Yes. This is something that many people on both sides like to ignore. Hawks like to pretend that America's choices were between war and letting Hussein do whatever he wanted. Doves like to pretend that the choice was a simple "war or no war." Both like to ignore the issue of sanctions, which we now know were successfully containing Hussein. Many hawks like to ignore it because it meant there was a credible alternative to war that would have been effective in containing Hussein and minimizing the threat to America. Many doves like to ignore it because it was a humanitarian disaster.

I think one can make an argument at this point that, in retrospect, some form of modified sanctions might have been the best option. But it's moot now.

"Anti-war" campaigners can whine all they wish. The fact is that they are powerless, they didn't stop the war, they cannot stop the occupation, they have no means to appease terrorists. I think that most rational people can see that an aggressive policy on the part of the US and UK is much safer than a non-aggressive one.

Terrorists want to kill us, that is a fact, if we were to simply sit back and not attack any of the terrorists they would still come after us. War is the smart move, I should think that any intelligent person could see that terrorism CANNOT be stopped without counter-aggression. Islamic radicals have one aim, they will die for it, do the "anti-war" campaigners seriously think that this threat will go away if we just close our eyes to it? They should be joining the fight, they are not safe either.

Can we please stop pretending the war in Iraq was to do with terrorists. It wasn't, so don't weaken the arguement by suggesting it was.

I would agree however with the issue of sanctions. Sanctions were containing Hussein, but only at the expense of the entire country. This was not a tactic that could be maintained or should have been applied in the first place. They had to end and a number of countries had already indicated an unwillingness to vote for their continuation. Modified sanctions to contain Saddam but not punish his people was impossible given the hold he had on the country.

Not sure I would agree with the second point. I do not believe removing sanctions and leaving Saddam in power would have posed an unacceptable security risk. Unacceptable political decision maybe, but security risk? How is it any worse that North Korea having nuclear weapons? Given the right incentives I believe that Saddam could have restored Iraq to stability, and that in return he would not offer support to terrorists or developing WMD. It may even have been possible to have agreed gradual conversion to democracy over a period of years. A few billion dollars buys a lot of friendship. Such a solution however would have been politically impossible for the Americans.

The third point is the most delicate though. There are numerous ways to remove Saddam from power short of an invasion. None of them are sure methods though or very politically correct. There was even serious talk of him stepping down in return for no war, but the US only wanted revenge not a solution.

I personally was in favour of removing Saddam, but feel that the way the US and UK government handled the issue caused the problems. Their sttitude to the UN and the lies they told and pressure they applied to brow beat other countries into support was disgusting. I was not in favour of the way the war was run either. From the moment Bagdad was captured, it was a political screw up. Declaring the war over and Saddam removed, and then asking for an immediate UN peace keeping and rebuilding mission would have united the world.

Paul.

America invading Iraq makes almost as much sense as China invading Venezuela. That is all.

Madine: Wow. I could not have put it more succinctly if I'd tried hard. Well done.

Vincible: The only people for whom the sanctions were beneficial were those in Saddam Hussein's regime, those enriching themselves with illegally obtained Iraqi oil via the UN-administered "Oil for Food" program, and those who completely flaunted the sanctions and did business with Hussein's regime anyway. The "those" in the last two categories consist of the states, principally France, Germany and Russia, who opposed every effort of the U.S. to gain UN support for the ousting of Hussein. Hussein was not "contained" by sanctions; he was merely biding his time, a policy that was largely successful due to the mutual dereliction of duty by the Clinton administration and the UN (though, as I noted before, this latter case was more by intent than apathy). Sanctions were a further disaster for the Iraqi people, their primary disaster being the Hussein regime. This situation had to end, and I'm tremendously glad President Bush had the guts to do it.

