Womenfish,
"Clark was opposed to the way in which Bush handled the Iraq situation. He never said that NOTHING should be done. Just done differently. And I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. He's a 4 star general. Sorry Sting2, but I'm gonna take his word over yours."
General Clark is not the only one that has been a 4 star general. There are multiple 4 star generals, military experts, National Security experts and diplomats that have different view on the Iraq situation than General Clark.
Its easy for General Clark or anyone to criticize, but if your going to be President your going to have to map out your alternative plan and General Clark has yet to do that. What would General Clark have done differently and would Saddam still be in power right now?
"While I learned today that I am being laid off from my job, that my nephew will have 40 kids in his gradeschool classroom this year, that one of my good friends who isn't wealthy by any means wasn't able to get any grants for college, I learned that Bush is sending his 87 billion dollar Iraq package to Congress. It turns my stomach."
While those are unpleasent situations, 87 Billion Dollars is not necessarily a solution for them. The USA already spends more on education than Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, just to name a few European countries. Better management of the education system, not money, is what is needed.
Iraq has to be rebuilt because of the countries proximity to the worlds energy supply, and the effect politically and security wise Iraq is going to play in that region. Saddam had to go because of the threat to that energy supply and Iraq must be rebuilt so that there is not a Saddam II.
The take over, disruption or destruction, of the supply of energy in the Persian Gulf region could create a worldwide economic depression worse than the one suffered in the 1930s. Speaking in economic terms, unemployment of 6.1% is not high and in fact many economist believe 6% is the natural rate of Unemployment. Imagine a situation where unemployment was as high as 30% or 40%, because of a worldwide economic depression caused by some destruction or disruption of most of the supply of energy coming from the Persian Gulf region. Thats not something anyone wants to experience. Every US President since World War II has been prepared to go to war to defend the vital energy supply coming from the Persian Gulf Region. Jimmy Carter even said after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, that he was ready to use nuclear weapons if necessary, to prevent any power from completely disrupting the flow of energy supply in the Persian Gulf region.
"Iraq has ties with Bin Laden and Al-qaida (thus in theory linking him to 9/11).
The CIA has since stated that there is no concrete evidence linking the two. Bush himself has now stated there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. (And he's puzzled where people got that idea :rolleyes"
The idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 or that Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 is something that has been created by the Democrats. Are there indications that Al Qauda may have had ties to Saddam, yes. Are they proven, NO. Do the American people have a right to know about this, YES.
"2. Iraq has WMD's. -
We don't know this for sure, but nothing has been found yet and the theory that Saddam lied about having them as a "power play" seems more likely every day."
UN inspectors reported in 1998 that Saddam had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, and other related WMD material. Fast-foward to November 2002 and inspectors are let back into Iraq. Saddam claims he destroyed the above WMD but provides no evidence to verify this. A total violation of multiple UN resolutions and the UN 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the Gulf War.
It is Saddam's responsiblity per the Ceacefire agreement to prove that he no longer has WMD. It is the coalitions responsiblity to verify that is in fact so. Saddam's refusal to account for the WMD he had back in 1998 is a material breach of the Ceacefire Agreement under which member states of the UN are authorized to use all means necessary in order to achieve full compliance.
"3. We know where the WMD's are.
Now that's one we know for sure is false."
Intelligence may have indicated where some WMD were, which later turned out not to be the case. This happens all the time with intelligence and is not a sign of some fundamental failure by the Administration. The fact remains that its Saddam responsibility to show where the WMD is, not the coalition. Its Saddam that is in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove where or what he did with his WMD, not the coalition.
"4. Iraq is an imminent threat.
I really don't think anyone truly believed this, even many in the administration."
As I have said before, anything that threatens countries in the region is an imminent threat to the USA. Saddam was required to disarm of his WMD in the 1991 Ceacefire agreement BECAUSE his WMD stocks were viewed as an imminent threat to countries in the region and there for an inimment threat to the USA. Until Saddam was removed or verifiably and reliably disarmed, that threat was always there. Based on Saddams past behavior, the unprovoked invasions and attacks of four countries in the region and the murder of 1.7 million people, its easy to see that Saddam + WMD was indeed an imminent threat to the vital energy resource region and there for the USA and the rest of the World.
"5. Iraq was purchasing Uranium for nuclear weapons.
False "
This is actually incorrect. Saddam did buy Uranium from Africa back in the 1980s.
If Saddam no longer had WMD, he had all means to prove it. If Saddam had complied with the 17 UN resolutions, sanctions on Iraq would have been lifted, and Saddam would be collecting over 20 Billion dollars in revenue rather than 4 Billion dollars he gets illegally. The only reason Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions fully is if he desperately wanted to hold onto his WMD stocks and programs. No other country on the planet has spent more money as a percentage of GDP on WMD development. Its not surprising that he would not want to let go of it all.
The idea that Saddam destroyed his WMD but kept the idea out there that he had it to deter attack is not a good one. First, it would not deter an attack from the USA, but would in fact increase its likely hood. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia do not have the capability to attack Iraq. Iraq's military was to large. Even in Iraq's weakened state, Iran would be unable to successfully launch an invasion. Jordan's military is to small. Syria would never send so much of its military strenth against Iraq because of Israel to its Southwest. Only Turkey might be technically able to threaten Iraq independently, but has never shown any desire to do so, except in regards to the Kurds. So the idea that he wanted to the world to think he had WMD while destroying all of it and being unable to enjoy the benefits of having done that, holds little water in my view.
Saddam never complied with the UN resolutions that required him to disarm. The US and other member states took the action that were authorized to take if Saddam failed to what he was required to do.
"But guess what??? Millions more die in Africa from AIDS then died under Saddam's rule. So don't you have to ask yourself - why 157 billion dollars to go to war with a country and risk innocent lives and the hatred of the world, and only 15 billion (maybe) to Africa?? This wasn't a humanitarian effort and those who justify it as such are Bush apologists."
You could attack the US efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the same way. Efforts General Clark I think supported. I disagree with that though because Bosnia and Kosovo had both a security and humanitarian reason for action. But the reasons for action in Iraq with the security case were 10 times greater than the case made in Bosnia and Kosovo. The humanitarian situation in Iraq while not exactly like Bosnia and Kosovo and over a longer period of time was just as dire for those that lived in the North and South of Iraq or happened to find themselves on the wrong side of Saddam.
While the loss of life from Aids in Africa is a mass tragedy, destruction and disruption of the worlds energy supply would only make the situation in Africa worse and dry up any funds that are going there already.
"We didn't go in with enough information, we didn't go in with a plan, we didn't go in with hardly any REAL, SUPPORTIVE allies. And now we are paying for it with A LOT of money that:"
I don't think a country has ever had more information when it came to the actions of a particular dictator than the USA had for Saddam. The Bush Administration had a very good plan and took out a miltary of half a million men in under 3 weeks. The Bush Administration have dispersed the Baath party and captured or killed 42 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq. The USA is now involved in the rebuilding of the country and already over 60,000 new Iraqi Policeman are on the streets. In the town of Karbala, the US Marines have built 9 schools for childern. Good things are happening, but good things don't sale newspapers so its difficult to hear about them.
Over 29 countries are currently helping out in Iraq. A Real Supportive ally should not be defined as France or Germany. Those are two countries who were on the wrong side of history when it came to deciding how to deal with Saddam, but they have an opportunity to help the Iraqi's build a better future, hopefully that will decide to be on the right side of history in this case. If they don't, it is not the administrations fault they decided not to help people in need.
"should be going to schools, bankrupted states, electrical grids, crumbling infrastructure, police/fire/medical supplies and training, boarder security, ect..."
Should Iraq fail as a State, the security implications will prevent even less money to go to these area's.
I take serious issue with your claim that Saddam "had to go" because of a threat to the world's oil supply--but I imagine your as sick of repeating yourself on that score as I am, so I'll just say goodnite. 
