David Pugh wrote:

In other words, by attacking Iraq, we have taken out Saddam (good)

Yes.

did
little about the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons since, if
they existed in the first place, we didn't make the required effort to
prevent them from being exported to Syria (neutral)

Not 100% accurate. *If* Saddam managed to export his weapons to Syria (a very
unforseen event by the way that dems seem anxious to exploit as if they knew
this was going to happen) their chance of being used probably just got cut in
half. Syria is much more unlikely than Saddam of using these weapons either
overtly or through a terrorist.

allowed the looting of
Iraqi nuclear facilities (bad)

Allowed? You'll have to show me how we were complicit with the looting of what
were *suspected* facilities. Ask any democrat, they'll tell you Iraq didn't
have any WMD; so what exactly was looted?

tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
threat emerges

I don't follow this one?

and alienated the entire region

Hardly. If we had alienated the entire region, we would not currently be hosted
in nearly every country on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.

Explain to me
again why invading Iraq was a good thing?

Because it removed a known threat who had a great potential to kill Americans
and our allies.

Is there any reason SOUTHERN WATCH couldn't have been run from Kuwait and
Qatar?

Uhh, because the closer you are to Iraq the less tankers you need. There would
have been no way (unless you built a few more airfields in the region) to put
up the same number of SOUTHERN WATCH sorties every day if most strike aircraft
had to fly from Al Udeid or even Masirah or Thumrait. There just wasn't enough
ramp space for all the tankers you would have needed.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"