Iraq War - Go again?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:31 am

Would you go again considering where we are now, broke in the bad economy blowing cash on an unnecessary war? I remember there were a lot of debates on here back in the day, a lot of them about if WMD's would be found

If you're a hardline defender, I'd love to hear the logic

EDIT: obviously my reasons for not going were not money, but spending on this war seems even more ridiculous now

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:34 am

I wouldn't have gone originally, but its too late to go back now.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:34 am

consider also the extreme loss of life on the side of the civilian iraqis.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:41 am

I voted no, but to be fair to the other side, if 40 years from now they are stabilized and a thriving democracy then I will have changed my mind.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:45 am

While I disagreed with the decision to invade, I think hindsight polls like this aren't really helpful. It's done, and there's still much to do there to stabilize the area.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:49 am

I don't accept the argument that if we could have known the way the economy was going to turn we simply couldn't afford the war because the current administration has the luxury of knowing the current state of the economy and yet it is proudly engaging in incredibly massive spending programs that will rival the war expense.

That being said, with the benefit of knowing how opportunity was squandered in Iraq and so many half steps taken creating a big mess there is no way I'd agree to it again.

For me it isn't that we couldn't afford it financially, it's that we didn't accomplish enough good from the mission (I use the term mission loosely) to justify the losses our military personnel suffered.

Bush went into Iraq the way Obama is going into his domestic policy, with an idea of what kind of outcome he'd like to see but no clue how to achieve it in the end and simultaneously letting his teammates in congress and the private sector capitalize on the failures of his policy.

For Iraq to have been a success right about now we should be debating whether or not the expansion of hostilities into Syria and Iran was necessary and do we really need to have a reconstruction to rival the post WWII Marshal Plan going on in the middle east with numerous American super-bases ringing the country providing a strategic stronghold in the middle east for at least a century to come.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:05 pm

Will, good to talk to you again! Always great points.

I typed my initial message pretty fast, so perhaps I should edit the Economy as a big reason why not to go -- that's certainly not what I meant, I think my reasons stand on their own without the $$ involved. I just mentioned the economy because spending money over there seems all the more frivolous now!

Bush went into Iraq the way Obama is going into his domestic policy, with an idea of what kind of outcome he'd like to see but no clue how to achieve it in the end and simultaneously letting his teammates in congress and the private sector capitalize on the failures of his policy.

This is true, good point. Luckily there won't be a lot of death and hate in Obama's outcome.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:40 pm

Gooberman wrote:I voted no, but to be fair to the other side, if 40 years from now they are stabilized and a thriving democracy then I will have changed my mind.

Foil wrote:While I disagreed with the decision to invade, I think hindsight polls like this aren't really helpful. It's done, and there's still much to do there to stabilize the area.

+1 on both accounts

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:01 pm

Goob wrote:I voted no, but to be fair to the other side, if 40 years from now they are stabilized and a thriving democracy then I will have changed my mind.

Yes and no. I'm still bothered by how our invasion didn't just violate the Iraq government's self-determination but its citizens' as well (recall that the war was originally sold on the basis that we would be treated as liberators). I think that, historically, you are right--if they end up as a thriving democracy, the textbooks will look at it as a good decision. But there is rich irony in violating a people's self-determination in order to give them the right to that thing. I suppose that this problem reduces to whether the ends justify the means.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:14 pm

Uhm no, the war was originally sold on the idea that they had WMD's and if we didn't act \"quickly\", then there was a huge threat of another 911 but on a much grander scale.

Edit: I vote no because I think their all a bunch of frauds.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:19 pm

It was sold on a variety of reasons.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:53 pm

Jeff250 wrote:It was sold on a variety of reasons.

It's amazing how many people act like the Iraq war was sold on WMD and WMD alone. Anyone who gives an honest listen to ANY of Bush's "we need to invade" speeches should be able to identify 5 or 6 different general arguments for going in to Iraq. Not everyone will agree with them or think they were persuasive, but those who can't even identify their existence are either dishonest or ignorant.

-------

I'd have done it over again.

The fact is, the Middle East isn't going to learn to play nice with the rest of the world as long as people like Saddam remain in power. But I expect an Iraq with free elections and a decently representative government, even if it's very different from ours, to pull the rest of the region into modernity. It's risky, but it's worth the gamble.

As for the state of the economy right now, a weak dollar policy combined with perverse incentives that decoupled risk from decision-making in lending are to blame. Had we kept a strong-dollar policy and forced those who made loans to be on the hook if they went bad, or at least made the resale of that risk completely transparent, the economy would be in much better shape with or without the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 5:34 pm

very interesting hearing everyone's reaction, definitely don't have the time to rehash any old arugments

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:36 pm

indeed Lothar. It's amazing the short memories that folks have. One of those reasons was Saddom was breaking every rule (a mild exagerration) that the UN threw down.

He was itchin for a fight. Up until recently, I don't think that the UN actually had a an organized significant armed force. ... other than us I mean.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:55 am

I like the way democrats turn the whole wmd issue onthe republicans

President Clinton in 1998 wrote:"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

President Clinton wrote:"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

Madeleine Albright wrote:"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:47 am

Well it's obvious by those quotes and years that Iraq was something they felt like they left unfinished from 1990 when his father also attacked them. I guess the fact that both of them consult for some very near neighbors to Iraq should have no bearing at all either. Aside from all that, and seeing their intentions well before 9/11 ever happened, I ask this question:

Had it not been for 9/11 happening, would they have had the mass approval needed to start an unprovoked war?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:09 pm

flip wrote:Well it's obvious by those quotes and years that Iraq was something they felt like they left unfinished from 1990 when his father also attacked them.

I take it from your phraseology that you're not old enough to actually remember 1990.

Had it not been for 9/11 happening, would they have had the mass approval needed to start an unprovoked war?

I don't recall any unprovoked wars. Do you have one in mind?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:23 pm

Lothar, he may be young and I know the Iraq events weren't entirely unprovoked... but no need to be snappy.

I think the question is a bit unfocused, but valid: how might recent events in the Middle East have unfolded if the 9/11 attacks had never occurred?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:39 pm

flip wrote:Well it's obvious by those quotes and years that Iraq was something they felt like they left unfinished from 1990 when his father also attacked them. I guess the fact that both of them consult for some very near neighbors to Iraq should have no bearing at all either. Aside from all that, and seeing their intentions well before 9/11 ever happened, I ask this question:

Had it not been for 9/11 happening, would they have had the mass approval needed to start an unprovoked war?

where did you get your Info?!?!?!?!? because IT's WAY wrong

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:59 pm

What I think a lot of folks don't realize is that Saddam was a bonified nut case. Just like Kim Jong-il of N. Korea is now. Saddam was killing and torturing so many people that there were many Iraqi refugee camps set up just 20 miles inside the Iranian border. (which was being allowed) Mind you this was not long after the Iraq-Iran war so they were opting to flee into a potentially hostile area. Very few people in that region will actually miss Saddam. That is why Clinton signed that act. This man as brutal. And if the media hadn't crucified Bush over Iraq, we might have done the same for N. Korea .. that and China is next door which has always been the contention in that region.

\"History\" likes to boil the precipitation of a war down to one event. If you really look at any war, it's the culmination of many offenses. Kind of like a set of earthquakes. Often there are numerous \"fore shocks\" that occur before the \"big one\" hits that everyone remembers.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:18 pm

In 1990 I was 20 years old and most of this is what I remember. In the years prior to Desert Storm, we were allies with Saddam in a war against Iran. Immediately after Iraq (with our help) defeated Iran, he turned towards his southern borders, amassed troups on the border of Kuwait, and stopped. At the same time a presidential spokesperson publicly states that the United States has no special interest in Kuwait when asked what our action would be. Saddam then invades Kuwait. I'm not debating at this point whether we should have or shouldn't. I'm just saying these are the events I remember. I'm also not debating whether we should be in this present war. They were and still are a serious threat. Should we have imperialistically went there and made a strong presence? Probably, I'm no fool in thinking one of those guys wouldn't off me in a second, and given that chance he better be faster than me. I have no interest in debating the merits of this war, were there and it's an endless debate. I merely stating my opinion in response to Jeff's comment about the \"the single biggest cause\" for going to war. It is my belief that without 9/11 no way could we start dropping bombs.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:03 pm

Well lets correct some facts. first off Iraq did not defeat Iran. a cease fire was called after many years of bloody fighting because neither side could gain an advantage.

second we did no go \"imperialisticly\" into the first gulf war. there was a coalition of 34 nations that removed Iraq from Kuwait in an action that was sanctioned by the U.N.
because with the sezure of Kuwait, Iraq now controlled 1/4 of the worlds oil supply there-by threatening world oil supplies. yes it was about the oil.

