Why War in Iraq?

[North King]

Yes, Iraq had uranium. Having uranium and having a nuclear weapon is vastly different. Note how Iran is taking years to go from having uranium to having a bomb. Did Hussein once have a program? Yes. Did he probably desire to continue that program at some point? Of course. Was he in the middle of continuing that program? No.

 

[FoxURA]

Yellow cake? I revise my post saying you were a couple of years late to the party. You are about 4 years late to the party.

What do you want? You claim to want evidence but whenever evidence is given to you that comes from legitimate sources, including mainstream sources such as ABC News, you simply either deny it without providing any evidence to the contrary or dismiss it with some nonsensical statement such as "You are a couple years too late to the party." Even when the information source was relatively current you then try to cast the shadow of doubt on the validity of that source without even attempting to present your evidence to the contrary that deals with the facts presented. On top of all that even when it is mentioned that the last two administrations, HW Bush and Clinton, relied on much the same information, you no longer claimed, in that post at least, that the intelligence was faulty but that essentially Clinton just acted rashly. So which is it? Either all three presidents acted on false information, acted rashly, or you are simply showing your bias and don't wish to implicate that one or the other past to presidents was not correct in taking certain actions.

 

[Atlas14]

Hahaha... Well anyway, if you are saying that the Bush administration fabricated data then that means that the HW Bush and Clinton administrations all did the same thing because they all stated the same reasons for attacking Iraq that GW Bush did.

Just where was all this criticism about faulty intelligence when Clinton attacked Iraq?

How do you know Clinton's evidence was faulty?

Clinton to America: Speech

Clinton's action made it clear that he was doing a pre-emptive attack, which is far from Bush's all-out invasion and subsequent occupation.

 

[JollyRoger]

On top of all that even when it is mentioned that the last two administrations, HW Bush and Clinton, relied on much the same information, you no longer claimed, in that post at least, that the intelligence was faulty but that essentially Clinton just acted rashly. So which is it? Either all three presidents acted on false information, acted rashly, or you are simply showing your bias and don't wish to implicate that one or the other past to presidents was not correct in taking certain actions.

I said they were all puffing the information to back their actions. W was the only one to take it to stupid extremes.

 

[FoxURA]

Then what of the other issues I mentioned?

What do you want? You claim to want evidence but whenever evidence is given to you that comes from legitimate sources, including mainstream sources such as ABC News, you simply either deny it without providing any evidence to the contrary or dismiss it with some nonsensical statement such as "You are a couple years too late to the party." Even when the information source was relatively current you then try to cast the shadow of doubt on the validity of that source without even attempting to present your evidence to the contrary that deals with the facts presented.

How do you know Clinton's evidence was faulty?

Clinton to America: Speech

I was referring to the medias and liberals tendency to say the evidence Bush used to justify war with Iraq was faulty even though it was much the same thing that Clinton used. Funny thing is when something like that is brought up, the information is magically correct.

 

[JollyRoger]

Then what of the other issues I mentioned?

WMD finds, Saddam developing nukes, and meeting with terrorists? All have been debunked time and time again here. No significant WMD finds have been made - basically the equivalent of finding bulets on a Civil War battlefield. The yellow cake lies were what got the whole Plame case started. Saddam was a secular dictator and bin Laden is likely happy that Bush was stupid enough to use 9/11 as an excuse to get hopelessly stuck in Iraq.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So you are just skirting the issue about the evidence Clinton used to justify "Operation Desert Fox" then? What about the possible deaths by hundreds of multi million dollar cruise missiles with more primitive guidance systems than those of today being lobbed into the heart of Iraq? If all the threat was taken care of by the first Gulf War than why was this even necessary and what of the casualties that were caused by Clinton's attack? You are quick to blame Bush but have failed to mention the poster boy of the left even once for taking similar actions based on the same intelligence.

Why are republicans NOW crying that Clinton didnt do enough ? when back then they were decrying that Clinton was breaking the miitary and constantly war mongering ?

After Desert Fox Zinni then US commander in the mid east re-evaluated the situation and recommended containment as well as easing of sanctions.

EDIT: besides Desert fox was only 400 Missles and 600 Bombs.

 

[Atlas14]

I was referring to the medias and liberals tendency to say the evidence Bush used to justify war with Iraq was faulty even though it was much the same thing that Clinton used. Funny thing is when something like that is brought up, the information is magically correct.

The thing is, Saddam actually was using using chemicals at the time of Clinton's speech, so there wasn't really much to fabricate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

And Clinton didn't imply (as Bush did) that the American people were on the brink of destruction because of the presence of the weapons, but instead that they posed a huge threat to Saddam's people and to Iraq's neighbors.

Clinton acted more appropriately with his airstrikes than did Bush with his decision to go Napoleon against Saddam.

 

[FoxURA]

WMD finds, Saddam developing nukes, and meeting with terrorists? All have been debunked time and time again here. No significant WMD finds have been made - basically the equivalent of finding bulets on a Civil War battlefield. The yellow cake lies were what got the whole Plame case started. Saddam was a secular dictator and bin Laden is likely happy that Bush was stupid enough to use 9/11 as an excuse to get hopelessly stuck in Iraq.

Again, I challenge you to provide evidence to back up your claim. So far you have done nothing other than claim that I am 'too late to the party' or that the information has been debunked countless times. If indeed the information has been debunked than it should not be difficult for you to shoulder the burden of truth and show me documented evidence from credible sources proving to me that my dozens of sources ranging from an article by a Pakistani reporter, declassified documents, data presented in the 9/11 report, claims by Saddam himself, reports of satellite imagery revealing the movement of truck convoys from Iraq to a Syrian valley as well as intelligence reports verifying this, speeches by numerous US senators and Representatives from just before the war (who I might add are all privy to classified documents that we may not see for years, or even ever), and the list of the range of my sources goes on and on and on, are indeed beyond the shadow of a doubt false.


So JollyRoger, I have given a glimpse into the range of sources I can bring to the table, perhaps now it is time for you to reciprocate.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So JollyRoger, I have given a glimpse into the range of sources I can bring to the table, perhaps now it is time for you to reciprocate.

How about the congressional investigation 2007 in which concluded that Saddam had no WMDs or operation ties with AlQeda ?

 

[FoxURA]

How about the congressional investigation 2007 in which concluded that Saddam had no WMDs or operation ties with AlQeda ?

Could you provide a link to the investigation as well as name the person responsible for the investigation? Due to the overwhelming partisanship being displayed on Capital Hill lately I would have to investigate this for my self and weigh what the report says against what other nongovernmental sources have said and search for any inconstancies.

Also, it is not just US intelligence that says Saddam met with Al Qeda. As I recall Israeli intelligence (which is some of the best in the world), also confirmed this. I am fairly certain that Britain's spy service also produced evidence showing the connection.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Also, it is not just US intelligence that says Saddam met with Al Qeda. As I recall Israeli intelligence (which is some of the best in the world), also confirmed this. I am fairly certain that Britain's spy service also produced evidence showing the connection.

Saddam and Al Qaeda did not co-operate, according to the 9/11 comission.

Link

 

[FoxURA]

"There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

This part is emphasized that there no known 9/11. Fine, I never claimed that. What strikes me is that later on, the report seems to be citing 2 Al Qaeda operatives as the source for saying there was no connection, not what I would term a credible source as they were trying to murder Americans in the first place and would not want to turn on anyone who still might be capable of this. However, the report does mention that there was contact between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

That said, I will continue digging into the report looking for more information.

 

[FoxURA]

OK. As it turns out that was taken from a single paragraph of a draft for the 9/11 Commission Report and two media outlets, The New York Times and Washington Post ran with the story. Chaney defended his position and called the newspapers claims outrageous.

Here is a story about it from National Review Online from July 23rd, 2004.
Link.

Excerpt:Boogie to Baghdad:
What the 9/11 Commission says about Iraq and al Qaeda.


"Both the Times and the Post based their reporting on a single paragraph, written by the staff of the September 11 Commission, which conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two. The findings, revealed in the commission's last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this," Hamilton told reporters. "The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

Now, with the release of the commission's final report, it is clear what Hamilton and Cheney were talking about. The final report details a much more extensive set of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda than the earlier staff statement. It also modifies the original "no collaborative relationship" description, now saying there was "no collaborative operational relationship" (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And it suggests a significant amount of contact and communication between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

The report describes a time in 1996 when bin Laden, newly arrived in Afghanistan, could not be sure "that the Taliban would be his best bet as an ally." In 1997, the report says, bin Laden began making his Taliban sponsors nervous with a number of flamboyant and militant statements. At the time it seemed possible that bin Laden, who had gone to Afghanistan after being forced out of Sudan, might find himself at odds with his new hosts. What then? The report says bin Laden appears to have reached out to Saddam Hussein:"

 

[JohnRM]

My primary gripe about the Iraq War is the level of incompetence that has thus far allow this thing to go wildly out of control and the very probable fact that it was all highly unnecessary to begin with. We had/have bigger fish to fry (Iran).

 

[George2816]

My primary gripe about the Iraq War is the level of incompetence that has thus far allow this thing to go wildly out of control and the very probably fact that it was all highly unnecessary to begin with. We had/have bigger fish to fry (Iran).

One thing that the politicians got from this war is that the american people would rather watch stick girls party. Hey with people like that isn't that how hitler got elected?

 

[FoxURA]

My primary gripe about the Iraq War is the level of incompetence that has thus far allow this thing to go wildly out of control and the very probable fact that it was all highly unnecessary to begin with. We had/have bigger fish to fry (Iran).

Saddam actually posed the bigger threat because despite the sanctions imposed on him he was seeking to rebuild his already existing WMD capacity, as evidenced by his stockpiling of uranium and the components for refining it into weapons grade uranium being intercepted outside of Iraq, and the funding he was getting from the corrupt Oil for Food program that was being funneled directly into his rebuilding efforts.

Iran is seeking to gain WMD capacity while Saddam already had it.

Besides, Iran actually has some internal problems holding it back like protest marches in the streets and stuff like that. Iran's people have begun to grasp what freedom has too offer and now they see it right next door. Expect to see them wanting it for themselves more and more as the weeks go by.

 

[JohnRM]

Saddam actually posed the bigger threat because despite the sanctions imposed on him he was seeking to rebuild his already existing WMD capacity, as evidenced by his stockpiling of uranium and the components for refining it into weapons grade uranium being intercepted outside of Iraq, and the funding he was getting from the corrupt Oil for Food program that was being funneled directly into his rebuilding efforts.

Iran is seeking to gain WMD capacity while Saddam already had it.

Is the current situation preferable to any of our alternatives?

 

[FoxURA]

Is the current situation preferable to any of our alternatives?

Yes it it. Take a look back at my previous post. It looks like I was in the middle of editing it still when you posted your response.

Anyways, the protests that have been happening in Iran would not have been possible under the Police State because Saddam's grip on the government and military elite was too strong. If we went for Iran, Iraq's people would not have been able to protest without being shot.

 

[Ball Lightning]

They went in there for oil, or at least australia did, our defence minister said so.