For you, DRUNK

[Mangani]

As far as the WMD argument goes, Iraq had them. Unfortunately, Saddam knew probably a year in advance that the US would invade, and he disposed of them. People will deny that, but it doesn't make sense for them to. With that advance warning, of course they would get rid of the WMD's!

Er, um I would have thought if Saddam KNEW that the Americans were coming to invade Iraq and dispose of him and put him on trial that it, er, ah would have made far more sense for him to KEEP those WMD and USE them against the invading Americans.

No????

[Pb Derigable]

Er, um I would have thought if Saddam KNEW that the Americans were coming to invade Iraq and dispose of him and put him on trial that it, er, ah would have made far more sense for him to KEEP those WMD and USE them against the invading Americans.

No????

It wasn't really a question if he had them, but he was trying to build them, just like Iran. But if you had a half built nuke, will you try to hide it knowing you can't use them, or just get rid of it knowing you he does not have chance of surviving this. He probably thought if they can't find nothing, he can go back to his palace. Still how long did it take us to find the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Im not saying we will find any.

[marolyn]

If we can improve their quality of life by showing them the western way, then why will they hate the west? They will see our side, see our quality of life, and once they are living it, they'll understand what we're about.

how presumptive of you to know what is best for them...i think that's what they hate the most...and i think they have seen our way of life on television and know what we are about...

[wanna be drummer]

It wasn't really a question if he had them, but he was trying to build them, just like Iran. But if you had a half built nuke, will you try to hide it knowing you can't use them, or just get rid of it knowing you he does not have chance of surviving this. He probably thought if they can't find nothing, he can go back to his palace. Still how long did it take us to find the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Im not saying we will find any.

But we weren't looking, specifically, for anything like the death camps...in Iraq, we specifically went in and looked for WMDs. With our technology, if he had any, we (much more than likely anyways) would've found them...unless he sent them to Syria or something

[ally]

Er, um I would have thought if Saddam KNEW that the Americans were coming to invade Iraq and dispose of him and put him on trial that it, er, ah would have made far more sense for him to KEEP those WMD and USE them against the invading Americans.

No????

Probably not, Iraq would have faced annihilation. The fear was and is that terrorists will get hold of WMD and use them on US soil. Irregardless of whether or not anyone thinks that going onto Iraq was the right thing to do, that threat was enough reason for me. And it will continue to be untill some sanity prevails in this crazy world

[Gainsbarre]

The WMD threat was deemed to be the single most compelling reason for military action. However, it was just the best among many reasons taken into consideration and it was chosen for its political expediency potential. The Bush Administration was determined to

remove Hussein from power, make no mistake about that. The Chicken Hawks like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld beat the war drum loudest and longest and it was music to GWB's ears.

Overthrowing the Saudi Arabian monarchy is another matter altogether. For one thing, it is the very outcome Osama bin Laden seeks to fulfill himself. For another, Saudi interests

own a significant slice of prime American real estate and properties. Finally, the Saudi Royal Family is politically very well-connected to Washington, as opposed to the Iraqis.

I can only hope the USA does not fail and fall on the wrong side of history. It is worth

noting the war against terror was originally dubbed Operation Infinite Justice, but it was changed to Operation Enduring Freedom after Muslim religious leaders cited that moniker as insensitive for only Allah (God) can bestow infinite justice.

Hmm,

I doff my cap to you sir, an approved post

[Pb Derigable]

But we weren't looking, specifically, for anything like the death camps...in Iraq, we specifically went in and looked for WMDs. With our technology, if he had any, we (much more than likely anyways) would've found them...unless he sent them to Syria or something

Bingo, like i said, im not saying thier was, but to say there was never a plan to build nukes or even a semi working one is something you can not disprove only prove.

A part of the reason for the case of forcefully removing Saddam from power was his places of torture, killing and raping of women. The media only latched on to the WMDS, which was U.S.A. main selling point, for the lack of a better term.

[Gainsbarre]

A part of the reason for the case of forcefully removing Saddam from power was his places of torture, killing and raping of women.

They didn't remove Saddam because he was an asshole to his people... more because he was an asshole to the Americans

[StringBender]

Thanks to all in this thread for further reinforcing my belief, namely that there has yet to have been given a solid case for going to war.

A lot of theories, but I'm sorry you don't go to war on theories but solid facts, and of which not a single person has been convincing in this thread.....nor in the Bush administration.

[Pb Derigable]

Thanks to all in this thread for further reinforcing my belief, namely that there has yet to have been given a solid case for going to war.

A lot of theories, but I'm sorry you don't go to war on theories but solid facts, and of which not a single person has been convincing in this thread.....nor in the Bush administration.

Im sorry StringBender, i didn't know it was "convince Stringbender that he is wrong thread" it is convince drunk that he is wrong, and nobody had made a valid point to do so. You may see it valid, but he hasn't, but that goes the same with you, we belive we have made valid points, it's up to you to decide if they are vaild in your eyes.

We just didn't know you were that special.

[Pb Derigable]

They didn't remove Saddam because he was an asshole to his people... more because he was an asshole to the Americans

Gaines, what did i say, the media latched on to the WMD as the main selling point, but points were also given about how he was a thorn in our sides and that he was bad bad man.

The WMD was the main reason to go in, but they were other reasons, because there was a reason he was not supposed to have them in the first place.

If a Bounty hunter catches a person who skipped bail, yes the main reason he is going after him is because he skipped bail, but there is also a reason why he had to post bail.

[StringBender]

We just didn't know you were that special.

Well, isn't that special....

[DRUNK]

Er, um I would have thought if Saddam KNEW that the Americans were coming to invade Iraq and dispose of him and put him on trial that it, er, ah would have made far more sense for him to KEEP those WMD and USE them against the invading Americans.

No????

Let's see...........

If you were an Iraqi Officer or soldier, would you stick around and fight when you know you cannot beat the Americans, and when you know that WMD are going to be used right over your shoulder? Using WMD's would have caused flat out desertion of Iraqi's military.

The only chance for survival of Saddam and his regime was a prolonged fight against the Americans, causing enough casualties to make America re think what they were doing. As unrealistic as that seems, Saddam was indeed hoping to buy himself negotiating time.

Using WMD's, effectively, would have destroyed whatever fighting force he had. Iraqi's were dug in position. The US military was completely mobile.

If they were used, they might be successful against maybe the spearhead of the invasion, but as soon as the US military realized what had happened, they would pull back, and probably completely annihilate Baghdad with a bombing campaign, possibly even nuclear.

Using WMD's would have then given the US 100% justification for the war internationally, and I don't think Saddam would want that to happen.

Saddam already knew he would lie low and encourage an insurgency. He was well aware of the war that was about to be conducted. A long term insurgency is more affective than a short, WMD attack.

[DRUNK]

how presumptive of you to know what is best for them...i think that's what they hate the most...and i think they have seen our way of life on television and know what we are about...

Ok. So Saddam killing his own people, is the best for them? Saddam forcing people to live completely oppressed, so much so that if they were to speak out, they'd end up dead or in a torture chamber? Saddam's forces raping, killing families, and intimidating the population? Gassing your own people to death? So, were all these things "the best" for the Iraqi people?

I think removing Saddam, and establishing democracy, if they'd allow it, would be far better than living under a dictatorship full of violence. Do you disagree with that?

TV is fiction. It's impossible to know much of anything by watching TV. Most Iraqi's aren't watching TV, sorry.

I'm sure some of them would like to watch some western television programs, but the women are too scared. Don't want to get caught, and then beaten and then by their husbands.

[fenderguy]

Ok. So Saddam killing his own people, is the best for them? Saddam forcing people to live completely oppressed, so much so that if they were to speak out, they'd end up dead or in a torture chamber? Saddam's forces raping, killing families, and intimidating the population? Gassing your own people to death? So, were all these things "the best" for the Iraqi people?

I think removing Saddam, and establishing democracy, if they'd allow it, would be far better than living under a dictatorship full of violence. Do you disagree with that?

TV is fiction. It's impossible to know much of anything by watching TV. Most Iraqi's aren't watching TV, sorry.

I'm sure some of them would like to watch some western television programs, but the women are too scared. Don't want to get caught, and then beaten and then by their husbands.

The U.S. government would have been happy to overlook the internal human rights violations if Iraq would have been "oil friendly" to them and not been perceived as a military threat. A lot of their so -called "friends" treat their people badly---past and present.

[DRUNK]

I can't stand that argument. The US gives more aid to the world than anyone else. We can't solve every situation involving human rights violations.

Oil friendly? Sanctions were placed against Iraq after Desert Storm, so Iraq wasn't giving much oil to anyone.

The US is dependent on foreign oil unfortunately. Do you expect the US to kill its lifeline? Without oil for a few weeks, the US and the western world would turn into the pre-industrial age. Do you realize how significant that is?

These other countries can do whatever the fuck they want because we depend on them for our lifeline. We obviously weren't depending on Iraq.

The way to further reduce human rights violations is to decrease the influence of Islam, which is what I have explained in an earlier post in this thread I believe.

[SteveAJones]

If thats the case, we should be in North Korea right now. We desperately don't want Kim Jong-Il in power anymore, and his WMD are much more serious and real than anything thats ever been turned up in Iraq. Agree?

There are two problems with this. One, in the initial exchange US will lose everything from the DMZ to Seoul. Your talking tens of thousands of American casualties in the

opening days. Secondly, the real potential for Communist China and Russia to intervene militarily, thus widening the engagement from a regional conflict to World War III.

[SteveAJones]

They didn't remove Saddam because he was an asshole to his people... more because he was an asshole to the Americans

I believe it was personal. When GWB heard of the Iraqi plot to kill his father during a visit to the Middle East it was on, as they say.

[SteveAJones]

Thanks to all in this thread for further reinforcing my belief, namely that there has yet to have been given a solid case for going to war.

I can only rephrase what I'd said earlier - it was done to overthrow the Hussein regime.

That's not a politically expedient reason to use so WMD threat was highlighted instead.

[DRUNK]

I believe it was personal. When GWB heard of the Iraqi plot to kill his father during a visit to the Middle East it was on, as they say.

Do you really think the US would go to war over something like that?

There are too many other more important reasons why we possibly went to war for me to consider that reason seriously.

[TheZeppyWanderer]

Do you really think the US would go to war over something like that?

There are too many other more important reasons why we possibly went to war for me to consider that reason seriously.

Agreed. Personal vendettas are the bag of tinpot tribal chiefs, not world leaders, surely.

[ally]

I can only rephrase what I'd said earlier - it was done to overthrow the Hussein regime.

That's not a politically expedient reason to use so WMD threat was highlighted instead.

Well as for a reason to justify invading Iraq, your correct in saying that the Bush administration used WMD as they're excuse. I for one however have never understood why the USA had to justify anything. After 911 only a fool would have thought that Saddam would not be able or willing to supply terrorists with the necessary tools to inflict some serious damage on America and her allies.

I think if you go back to pre Gulf War, Iran and others were quite willing to come to Iraq's aid if American troops were to set foot in Saudi Arabia. This coming on the heels of a bloody conflict between Iran and Iraq where WMD had been used. For anyone who argues that Iraq would have been better off without an invasion, you may have a valid point. However, the question you may need to ask yourself is, would the west have been better off if it had not happened ? IMHO I think we would all be sitting here right now asking ourselves, why didn't somebody do something ??? I think the administration had plenty of valid reasons to invade Iraq without having to sell the war to anyone.

That was a mistake

[SteveAJones]

Do you really think the US would go to war over something like that?

Absolutely, particularly when the Chicken Hawks are saying it would be a cakewalk.

The Hussein regime plotted to assassinate a former President of the United States, whom just so happens to be the Father of the current President. Considering a lot of insiders felt the job wasn't finished in Gulf War I and Hussein had been a pain in the ass for nearly two decades you've got the perfect storm.

Still don't think world leaders are not above making politics personal? Ask former German President Gerhard Schroeder how many conversations he had with GWB after he used

unfavorable GWB rhetoric as a cornerstone of his (failed) reelection campaign. The guy

became persona non gratis with the Bush family.

Remember what GWB said privately in 2002? "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out".

[marolyn]

Most Iraqi's aren't watching TV, sorry.

sorry...are you serious?...

Iraq Television Viewership Poll

Department of State, Office Intelligence and Research

October 16, 2003 M-146-03

TV Is a Crucial Information Source for Iraqis

Conducted and prepared by the State Department Office of Research

Local TV-Access Is More Widespread; A Third Have Access to a Home Satellite

Nearly all (93%) Iraqis report owning a television, and about a third (33%) have access to a satellite dish either at home, a friend’s residence, or at work (See figure, next page)1; two-thirds (62%) report that they have no satellite access at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results are based on face-to-face interviews conducted during August 25-September 5, 2003, among 1,444 urban Iraqi adults (18 years-old and over) in seven cities, including Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, Basrah, Najaf, Suleymania, and Erbil.

Satellites More Widespread Among Better Educated, and in the North

Satellite access is most prevalent among Iraqis with a secondary-level education or higher, in a likely reflecting a degree of affluence. Significantly, post-college graduates are three times more likely to have access to satellite television than those with a primary education or lower.

Across Iraq, majorities in the northern cities of Erbil (73%) and Suleymania (60%) report access to satellite television, while half (55%) do in Ramadi. Only a third indicate access in Baghdad (32%) or Najaf (27%), and just 7 percent do in Basrah.

[redrum]

'Obliterate Iran!'----Hillary

'Let's talk!'---Obama

'Let's talk!'---Carter