• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

Of course not. But I understand some of the whys and hows of how we got in there.

It is weird for me, I am a Democrat and do think that the administration had Iraq in it's sights from the get-go, and that 9/11 was just a convenient excuse, but I still think that it can be a good thing over all. I try to avoid criticizing GW Bush, because though I do not think he was our most deep thinking President, I do think he had the best for our country in his heart. I love that our system has so many different views, and I can see many of the hawks points on foreign policy, but I do think there needs to be a careful balance. I am with you that we need much stronger negotiators that what we have now.
 
If you can't figure it out you shouldn't be in this thread.

The WMD threat was to our ally Israel.

There's a clue.

Can you figure it out on your own now?

Oh, okay. I get it now. That makes perfect sense..

Because of all the many WMD attacks Iraq had made on Israel before 2003. Right? Saddam just WMD'd Israel every other day, didn't he? Twice on Sunday. Sure. And of that intel we got pre-2003 that indicated Saddam was going to WMD Israel even more. Now I remember.

Course, Saddam didn't have WMDs at the time...

We couldn't be expected to know that, of course, because of the fabricated intel, er, I mean the intel we had at the time, from trustworthy (ha ha) sources like 'Curveball,' and the Wolfowitz/Feith team (who invented some 'facts' later coined 'Alternative Intelligence').

So, based on the information we had at the time (shrug), we had to invade Iraq and bomb it to crap and lose thousands of American lives and spend a trillion dollars and keep our military there for over 6 years (so far).

Thanks for reminding me of the reason we had to invade Iraq.
 

Iraq launched dozens and dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War and was vociferously anti-Israel.
 
Iraq launched dozens and dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War and was vociferously anti-Israel.

I remember the useless scuds, yes I do. Saddam fired some of them of in, when was it, er, 1991. That's right, 1991. So, you're right, it makes perfect sense for the United States, in 2003, to invade Iraq, bomb the hell out of it, lose thousands of our soldiers, spend a trillion dol - well, you know.

If I remember right, Iraq fired more scuds at Saudi Arabia than at Israel.
 

I agree with you that invading Iraq was a complete farce, as to the reasons presented. Yet, I cannot help but hope that it does become the beacon of democracy and hope in the Middle East.
 
Again all this is irrelevant, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against the United States (including AQ affiliates) right up to the fall of Baghdad.

The 9/11 Commission Report found no link between Saadam and Al Qaeda.
 
I agree with you that invading Iraq was a complete farce, as to the reasons presented. Yet, I cannot help but hope that it does become the beacon of democracy and hope in the Middle East.

I guess anything is possible. But democracy goes against the grain in the Middle East, because they favor religious government.

My friend, who moved here from Egypt in 1980, says democracy will never work over there.
 
I guess anything is possible. But democracy goes against the grain in the Middle East, because they favor religious government.

My friend, who moved here from Egypt in 1980, says democracy will never work over there.

Democracy can work there, just not the liberal democracy we have in the West. Indonesia is Muslim and a democracy and it works well.
 
Again all this is irrelevant, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against the United States (including AQ affiliates) right up to the fall of Baghdad.

In a related (and equally accurate) news story, Obama is an Arab.
 
The 9/11 Commission Report found no link between Saadam and Al Qaeda.

A) No the 9-11 Commission Report found numerous links between AQ and Saddam just no collaborative relationship.

B) I didn't say AQ proper I said AQ affiliates.

C) The Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," proves conclusively that Saddam was sponsoring terrorist activities against the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.
 
Last edited:

All of those you cite are a stretch, at best, but hey, I think Iraq will turn out to be a good thing in the end. I do not criticize Bush for the action, just the means to the action.
 
All of those you cite are a stretch, at best

Um no you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, this is cold hard fact proven by the Iraqi's own documentation:




Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

 

Depends on who you believe, I guess. The information is way too much for me to read all of it, so you have to depend on somebody else's interpretation.

To the point, though, in 2003, I don't recall having any fear of Iraq or an attack from that country, especially since it was pretty much under our control since the 1991 war. Hussein/Iraq was no threat to us.
 
Depends on who you believe, I guess. The information is way too much for me to read all of it, so you have to depend on somebody else's interpretation.

The relevant information is in the first PDF here's a short summary and an actual document from DOCEX:



To the point, though, in 2003, I don't recall having any fear of Iraq or an attack from that country, especially since it was pretty much under our control since the 1991 war. Hussein/Iraq was no threat to us.

The ISS was not under control they were sponsoring terrorist activities and fomenting radical Islamist allies (including AQ affiliates) for their clandestine war against the U.S.. Saddam through his actions violated the armistice.
 

The first citation tells nothing but that there are indications. You have one letter, that I will give you, does show interest in sponsoring terror over U.S. support of Israel. Other than that, nothing that justifies invasion when the U.S. had Iraq so embargoed that the people did not even have running water.
 
The first citation tells nothing but that there are indications.

It didn't say "indications" it made unqualified assertions stating that Saddam was in fact sponsoring terrorism against the U.S..

You have one letter,

No there are thousands of letters located in the first PDF of the link to the DOCEX review which I provided you.

that I will give you, does show interest in sponsoring terror over U.S. support of Israel. Other than that, nothing that justifies invasion when the U.S. had Iraq so embargoed that the people did not even have running water.

O.K. so sponsoring terrorist activities against the U.S. is no longer an act of war. Gotcha. :roll:
 

Such a threat to the US.

But up until shortly before the 1991 war, Iraq and the US were good buddies. We backed him during the Iran/Iraq war, removed Iraq from our list of terrorist nations so Saddam could do business freely, treated Saddam's Iraq like a regular ally. And this was done at the time when saddam actually was committing atrocities using chemical weapons, with our knowledge. President Reagan didn't seem to have much of a problem with Hussein, wasn't scared of him at all.
 

Have we declared war on Saudi Arabia? We have know for years that they provide funds to terrorist groups.
 
Have we declared war on Saudi Arabia? We have know for years that they provide funds to terrorist groups.

Damn good point. And, lest we forget, we were attacked on our soil by 19 Saudi Arabians on 9/11/2001.
 

If Iraq had WMD's (as was believed...read first post of this thread) Israel had every reason to worry about their continued existence as a nation.

If Israel launched a defensive first strike without proof or provocation a large regional war could have started.

We prevented that greater war.
 
Damn good point. And, lest we forget, we were attacked on our soil by 19 Saudi Arabians on 9/11/2001.

A majority of them were Saudi but not all of them, fwiw.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…