Wow.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What are you smoking? If they found WMD’s tomorrow, it would change everything. The fact that we didn’t find what we were told was DEFINITELY there is why there is an issue.[/quote]

The only thing that would change is the context of leftist attacks on Bush. Oh and the fact that the CIA, the senate, foreign intelligence agencies, AND the Bush administration would have been correct since they ALL put faith in the strong likelihood that Saddam possesed the capabilities for WMD.

The war in Iraq has never been exclusively about WMD’s, that’s what the left turned it into. Yes that was one of the big reasons for the war, however it was never the sole reason for it. Seriously long is the left going to beat this dead horse? This has been hashed out in numerous threads and shouldn’t be hard to find.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The war in Iraq has never been exclusively about WMD’s, that’s what the left turned it into. [/quote]

Bullshit. The left didn’t turn it into anything. It was the largest selling point for the war. Of COURSE it wasn’t the only reason and no one is saying that. However, the other reasons wouldn’t have given him as much public support.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
But you are completely ignoring that fact that other governments, including Putin himself told Bush that Saddam had WMD’s. There is also the possibility that he did in fact have them, and actually got rid of them right before we went in.

Are you blaming Putin? Or the other governments who told us? Or just Bush? That is the problem here.

If you say it is ok to take Saddam out if he actually had WMD’s, why shouldn’t Bush have acted when everyone in the world was telling him the stuff was there?

This argument is actually about the fact that Bush didn’t have psychic powers.

If WMD’s are found tomorrow, I expect a large group of people to say to themselves, “Damn, what else can we get him on now?” And another large group to come up with some conspiracy theory like they were planted, or we gave them to him, or it was actually aspirin. [/quote]

There are no WMD’s. Why are any conservatives still acting like there could be? We have been all over that country and found Saddam in an underground bunker but you believe we just haven’t stumbled on the WMD’s yet? Even this administration isn’t holding the position that there still might be so why can’t you let it go? It was FALSE intel no matter who said it was there. The one acting on false info will be the one accused of acting hastily, no matter who that is. If someone calls the cops and says there is a guy selling crack next door to them…and the cops bust in, kill two people and fuck up the place looking for crack only to find none, who do you think will be blamed? The guy who made the call? NO.

Clinton got us into this mess by not standing up to terror. Remember the USS Cole, the previous WTC bombings? Wow, we arrested a blind sheik! That’ll solve it!

Clinton treated terrorism as a crime, not as a war, now we all have to pay. Instead of doing his job, he was busy staining the dress of an intern. This guy gets adulation, while the poor bastard trying to fight the terrorists gets nothing but grief. Pathetic, and a crime.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Clinton got us into this mess by not standing up to terror. Remember the USS Cole, the previous WTC bombings? Wow, we arrested a blind sheik! That’ll solve it!

Clinton treated terrorism as a crime, not as a war, now we all have to pay. Instead of doing his job, he was busy staining the dress of an intern. This guy gets adulation, while the poor bastard trying to fight the terrorists gets nothing but grief. Pathetic, and a crime.[/quote]

Haha! “poor”. Hahaha!!!

the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.

we find no WMD’s and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.
why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time?

that excuse is just a scapegoat.

going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.

if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem?

first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.

let those countries run it like they want.if they don’t like it they can revolt,like we did.

[quote]havoc501 wrote:
the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.

Which ones? Didn’t they all say Saddam had WMD? Didn’t they pass 18 resolutions against the guy?

we find no WMD’s and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.
why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time?

It wasn’t in the UN mandate.

that excuse is just a scapegoat.

going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.

Saddam had WMD. Ask any Kurd.

if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem?

One evil dictator at a time, please. Iran is next, then NK. Be patient. The USA, the true hand of God in this world, will prevail. Patience.

first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.

let those countries run it like they want.if they don’t like it they can revolt,like we did.[/quote]

Ask any Tibetan about revolting against the Chinese.

[quote]havoc501 wrote:
the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.

we find no WMD’s and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.
why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time?

that excuse is just a scapegoat.

going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.

if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem?

first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.

let those countries run it like they want.if they don’t like it they can revolt,like we did.[/quote]

I feel the exact same way. decent post.

[quote]havoc501 wrote:
the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.[/quote]

Wrong - the countries that did want the US to go to war did not advise the US that Iraq had no WMDs. They didn’t want a war for other reasons - and go read up on the French and Russian sweetheart oil deals if you want to start theorizing why they didn’t want a Saddam ouster.

Wrong - there were over 22 writs against Saddam in the Senate Resolution authorizing force. WMDs were privliged, but there was always multiple reasons.

Also, don’t forget the evil, oil-swilling Abraham Lincoln changed his war plan from preservation of the Union to the Emancipation Proclamation - and to think, there is a statue of that neocon down in Washington!

For the exact same reason we didn’t start a fight with Stalin before Hitler was defeated.

For what? What is the real reason we went in?

