No, I am claiming that that fact alone was not nearly enough justification for getting us into this conflict.
The point is not that helping people is not good, or that consistency must be demanded; the point is that helping people is a post hoc rationalization in this case.
No, I am saying that a tyrant murdering people is poor justification for a war, especially if the case for war is made on claims of WMDs. I would have a lot fewer problems with this war had the administration pitched it as a humanitarian mission rather than under the guise of "disarming Iraq." The war will, hopefully, have some positive consequences, but I do not believe that those positive effects will outweigh the deviousness that was exhibited by our leaders in this action. They determined from the start that they were going to invade Iraq after Afghanistan and kept adding charges to the list until the polls said that a majority of Americans supported the war. Now that we are stuck like Chuck, they are coming back and saying "but it is a good thing that Saddam is gone" to cover up their lies, exaggerations, and mischaricterizations.
And tons of it expired and were disposed of, as per the agreement out of GWI. We cannot claim that Saddam had WMDs at the ready when none were used on our troops, none were found in the assault, and none have been found by OUR weapons inspectors armed with the can't-miss intelligence we had before the war. You know, the intelligence they told us they couldn't show us for national security reasons that proved that the Iraqis had MASSIVE stockpiles of Sarin and VX.
I'm not defending Saddam gassing the Kurds. It was Bush's father and others that let him slide on that one. The point is that I hate the conditions that Iraqis suffered under during Saddam's reign. Just like I hated the conditions that go on in other countries under cruel dictators. The point is that the administrations main reason for going in was WMD. It's a great that Saddam is gone. I'll never say differently. But freeing the Iraqis was a always a secondary or even terciary rationale for the war.
Originally posted by andymoon: And tons of it expired and were disposed of, as per the agreement out of GWI. We cannot claim that Saddam had WMDs at the ready when none were used on our troops, none were found in the assault, and none have been found by OUR weapons inspectors armed with the can't-miss intelligence we had before the war, You know, the intelligence they told us they couldn't show us for national security reasons that proved that the Iraqis had MASSIVE stockpiles of Sarin and VX. [/B][/QUOTE] <b>Well, congratulations on your razor-sharp hindsight. When you are on inspection by the world, you don't get national security concerns. Isn't there still stockpiles missing? The numbers have never added up, have they?</b>
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade: I'm not defending Saddam gassing the Kurds. It was Bush's father and others that let him slide on that one. <b>Are you saying that Operation Iraqi Freedom should have been launched all those years ago?</b> The point is that I hate the conditions that Iraqis suffered under during Saddam's reign. Just like I hated the conditions that go on in other countries under cruel dictators. <b>Agreed, but we have no obligation to go anywhere and do anything. Iraq's ME geography must have something over-riding to do with it. Maybe the US is finally redressing a wrong (Saddam)?</b> The point is that the administrations main reason for going in was WMD. <b>By "main reason," do you mean the straw that broke the camel's back?</b> It's a great that Saddam is gone. I'll never say differently. But freeing the Iraqis was a always a secondary or even terciary rationale for the war. <b>Operation Iraqi Freedom.</b>
Operation Iraqi Freedom. They only named it that because the alternative would have been too obvious O peration I raqi L iberation
They were adding up according to the weapons inspectors, who were about to finish their jobs and report that Iraq had disarmed. That seems to be the real reason we had to attack NOW, because if the inspectors had delivered their report, we would not have had a leg to stand on for GWB to go finish what his daddy started. Those stockpiles you are talking about were for materials with a known shelf life. The weapons inspectors had already crossed those off the list and were looking for credible evidence of CURRENT WMD programs. It seems like the "intelligence" we had for chemical weapons was that which proved the earlier existance of weapons that have since expired. They (the administration) just didn't tell us that they knew that the chemicals wouldn't have been weapons grade anymore. It seems like they have neglected to tell us a lot of things lately. It further seems that when they have told us things, they have made claims that have been misleading, exaggerated, or outright lies.
I am saying that if we were going to depose Saddam, we should have done so in '91. We had all the reasons then that we have now, and the WMD card was much more valid then than now. We didn't have any obligation to go to Iraq and do anything. The weapons inspectors were wrapping up their work and preparing to report to the UN that Saddam had disarmed, which apparently he did. The only wrong being redressed is GWB going and finishing what his daddy started. That is kind of what that was, but the key is that the administration used a claim that they knew was false, or at the very least did not have the data to prove, to "break the camel's back" of public opinion. They used data that was misleading, exaggerated, or outright false to convince the American people to invade a country that was not a threat to the US. Nobody accused anyone in the administration, other than Bush himself, of being a moron. What did you expect them to call this, Operation Iraqi BendOver?
Originally posted by andymoon Nobody accused anyone in the administration, other than Bush himself, of being a moron. What did you expect them to call this, Operation Iraqi BendOver? <b> Why didn't they call it Operation WMDs Be-Gone? I think this whole thing became much more about WMDs after the harangue of the critics who probably knew the intel on WMDs would be sketchy. It started out less about WMDs than it ended up being about WMDs, as I recall. It was clever politicking by the Dems.</b>
The name of the operation may have little or nothing to do with the reasoning of the operation itself. In the first gulf war it was called, 'Dessert Storm' Our intent wasn't to storm the dessert,, it was to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Storming the dessert wasn't really a reason why we fought that war. To try and argue that because the project was named 'Iraqi Freedom' the whole conflict must really have been the freedom of Iraqis is not solid. They could have called the operation 'Peace on Earth' and it would have meant the same thing. Bush said that by destroying the WMD's war could be avoided. He never said that by liberating his people war could be avoided. Why would the condition he gave for avoiding war be something that wasn't the main reason for going to war? Call it the straw that broke the camel's back if you want, but that was the only straw ever mentioned as a way for Saddam to prevent the war.
If President Bush <b>knew</b> he was "lying" about the WMDs, why would he make them the centerpiece of Saddam's decision-making?
Wasn't GWI originally called Desert Shield, when we were trying to save Kuwait, and became Desert Storm once our ground troops, you know, stormed the desert.
perhaps you were out getting a beer during that point of the SOTU speech, because it's the same part of the speech that contains the "imminent threat" language you so consistently misrepresent: no matter what they called, or what rationalizations the administration gave for the war you and yours would have found a reason to oppose it. Wolfowitz said it best: "I can only conclude you'd be happier if Saddam were still in power." to which i'd amend "murdering, raping, and torturing his people and their children."
Nice attempt at spin, but I remember this pretty clearly as one of the ones who was duped into supporting the war. They weren't getting any traction (with people like me) until they started hyping the WMD angle. Then, in the SOU, Bush made his Niger claim at which I exclaimed "holy crap, we need to take that f***er out!" It was the WMD claims where they said over and over again that they couldn't show us the intelligence because they didn't want to compromise their sources (a legitimate worry). I believed them and supported them until most of their claims started turning up to be misstated, exaggerated, or just made up. They claimed that they had can't miss, hard proof that they were CERTAIN of. They lied.
Nope, it was Desert Shield when we were "protecting" Saudi Arabia. Kuwait had already been invaded and taken over by the time we started that. It became Desert Storm once we went in to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
