Yes, but the question is - Would this outcome have occurred even if the Iraq war had not taken place? Via the news page of Military.com, I found this item. A case could probably be made either way. Perhaps the Iraq war made this happen quicker than it otherwise would.

Also, I had some other questions... When Iraq was told that disarmament could avert the war, the White House said that Iraq was not complying with the U.N. resolutions mandating that they disarm, and that this "material breach" could serve as the factor that would justify a military action against Iraq (as a result of its non-compliance). Condoleezza Rice said that "we know Iraq is lying" when they claimed that they had no nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and that the war shall begin because "Hussein has had enough time to disarm" (and has not done so).

After the war began, and even after the major combat was declared over, President Bush vowed to find the banned weapons (in order to support the administration's case for launching the war). But the question I'm asking is, why is it that when Iraq claimed that it had disarmed, and had destroyed all of its banned weapons, they were not believed, but when Gaddafi makes a promise to abandon its WMD plans, he is believed? President Bush personally praised Gaddafi, and made no mention of his terrorist attack on the Lockerbie, even though it was just the 15th anniversary of its crash. President Reagan had launched an attack to try to kill Gaddafi, but now, he is being believed... So the question is, if the administration claimed that Iraq could not be believed (when they were asked to disarm and avert the war), then why is it that Libya can be believed when they make a promise to come clean on their WMDs?

Also, another question:
Why is it that everyone is talking about Gaddafi, in relation to Iraq and Saddam, but no one is talking about the near-assassination of another despotic ruler? That regime has true "weapons of mass destruction," and has strong ties to terrorism.

Why is no one talking about that? Could there be a connection between what happened in Pakistan and the Iraq war? Pakistan is where the "Islamic bomb" is. If that "President" goes down, it could have horrific consequences for just about everyone in the world. As our government leaders have spent large amounts of taxpayer dollars searching Iraq for its "weapons of mass destruction," real WMDs could get into the hands of people such as Osama bin Laden.

Is there a connection between what happened in Pakistan and the Iraq war? The Ba'athist regime of Iraq was non-Islamic, and so there may not be much of a connection. But if there are future wars against other regimes - those that are Muslim - what impact will that have on the situation in Pakistan? There have already been several assassination attempts on Musharraf, and the recent one missed him by about a minute. The situation in Afghanistan is still very problematic, and we don't know how Iraq will turn out. These are very tense situations, and we may not exactly be able to determine the cause-and-effect relationships between them. But we do know that if our leaders don't play their cards right, the results will not be good.

As this holiday season approaches, we realize that there is still a great deal of progress to be made in the War on Terrorism, and every major action that our government takes has potential repercussions on others throughout the world. Some of these can be positive results, and others could be negative. But it is questions like those mentioned above that need to be addressed, and need to examined, by our leaders, and by all of us as well. The better we understand the influences, politics, paradigms, and situtions of the world, the better we will be able to make the right choices about what courses of action to engage in in the future, and about what we need to do to become safer and more secure. We must work, hope, and pray for the best.