quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Keep on quoting but these were never the reasons given for invading Iraq. The only reasons given were the WMD issue, which the leaked Downing Street memo proved Blair and Bush knew that no WMD`s would be found. And the claim Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda, which your own links show wasnt the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm sorry, but you are in error. The actual US Resolution gives these additional justifications for the use of force:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

All of these points were accurate, and valid.

quote:



This may be all good and fine and correct.

But it is a blindness to who Saddam really was.

You remember the Duelfer Report? I'm sure you read it, and probably quoted it, because some parts support your contention.

However, here is the key issue from that reports "Key Findings" that you and others seem to avoid:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

It pretty clear, even if one accepts your argument that WMD's were not a valid reason to invade, that justification was certainly valid in the long term.

I tend to be a long term thinker when it comes to politics and international events. Accepting that WMD's were not a valid reason is short-sighted, and wishful thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and the members of the Heritage Foundation had written position papers advocating the invasion of Iraq for years.  September 11th provided a convenient excuse for preying on a fearful public.   Or have you conveniently forgotten the Bush administration's failed attempts to link Saddam to the attacks?

quote:

ORIGINAL:FirmhandKY
*shrug*

So?

quote:



You do believe that all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights given by our Creator, don't you?

Or do you believe that freedom, democracy and rights are something that only the US and the West should enjoy?

Are you your brother's keeper?

quote:



"Full support?"

I don't think so.

At best, the US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was a Morton's fork. Choosing the lesser of two evils, but hoping for the failure of both. Life (and international politics) often presents us with less than desirable options.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

As far as the rest, you are basically supporting two different viewpoints.  Iraq was justified because we thought Saddam "might" have nuclear weapons capability but taking on the Taliban, which harbored and supported those that attacked us, you advocate other than a military solution.  That didn't work too well when Pakistan recently tried it.

I've done enough with you today, but if you really need me to explain this, ask me again some other time.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And, while I can't speak for him, I think the point he was trying to make was the idea of preemptive attack has been historically opposed by this country.

I really don't think most people realize what a fundamental shift in U.S. policy this was and how far-reaching the ramifications are going to be.

We've opened the door for any other nation to attack based on a perceived threat with as little evidence as we had going into Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Wait, don't tell me, liberal media bias, which the Sun article claimed so right there I have to become skeptical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

The primary justification and the so-called imminent threat was Iraq's possession of WMD's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

This may be all good and fine and correct.

But it is a blindness to who Saddam really was.

You remember the Duelfer Report? I'm sure you read it, and probably quoted it, because some parts support your contention.

However, here is the key issue from that reports "Key Findings" that you and others seem to avoid:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

It pretty clear, even if one accepts your argument that WMD's were not a valid reason to invade, that justification was certainly valid in the long term.

I tend to be a long term thinker when it comes to politics and international events. Accepting that WMD's were not a valid reason is short-sighted, and wishful thinking.

Well, again you are making two different arguments. 

First, you told me that WMD's were not the primary reason, now you seem to be asserting the opposite.

As for Saddam's intentions and future capabilities, that was not something that should have been a valid concern at that time.

Reference the IAEA report I posted earlier.  The U.N. inspectors could not have been clearer or more emphatic that Iraq did not have any current WMD capability, but Bush chose to ignore that report which was delivered a full three weeks prior to the invasion.

As for Saddam's intentions and future capabilities, that was not something that should have been a valid concern at that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

As far as the rest, you are basically supporting two different viewpoints.  Iraq was justified because we thought Saddam "might" have nuclear weapons capability but taking on the Taliban, which harbored and supported those that attacked us, you advocate other than a military solution.  That didn't work too well when Pakistan recently tried it. ... Ok, this is some other time, so explain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

As we discussed earlier, there are several different issues.

The first is the claim that some people make (politesub) that the issue of WMD's were the exclusive reason ever given for the war.  It wasn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The second issue is whether or not that there was a danger that WMD's would find their way into terrorist hands through Saddam.

The answer appears to be that this danger wasn't immediate, because he didn't have them on-hand.

However, the fact is that Saddam would have had the WMD's sometime after the inspectors left, and sanctions lifted, and we would have been back to the same dangerous situation, but without many of the tools and systems in place to do something about it.

But the narrow issue of whether or not a Saddam with WMD was a valid issue.  He didn't have them when we invaded, but there is little doubt he would have had them shortly after our forces would have left the area, and we would have been right back where we started from, in a more disadvantaged condition.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I do not know what happened in the UK.

You seem to not know what happened in the US.

So what are we arguing about, exactly?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
If Hitler had stuck to just killing Jews without presenting any threat to his neighbors, would there have been no valid reason for military intervention there either? I'm not looking to argue or justify the Iraq excursion, I'm just curious how your thinking works here.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

the point is, it was the only valid reason, and it was a lie

If Hitler had stuck to just killing Jews without presenting any threat to his neighbors, would there have been no valid reason for military intervention there either? I'm not looking to argue or justify the Iraq excursion, I'm just curious how your thinking works here.

K.