[quote]going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.[/quote]

Wrong - the fear that Saddam would be willing and able to arm terror elements goes back to the 1990s across multiple administrations.

Because ‘getting rid of a tyrant, any old tyrant, for the heck of it’ was never the policy - diplomacy had ended in Iraq. Not so in North Korea.

[quote]first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.[/quote]

The moment Saddam breached his ceasefire agreement and international agreements, it became our business - go read the paperwork.

Per Headhunter’s point, go ask the Tibetans about that. And the Bosnians and Rwandans, the Sudanese Christian black farmers, and the Afghans. Oh, and the Europeans.

In my mind the biggest selling point was what he did to Kuwait and his own people in the 90’s.

He PROVED he USED WMD. That was all we needed. We had to walk on pins and needles to gain a UN approval, which was given months earlier because of how Saddamm breached the WMD inspections mandates. Saddam hid stuff from inspectors, did not allow entry, moved shit when and inspection came etc…etc…etc.

Please, now tell me he had no WMD’s, and you’re a total idiot and/or bandwagon chump.

GB Senior should have wiped him out too, but he was too PC. We need to stop worrying about how the bleeding hearts internally and other people of the world feel about the US, and instead, go kick some ass and answer questions LATER!

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
We need to stop worrying about how the bleeding hearts internally and other people of the world feel about the US, and instead, go kick some ass and answer questions LATER![/quote]

Uh-oh! Looks like Rockscar’s set on full-tilt jihad! So, when does the plane land in Baghdad and the ass kicking begin?

Maybe major airlines should promote a package called “Americans For Jihad” or something, one way tickets, of course–any questions about how to get back home can be answered after they’ve finished fighting.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
We need to stop worrying about how the bleeding hearts internally and other people of the world feel about the US, and instead, go kick some ass and answer questions LATER!

Uh-oh! Looks like Rockscar’s set on full-tilt jihad! So, when does the plane land in Baghdad and the ass kicking begin?

Maybe major airlines should promote a package called “Americans For Jihad” or something, one way tickets, of course–any questions about how to get back home can be answered after they’ve finished fighting.[/quote]

LOL.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Looks like Rockscar’s set on full-tilt jihad! [/quote]

Isn’t it called a good ol’ Texas Yeee-HaAd?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
havoc501 wrote:
the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.

Wrong - the countries that did want the US to go to war did not advise the US that Iraq had no WMDs. They didn’t want a war for other reasons - and go read up on the French and Russian sweetheart oil deals if you want to start theorizing why they didn’t want a Saddam ouster.

we find no WMD’s and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.

Wrong - there were over 22 writs against Saddam in the Senate Resolution authorizing force. WMDs were privliged, but there was always multiple reasons.

Also, don’t forget the evil, oil-swilling Abraham Lincoln changed his war plan from preservation of the Union to the Emancipation Proclamation - and to think, there is a statue of that neocon down in Washington!

why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time?

For the exact same reason we didn’t start a fight with Stalin before Hitler was defeated.

that excuse is just a scapegoat.

For what? What is the real reason we went in?

going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.

Wrong - the fear that Saddam would be willing and able to arm terror elements goes back to the 1990s across multiple administrations.

if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem?

Because ‘getting rid of a tyrant, any old tyrant, for the heck of it’ was never the policy - diplomacy had ended in Iraq. Not so in North Korea.

first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.

The moment Saddam breached his ceasefire agreement and international agreements, it became our business - go read the paperwork.

let those countries run it like they want.if they don’t like it they can revolt,like we did.

Per Headhunter’s point, go ask the Tibetans about that. And the Bosnians and Rwandans, the Sudanese Christian black farmers, and the Afghans. Oh, and the Europeans.[/quote]

great points, but why did the focus shift from dealing with the terrorist who attacked our country,to dealing with iraq?i mean come on,shouldn’t we come first?

saddam has defied us and the un for a very long time,but we’ll go in and oust him after the biggest attack by foreigners on american soil in over 50 years.
if it’s because we were worried about iraq housing terrorist cells then we have failed.

if this was something that needed be done for humanitarian reasons,i think the world would have understood if we let saddam slide while we took care of things at home.and i still stand by the why didn’t we take care of this when it was at it’s worst?

Mage,

I wanted to suggest that you don’t waste time on pox. If I were you, I’d identify some open-minded liberals. There are some people on this board who are willing to acknowledge some facts that directly refute the current dnc talking points.

Anyway, your version of events happens to be borne out by the evidence.

Here is Duefler:

"Between 1996 and 2002, the overall MIC budget increased over forty-fold from ID 15.5 billion to ID 700 billion. By 2003 it had grown to ID 1 trillion. MIC?s hard currency allocations in 2002 amounted to approximately $364 million. MIC sponsorship of technical research projects at Iraqi universities skyrocketed from about 40 projects in 1997 to 3,200 in 2002. MIC workforce expanded by fifty percent in three years, from 42,000 employees in 1999 to 63,000 in 2002.

