Iraq war justified???

U.S.Repub1 · Jan 17, 2006

Do you think the war in Iraq was justified?

aps · Jan 17, 2006

I said "no," and it appears I am the only "no" vote. The Bush administration's assertions regarding how dangerous Saddam was to us are a joke. Yes, he is a tyrant, but he was not an imminent threat to us. You know the drill.....

oldreliable67 · Jan 17, 2006

I said "no," and it appears I am the only "no" vote.

You are sure to have some company soon...

GarzaUK · Jan 17, 2006

Oh lord another Iraq poll. Once you see one you see em all.

Personally I feel the UN inspectors should have been given more time. I don't see how the US had to rush to war seeing Saddam "supposedly" had WMD's for a few decades. All the inspectors needed was a couple of months - that's all.

Welcome to DP U.S. Repub!!! Enjoy your stay.

aps · Jan 17, 2006

oldreliable67 said:
You are sure to have some company soon...

I take it you won't be joining me, Mr. oldreliable?

americanwoman · Jan 17, 2006

I said maybe because I beleive Saddam was an awful, awful man to be in power and it was justified for him to be thrown out of power. I just disagree with the way we went there, like rushing in with no plan and not getting enough allies to help.

KC Conservative, wherever you are- I saw your avatar now and I love it! I love to hear about and see good things coming out of Iraq since we mostly hear only bad stuff. Thats a great picture!:2razz:

Kandahar · Jan 17, 2006

Definitely not. George Bush flat-out lied about Iraq having WMDs. I simply don't see how it is possible to have slam-dunk evidence of WMDs, yet not know exactly where they are.

U.S.Repub1 · Jan 17, 2006

Kandahar said:
Definitely not. George Bush flat-out lied about Iraq having WMDs. I simply don't see how it is possible to have slam-dunk evidence of WMDs, yet not know exactly where they are.

Has the idea of Saddam moving the weapons crossed your mind? We have found burried weapons in Iraq such as Fighter Jets and other large weapons caches. And there is evidence that they may have been moved a cross the border. Saddam is known to bury things.

aps · Jan 17, 2006

U.S.Repub1 said:
Has the idea of Saddam moving the weapons crossed your mind? We have found burried weapons in Iraq such as Fighter Jets and other large weapons caches. And there is evidence that they may have been moved a cross the border. Saddam is known to bury things.

Okay, accepting that we have found weapons, were they an imminent threat to us? The Bushies made it seem as though a mushroom cloud could come any day. Yeah right! :roll:

U.S.Repub1 · Jan 17, 2006

aps said:
Okay, accepting that we have found weapons, were they an imminent threat to us? The Bushies made it seem as though a mushroom cloud could come any day. Yeah right! :roll:

O.K. First off Bush never said that they were an "imminent threat".
Secondly were did you here that.

Kandahar · Jan 17, 2006

U.S.Repub1 said:
Has the idea of Saddam moving the weapons crossed your mind? We have found burried weapons in Iraq such as Fighter Jets and other large weapons caches. And there is evidence that they may have been moved a cross the border. Saddam is known to bury things.

If we knew exactly where they were prior to the war, why didn't anyone anticipate them moving the weapons and keep track of their movements? And why did our soldiers wander aimlessly around the country for months looking for weapons if their locations were known?

t125eagle · Jan 17, 2006

aps said:
I said "no," and it appears I am the only "no" vote. The Bush administration's assertions regarding how dangerous Saddam was to us are a joke. Yes, he is a tyrant, but he was not an imminent threat to us. You know the drill.....

why does it have to be a threat to us? it was the right thing to do. maybe soon we will go after Cuba, or North Korea or China or some of the South American dictators. The people in those countries are suffering, and they should not be.

Kandahar · Jan 17, 2006

t125eagle said:
why does it have to be a threat to us? it was the right thing to do. maybe soon we will go after Cuba, or North Korea or China or some of the South American dictators. The people in those countries are suffering, and they should not be.

Because taking over Iraq has made us LESS capable of dealing with countries that truly ARE a threat, like Iran. Furthermore if we were to only base our military actions on human rights issues, we could do much more good relative to the military/financial committment by going into places like the Sudan than we could in Iraq.

How exactly do you propose that we "go after China"? Please explain how a nuclear holocaust would make the Chinese people or anyone else better off.

aps · Jan 17, 2006

U.S.Repub1 said:
O.K. First off Bush never said that they were an "imminent threat".
Secondly were did you here that.

Ummm, from the many speeches he gave. Here's just one of them. I have highlighted the parts that would make any reasonable person believe that he was asserting that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to us.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

. . .

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

. . .

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Need I say more?

U.S.Repub1 · Jan 17, 2006

aps said:
Ummm, from the many speeches he gave. Here's just one of them. I have highlighted the parts that would make any reasonable person believe that he was asserting that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to us.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Need I say more?

Yeah, I have 20/20 vision but were again did it say 'imminent threat"

earthworm · Jan 17, 2006

Maybe
Much as a man could say that Germany deserved Hitler, Iraq(minus the Kurd people) deserves Saddam.
I believe our intelligence gathering can be improved(by a ton) , also that Bush was an easy sell..
Time will tell

For certain, our media cannot be trusted - on either end

I think I would have to go over there, learn the language, blend in, and do investigative reporting...lol...impossible..I'd be dead within 3 days..

aps · Jan 17, 2006

U.S.Repub1 said:
Yeah, I have 20/20 vision but were again did it say 'imminent threat"

Repub, come on. He's saying that a Mushroom Cloud could essentially come down at any time and you don't construe that as "imminent"? Okaaaaaaaaay. LOL

Stupiderthanthou · Jan 17, 2006

The Downing Street Memos certainly suggest that the war was not justified- as does the fact that we have, to my knowledge, found no WMD's. Do you have a source on the buried weapons? I don't remember anything about that, but I'd like to read about it if you do.

Stupiderthanthou · Jan 17, 2006

U.S.Repub1 said:
Yeah, I have 20/20 vision but were again did it say 'imminent threat"

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

If not himself, then all the president's men...

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Navy Pride · Jan 17, 2006

I said yes........We made a mistake under Clinton and let him do his thing on 9/11/01...We would not make the same mistake with Saddam..We hit him before he had a chance to acquire a nuke and use it or give one to some terrorist group.........

One thing you people on the left have to admit that it is for sure that Saddam will never use a Nuke on us or any other country now..........

aps · Jan 17, 2006

Stupiderthanthou said:
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

If not himself, then all the president's men...

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Thanks, Stupider! It's kinda funny calling you that name! LOL

Trajan Octavian Titus · Jan 17, 2006

aps said:
Okay, accepting that we have found weapons, were they an imminent threat to us? The Bushies made it seem as though a mushroom cloud could come any day. Yeah right! :roll:

He was training thousands of Islamic Terrorists within his borders regardless of whether or not he had WMD he was a threat you don't need a nuclear weapon to create mass destruction all you need is a fully fueled 727 as was made abundantly clear on 9-11, any country who harbors terrorists should be considered a terrorist state!

Navy Pride · Jan 17, 2006

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
He was training thousands of Islamic Terrorists within his borders regardless of whether or not he had WMD he was a threat you don't need a nuclear weapon to create mass destruction all you need is a fully fueled 727 as was made abundantly clear on 9-11, any country who harbors terrorists should be considered a terrorist state!

Exactly, we will probably never know if he had WOMD....Becasue we did not find them does not mean he did not have them though...........

Stupiderthanthou · Jan 17, 2006

Navy Pride said:
Exactly, we will probably never know if he had WOMD....Becasue we did not find them does not mean he did not have them though...........

But it suggests that he does not. As do the Downing Street Memos. Burden of proof falls on those arguing that he had them, no? Because that was the major justification for the war. Besides... if that claim had not been made, the majority of Americans probably would not have supported the use of force, surely?

Navy Pride · Jan 17, 2006

Stupiderthanthou said:
But it suggests that he does not. As do the Downing Street Memos. Burden of proof falls on those arguing that he had them, no? Because that was the major justification for the war. Besides... if that claim had not been made, the majority of Americans probably would not have supported the use of force, surely?

When are you going to wake up and smell the roses.........The Downing Street memos have been discredited long ago..........

Iraq war justified???

Do you think the war in Iraq was justified?

Yes

No

Maybe

New member

Passionate

British, Irish and everything in-between.

Passionate

dangerously addictive

Enemy Combatant

New member

Passionate

New member

Enemy Combatant

Active member

Enemy Combatant

Passionate

New member

Passionate

Member

Member

Passionate

Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency