always, that's why the whole "bush lied about WMD" angle holds so little resonance for me. it was always clear to me that although WMD were a significant determining factor in whether we invaded, it was not the sole reason. those who pretend other wise are either willfully obtuse, or blindly partisan.
well . . . Question - did they have much choice? I mean these elections were going to happen who ever was elected was going to be the Recognized leader If you didn't participate. . . you basically screwed yourself out of ANY say in the government I'm not saying the Iraqi's didn't want the control but I am saying after we started this. .they were going to be handed the reigns . . win lose or draw Rocket River
my basic issue is this I don't like my government lying to me even if it is for my own good or even the greater good We are suppose to be the good guys and over the years we have come to a point where we are ok with them using less than scrupulous tactics to acheive their ends Are we an ends justifies the means society now? Rocket River "do what is right .. not what is easy" - Deathlok
So after the concrete reason given was proven false, you grasp to intangible concepts like democracy and liberation in order to save face. Mainly because any free thinking, intelligent person couldn't possibly be against those. Okay I get it now. Good luck to ya. I'm out
Your premise of "the concrete reason given" is a problem. It is only portrayed like that by one side and I don't think it is an accurate portrayal. That's what basso is saying and I think that the record supports that.
Please, if nobody gave a sh-t about WMD's, why were we subjected to one full year's worth of basso and treeman and company trumpeting fake finds & tellling us why they were really in Syria? This is the height of absurdity, you can try to rewrite history and dig up some throwaway lines about freedom and democracy all you want - but that is and was a non-starter, which is why it was not promininetly featured. This is also why basso, desperately and passionately hoped (as long as we are accusing people of wish crime in this thread) that a murderous dictator had them and wanted to use them on him and his family. I condemn you sir, for wishcrime in the first degree.
Doesn't it depend on whether you're speaking about Bush/administration or other intervention supporters? Even with Bush there is a substantial reason to believe democracy in Iraq WAS a goal, as per the neocon ideology. Personally I thought there were WMDs, and although I didn't think we were in imminent danger from them, when combined with the other reasons to intervene I supported it. Still do even though WMDs weren't found. When you call it absurd to still believe in the intervention, I think that's shortsighted and shallow. There really are three separate entities we're talking about and you are lumping them together. The administration: what did they want/believe. The general undecided public: what swayed them. The pro-intervention public: what swayed them.
do me a favor, go check out Bush's 2002 SOTU http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html Show me where Bush addresses Iraq in anything but from a WMD-threat viewpoint Here is Colin Powell's address to the UN http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html where in there is anything but WMDs talked about? and here is Bush's 2003 SOTU http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html liberating Iraq is only talked about as an effect, not a reason, WMDs are clearly the reason Bush is pushing for war so yes, WMD is the reason protrayed by one side, THE TRUTH side but it appears you are not on that side
Could it be that WMD was the only factor in doubt? Certainly you can google PLENTY of references to a democratic Iraq, a ruthless dictator, a genocidal dictator, etc.
I agree, but as been said here many times is - those weren't the reasons given for war, those weren't the reasons why people in this country supported the war at first it is kinda shocking to me to see people here trying to re-write history - totally ignoring that the WMD threat was THE reason behind Congress and the American people's willingness to go to war
From the 2002 SOTU: "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They <b>could</b> provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They <b>could</b> attack our allies or <b>attempt</b> to blackmail the United States. <b>In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic</b>." Seems pretty realistic to me. Remember, Saddam was seeking to have his enemies in the region and beyond believe that his nuclear capability was greater than it was. He had used bio-chem WMDs. Fortunately, his nuclear capabiity was exagerated. Go look at the 2003 SOTU prior to the Iraq invasion. It is fairly full of what you see the 2002 SOTU as missing: talk of Iraqi freedom et al.
No, I think you're just seeing what you want to see. Certainly it was the reason that pushed Congress to support the intervention, and it generally swayed the public. However again your, among others, contention that there were not other justifications (democracy etc) is simply false. My point is that those were not contested, and as such the emphasis was put on WMDs. Whether that was done to fool the public or done because the administration couldn't read the facts it was getting correctly - I don't know. Neither do you. It really doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that HAVING democratic reform in Iraq is a good thing. Those against the intervention seem to answer 'isnt democratic reform a great thing in Iraq' with 'THAT is not the reason lying Bush got us to intervene.' Which is a non sequiter at best.
1. Is it only democratic reform in isolation with no other impact? 2. How would those dead and wounded answer that question?
those who opposed the iraq war werent necessarily opposed to the elections after the invasion. it was the fact that we invaded in the first place, and that the reasons given to the american public for invading were false. i for one am glad that the elections went as smooth as they did. im glad that the jan. 31 date did not change. it was very important to stick to the established timetable for the elections. i dont think that many expected them to go off so well, but the elections are not the be-all-end-all in iraq. its a start, but there is much more to be done before people start patting themselves on the back and saying "see, we were right, mission accomplished". in reality, what has changed in the immediate aftermath of the elections? did iraq magically become a stable haven for democracy after jan. 31? is the entire country now going to all of a sudden fall in line behind the new government? can the iraqis now take over for the u.s. occupation forces? has our government began to move our troops out? have we even developed a strategy or timetable for doing so? are people in iraq more secure living their day-to-day lifes? has terrorism been defeated? has zarqawi and his bunch decided "well, they had elections, i guess its over, we lost". the way i see it, the answer to all is NO (or at best NOT YET). and as far as our reasons for invading, the main reason was the connections b/t saddam and bin laden and the WMD's - that was the main reason used to justify invasion and to get the public's support. there is no way that the american public would have gone along with an invasion simply to bring democracy to an oppressed people. bush used scare tactics in the months leading up to the invasion - drawing connections b/t saddam and al-qaeda and saddam's persuit of nuclear arms. the connection b/t saddam and 9/11 was even played up over and over to the point that many americans believed that iraq was directly involved in 9/11. "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02] in a feb 2003 poll, 72 percent said it was either very or somewhat likely that saddam was involved in 9/11. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ a june 2003 poll revealed that half of those polled belived that iraqis were among the 19 hijackers. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm?1c as we all know, 15 of the 19 were saudis, but i dont see us invading their country, which is ruled by very oppressive religious fanatics who went so far as to outlaw red roses during valentines recently. saudis are oppressed too, but since we are buddies/buisness partners with the royal family than i guess we will just leave them be. in the months leading up to the war, bush again and again claimed that iraq had WMD's right now and he must be taken out now, as he is an immediate threat to the u.s.a. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03] and later he contradicts himself with this statement... "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04] he goes from saying "we found WMD's" to we "found the CAPACITY to produce". in the first statement he quite clearly states that if you dont think they have WMD's, you are wrong "WE FOUND THEM"...a "slam dunk" case if you will. simply a matter of going in there and getting them. while the WMD's/al-quaeda link wasnt the ONLY reason used to justify invasion, it was the main reason that the public got behind bush. again, no way the american public would have gone with an invasion to nation build. i liken the whole thing to basically throwing poo against the wall and seeing what sticks. the WMD theory didnt pan out so bush just went along with the "freedom, democracy, he's a hitler, torture, rape-room" stuff. "whatever works for you, just shut up and go along with us."
