Iraq war justified???

[Kandahar]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

A simple assertion from a pro-administration source that such evidence exists is hardly overwhelming evidence. I'll wait until the evidence is made public before rendering judgement but I find these claims highly dubious based on what I know about Saddam Hussein.

 

[alphieb]

Man you trust this maniac a lot more then I do.......What if he were to give them to a terrorist group to use?

I wonder why he didn't, maybe because he didn't have them.

 

[alphieb]

A simple assertion from a pro-administration source that such evidence exists is hardly overwhelming evidence. I'll wait until the evidence is made public before rendering judgement but I find these claims highly dubious based on what I know about Saddam Hussein.

I'll second that.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A simple assertion from a pro-administration source that such evidence exists is hardly overwhelming evidence. I'll wait until the evidence is made public before rendering judgement but I find these claims highly dubious based on what I know about Saddam Hussein.

And what do you know about Hussein save for the fact that he continually threatened his neighbors and the U.S. in speech after speech?

 

[Kandahar]

And what do you know about Hussein save for the fact that he continually threatened his neighbors and the U.S. in speech after speech?

1. That he was an atheist and made numerous anti-Islamic statements that led to Osama Bin Laden's calling for his assassination
2. That he was too grandiose to admit that he needed any help, especially from groups of ragtag degenerate terrorists
3. That he was too paranoid to allow any potential threats to his power to operate in Iraq


Doesn't sound to me like the kind of person who would want Islamic terror cells in his country.

 

[Navy Pride]

Neither. Has there ever been a terrorist attack on US soil committed by Iraqi citizens or by people who were trained in Iraq? No. So hush.

And prior to 9/11/01 were never had a terrorist attack by the Talaban in Afghanistan either..........The difference is we were not going to wait for and attack before we acted............Now you shush......

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

1. That he was an atheist and made numerous anti-Islamic statements that led to Osama Bin Laden's calling for his assassination
2. That he was too grandiose to admit that he needed any help, especially from groups of ragtag degenerate terrorists
3. That he was too paranoid to allow any potential threats to his power to operate in Iraq


Doesn't sound to me like the kind of person who would want Islamic terror cells in his country.

1. OBL made attempts at an alliance with Saddam it's all in the 9-11 commission report.
2. He was training Islamic terrorists at Salmon Pak.
3. See 2.

 

[conserv.pat15]

This war was more than justified! I voted YES in the poll because there are so many reasons why we SHOULD have gone to war with Saddam. Where should I start........ First of all, Saddam broke 17 U.N. resolutions(I believe it was 17), including Resolution 1441 which said that if Saddam did not comply, he would face "serious consequeces"(I think thats how it was phrased). What do you liberals think constitutes "serious consequeces?" Do you guys think we should have passed another resolution just so he could thumb his nose at the rest of the world again?! Also, according to Hans Blix, Saddam failed to account for thousands(correct me if I'm wrong on the amount) of tons of WMD. On top of the findings of Hans Blix, our own intelligence said it was a slam dunk that Saddam had them. Not only did our intelligence say Saddam had WMD, but so did the intelligence of many other nations around the world! So to say that Bush lied is completely wrong! If you think Bush lied about the WMDs, then you would have to say that Clinton lied, Kerry lied, and the rest of the world lied! Also, David Kay's findings proved that Saddam broke Resolution 1441 and said that Saddam was in material breech.

Saddam was also proven to have supported terrorism.

Now.... look at the situation from Bush's point of view..... Saddam didnt come clean and broke numerous resolutions, intelligence from all over the world said he had WMDs, and Saddam had ties to terrorism....... Bush made the CORRECT decision to remove this evil dictator!

 

[Busta]

Do you think the war in Iraq was justified?

I voted 'yes'.

Even if there were never any W.M.D.'s in Iraq, even if Bush bold-faced lied to the public, the war was worth it.
Aside from Saddam's 12 year defiance against the U.N., his rape rooms, his torture prisons, the Kurdish incident, his attempt to switch from the U.S. dollar to the Euro too back his oil; We needed to secure Iraq in order to stage the upcoming conflict with Iran. Go look at a global map. We have Iran nearly surrounded now.

I hope that no one assumed that the U.S. plays chess one-move-at-a-time. No, there is a bigger strategy at play here.

Besides, the global elite knows what must be don, that's why they all consented to the Iraqi invasion.

 

[U.S.Repub1]

This war was more than justified! I voted YES in the poll because there are so many reasons why we SHOULD have gone to war with Saddam. Where should I start........ First of all, Saddam broke 17 U.N. resolutions(I believe it was 17), including Resolution 1441 which said that if Saddam did not comply, he would face "serious consequeces"(I think thats how it was phrased). What do you liberals think constitutes "serious consequeces?" Do you guys think we should have passed another resolution just so he could thumb his nose at the rest of the world again?! Also, according to Hans Blix, Saddam failed to account for thousands(correct me if I'm wrong on the amount) of tons of WMD. On top of the findings of Hans Blix, our own intelligence said it was a slam dunk that Saddam had them. Not only did our intelligence say Saddam had WMD, but so did the intelligence of many other nations around the world! So to say that Bush lied is completely wrong! If you think Bush lied about the WMDs, then you would have to say that Clinton lied, Kerry lied, and the rest of the world lied! Also, David Kay's findings proved that Saddam broke Resolution 1441 and said that Saddam was in material breech.

Saddam was also proven to have supported terrorism.

Now.... look at the situation from Bush's point of view..... Saddam didnt come clean and broke numerous resolutions, intelligence from all over the world said he had WMDs, and Saddam had ties to terrorism....... Bush made the CORRECT decision to remove this evil dictator!

You are totally RIGHT!!! Saddam broke many U.N. resolutions,and that is enough proof right there that he needed to be taken out. On top of that Hans Blix and many other contries knew that had had WMDs. Some people on this site (Kandahar) I just don't know were you get your information!!! And to consv.pat15 you should be president.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

I voted 'yes'. Even if there were never any W.M.D.'s in Iraq, even if Bush bold-faced lied to the public, the war was worth it.
Aside from Saddam's 12 year defiance against the U.N., his rape rooms, his torture prisons, the Kurdish incident, his attempt to switch from the U.S. dollar to the Euro too back his oil; We needed to secure Iraq in order to stage the upcoming conflict with Iran. Go look at a global map. We have Iran nearly surrounded now.

Even if? I disagree, but that has no bearing on your other point. The fact that we are in Iraq makes independent military action against Iran virtually impossible- a condition which extends to even limited actions like air-strikes (if we attack Iran, suddenly our troops in Iraq are facing a totally unexpected conflict with an Iranian army likely to have more sympathetic civilians than the U.S. itself). Our presence in Iraq makes war with Iran more difficult, not less. Common sense says this, and knowledgeable people with no political ambitions have confirmed it.

I hope that no one assumed that the U.S. plays chess one-move-at-a-time. No, there is a bigger strategy at play here.

Yes, but it is not built around hostility towards Iran; that would be letting them dictate our moves. I play chess, and I have learned- the hard way- that letting your opponent decide what you are to do is the quickest way to lose a game.

Besides, the global elite knows what must be don, that's why they all consented to the Iraqi invasion.

The global elite consented? What the devil is the global elite, and if they exist, why should they matter in democracies? The world was against this war, in case you didn't recall. Much of America was at the beginning, and most of it is now. Many of those few who did consent, people here in America, did so on false assurances. They were duped; how else do you explain the rejection of the war today?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

You are totally RIGHT!!! Saddam broke many U.N. resolutions,and that is enough proof right there that he needed to be taken out. On top of that Hans Blix and many other contries knew that had had WMDs. Some people on this site (Kandahar) I just don't know were you get your information!!! And to consv.pat15 you should be president.

Totally RIGHT!!!? Er... no. Yes, Iraq thumbed its nose at the U.N., but not one resolution demanded military action. Is military force the only "serious consequence" in this world? Shatter an economy, destroy worldwide influence... that's serious, and it requires a good bit less bloodshed.

If everyone knew there were WMD's, how do you explain the Downing Street Memos and our having found none? And how do you explain worldwide condemnation of our invasion? Surely a few more countries than were would be on the morally right side? Or is the U.S. an island of virtue in a stinking global sea of decadence and apathy?

I shiver to think what would happen if someone who believed in a "global elite-" let alone someone who though its opinions greatly mattered- took the White House. Worldwide oligarchy?

 

[conserv.pat15]

Totally RIGHT!!!? Er... no. Yes, Iraq thumbed its nose at the U.N., but not one resolution demanded military action. Is military force the only "serious consequence" in this world? Shatter an economy, destroy worldwide influence... that's serious, and it requires a good bit less bloodshed.

If everyone knew there were WMD's, how do you explain the Downing Street Memos and our having found none? And how do you explain worldwide condemnation of our invasion? Surely a few more countries than were would be on the morally right side? Or is the U.S. an island of virtue in a stinking global sea of decadence and apathy?

I shiver to think what would happen if someone who believed in a "global elite-" let alone someone who though its opinions greatly mattered- took the White House. Worldwide oligarchy?

At least you have conceded the fact that Saddam broke the resolutions and thumbed his nose at the world. Having said that and having proven Saddam broke Resolution 1441, "serious consequences" had to be taken. Now, Saddam was already under sanctions.... and there wasn't very much else we could do to him but remove him from power. What do you think constitutes "serious consequences?!" Should we have passed resolution after resolution after resolution for another 12 years? NO! Saddam broke Resolution 1441 and many others... war with Saddam was the correct choice.

 

[cherokee]

At least you have conceded the fact that Saddam broke the resolutions and thumbed his nose at the world. Having said that and having proven Saddam broke Resolution 1441, "serious consequences" had to be taken. Now, Saddam was already under sanctions.... and there wasn't very much else we could do to him but remove him from power. What do you think constitutes "serious consequences?!" Should we have passed resolution after resolution after resolution for another 12 years? NO! Saddam broke Resolution 1441 and many others... war with Saddam was the correct choice.

But not for the US to go it alone.

 

[conserv.pat15]

But not for the US to go it alone.

First of all, we didn't go in alone. Also, many of the nations in the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam(Oil for Food scandal). Why are all those nations getting a free pass on this?! It was against Resolution 1441 for those other nations NOT to follow through with the resolution. Resolution 1441 was clearly broken and countries like France and Germany did nothing!

 

[M14 Shooter]

But not for the US to go it alone.

The US went alone.... withat least 3 other countries.

 

[cherokee]

First of all, we didn't go in alone. Also, many of the nations in the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam(Oil for Food scandal). Why are all those nations getting a free pass on this?! It was against Resolution 1441 for those other nations NOT to follow through with the resolution. Resolution 1441 was clearly broken and countries like France and Germany did nothing!

Who has the most Troops on the ground?
Who has the most Military equipment on the ground?
Last time I looked the US had over 140k while the UK had about 9k.

Yes resolution 1441 was broken but it was not worth a FULL Invasion.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Who has the most Troops on the ground?
Who has the most Military equipment on the ground?
Last time I looked the US had over 140k while the UK had about 9k.

Yes resolution 1441 was broken but it was not worth a FULL Invasion.

We have the most troops on the ground... I never said we didn't. But you said we went in alone... that was false.

also, breaking Resolution 1441 was worth a full invasion... and the rest of the nations in the U.N. Security Council illegally did not follow through with us in this invasion.

What would have been your solution to dealing with Saddam?

 

[Navy Pride]

Who has the most Troops on the ground?
Who has the most Military equipment on the ground?
Last time I looked the US had over 140k while the UK had about 9k.

Yes resolution 1441 was broken but it was not worth a FULL Invasion.

If you go by percentage of the population the amount of troops is not that much different...

 

[cherokee]

We have the most troops on the ground... I never said we didn't. But you said we went in alone... that was false.

also, breaking Resolution 1441 was worth a full invasion... and the rest of the nations in the U.N. Security Council illegally did not follow through with us in this invasion.

What would have been your solution to dealing with Saddam?

I will give you the first. But in my eyes when your numbers are 140k to 9k then I see it as going alone. As Norman Schwarzkopf stated in an interview “The US should have allowed the UN more time.”

I know that would have been 60% BS with the UN’s track record but its still not worth a full invasion.
Sanctions and air strikes is what I would have done. And if the UN passed something that called for an invasion then I would have sent in a respectable number of troops.
It would not be the 140k we have today.


Those troops should have been sent into Afghanistan but that’s another post

 

[cherokee]

If you go by percentage of the population the amount of troops is not that much different...

What??????

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who has the most Troops on the ground?
Who has the most Military equipment on the ground?
Last time I looked the US had over 140k while the UK had about 9k.
Yes resolution 1441 was broken but it was not worth a FULL Invasion.

Arent you proving that we did not go alone?
If "most troops on the ground" equates to "going alone", as there been a military operation since WW2 where we did not "go alone"?

I guess that means we "went alone" in 1991, eh?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It certainly was justified. It was poorly justified.

It's possible that it could have been well justified; but, it wasn't.

 

[Billo_Really]

No, it wasn't justified! It wasn't even legal!

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it wasn't justified! It wasn't even legal!

So says our resident expert in International Law, who believes that the UN is the final arbiter of whats legal and what's not.

Yawn.