Who is to blame for starting the Iraq war?

Sidhe · Oct 28, 2006

skadistic said:
Care to highlite where exactly Bush said Sadam has nukes?

skadistic said:
Bush never pushed Sadan as a nuke threat.

I was responding to this, therefore I have no need to prove that, just that he did indeed push Saddam as a nuclear threat. Perhaps you should of changed the statement to Bush never said Iraq had nukes. He most certainly considered them a nuclear threat.

ravensfire · Oct 28, 2006

Other - Saddam.

-- War

woody60707 · Oct 28, 2006

Mark1031 said:
Did you read the OP? The world thought he might have a stockpile of old chemical weapons. Not a big deal. Bush was pushing him as a nuclear threat. Weapons inspectors were in Iraq and the goverment was being more cooperative and WE ordered the inspectors OUT so we could INVADE. You can;t find something that isn;t there as we have found out.

One: you are reply as if I said Iraq was to blame, I stated very clearly that it was congress: what I did say was skadistic was right when he said that Iraq wasn't letting the UN do it's job.

Two: You back up your point by you showing me a paper which says that only at the very last sec was Iraq acting like it was willing to allow the U.N. does its job. It does nothing to show why this time he would be believed over the other times.

Three: That same link you gave me also cites in the past when the UN had to get out when we (US/UK) bombed Iraq for non compliance to the UN.

Four: the UN believed that Iraq wasn't letting their inspectors do there job. Unless you know another reason for passing of (13?) UN resolutions for non compliance?

So how was skadistic wrong when he said that Iraq wasn't letting UN weapon inspectors do there job.

skadistic · Oct 28, 2006

Sidhe said:
I was responding to this, therefore I have no need to prove that, just that he did indeed push Saddam as a nuclear threat. Perhaps you should of changed the statement to Bush never said Iraq had nukes. He most certainly considered them a nuclear threat.

Ok fair enough. Bush did say Sadam was a nuke threat not nuke armed. But he was right. Sadam only needed a very short time to get his programme up and running at full bore.

Mark1031 · Oct 28, 2006

skadistic said:
Sadam only needed a very short time to get his programme up and running at full bore.

And this statment is supported by what exactly. The centrifuges they found? the nuclear reactors and plutonium enrichment plants they found? Any country with physists could have a program running at "full bore" in a short time :lol:

.

Mark1031 · Oct 28, 2006

woody60707 said:
One: you are reply as if I said Iraq was to blame, I stated very clearly that it was congress: what I did say was skadistic was right when he said that Iraq wasn't letting the UN do it's job.

Two: You back up your point by you showing me a paper which says that only at the very last sec was Iraq acting like it was willing to allow the U.N. does its job. It does nothing to show why this time he would be believed over the other times.

Three: That same link you gave me also cites in the past when the UN had to get out when we (US/UK) bombed Iraq for non compliance to the UN.

Four: the UN believed that Iraq wasn't letting their inspectors do there job. Unless you know another reason for passing of (13?) UN resolutions for non compliance?

So how was skadistic wrong when he said that Iraq wasn't letting UN weapon inspectors do there job.

Sorry. I admit Iraq was in the past in violation of UN resolutions as are other countries. My point is that we had to throw inspectors out to attack. They had been there for 4 months and found nothing as well as the extensive inspections following Gulf war I. We now know there was nothing to find. And if you think that anything Iraq could have done regarding cooperation with the UN would have averted the invasion by GWB then you are delusional.

Xanikk999 · Oct 28, 2006

eyrei said:
The citizens of the USA...

Hell no. I didnt vote for bush.

And even those that did, doesnt make them responsible.

Its the bush administrations fault.

There was no mention of an iraqi war during the 2000 election. :rolleyes:

.Shane. · Oct 28, 2006

lol, did you all forget that Bush is the "Decider"?

Kind of a silly poll at this point.

woody60707 · Oct 28, 2006

Mark1031 said:
Sorry. I admit Iraq was in the past in violation of UN resolutions as are other countries. My point is that we had to throw inspectors out to attack. They had been there for 4 months and found nothing as well as the extensive inspections following Gulf war I. We now know there was nothing to find. And if you think that anything Iraq could have done regarding cooperation with the UN would have averted the invasion by GWB then you are delusional.

Now thats kind of the point. Now we know there was nothing to fine, before we didn't know there was nothing to fine. At the time it was believed the reason we didn't find anything was due to Iraq not letting the UN teams have the freedoms we wanted them to have. A logical line of reasoning, just not the only logical line of reasoning

MobBoss · Oct 28, 2006

Mark1031 said:
What overt action did Saddam take to "Start the War".

He didnt comply with UN resolutions for over 14 years. Fired on our planes. Etc. etc.

Starting a war requires an overt military action like droping tons of bombs and moving in 100s of thousands of soldiers.

No it doesnt. You need to study your history more.

There is no interpretation of reality in which Saddam did that. I obviously skewed the poll because it is about starting a war not being a bad guy.

Not complying with cease fire agreements and/or not complying with UN resolutions should start a war, and this is exactly what Saddam did.

And please with the UN resolutions. How many UN resolutions is Israel not in compliance with? Have they declared war on the world?

Is your thread about Iraq or Israel? If you really cant see a difference between Saddam's Iraq and Israel then any intelligent conversation here is hopeless.

Mark1031 · Oct 28, 2006

MobBoss said:
He didnt comply with UN resolutions for over 14 years. Fired on our planes. Etc. etc..

UN resolutions discussed below. Well then we should have said honestly: Saddam fired on our planes we are therefore planning to invade his country at the cost of 100s of thousands of lives and a generation of radical instability in that country.

No it doesnt. You need to study your history more.

please enlighten us on cases where you believe a war was started without the use of military equipment, guns or explosives. There is a difference between the words provoke and start.

Not complying with cease fire agreements and/or not complying with UN resolutions should start a war, and this is exactly what Saddam did.

Is your thread about Iraq or Israel? If you really cant see a difference between Saddam's Iraq and Israel then any intelligent conversation here is hopeless

The thread is about Iraq. I see a very big difference between Saddam's Iraq and Israel. The point of comparison is about UN resolutions and ignoring them. Israel does, and rightfully so in some cases. But if violating UN resolutions is a justification for war then we should be at war with Israel. It is a very simple concept.

Souron · Oct 28, 2006

This should be a multiple choice poll.

Field_Marshal · Oct 28, 2006

eyrei said:
The citizens of the USA...

explain, Ive never declared war in my life

Taliesin · Oct 28, 2006

The PNAC, perhaps? They're the ones who were gung-ho to engineer a war with Iraq.

Field_Marshal · Oct 28, 2006

Saddam. We said get out or go to war and he didnt get out. So war. :mischief: