It seems we are about to know more about the intelligence assessment as President Bush has authorised its release - which suggests that its conclusions may not be as damning of him as they appear to be. Or it might just be a defensive action on the basis that once it is out debate will die down more quickly than if it is hidden. Reuters has the story here: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-09-26T221346Z_01_N26341819_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BUSH.xml

And this is the link to the declassified judgement http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf. I won't have time to read it for a while, but if anyone wants to do a precis! :-)

Interesting topic,

Here is a question: would the result be the same if the US and its allies fought on the terrorism front? (ie Afghanistan and Pakistan).

The US failed to gain support of other Arab & Muslim states and failed to establish any links between Iraq and terrorism. Hence it was seen by many Irais, Arab and Muslim states as unjustified war and put simply invasion.
Its different from the first gulf war were Arab states were at the front line to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.

Terrorism & violence becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when a country invades another for no reason. If we invade Japan for no reason today we will bring back the Kamikazis.

This new report would need to show why the all other reports and assessments were wrong. I still do not believe that international terrorism has anthing to do with Iraq - no matter what we think of that conflict.

The majority of Iraqi's, at the time, were glad to have the coalition remove Saddam Hussein from office and, eventually, bring him to trial so that democratic elections could occur. This has happened.

Any criticism of the coalition's presence in Iraq, suggesting that the rest of the world will not be safe from terrorism as long as the allies are there, is pure pettifogging. A vile regime has been removed, and it will take time for Iraqis to take over. But it will happen, and it will take some time. Look what happened in Afghanistan and East Timor when they were left to their own devices too early.

Listening to the naysayers on Iraq and pulling out would be a tragedy that peace-seeking Iraqis would, rightly, never forgive the allies for.

Leigh,

Establishing democracies by invading countries is the least thoughtful method, especially when its the same coalition that installed, supported and funded the dicator(s).

An easy and less bloody way is for the US to establish relations with a number of political parties and movement in each country and assist democratic movements within.

According to C. Rice after her trip to Egypt, the 'democratic middle east' is a new vision triggered by Sep 11 attacks. The coalition need to promote democracy across all the middle east in an honest fashion rather than wmd and terror links propaganda to justify invading other states.

On Iraq, four years later and the only prospect of democracy seems to be a shiite pro-Iranian state.

I would of thought that as long as the US support Israels right to exist they will be a target whether they invade/liberate or give generously to other nations. They are in a no win situation.

Militant Islam hates everything about Western freedoms. What they hate most is to see a tiny democratic nation like Israel prospering and making there own dictatorships look pathetic.

The haters of Israel like to take a selective view of history and then use it to be violent to anyone who disagrees with them. Much of the media like to paint Israel as the agressors despite having to live for decades with terroist blowing themselves and multitudes of others up who are going about their daily business.

I personally thank God the US has the guts to defend Israel despite the numerous critics. If the US fails to support Israel (which I believe will happen one day) what we see now will be nothing compared with the terroism we will see then.