I can say the reasoning isn't there because none of the Bush Admins reasons for putting boots on the ground had any substantiating evidence - the ENTIRE intelligence community had backed off of their claims of WMD, Bio, and Chem weapons program escalations.
By your logic we should currently be at war with Syria, Iran, and Russia.
Also, Iraq was not responsible for 9/11.
Never said or hinted at Iraq being involved, how you got that from the post is baffling.
Intelligence at the time was not known and could not be validated, or repudiated. That was the problem. Because of the way Saddam acted for 10 years with the UN who could be sure? Add in that after 9/11 and not knowing, regardless of what came out after, no one knew for sure. And, unfortunately, taking the chance that he did and not knowing who we could really trust beyond England you don't take any chances and you make sure to find out one way or the other, and since Saddam didn't open his arms and doors for us to find out, then, well, we had to see for ourselves.
We can argue about how the entire operation was handled after the fall of Saddam.
It is better to act and then find out you were wrong versus not acting and then finding out you were right. When the stakes are so high, you don't play games and take chances, you go find out.
In terms of Syria and Iran, after 9/11 if Syria were what it became a few years ago, yes. Iran, we should demolish that place, whether then or now, as they are direct threat.
Russia, I'm of the opinion that an ally in Russia only allows for a better relationship with China and the Mideast. Russia is a first point of strike, a barrier to China. We know what we get with the ruskies, China is the major threat in the future.
Let Russia deal with the Mideast, don't care and don't want anything to do with them. They have their pipelines they waned during the Cold War, so, let's come to a mutual and beneficial agreement and lessen our involvement there.
