Erm, Modman....it was liberals that formed the nation.

Yeah but keep in mind that back then the terms were reversed. Conservatives now are what they called liberals back then. It was the liberal ideas of the Republican party that caused us to free the colored people. Those ideas are now called conservitive because they are the status quo. The liberals of today are more like the conservitives of the 1700's So yes it was the liberals that formed the nation but they believed in GOD, freedom of speech, freedom from opression, freedom from government rule. All the things that liberals are not so comfortable with today.

Now as for whether or not, it was justified. I supported the war, figured it would be over in a few days/weeks, figured we'd be smart enough to stay out of the cities, and let the police restore order after the Anti-Saddam riots I though we would be hunting for nukes for a few months, and I got a little uneasy when I heard about all the rioting, and looting, and how the civillian leadership's ultimate response was "well this is how freed people act." No sir, that is how people act when there are no rules, no order, no law, nobody in charge.

Ok so you were stupid. It happens. The President said more than once before we invaded that the war on terror was going to be a long war that would more than likely outlast his presidency. This was ignored by the press who were saying that the war would be quick and almost bloodless.

If you became uneasy because of the riots then you have little knowledge of history. When the government of the Philippines fell the same thing happened until order was restored, as it did when the Soviet Union fell so you have two recent examples of what happens when a totalitarian government falls yet you were surprised. What you saw was exactly what people do when the chains are removed. It then settled down and order was restored then the terrorist showed up. This was the only difference between the fall of the Philippines and the Soviet Union compared to Iraq.

Slam Dunk!
I am so glad you used that term. It was the term used by the CIA Director to the President of the United States that there was proof of WMD in Iraq. This “proof” was compiled during the Clinton Administration and delivered by the Director who was first appointed by Mr. Clinton. Yet it has been used to make it look like the President wanted it to be true so make it true. The evidence used was compiled over the 8 years that Mr. Clinton was in office and he did nothing with it. Much of it he could not do anything with until 9/11. Once we were attacked Mr. Bush was attacked for not doing anything with the data that had been sitting around for over 4 years.
I do not blame Mr. Clinton for the gaps in intelligence; I don’t blame Mr. Bush for the gaps either. I blame Senator Frank Church for gutting the CIA for political reasons. I blame President Carter for his spineless presidency. I blame President Reagan for being so caught up in trying to end the cold war that he neglected the new war that had started by the radical Islamofascist. I blame Congress from 1975 through 2000 for allowing bureaucrats in each administration to gut and cut the military and intelligence communities for political gain. It took an attack on our soil before the CIA and FBI were legally allowed to share intelligence data. Back when Mr. Clinton was in office his people in State, Defense, and intelligence were forbidden to even correct spelling. It sounds small but if one agency spells a group al kida, and another agency Al Queda, and anyone asked for any intelligence on al Qaeda the people that could trade information like State and CIA because the spelling was different there was no or limited information to share. Osama bin Laden because his name is pronounced with a “U” sound was sometimes spelled in computers as Usama bin Laden so when you were looking for information on usama bin laden you got the file on usama only not Osama because they are two different people both files were kept in the CIA and never joined until after 9/11 The State Department had 6 different spellings for Osama bin Laden meaning 6 different files. Talk about not connecting the dots! This all came out after 9/11 and because Mr. Bush was in the job he got the blame. Yeah, why didn’t he go into each agency and demand they stop such foolishness? The same reason Mr. Clinton did not stop it. The President does not have time to correct his peoples spelling. With this small piece of information how did the CIA come up with the slam dunk? Ask them I can’t figure it out.

I supported this war and post war effort even beyond Abu Gharib, you say there was no mis-treatment of detainees, no torture, yet there are photos, and journals, and protests, and facts saying otherwise. Perhaps your definition of torture is only if it is done to you. But clearly any reasonable person would accept that what happened wasn't right and ethical treatment of people. Detainees, soldiers, or humans its sad no matter who or how someone is categorized. I call into question your patriotism as well as your mental capacity to be reasonable if you honestly think that nobody there was psychologically or physically harmed by the treatment.

STOP TWISTING MY WORDS!!!!

lol

What I said was when people use the word torture that it is assumed it is a government sanctioned operation. You have a few people doing bad things. Was it wrong? Yes, was it torture? Not in the sense that it is approved by the government. When a corrections officer in a jail messes with an inmate is that torture or abuse? Is being stripped naked and thrown into solitary confinement torture, abuse or punishment? According to amnesty international it is torture. According to the prisoner it is abuse. According to the corrections officer that was stabbed by the prisoner it was punishment. Torture falls into two groups in my mind. Sadistic pleasure, the government gets no pleasure from torture but the idiots in the prison might. The second is to extract information. Since the people in Abu Gharib had no real intelligence the use of torture is a wasted government effort. Did the reservist act improperly? Yes they did. Were they acting under orders? No they were not. Did they go to jail or were they punished in some way for their actions? Yes they were.

Does torture work? Yes it does under a very narrow window. In order to torture some one you must first have over 50% of the information you are looking for. Because in order to stop the torture a person will say or agree to anything you have to have enough information to back check the story. If you can’t do that you can’t torture anyone and get any good intelligence. Short term intelligence is something you can act on within 96 hours. That means if you torture anyone you have a 4 day window before any hot information he has becomes worthless. If a person has been jailed for more than an hour and not tortured they won’t be tortured because it is believed he does not have any hot information. This information is what is taught to the military on what to expect when we are captured. If you are tortured after a few days it is because the person is a sadist and it does not matter what you tell them they won’t stop until they no longer get any pleasure out of your pain. This is why the US does not torture people, we interrogate them. This takes longer, weeks and years. Inflicting pain is worthless in this process. Making them uncomfortable does work. Loud music and bright lights or strobes work well because it disorients people. Go to any disco or night club and you will get the same treatment. Just to be sure you understand that our troops go through the same treatment to get them ready for combat. It used to be called E&E and lasts from a week to a month.

Did you read that last paragraph. They didn't know where they were as a nation. So how in the hell could Saddam have used something if nobody in their nation knew where they were? Not only that, but read this...

How about you read this instead.

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".

Iraq agreed to the Resolution on November 13. Weapons inspectors returned on November 27, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. The inspectors had been absent from Iraq since December 1998 when they were withdrawn immediately prior to Operation Desert Fox

Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities. As was discovered after the invasion of Iraq, no production of WMDs was taking place, and no stockpiles existed. Debate about Resolution 1441 therefore turns on whether, despite the absence of WMDs and the acceptance of inspections, Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution, and whether an invasion was justified in the absence of any further UN Security resolutions on the subject.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.