third. the debate for the 2nd gulf war is still raging. there were many reasons for going back in. because of the continued Violation of UN resolutions that allowed it (that I can look up if you need) Iraq was in violation of the terms of the first gulf cease fire. and had repeatedly shot at UN aircraft in a no-fly zone. the WMD threat, was thought to be real. Hindsight is always 20-20 and there were several nations that believed that including Britain, France and Russia. did 9-11 facilitate that? probably. since Iraq was a known sponsor of terrorism and we did not want those \"possible\" WMD's getting into the wrong hands. Saddam bluffed about having them and his bluff was called. and it cost him, us, and the Iraqi people.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:16 pm

The first one was better than the sequel.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:27 pm

CUDA wrote: Saddam bluffed about having them and his bluff was called. and it cost him, us, and the Iraqi people.

Before he was executed, Saddamn admitted to intentionally trying to make the world believe he had WMD because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran.

I wont say he didn't deserve what happened, but given the history of his nation with Iran it isn't hard to understand why he did what he did.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:44 pm

Yes your right my use of defeated was wrong. When I said defeated I meant Iran finally quit their aggression towards Iraq and gave up trying.

I never meant to imply the first war was imperialistic and I've heard all the reasons why. My use of that word was directed towards our present position there. Unprovoked because although Saddam was being resistant to world pressure, he was not the one who drew first blood.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:48 pm

Iraq WAS in possession of WMD. If you don't think a few hundred tanks can't do some destruction, then you my friend need to watch the video of just one tank running rampant through a neighborhood here in the states.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:18 pm

flip wrote:Yes your right my use of defeated was wrong. When I said defeated I meant Iran finally quit their aggression towards Iraq and gave up trying.

I never meant to imply the first war was imperialistic and I've heard all the reasons why. My use of that word was directed towards our present position there. Unprovoked because although Saddam was being resistant to world pressure, he was not the one who drew first blood.

I think your still missing the fact that Saddam WAS the agressor in gulf war 1, and he did not fulfill his obligations of the cease fire from said war, so infact it was Saddam that was responsible for the second gulf war. did we go in out of fear from 9-11. IMHO yes but it was Saddam that was ultimately responsible for GW2

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:04 pm

Yea it's fair to say the post 9/11 anger towards belligerents in the middle east was the tipping point for enabling Bush to go into Iraq. And it is definitely fair to say that Saddam created the situation that made him vulnerable to the invasion.

The problem for me is we won't come away with enough of a change to the middle east status quo to justify the cost. I hope I'm wrong because I share Lothars understanding of why we went and what we could hope to achieve but with the Democrats in charge it went from a long difficult struggle to an impossible dream.

I remember Bush's speech in Cinncinatti and WMD's was like 5th or 6th on the list. The media ran with that single point though because it was the sexiest of the reasons and when the Bushies saw how America latched onto that one point over all the others they too went with it.
The rest is politics, but it doesn't change the fact that because some radical Muslims went way too far on Sept. 11 2001 we came together as one angry nation to go medieval on their asses then the two political sides split back apart to take what ever posture suited them best.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:29 pm

Will, it was not just the media that ran with the WMD angle. And even if Bush did give a speech where WMD was one item among a list, the BIG BIG thing that caused the war that GOT EVERYONE IN CONGRESS TO AGREE TO GO was the supposed PROOF of WMDs they had. Colin Powell went and used SEVERELY FLAWED INFO (imo lied) to the UN security council about the weapons.

The way got authorization from congress to use force was the WMD claim. Bush may have listed other reasons, but he and his advisors had to get Congress' approval...and they did that by using the botched WMD intelligence, whether you think they knew it was fake or not, in the end WMD's absolutely were the pivotal issue that congress gave authorization for force. Otherwise, bush couldn't go.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:47 pm

Members of congress had already trampled all over each other to be first in front of the camera explaining how they knew Saddam was a threat in possession of WMD's BEFORE Bush was even elected! So when 9/11 happened they all reaffirmed their belief that Saddam had to go. So regardless of how much Bush piled on with the scare tactics of WMD's he wasn't changing Congress' minds they had already gone on record as being of the same mind! (see quotes below)
So it seems to be more than a little bit opportunistic when the left side of the Congress suddenly claimed to have been tricked into voting for the war!

And the biggest villain in that scenario is the media who didn't objectively remind the public of that fact, instead they went straight into campaign support mode in anticipation of the political fallout they obviously wanted to make up their next story line.

\"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.\"
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

\"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.\"
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

\"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.\"
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

\"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.\"
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

\"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.\"
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

\"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.\"
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

\"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.\"
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

\"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.\"
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

\"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.\"
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

\"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.\"
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

\"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.\"
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

\"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.\"
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

\"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...\"
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

\"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.\"
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

\"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.\"
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

\"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do\"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

\"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.\"
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

\"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.\"
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

\"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...\"
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:31 pm

Yes WMD’s were the bottom line…but let’s not pretend that everyone in the entire world didn’t think they had them.

DUH, you could have lifted up a rock….and asked a cricket…Yes, he has WMD…

PS Nice post Will.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:55 pm

Spidey wrote: PS Nice post Will.

x2

Well done on finding the quotes!

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:36 am

So what we agree on is that without 9/11 there was no real justification for declaring war on Iraq. Not that there weren't real reasons also but none that warranted actual war. I mean to follow these arguments I would perceive N. Korea a much bigger threat seeing as we KNOW they are developing nuclear weapons, A far greater threat. Why not the same zeal concerning them. Out of our reach maybe? All the quotes to me just signify prior intent. Also everyone of the quotes appear to be from democrats within or near to the same administration, hardly the whole world. Just seems to me that the fear factor was the biggest incentive to go to war in Iraq and at the very least seems opportunistic more than anything. Kind of like beating the dog because he saw the fox steal a chicken.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:03 am

flip wrote:So what we agree on is that without 9/11 there was no real justification for declaring war on Iraq. Not that there weren't real reasons also but none that warranted actual war. I mean to follow these arguments I would perceive N. Korea a much bigger threat seeing as we KNOW they are developing nuclear weapons, A far greater threat. Why not the same zeal concerning them. Out of our reach maybe? All the quotes to me just signify prior intent. Also everyone of the quotes appear to be from democrats within or near to the same administration, hardly the whole world. Just seems to me that the fear factor was the biggest incentive to go to war in Iraq and at the very least seems opportunistic more than anything. Kind of like beating the dog because he saw the fox steal a chicken.

CHINA

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:03 am

flip wrote:So what we agree on is that without 9/11 there was no real justification for declaring war on Iraq....

No, there was lot of justification. A lot of violations of U.N. resolutions and numerous violations of the cease fire agreement which means the U.S. could have resumed hostilities any time.
What 9/11 gave was reason for the public to get behind the effort with zeal. And it gave the strategists in Washington reason to look at the middle east with a desire to change it's political makeup. 9/11 took Iraq from being a loose end from a conflict almost overwith to a legal strategic target in a much bigger conflict yet to be waged. (unfortunately politics hamstrung the bigger effort and Iraq was dealt with by the president and the media as a singular effort instead of as one of many steps)
Take it from a leading democrat who was no friend of Bush, he pretty much sums up the reasons beyond the technicality of cease fire and resolution violations:

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

Sen. Levins reasons for supporting the war are valid, the WMD component of his concern is based on fact. Once we got in there we DID FIND the programs where Saddam was hiding the long range missile and biological and chemical weapon capabilities. He had no inventory to speak of but he was preserving by hiding all the technology he could so he could resume manufacturing.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:33 am

As I have often said, the fact we did not find wmd's does not mean Saddam did not have any.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:13 am

woodchip wrote:As I have often said, the fact we did not find wmd's does not mean Saddam did not have any.

If I was an Dictator, I think the one time where I could use WMD and have an 100% clear concious about it, would be if another country invaded mine.

I can't figure out why he would hold back, why he would not use them. I mean, this was worst case scenario for him. This is why a country makes these kinds of things.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:21 pm

Gooberman wrote:
woodchip wrote:As I have often said, the fact we did not find wmd's does not mean Saddam did not have any.
If I was an Dictator, I think the one time where I could use WMD and have an 100% clear concious about it, would be if another country invaded mine.

I can't figure out why he would hold back, why he would not use them. I mean, this was worst case scenario for him. This is why a country makes these kinds of things.

He had Russia and France, both members on the U.N. Security Council telling him they would never vote for the invasion, in return he was offering them contracts on oil infrastructure improvements and oil futures contracts on Iraqi oil....billions of dollars of exclusive business for each country.

What Saddam didn't count on is Dubyah's posse doesn't need no U.N.steenkin badges !

And what did he have that could hit americans? The few long range missiles we found were hidden in case inspectors came back in and his chemical and biologicals were reduced to the equipment and recipes to produce, no warhead ready material found....nukes were never established to have been created just the gathering of materials to start the process of creating them.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:21 pm

all these quotes I have seen before, and I believe were brought up in arguments a few years back. Democrats (and politicians in general) are liars, and like to play the current sentiments. None of those people would have voted to take Iraq over by force back then... even though they talked about weapons back then.

So what changed? Political climate. A climate born of 9-11, heavily shaped by Bush et al.

It was the culture of fear being shoved on the public at the same time many democrats in the house and senate were about to be up for re-election -- not a time to go against the public flow.

- a large portion of the public believe Saddam and Iraq had ties to 9-11 (Many people thought different levels of involvement, some little some a lot, mostly ignorant people but Bush was somewhat promoting this idea, certainly not denying it

- bush claimed saddam had WMD's, Colin Powell made his speech, Rumsfeld does the dirty work and insinuates much worse, claiming to know exactly where weapons are but that we can't tell anyone. lol. There were lots of ties to Saddam to WMD's in the past, but on his current state of W once colin powell was on board, all the republicans were on board, the fear machine was in full bloom, and the democrats had to no choice to back bush.

Basically for a senator or house rep to go against authorizing force, they had to stand apart in a small group, call the president and Colin Powell Liars (both of which I believe they are/were), and go against the culture of fear and nationalism that was being shoved down our throats. They'd also be painted as someone that \"does not wish to liberate the Iraqi people\". On top of that, a large portion of the public believe Saddam had ties to Iraq! Too bad none of our politicians have an ounce of back bone, save a small number.

Bush rode a perfect storm to get this war, which he so badly wanted. No chance without 9-11's political climate--the rampant fear mongering about Saddam's terrorist ties and alleged WMD'--do we end up in Iraq.

The strangest part about all this, at the time Iraq was invaded, it was not likely to hurt us at all. We had inspectors all over the country, and the entire world had an eyelock on Saddam since the first gulf war. There was no reason to rush either, as we did. Bush knew he had to go right then to take advantage of the political climate created by 9-11 and himself.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:37 pm

Birdseye wrote:...
The strangest part about all this, at the time Iraq was invaded, it was not likely to hurt us at all. We had inspectors all over the country, and the entire world had an eyelock on Saddam since the first gulf war. There was no reason to rush either, as we did. Bush knew he had to go right then to take advantage of the political climate created by 9-11 and himself.

Actually Saddam had kicked out all the inspectors...again...and Russia and France along with Germany were going to push to have the U.N. sanctions lifted. The reason was money and oil and the WMD programs would have been cranked right back up again.

Now wether or not that ever would have resulted in a WMD of Iraqi origin being used on us is up for debate. Based on Saddams track record I'd say probably not, at least not by his directive, he wasn't the least bit interested in supporting any kind of Islamo-fasism he was all about becoming the new pan arabic leader of the whole middle east.

With the luxury of hindsight we should have beat Russia and France to the punch and offered him complete release from the sanctions and sold him everything he needed (conventional weapons) in return for a presence in the north and west using the creation of a neutral zone to protect the Kurds as the public face on what would have really been a nice strategic platform from which to work covert ops and keep the pressure on Syria, Iran et al and just generally have easy access to the region and of course we could enjoy the oil infrastructure business and be paying $2 per gallon of refined Iraqi crude all this time.

It wouldn't have hurt us as much on the world stage and would have cost a whole lot less in human sacrifice to achieve it.

By the way, regarding the rush to implement policy to take advantage of the 'crisis' is something Bush and Obama have in common. Obama is using the economic crisis to scare the country into accepting his "remaking America" plan just like you described Bush using 9/11 to invade Iraq.
I know why Obama is doing it, he's a militant liberal through and through, his motive is obvious. Bush on the other hand is a little hard to read. I'd love to know what his real expectations were. I thought I knew but his actions toward the end make me realize I was just being hopeful.
Please God don't let it be that he just wanted Cheney to leave him alone so he went along. (I have nightmares of the Bush character from Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay)

Iraq War - Go again?

Go to Iraq again?

Iraq War - Go again?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: