?  Sure, there will be shooting and bombing for some time, but that is true of many other fine democracies as well.

 

So - Bush:  visionary with poor management skills?

 

 

Besides - regardless of WMDs and other excuses - does anybody doubt W's determination to spread democracy?  He pretty much made that a cornerstone of his administration.

 

Not really.

 

Democracy in Iraq was always the goal, and the means was always invasion.  WMDs were (at best) merely the trigger, the last straw.

 

Everybody knew that Saddam was a baddie.

 

The absurdity of an extreme position does not invalidate the legitimacy of a moderate version of that same position.  All policies are absurd if taken to the extreme.

 

Besides - maybe we will?  We are busy with two at the moment.  Once they are done, maybe we will move on to the next.  Who knows.

 

I certainly agree with that.

 

The fact of the matter is that the beginnings of a nuclear program were still there hidden out of sight of inspectors and not fully disclosed.

 

My understanding is that this batch of uranium was sealed up after '91, and regularly inspected by the IAEA.  Hardly hidden away.

 

the regime didn't account for more than 40% of their stockpiles meaning that while they may not have been within the borders of the country of Iraq, they could still be used against Americans and their allies at some point in the future if Saddam chose to do so.

 

Again, my understanding is that there was no unknown stockpile.  I could be misinformed.

I honestly think that Iraq has a chance of becoming a stabilizing force in an area that is so rife with violence and hatred. They're on the track to building a peaceful secular representative state which, while no where near perfect, is a far better example of progressive government than any of the alternatives in the area. Even the UAE and Qatar, as western-friendly as they are, don't have the representative governments in place to allow their citizens to truly take part in their legislative and judicial sectors.

 

I share your hope, and days like today help foster my optimism.

Furthermore, the sole focus of conversations such as these always seems to be WMDs. The fact of the matter is that while the search for WMDs was the trigger for the invasion, it was not the only state reason for going to war with Saddam's regime.

 

I certainly agree with that.

Did we go about regime change in the best way possible? Perhaps not, but it seems to be working now and it's certainly a sight better than what we failed to accomplish in Korea, Vietnam, and Soviet-era Afghanistan let alone all of those god-awful regimes we dealt with in Sub Saharan Africa.

 

I guess that is my question.  It looks good today, but who's to tell if this becomes Africa or Israel?

 

You mean the report that was quickly dismissed by the Defense Department as irrelevant?  That one?

 

Didn't we have this discussion already?

 

And did you actually read my posts in this thread, or just kneejerk an assumption about my points here?

Um, another point to note here, Saddam wa sone of those rare national leaders with both a proven capability AND a verifiable track record of actual use of WMDs. Chemical agets, in particular, were used in the Iran-Iraq war, and as well in some attacks on minorities within Iraq. While the specific academic points of Saddam's actual progress towards further WMD development remain controversial, it is certain that he had them and used them in the past, and it is also known that he was to at least some degree duplicitous in his handling of international concern about further WMD storage and production. It was made crystal clear to him that he was to play things absolutely straight, and he didn't. While in the case of Iraq I still have some heartache with the U.S. going in unilaterally, I hardly think it was at all unprovoked or underserved. I do not subscribe to a blanket policy of the ends justifying the means in international relations, but far worse things have been done by state actors in the past, and with the exception of the diversion of resources from Afghanistan (which you don't even want to get me started on), Iraq seems to have turned out better than most (myself included) would have predicted.

I think a key point here is that Iraq is a nation well accustomed to civil stability (albeit at the end of a gun), and still maintains a sense of nationality. It was not at any point in the apst six years a failed state, but merely in a transitional period between different forms of government. The Iraqis easily remember life in a peaceful (if not a free) state, and are quick to see the merits of a peaceful existence if its within their grasp. Slaughtering each other in civil conflict is very anomalous in their recent history, so in hindsight it ought not be much of a surprise that the Iraqi society has settled back down for the most part.