The Iraq War

[WidreMann]

Every day I read the news and every day I become more and more convinced there should be some type of investigation or even impeachment. The facts are this: Bush lied to us. And this is not lying about having sex, this is lying that got hundreds of people killed; this is lying that alienated key allies in the world and split the UN. This is very serious lying.

We were told for months that Iraq was hiding WMD's. And moreover, we were told that these WMD's posed an immediate threat to world security. Mind you, Saddam has had 12 years to make a move. If he really had all these weapons and was willing to use them, he could have just gone ahead before we started massing troops, or as we were massing troops. But he didn't. And now we have swept through the country, searched many places and there is not a trace of WMD's. And now it comes out that the administration picked the WMD issue because it would sell the war to the public. That's very scary indeed. For you know what that means, it means that there was another reason for the war besides WMD's. So now we have an administration which doesn't go to war under direct and open pretexts, but rather under secret motives and moreover, this administration will resort to lying to the public and to the world to go on a pre-emptive war. What I don't understand is why the whole country isn't outraged at this obviously dangerous precedent. Where are the widespread calls for investigation?

[ColdFront77]

If the issue of weapons of mass destruction came up, why wouldn't there be any?

[WidreMann]

If the issue of weapons of mass destruction came up, why wouldn't there be any?

But there haven't been any. And worse, the government has now admitted that WMD's weren't the real reason for the war but rather the one that seemed to be the easiest to sell to the public. At best, it's underhanded and not something you would expect from the government and at worst it's flat out lying.

[GulfBreezer]

If the issue of weapons of mass destruction came up, why wouldn't there be any?

But there haven't been any. And worse, the government has now admitted that WMD's weren't the real reason for the war but rather the one that seemed to be the easiest to sell to the public. At best, it's underhanded and not something you would expect from the government and at worst it's flat out lying.

Where is the information stating the gov't has "admitted" this??

[WidreMann]

Where is the information stating the gov't has "admitted" this??

This was all over the news not too long ago that Wolfowitz admitted that it was decided that WMD's would be the pretext because it would sell the best and "because it was the one reason everyone could agree on".

Of course it's even worse that we haven't found any when this was the primary reason for going to war.

[ColdFront77]

We sure did the right thing getting Suddam Hussien out of power.

[Stephanie]

I want to know where the "thousands" of WMD's actually ended up, if they really did exist at all. I know it will take time, but if we were so convinced that he had them, then I think some type of substantiated evidence should've turned up by now.

[Stephanie]

You're right Tom - it's a doubled edged sword. We did get Saddam out of there, but the longer we can't find him, Osama, we can't get power to the Iraqi people, etc., the more peril we are putting ourselves, NOT TO MENTION our troops in.

[WidreMann]

we can't get power to the Iraqi people, etc., the more peril we are putting ourselves, NOT TO MENTION our troops in.

And that brings up the question whether it was worth it to put our troops in danger and cause the disorder and chaos over there given the weakness of the pretexts for the war. War is always damaging, so we should only to go to war when it is absolutely worth it and necessary. In this case, neither of those prerequisites were met. Saddam was not an imminent threat nor was his removal from power a necessity for our security.

[wx247]

This is another where after each post I think well that could be... then someone else says something and I go... that is true too. I do think Saddam had WMD otherwise he would have let the inspectors back in freely, but was the threat overemphasized (and I am not saying it was... I am undecided) and stretched out of proportion is the issue.

[azskyman]

War is never clean. WMD was not the only reason. But WMD were used as the catalyst to move forward with it.

It has never been kept a secret that oil is important to our economy...and to the world economy. Oppression of a people is another reason. A regime encouraging hate is one too.

The WMD's did once exist and were used by Saddam on people within his borders. Regardless of the reason or the rationale, we are there, he is out of power, and the plan for reconstituting a country with a form of government belongs to the US led coalition. We own it, and we must move ahead from here.

I spend my days being a negotiator, peacemaker, counselor, and mediator. If I thought for one minute that those actions would result in a safer tomorrow, I would try them all. I believe our government examined all those possibilties and came to the same conclusion.

Are there answers to every question? Are we 100% right and they 100% wrong? Not a chance. War is ugly, frightning, costly, and demeaning to the human race. But it is a reality.

History will tell us whether the decisions made were good or bad...right or wrong. But as of now, through this veteran's eyes, the decisions so far have been based on reason.

My opinion, of course....which as always is subject to running through a shredder.

[Stephanie]

My opinion, of course....which as always is subject to running through a shredder.

So is everyone else's!

Great post as usual!

[OtherHD]

It's too bad the issue isn't black and white. Unfortunately, there's a huge gray area in the whole debate. Can we rule out the fact that they have been moved to Syria? And if they have been, how can we sell the public on the idea of invading that country? And what if Saddam DID decide to destroy the WMDs? What if they were destroyed while the invasion began? Does that constitute as a lie? There is so much uncertainty and a lot of "What if's".

[Stephanie]

It's too bad the issue isn't black and white. Unfortunately, there's a huge gray area in the whole debate. Can we rule out the fact that they have been moved to Syria? And if they have been, how can we sell the public on the idea of invading that country? And what if Saddam DID decide to destroy the WMDs? What if they were destroyed while the invasion began? Does that constitute as a lie? There is so much uncertainty and a lot of "What if's".

You're absolutely right OtherHD! There's alot of things we may never know!

[WidreMann]

It's too bad the issue isn't black and white. Unfortunately, there's a huge gray area in the whole debate. Can we rule out the fact that they have been moved to Syria? And if they have been, how can we sell the public on the idea of invading that country? And what if Saddam DID decide to destroy the WMDs? What if they were destroyed while the invasion began? Does that constitute as a lie? There is so much uncertainty and a lot of "What if's".

You don't go to war on what-if's and maybe's, especially for a country that prides itself in being thoughtful and decisive. We cannot, absolutely cannot, romp around the Middle East looking for weapons that may exist.

[mf_dolphin]

I wasn't going to respond to this but I can't resist...

Every day I read the news and every day I become more and more convinced there should be some type of investigation or even impeachment. The facts are this: Bush lied to us. And this is not lying about having sex, this is lying that got hundreds of people killed; this is lying that alienated key allies in the world and split the UN. This is very serious lying.

I've seen no facts to support you statement that President Bush lied and of course you provided none. As we discussed here before the war started. It was not only US intelligence but that of several other countries that supported the WMD arguement. The "key allies" that we alienated all had financial motives that are well documented in opposing the war. Keep in mind that the UN aslo believed that WMD existed in IRAQ. WHere the difference came was in how to address it. For the coalition that went to war, 12 years was enough time.

We were told for months that Iraq was hiding WMD's. And moreover, we were told that these WMD's posed an immediate threat to world security. Mind you, Saddam has had 12 years to make a move. If he really had all these weapons and was willing to use them, he could have just gone ahead before we started massing troops, or as we were massing troops. But he didn't. And now we have swept through the country, searched many places and there is not a trace of WMD's.

Iraq did produce and use WMD of several types. They chose not to comply with the UN mandates for over a decade. There is no doubt that he not only had them but used them during two different conflicts. I don't know where you expected him to use them in recent history before the troops were massed since that's the only effective way to use them. The fact that he didn't use them is a blessing not proof that lies were told by the US Administration. The fact that we haven't found caches of WMD can easily be explained in the size of the country and the time Saddam had to hide his weapons. This is a country roughly the size of California. How long do you think it would take you to search an area that size with say 5000 people dedicated to the task? Another question..If he had no WMD, why were front line troops supplied with new chemical warefare equipment? This included not only gas masks but atropine injectors.

And now it comes out that the administration picked the WMD issue because it would sell the war to the public. That's very scary indeed. For you know what that means, it means that there was another reason for the war besides WMD's. So now we have an administration which doesn't go to war under direct and open pretexts, but rather under secret motives and moreover, this administration will resort to lying to the public and to the world to go on a pre-emptive war. What I don't understand is why the whole country isn't outraged at this obviously dangerous precedent. Where are the widespread calls for investigation?

Maybe the answer to your question on why there isn't a massive uproar is that people understand that a sick regime is no longer in power. An entire country now has the chance of freedom and self determination. Maybe people understand that freedom comes with a price and it's worth every drop of blood shed to protect it.

I not only accept but am grateful that we have a President that took a position and followed through!

[Guest]

Wow Marshall i couldnt have said that better................I agree 100% on what you just said!

[WidreMann]

To be honest, I was waiting for this...

I wasn't going to respond to this but I can't resist...

WidreMann wrote:
Every day I read the news and every day I become more and more convinced there should be some type of investigation or even impeachment. The facts are this: Bush lied to us. And this is not lying about having sex, this is lying that got hundreds of people killed; this is lying that alienated key allies in the world and split the UN. This is very serious lying.


I've seen no facts to support you statement that President Bush lied and of course you provided none. As we discussed here before the war started. It was not only US intelligence but that of several other countries that supported the WMD arguement. The "key allies" that we alienated all had financial motives that are well documented in opposing the war. Keep in mind that the UN aslo believed that WMD existed in IRAQ. WHere the difference came was in how to address it. For the coalition that went to war, 12 years was enough time.

And you know what, I've seen no facts to support the view that there were WMD's. The reason inspectors were going to be sent in in the first place was to see if he even had WMD's. And now that it is coming out that the intelligence wasn't so good, I think it is you who need to take stock of the evidence not me.

Quote:
We were told for months that Iraq was hiding WMD's. And moreover, we were told that these WMD's posed an immediate threat to world security. Mind you, Saddam has had 12 years to make a move. If he really had all these weapons and was willing to use them, he could have just gone ahead before we started massing troops, or as we were massing troops. But he didn't. And now we have swept through the country, searched many places and there is not a trace of WMD's.


Iraq did produce and use WMD of several types. They chose not to comply with the UN mandates for over a decade. There is no doubt that he not only had them but used them during two different conflicts. I don't know where you expected him to use them in recent history before the troops were massed since that's the only effective way to use them. The fact that he didn't use them is a blessing not proof that lies were told by the US Administration. The fact that we haven't found caches of WMD can easily be explained in the size of the country and the time Saddam had to hide his weapons. This is a country roughly the size of California. How long do you think it would take you to search an area that size with say 5000 people dedicated to the task? Another question..If he had no WMD, why were front line troops supplied with new chemical warefare equipment? This included not only gas masks but atropine injectors.

Did we need to go to war to find the weapons? Why not use inspectors. If he had twelve years to use them and didn't, then what's two more? The very important matter in all this was whether he was an immediate threat. While the evidence that he even had dangerous WMD's was shaky, there is absolutely none that the threat required immediate action. Once again, you don't go to war based on shaky evidence and maybe's.

"Another question..If he had no WMD, why were front line troops supplied with new chemical warefare equipment? This included not only gas masks but atropine injectors." <- Fallacious logic. So what if we put chemical masks on our troops, that in no way proves or disproves that Saddam had WMD's. All it proves is that we thought there were WMD's, or perhaps it proves that the US just wanted to show that we really believed there were WMD's - a show for the public, if you will.

Quote:
And now it comes out that the administration picked the WMD issue because it would sell the war to the public. That's very scary indeed. For you know what that means, it means that there was another reason for the war besides WMD's. So now we have an administration which doesn't go to war under direct and open pretexts, but rather under secret motives and moreover, this administration will resort to lying to the public and to the world to go on a pre-emptive war. What I don't understand is why the whole country isn't outraged at this obviously dangerous precedent. Where are the widespread calls for investigation?


Maybe the answer to your question on why there isn't a massive uproar is that people understand that a sick regime is no longer in power. An entire country now has the chance of freedom and self determination. Maybe people understand that freedom comes with a price and it's worth every drop of blood shed to protect it.

That's not why we went to war, though. And moreover, I don't quite understand this rapid switch around in the Republican/right-wing stance on our foreign actions. Was it not Bush who said in one of the debates that he would not pursue nation building? And what is this but a classic case of nation building. What is it, folks? If the "in" thing is to take out despotic regimes, then we probably should have looked elsewhere besides Iraq. There are plenty of evil regimes where many, many more people are killed or otherwise affected in a negative way by the government. Why didn't we go to Zimbabwe and stop Mugabe in his cleansing of the land of white farmers? Or how about go straight to North Korea, which was threatening nuclear war at the time? Perhaps it was just because Iraq was an easy target and/or Bush had a score to settle. But I'll tell you, this WMD nonsense nor the humanitarian mission (hypocrisy included) were not good grounds for going to war. They were shaky grounds.

I not only accept but am grateful that we have a President that took a position and followed through!

Hitler took a position and followed through, or would have finished following through had he not been stopped by the Allies. If the position taken is not a good one, then it doesn't matter that he took a position and followed through.

[streetsoldier]

"There are none so blind, as those who WILL NOT SEE..."

This will be my only response on this topic, WidreMann, so savor it.

[WidreMann]

"There are none so blind, as those who WILL NOT SEE..."

The same goes for the pro-war people.

That will be my only response to you.