Solitair: You say you'd have considered an unsanctioned Hussein regime as no more dangerous than a nuclear-armed North Korea, right? Well, doesn't just about EVERYONE consider that to be a TREMENDOUS danger? Isn't that why there are high-level, multi-lateral talks going on as we write to stop North Korea from having effective nuclear weapons? Let us not forget that Hussein already HAD WMDs, and by all appearances was on the verge of acquiring nuclear arms himself. It's interesting that you mention the North Korean situation, for this is one that was assumed to have been dealt with by the Clinton administration, through the dubious negotiations of ex-president Jimmy Carter. We give them nuclear power plants that couldn't turn out weapons-grade nuclear materials, they don't pursue a weapons program. Remember that? And now they have both, since the toxic regime of Kim Jong-il proved untrue to the agreement and unpurchaseable by Western largesse (a great deal of American wheat was included in the deal to stave off massive starvation in North Korea, one of the "justifications" for the construction of nuclear power plants that would have produced weapons-grade material).

So how much more trustworthy would Saddam Hussein have been? Let us remember that during surrender talks at the end of the Gulf War, General Schwarzkopf allowed the Iraqi government to still fly helicopters for simple transportation between far-flung locations (many Iraqi highways were blocked by destroyed Republican Guard columns). Hussein promptly turned those 'copters into gunships and began finishing the genocide against the Kurds that he started with his chemical weapons years before. This resulted in an immense refugee problem, primarily in northern Iraqi, and the subsequent establishment of the no-fly zones in the north and the south, patrols of which by Coalition forces were regularly met with anti-aircraft fire during their entire existence. And you'd trust an unfettered Hussein regime to be pacified by "a few billion dollars?" Something it had boatloads of despite the sanctions?

To your final point about turning over the development of the post-war Iraq to the UN, well, the UN WAS there. And then they got bombed by the terrorists that have flooded into the country and ran away to conduct their operations from the isle of Cypress! This is a key example of one thing that's been true in this world for the last sixty years or so: only the United States of America has the guts to step in and effectively deal with tyrannical regimes. Not to say we don't have some valiant partners; the PMs of both England and Australia have stood strong beside us, despite strong opposition at home, and even South Korea is defying the terrorists and keeping their commitment to send peace-keeping troops. But would any of this had happened if the U.S. hadn't taken a stand? Look at the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia: did ANY European government take ANY effective action to stop the "ethnic cleansing" (read: genocide) occuring in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? No, they didn't, and it was in their collective backyard. Same continent, not more than 500 miles away, and they did puff up and condemn this and get outraged over that, but who took the lead and stopped it? Not to puff up too much myself, bu the chant, "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!" does come to mind. And as further instruction as to the "effectiveness" of UN peacekeeping, perhaps THE most overlooked story in this post-9/11, post-Iraq War world is that the UN did largely take over peacekeeping in Kosovo after the U.S. airstrikes pacified the worst of the ethnic cleansing (though we still do have a troop commitment there). The thing is that it's all gone to hell over there. Ethnic cleansing has returned and is not being stopped by the UN "peacekeepers" and though the situation was supposedly dealt with years ago, the region is FAR behind Iraq in being built back into a thriving, self-governed state. And you'd really trust the UN do to a better job in Iraq? When they don't even have the intestinal fortitude to deal with one bombing? Please!

Can we please stop pretending the war in Iraq was to do with terrorists. It wasn't, so don't weaken the arguement by suggesting it was.

The war always has been, and continues to be about terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, he has a very impressive CV as a terrorist. He terrorised the middle east, he terrorised his own people, he deserved to be toppled. If you plan to respond to this with the argument that this war was based on a desire to aquire oil, then don't. This war has made oil more expensive. This war has always been about ridding that region of our enemy, we must establish a base there. It may look unwise at first, but the only way to end this terrorist threat is to educate young muslims. A friendly government would allow this to be done, we have to show the terrorists that we are morally superior, to become stable they must submit to our will and abandon their doomed 'Jihad'. Until they modernise and co-operate I am afraid that they cannot share the peace and prosperity that we enjoy.

I'd add that the Isrealis who had to fear Hussein's 10k+ bounties for sucide bombers would probably consider him a terroristl. Usually people I talk to that oppose the Iraq war call Arafat a diplomat and sucide bombers "freedom fighters" as well.

People turn a blind eye to terroristic behavior and then say the war in Iraq can't be about terrorists. Hussein was a terrorist, had at least working communication with Al Qaeda, as well as supporting many other Palestinian terrorist organizations.

Hussein was a terrorist, supported terrorism, and had he been left in power and sanctions had been lifted he would have had a big axe to grind. He was a madman.

Usually people I talk to that oppose the Iraq war call Arafat a diplomat and sucide bombers "freedom fighters" as well.

This is why sensible people must disregard pathetic anti-war protesters and remind ourselves that we act in the best interests of everyone that knows decency, honour, and freedom. It is a very British thing indeed.

Whoever thinks we were justified to go in there and bomb Iraq, think again! What rocks have you been hiding under? Go see Farenheit 911 by Michael Moore for real facts - see what Bush and Cheney were hiding about Bush and his father's connections to the money that the Saudis and the Bin Laden family had. His Dad, Sr. Bush, still sits on the board of one of the companies that the Saudis invest in - ..........now why do you think the Bin Laden family was rushed out of the country so fast!

Charlet, all that is old news. And what does that have to do with Iraq?

North Korea might have weapons too, but that doesn't mean we have to pursue that conflict in the same exact way as we pursued Iraq. Sometimes, it's more prudent to use different tactics for different enemies. We made many mistakes in Iraq, but it was still worth the investment.

Usually people I talk to that oppose the Iraq war call Arafat a diplomat and sucide bombers "freedom fighters" as well.

That's definitely a problem. Although not all people that oppose the war think this way, enough do to pretty much ruin the credibility on that side.

Darkhawke: do you seriously think that if America had put the time, effort, resources, and money into reforming sanctions that he ultimately ended up putting into the war, that it couldn't have been done? We're spending over $100 billion in Iraq, and we've barely been there a year. I'm sure we could have bribed r!Russia and friends with a small fraction of that.

Hussein was not "contained" by sanctions; he was merely biding his time

Well, his weapons development was going nowhere due to lack of access to parts and resources. His arsenal had decayed, his army was falling apart. Whether you want to call that containment or not is up to you. What's clear now is that Hussein had no capability to threaten the US, and would *never* be able to threaten the US as long as sanctions were in place. That's good enough for me.

Sanctions were a further disaster for the Iraqi people, their primary disaster being the Hussein regime. This situation had to end,

Agree with the first half... and that's one reason I supported the war at the time. But really, there's no reason the situation had to end. The US properly acts in its own interests. If it sees a threat, it should eliminate that threat. This why we went into Iraq, we believed that it was a threat. Humanitarian concerns, while laudable, cannot *alone* justify the war. If the US wanted to spent $100 billion just to help people, it could save many more lives by controlling AIDS in Africa and India, on stopping the ongoing genocide in Sudan, on any or all of dozens of other programs. If you think of the war as a purely humanitarian project, it's an inefficient use of scarce resources.

If you think of the war as a purely humanitarian project, it's an inefficient use of scarce resources.

That's true. Neither side can pretend they're fighting for purely humanitarian concerns.

Sanctions had been in place for almost 10 years. Every year the calls from Husseins allies in the security council were stronger and stronger, whining that the sanctions, even military sanctions, were no longer needed. France, Russia, China and others had already inked agreements for billions of dollars in military equipment the moment they were lifted. TotalFinaElf was completely enamoured with Hussein. Anti-War Europe was poised to invigorate the Hussein regime, and the US's ability to prevent the lifting of sanctions was weakening every year.

Then when you consider the fact that there was a chance of having another Clinton-esque Democrat in the WHite House in 2005, the odds of sactions outliving Hussein were nil

So you can take the side of those who wanted to make billions leaving a genocidal maniac in power, or those who wanted him removed from power. Me, personally? If all the kookie conspiracy crap is true and Bush and his friends somehow made billions off this war, I still think the world is a better place.

Better shady deals removing him than shady deals empowering him, wouldn't you say? Granted, I know some will say "no shady deals at all", but there's no dragging some folks to reality...

Then when you consider the fact that there was a chance of having another Clinton-esque Democrat in the WHite House in 2005, the odds of sactions outliving Hussein were nil

Funny, since Clinton was the one who kept those sanctions in place. Another Democrat, if he was really Clintonesque, would continue doing so.

BakerStreet, do you really truly think that preserving and reforming sanctions would have taken more American resources, time, and lives than this war has?