And then denied access again. They were also not allowed into any facility classified as a governmental building. Some of which were very questionable. How does it not hold up? they bluffed after bluffed after bluffed and we called them on it. Now its a matter of stabalizing a government, and allowing the inspectors true access to the country. Let me ask you this. If WMD ARE found, will you consider this war valid? Let me save you some time and answer for you: no. So how you use that as a reason this war was not valid if the counter is not true?
He admittingly gave money to families of the Palistinian bombers. Do you not consider that supporting terrorists?
Nothing, in scientific or philosophical terms, can be proven to be 100% "EXCLUSIVELY" causative of anything. Let's say a car crashes into you because of a drunk driver. Was the drunk driver the "EXCLUSIVE" cause of the accident? No, what about the fact that you were out on the road going to the grocery store because you needed more lotto tickets? or the butterfly that flapped its wings in China 3 years that set off a chain of events which caused you and the other driver to be in that location at that time (chaos theory)? It's a cheap escape hatch you built into your argument. It resonated because you made it so blatantly obvious that that was the silly device that you were planning on abusing by putting it in all caps.
You know, even if you think that we were justified in going to war, do you think we were compelled to invade Iraq? There might be justification for doing something that is not in your best interest. I don't think we were justified in invading Iraq, but even if I did, I wouldn't think it was in our best interest. With the Iraq war, we've done massive damage to our national security and lost hundreds of lives and spent billions of dollars while doing it.
Clarification, the Iraq war was not part of the war on terror. Here is a transcript of a recent Rumsfeld interview Notice the last sentence...and notice how hard Rumsfeld tries to avoid the question.
I find it ironic that the same people who make it a point to say we have spent billions of dollars invading the country are saying that we are doing it FOR the money. Blood For Oil .... errrr, wasting money on war instead of the economy. it gets sooo confusing.
I never stated that the Iraq war was part of the war on terror. I said we put weapons inspectors back in Iraq after many years as a result of the war on terror.
Those billions come from the public coffers, the profits from the war go into private hands. However, I'm not surprised that you're confused.
Puh-leeze. No, I do not consider it supporting terrorists at a level that meets the criteria for starting a war. The administration repeatedly touted claims of ties to AQ, claims that have proven to be false. The "payments to Palestinian bombers" issue is a red herring that is being thrust to the fore because the administration has to find SOMETHING to justify the war.
Isreal/Palestine conflict does not represent a threat to America. There is not and has never been a connection with Palistinian bombers to terrorism outside of Isreal. Palistinian's have a single beef...and its not w/ the U.S. There is no evidence that Sadaam supported terrorism. In fact, it is long known that Sadaam and Al Quieda were enemies.
Huh? You sound as confusing as W himself. So why are we going after Iraq if it has nothing to do with the "war on terror?" Please answer that question.
Yeah ok The inspectors were not allowed in by Sadaam for long period of time, then when they were let in they were not allowed unfettered access to areas they wanted access to. Even the inspectors said they would be interested to see what the US finds. So ... even though the inspectors didnt want war to occur, they admittedly knew there was the possibility of WMD because they did not have access to palaces and other places that they said they needed to check, but Sadaam would not let them in. So if the inspectors didn't know the truth for sure, then Iraq was not complying with their agreement. I love how some of you people hate Bush so much as to defend Sadaam trying to prove that he was following his end of the bargain.
Is this a serious response? War on the basis that we didn;t know for sure he didn't have WMDs? The bar is really that low for some people?
Who said that was the reason we went to war with Iraq??? There isnt any eveidence that Sadaam supported terrorism and their never will be. But lets take a step back for a second and look at this objectivly. Saddam hated Americans with a passion. Saddam was a very very wealthy man. Saddam had a propensity for hiding things. Sadaam was a fairly bright person - definatly crazy, but I think its safe to say he knew how to get things done. If he wanted to, do you think he could and support terrorism without anyone knowing about it? All it takes is a briefcase full of cash. If you wanted to get money to someone, couldnt you do it without any documentation? I am not saying that he did this, just stating that just because their isnt evidence that you or I know about, doesnt mean he didnt do it. Again, none of this matters. The justification for the war is in my first post in this thread. End of story, the liberals can poke around at the periphary all they want. But at the core, the issues were real, they were valid, and they justified action.
1. Iraq broke UN rules 2. WMD 3. Liberate the tortured people 4. Can't cut and run 5. The big myth: War on Terror 6. Reverse Domino Theory. 7. Show Who's Boss. 8. GWB's moral clarity.
So this is what you're sticking with? We get to break treaties to enforce treaties? And when it turns out the basis for the assumption that we know better, ie WMDs, is non-existant, and the UN, who apparently didn;t have the balls, apparently did have the brains, our response is...what, exactly? Yes, I am certain that, to a minor extent, Saddam failed to comply. That is expected in any treaty and why said treaties provide for a body to determine the extent of individual non-compliance actions, and the response to same. In this case that was done, and as we now know, the UN response, ie non-military, was appropriate to the situation, whereas our action, even overlooking it's illegality, was a significant over reaction.
You cited as evidence that Sadaam supports terrorism with the Palestinian conflict. If you don't beleive that has anything to do w/ why we invaded Iraq, then why did you bring it up? Spin? You posed all sorts of hypothetical reasons of how Sadaam could support terrorist. We can play that game all day long. The question I posed is dicussing the STATED reasons for going to war. Regarding the UN, the fact is the inspectors were allowed in (to varying degrees, I admit) and they never found any weapons. At the time, they requested more time to conduct searches. We refussed. We have since invaded Iraq and still haven't found anything. So far, the UN was right. So much so, that we are now requesting UN involvement again. Wouldn't it have been cheaper (lives & money) if we just listened to them in the first place?
Yes, this is a shakey list. Yet nobody can add any additional legitimate reasons to it. Somebody describe the Reverse Domino Theory one. I don't get it.
Not surprisingly, you forgot a few important steps. I guess you weren't paying close attention. GWB in 2002 SotU announces that Iraq is part of the Axes of Evil and vaguely connects the AoE to the WoT. GWB floats ideas to the press about going to Iraq after Afganistan, inilaterally if need be. GWB flip flops under political pressure, both domestic and international, and goes to the UN wrt Iraq. Doing so forces GWB to accept the ongoing UN policies wrt Iraq, sanctions and weapons inspections. The UNSC agrees to send weapons inspectors back to Iraq, after the US forces a "dire consequences" vote through the UNSC. GWB promised to have a vote on using military force if Iraq did not comply, but renegs later seeing that resolution would fail. After all of this, the UN inspectors go back in.
Minor? I think Saddam is becoming some sort of pop culture legend with the liberals. What you are calling "minor" is what I call a deliberate attempt to evade, decieve, and delay everything the UN attempted to do. Truth is that he made a laughing stock of the whole process ... for nearly 10 years. And anyone who defends Saddam's resistance as minor has either totally lost touch or is just making excuses to defend their cause.