According to a mid-level IIS official, the IIS successfully targeted scientists from Russia, Belarus, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, China, and several other countries to acquire new military and defense-related technologies for Iraq. Payments were made in US dollars. The Iraqi Government also recruited foreign scientists to work in Iraq as freelance consultants. Presumably these scientists, plus their Iraqi colleagues, provided the resident ?know how? to reconstitute WMD within two years once sanctions were over, as one former high-ranking Iraqi official said was possible.

Saddam met with his senior nuclear scientists in 1999 and offered to provide them with whatever they needed, and increased funding began to flow to the IAEC in 2001, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Saddam directed a large budget increase for IAEC and increased salaries tenfold from 2001 to 2003. He also directed the head of the IAEC to keep nuclear scientists together, instituted new laws and regulations to increase privileges for IAEC scientists and invested in numerous new projects. He also convened frequent meetings with the IAEC to highlight new achievements.

Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard?if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment.

Imad Husayn ?Ali Al ?Ani, closely tied to Iraq?s VX program, alleged that Saddam had been looking for chemical weapons scientists in 2000 to begin production in a second location, according to reporting.

Huwaysh stated that in 2001 Saddam approached him after a ministers? meeting and asked, ?Do you have any programs going on that I don?t know about,? implying chemical or biological weapons programs. Huwaysh answered no, absolutely not. He assumed that Saddam was testing him, so Huwaysh added that because these programs were prohibited by the UN, he could not pursue them unless Saddam ordered it. Huwaysh said Saddam seemed satisfied, asked no further questions, and directed no follow-up actions. The incident was perplexing to Huwaysh, because he wondered why Saddam would ask him this question. While he had no evidence of WMD programs outside MIC, Huwaysh speculated that Qusay had the ability within the SSO to compartmentalize projects and select individuals to do special work.

Saddam stated to his ministers that he did not consider ballistic missiles to be WMD, according to Huwaysh. Saddam had never accepted missile range restrictions and assessed that if he could convince the UN inspectors he was in compliance regarding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then he could negotiate with the UNSC over missile ranges.

Saddam stated publicly in early 2001 that ?we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation?.

Purported design work done in 2000 on ballistic and land attack cruise missiles with ranges extending to 1000 km suggests interest in long-range delivery systems.

In 2002, Iraq began serial production of the Al Samud II, a short-range ballistic missile that violated UN range limits?text firings had reached 183 km?and exceeded UN prescribed diameter limitations of 600mm. Iraq?s production of 76 al Samud IIs, even under sanctions conditions, illustrates that Iraq sought more than a handful of ballistic missiles, but was deterred by the existing trade restrictions.

Saddam directed design and production of a 650 to 750 km range missile in early 2002, according to Huwaysh. Saddam wanted the missile within half a year. Huwaysh informed him, later that year, that Dr. Muzhir Sadiq Saba? Al Tamimi?s twin Volga engine, liquid-propellant design would reach only 550 km and would take three to five years to produce. Saddam seemed profoundly disappointed, left the room without comment, and never raised the subject again.

Other reports suggest work on a ballistic missile designed to exceed UN restrictions began earlier. A high-level missile official of Al Karamahh State Company said that in 1997 Huwaysh requested him to convert a Volga (SA-2) air defense missile into a surface-to-surface missile. When the official briefed Huwaysh on the results, however, he said Huwaysh told him to stop work immediately and destroy all documentary evidence of the tests. In mid-1998, another missile official said Huwaysh ordered ?Abd-al-Baqi Rashid Shi?a, general director at the Al Rashid State Company to develop a solid-propellant missile capable of a range of 1,000 to 1,200 km. The missile official speculated Huwaysh?s order came directly from Saddam. A senior level official at Al Karamahh, alleged that in 2000 Huwaysh ordered two computer designs be done to extend the range of the al Samud, one for 500 km and the other for 1000 km, which were provided him in late 2000. Huwaysh disputes all these accounts."

Mage, if this isn’t evidence enough of the danger posed by saddam, then I don’t know what is.

He was pouring huge amounts of resources into reconstituting WMD. He was hiring foreign experts. He was denying his home-grown experts permission to leave the country.

Unfortunately, most people have a limited attention span (that’s why there is still a democratic party) so I won’t rehash some of the other interesting findings that Duefler presents. However, I encourage you to read saddam’s taped discussion of gassing the Saudi’s and the Israeli’s. That is particularly chilling.

JeffR

havoc501 wrote:
“the war was to be about WMD.”

Really? That’s news to me. Convienent how you forget the other 17 reasons. Oh, wait, they must have been too valid to penetrate.

It’s like saying, “World War II was fought solely over the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

“he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.”

How about the majority of intelligence services around the world who agreed with our assessment of WMD threat?

“we find no WMD’s”

Can we get some more clarity on that subject? