Australians were targeted already attacked in Indonesia just a year or so ago was it not? 

Depends who you quote - the actual trigger-men (to use the cliche) claimed they were aiming at Americans and were disappointed with the low US citizen deathtoll. But according to most of the authorities (ie Indonesian and Australian) during confessions they claimed the attacks were aimed at Australians. Some Indonesian nationals and cynics also claimed it was the CIA, but I think we can safely say that that's a "wacko theory".

In any case Jemaah Islamiyah (and more particularly the cell linked to Hambali and the Tarbiyah Islamiah Luqmanul Hakiem where the cells leaders and family developed their plans) were/are only vaguely linked to al'Qaeda according to independent sources. These links to al'Qaeda however would not have given access to Iraqi NBCs in any event; despite the recorded attempts of Osama and Saddam to forge an alliance of convenience, it was widely reported that they hated each other and couldn't get along. Therefore even this link to Middle Eastern terrorists only became likely to get its hands on NBCs after the fall of Saddam, not before.

I think suffice to say that Australia has been targeted by terrorists.  It's not safe. And these were Islamic militants which originates from the middle east. Wasabism in action.

It could be said that I oppose the war in Iraq and it could also be said I would support it if WMD stockpiles had been found. Of course the reality is that things are a bit more complicated. I initially supported an invasion of Iraq on what was the main case for war. That weapons stockpiles existed and could be used at a moments notice. I never trusted these statements coming from Bush, Cheney or Rumsefield but when moderates like CIA Director Tenet and Colin Powell backed up the assersitions I was swayed.

It's not that I ever feared an attack against America using these weapons. I already knew that Saddam had no friendly ties with anti-American terrorist groups like Al-Qada. In fact Al-Qada and Saddam had been bitter enemies since before the first Gulf War. But I did know that Saddam had ties to Hamas in supporting the families of suicide bombers. So unlike the Australian I feared for Israel, or more, I feared what Israel may do in response to a chemical attack. You have to remember that at this time strife in Israel and Palestine had been higher than in many years and Sharon was showing little restraint in his retaliations. So yeah I advocated war and was ready to accept that good people would die in the act. But leaving chemical weapons in the hands of a madman could be far more costly.

The initial battles went better than expected and for awhile I could actually watch Bush give a speech and occasionally nod in agreement. Then the occupation began. Over the next month it became clear that our troops were horribly ill prepared for an occupation mission. Against all evidence the administration continued to insist that everything was going to be peachy-keen. Meanwhile the stockpiles and labs that the adminstration claimed they knew existed and where they were (Powell had the satelite photos to prove it) never showed. The main rationale for me supporting this war and the botched occupation to follow, weapons stockpiles that could be used at a moments notice to inflare a greater middle-east conflict, was totally bogus. Weapons "programs" do not justify war. Especially when key ingrediants to create the final product could not be obtained because of sanctions.

Had I know weapons programs did not exist I would never have supported the war. On the other hand if the capability to deploy chemical weapons had been proven as fact after the initial invasion I would still support the decision to go in, although I would no longer support the way the occupation is being handled.

To clear up a few things before I see more of the cookie-cutter partisian responses. Bill Clinton supported regime change but that isn't defined as an immediate invasion without provaction. John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but he did not have the same intellgence Bush had and actually Bush has some control over how much intelligence Congress gets access to. On top of that Kerry voted with the promise that the administration would exhaust all diplomatic means and allow the inspectors to complete thier investigation. Finally I do believe Kerry would do a better job managing the occupation. The military spending package Kerry's vote against the $87b military spending package had no effect on the reality on the ground. The no vote was a vote against the way the occupation was being managed and the fat amount of pork contained in that package. Kerry has real experience leading and can surround himself with good people (Clark for Defense Secratary!).

That weapons stockpiles existed and could be used at a moments notice.

I don't recall anyone saying that Iraq's weapons were ready to be used at a moments notice.

Bill Clinton supported regime change but that isn't defined as an immediate invasion without provaction.

Regime change does not equal invasion, but it is certainly not containment either. While Clinton didn't conduct a full-scale invasion, he did launch military strikes against Iraq.

John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq but he did not have the same intellgence Bush had

What did Bush know that Kerry didn't that was important?

The excuse making for Kerry is pretty amazing. If there is some intelligence Kerry didn't have about Iraq WMD, wouldn't that make him LESS likely to be convinced? Besides, I've heard not a shred of evidence that there was some sort of key bits of evidence withheld from the Senate Arms services committee. And if there was, they they should be contacting the attorney general.

Plus you have Australia, South Korea (also richer than Canada)

Canada is the 12th richest by GDP per capita, 9th if you don't include tiny tax havens like Bermuda, Cayman Islands,and San Marino as countries. We are a G8 country. We are the second largest population of the top 17 countries by GDP per capita. Japan, UK, Gemany, and France are 18th-21st on the list, and all 4 countries have quantifiably lower standards of living than Canada. While they have somewhat larger populations which account for large overall GDPs, they are clearly poorer, a couple thousand dollars a year per person poorer, so don't try to tell me these are 'richer' countries because any economist would disagree with you. India has a higher GDP than Australia but if you try to convince me India is richer than Australia then this whole argument will be exposed for the semantic, intellectually dishonest circlejerk that it is. Even by total GDP Canada is 9th out of 192 countries, so by any measure it is wealthy.

Australia is ranked 14th in GDP per capita, South Korea is ranked 49th and is nowhere near as wealthy as Canada. Our total GDP is about 22-30% bigger than theirs, depending on whether you factor in purchasing parity; this despite the fact they have roughly 65% more people than we do. So your claim that South Korea is "also" richer than Canada is false by any measure.

Only USA, Denmark and Norway (and their whopping 600 man combined contribution between them) among the coalition are richer by conventional measure than Canada.

Link - World Bank
Link- CIA


""

It's always fun to watch someone selectively use PER capita GDP and total GDP.

Well heck, by your reasoning, Luxemberg's opinions matter on everything because they have a HUGE per capita GDP.

Reality check: Canada has a population of around 30 million. Less than the state of California.  BTW, is also has a per capita GDP that's smaller than California.  So why shoudl I care what Canada thinks any more than a few US states?  As a practical matter, Canada just doesn't matter. It can't really do anything to help or harm. It has no military. It has no leverage at all.

In response to Madine. The claim was that weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. A quote repeated dozens of times in the build-up to war. Even if that claim was never made the case was made that they already had stockpiles they could deliver to terrorists at any time. Iraq may have been a "great and gathering threat" now but when making the case for war the word used was "immenent".

I don't try hard to defend Clinton. He was a Republican-Lite, like most other Democrats. Some of the airstikes he made were totally pointless, others were a legitimate enforcement of the no-fly zone. An arguement could be made that by using airstrikes to weaken the Iraqi military you could empower Iraqi's to have thier own regime change. Though that is doubtful because of how badly we had burned them before.

Regarding what Bush knew that Kerry didn't. There were two versions of the CIA report to the Senate presented only days before the Authorization of Force vote. One contained the full spectrum of intelligence that the CIA had access to which included many doubts of thier sources and the quality of the intelligence. The other contained far fewer of these misgivings. I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that the Armed Services Comittee didn't request more information because either the Republicans controlling it had made up thier mind already, the Democrats were trying to appear tough before an election in voting for Force or more likely a combination of many factors. I don't see it merely as an intelligence failure but as a leadership failure spread throughout the government. I also don't buy the line that Bush only reacted on the information given him by the CIA. There was dissent in several of the other intelligence agencies. Why was it surpressed until after the war?

why shoudl I care what Canada thinks any more than a few US states

You don't. You've made it clear time and time again that you don't care what non Us citizens think. Hell, you don't even care what US citizens with different opinions to you think. Any points you disagree with quickly get flipped into a

Anti-Bush quote #2921

statement.


Madine,
I'm afraid I can't enlighten you here as I supported the war, but did argue against the whole WMD debate from before the war. WMD had nothing to do with my support of the war, it purely affected my respect for the US and UK administrations. Sadly even if WMD stockpiles were found, it would not increase my respect for the governemnts, as in my opinion they were only pushing this reason for war as it was a good excuse that if true would have been legally watertight.

Paul

The claim was that weapons could be readied for use within 45 minutes. A quote repeated dozens of times in the build-up to war. Even if that claim was never made the case was made that they already had stockpiles they could deliver to terrorists at any time. Iraq may have been a "great and gathering threat" now but when making the case for war the word used was "immenent".

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

President Bush's State of the Union speech

Iraq was frequently described as a threat, but not imminent.

There were two versions of the CIA report to the Senate presented only days before the Authorization of Force vote.

My understanding is that the doubts about the quality of the intelligence were not presented to the administration either.

I have yet to meet anyone here that has bothered to download and read the Senate report on pre-war intelligence, so I don't know why anyone should entertain supposition from Bush-haters. If they want to make real arguements they have a body of work to look to. Instead they make fuzzy statements imply cover-ups, regardless of the fact that the Senate had the same information the Bush administration had and came to the same conclusion.

If anyone wants to point out information that was intentionally surpressed, post a page number. I'm tired of hearing supposition about something that has already been officially addressed and is a matter of public record.

Paul: I don't think it's fair to say that I don't care about the opinions of others.  I admit to pulling David's chain because he is constantly writing about how Canada is the greatest, most diverse, wonderful utopia in the universe.

I do, however, have a problem with a country that hasn't participated in this trying to tell ME why I supported something. Or someone from another country insisting why Americans did X and Y. 

Blair DID make Iraq sound like an imminent threat with arguments that missiles could be launched in 45 minutes or something to that effect.  BUSH DID NOT.  Just because UK's prime minister made the argument of imminent threat does't mean Bush did.  Bush did not see Iraq as an imminent threat.  He saw Saddam as a long term threat that we could no longer tolerate in a post-9/11 world.  The US has certainly taken on military action, even in recent history, for far LESS reasons (Panama for instance).

We are the second largest population of the top 17 countries by GDP per capita.

Haha, this is such a contrived statistic.

What a silly argument. "Canada has a high per capita GDP, and its rank is even higher if you don't count the tiny countries whose high per capita GDP ranking reveals what a meaningless statistic it is for determining how powerful a nation is."

The UK government was the first to make the 45 minute claim. Google it.