Iraq: WMDs, Imminent Threat, 9-11, Nukes, etc. Simply Put: We Were Lied To.

So, in WWII we shouuld've invaded France first, the mopped up North Africa, Sicily, and Italy after we got the heavy lifting out of the way? perhaps the Marines could've just cut to the chase and landed on Iwo Jima in 1942 and then we could've been spared the loss of the Yorktown at Midway...

 

Perhaps you missed Mullah Omar's and Bin Laden's comments that they were grateful for the support of the US anti-war movement.

 

That's a hollow analogy and you know it.

Address the issue at hand rather than exporting it to incongruous situations.

 

The issue at hand is that the liberal apologists for terror will always find some reason to try and discredit the war on terror because they hate george bush, dick cheney and john ashcroft. well, i'm an agnostic gun-control supporting believer in gay marriage and there's not a day that goes by that i don't look down 6th avenue at where the WTC once stood and have the "issue at hand" brought back with riviting clarity.

 

Um, DD, did you hear or read anything about the SOTU speech? Bush went on and on about the WMDs and actually claimed that Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear material. Rumsfeld and the other Bush bobble heads repeated the claims ad nauseum to drum up support for this war.

Note that most Americans (including me) did not support this war until the administration claimed that we knew for a fact that there were WMDs and that we knew where they were. Even more people (like me) supported war after the nuke claims in the SOTU.

The main reason MOST Americans supported this war was WMDs and nukes, neither of which has turned out to be a substantiated claim.

This war was sold under false pretenses by an administration that is inept (if those claims were mistakes) or corrupt (if the claims were made with their knowledge).

Now that we have been thrust in this situation, it behooves us to do what we can to rebuild the country into (hopefully) a democratic society, but the war was sold to us fraudulently.

 

Nice diversionary tactic, but I work on Pine Street, and have for several years now, so that's not going to get you anywhere in the moral capital sweepstakes.

 

it's not a contest. just trying to tell you why the war's important to me. perhaps you see things differently.

 

Come on. You're better than this (or that's my impression).

Maybe I gave Mullah Omar and Bin Laden's comments their proper attention: zero. I recommend you do the same, and I recommend that all of us continue to think for ourselves and analyze all the data we can accumulate. (It seems to me you are doing just that). Onward.

 

Who here (or anywhere in the US for that matter) has been an apologist for terror? Let me give you the definition so that you can stop painting with such broad strokes.

Apologist - A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. (per dictionary.com)

Who on this board have you heard arguing in support of terror? You haven't heard it because it hasn't happened, you have just decided to question the patriotism of people rather than coming up with a lucid argument. That might work on your Limbaugh sheep, but it doesn't fly here.

The war on terror isn't the question here, the link of Iraq TO the war on terror is the question. If you just want to obfuscate and blow smoke screens, you will get torn up in this forum, much like your apologist T_J (see, I used that word properly to give you an example).

Again, the "issue at hand" is the lies, half-truths, and misleading information that the administration used to get us involved in the war in Iraq.

I support the war on terror fully and am extremely pleased with the way we went in and kicked al-Qaeda a$$es in Afghanistan, though I am a bit upset that we have ignored the rebuilding of that country yet again.

But I guess they don't have as much oil as Iraq, huh?

 

No, that is why I am worried about places like Pakistan far more than Iraq and their nonexistent WMDs.

 

The link of Iraq to terrorism is clear and undeniable (for example, payments to palestinian suicide bombers.) as is the Iraqi link to Al-Qaeda (Saddam provided a haven for answar al-islam, a home and monthly payments to one of the suspects in the 1993 WTC bombing). Iraq's possesion of WMDs is also clear and undeniable (Saddam DID gas the Kurds and used gas in the Iran/Iraq war). Even the UN said in 1998 that Iraq still had WMDs. The issue is what happened to them. If saddam destroyed them, why didn't he present the evidence and by so doing totally undercut Bush's case? instead he offered as an excuse the geopolitical equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." Why are you so much more eager to discredit Bush than Saddam? where's your incredulity?

 

The thing I admire most about the Bush Administration -- and this is probably more an indication of my lack of faith in the worst administration in U.S. history -- is that they haven't *planted* weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to save face.

This viewpoint is both an indication of my contempt for the administration and their dearth of meaningful accomplishments.

 

What's funny is that people keep saying the main reason "people "supported the war was because of WMDs. I'm sure some "people" supported the war for that reason, but I'm other supported the war (or didn't support the war) for an multitude of other reasons.

Bush never said that WMDs were the REASON for war. It was one thing in a list of things. What the opposition is doing is picking pieces of the president's argument (not the whole argument) and attacking it for political gain. Don't you guys think that the Congress (Intelligence committee) knew the exact same things the President did? Don't you guys remember that Congress (including most Democrats) authorized the use of force knowing the same info that Bush did?

Bush said after 9/11 that the U.S. was going to war against terror. Not Bin Laden, not Saddam, not Hammas in particular but terror in general. Invading Iraq had little to do with 9/11 directly but more to do with dismanteling a government that actively supported terror. Terrorism is a threat to all people all over the world. You can't fight it by arresting this person or killing that person. It's too big. You have to dismantle the infrastructure and to do that you have to eliminate the states that sponsor it like Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

We had the legal right to invade and remove Saddam. The U.N. mandates gave us that regardless of the current opinions of some of the members - if they didn't want Saddam ousted by force they shouldn't have voted to use force in the first place or they should have kept pressure up when Saddam first started resisting. According to the mandate, it wasn't WMDs that were need to justify throwing Saddam out, it was Iraq's cooperation in proving they weren't there. No one can argue that Iraq didn't cooperate; that it didn't try to derail, distract and distort the truth. Plus, we all know France and Germany didn't disagree with Bush for MORAL reasons but for personal economic and policital reasons.

We don't have the legal right to invade Iran, Syria or North Korea which is why we haven't and won't. So, we'll use other mechanisms available to prevent those governments from supporting terrorist organizations.

This post isn't going to convince anyone. You guys are going to go against Bush no matter what. He's simply on the wrong team and you guys are going to chear for your team and boo the other team no matter what they do. It's not really any different than the people who bashed Clinton all those years.

Remember when Clinton lied and how you guys defended him? He looked at the camera straight in the eye and said that troops would be in Kosovo for no longer than a year. Guess what? They're still there. We had no U.N. mandate there either (Russia was vehemently opposed that war). I guess it's okay to go in and take out an evil dictator who's killed tons of inncocent people if a Democrat orders it, but not if a Reblican orders it. Saddam was a much worse guy then Millocovich ever dreamed of being. Remember when Bill Clinton lied about doing drugs? There is absolutly NO evidence that Bush did any drugs whatsoever (no witnesses, no videos, nothing) and he gets criticized for it on this board but Clinton who did drugs and lied about it gets a pass. Remember when Clinton said he would have the most ethical administration in the history of the U.S.?

There are many things the Bush administration is doing that I'm not happy with or at least I'm confused as to why he's doing them. But I really can't take anti-Bush posts seriously when you don't take other politicians to task (Kennedy, Clinton) for doing the same things that you accuse Bush of doing.

 

Congratulations, you just made the perfect argument for invading Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two states that have sponsored far more terrorism, that has killed far more americans, than Iraq, Iran and North Korea combined in the past five years.

 

It has to be strategically possible as well. Right now it isn't very feasible for several reasons. Iraq was.

 

1) So then he wasn't lying? Because if he disarmed, he couldn't have taken us to war.

2) Polls STILL show support for the war. I believe the questions went along the lines of "even if no wmd's are found, do you still support the war?"


3) This doesn't change the fact that the UN had many resolutions against the war. As far as making a war "legal" that is ridiculous sounding to me.

 

The National Review is a conservative publication. So of course they would take that position. I don't doubt some of its veracity; every administration gets into bed with sleazeball corporations, and Halliburton always seems to be right there when it comes time to hand out rewards.

But Kosovo was nothing compared to the money that Halliburton and such will rake in over the destroyed infrastructure in Iraq.

Now, yes, there are elements within Iraq bent on sabotage. Who and where are they? Who knows. No one can deny the fact. But you can bet no one at Halliburton is saying, "Those poor people. No sanitation, no clean water, sporadic electricity. (sniff) Hand me a tissue. Thank you. Oh it just brings me to tears what Saddam did to those people."