U.S. calls off fruitless search for weapons

So does this mean that it is also official that our reason for invading Iraq REALLY WAS just a big lie?

For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman

Quote:
By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as "a Saudi problem". Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia -- Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.

"From a purely military view," Friedman adds, "Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran."

So George Friedman's answer to Mike's question would be "yes"?

according to Friedman
Q. Was the invasion of Iraq one of these errors?

A. Lying about why we were invading Iraq was a massive error. The invasion itself helped generate the forces that have Al Qaeda on the defensive now. Iraq is the most strategic country in the Middle East and following the invasion of Iraq, key countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran began to change their policies to support the U.S. against Al Qaeda. The invasion was a good idea and the administration had good reasons for doing it. But they had nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaeda.

I would say;
ca·sus bel·li ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kss bl, käss bl)
n. pl. casus belli
An act or event that provokes or is used to justify war.

So, who was it again that said they'd stop posting if no WMD were found?

I give up, Who said they would stop posting if no WMD were found?

don't keep us guessing here

So,in Friedman's opinion, it was a good idea to invade Iraq because it made other Arab countries cower before us? Instead of using diplomacy to convince them?

Excuse me, but that sounds like the kind of thing we used to say the Soviets did.

For God's sake, edit the title!

:rolleyes:

So... in order to put Al Qaeda on the defensive, we decided to leave them alone in Afghanistan, and go invade Iraq instead?

This is meant to be a justification? "We like where that land you're on is placed. I think we'll take it"?

What? I'm not trying to be snarky here; I'm honestly curious... what massive policy shifts have Iran and Saudi Arabia enacted that have actually made things better for the US since we invaded Iraq? Would Iran reinstating its nuclear program fall under this category of policy shifts?

It would be nice to hear if they have in fact done things to aid the US since the invasion, but I don't know of any.

Nope :p

If there was really even a remote chance that there were Saddam era WMD in Iraq that President Bush would just give up the search?

He's not that type of guy. He would keep the troops looking until

A. They found WMD

or

B. They exhausted the search and there WERE not WMD (or Saddam was just smarter than President Bush at hiding them)

So, you can believe 1 of 2 things:

1. Bush and/or the intelligence agencies lied about the WMD and no longer care about keeping the facade with the American people post election OR:

2. The government truly exhausted the search to no avail, meaning that we botched the job OR Saddam is smarter than the President.

No option is very flattering to the United States.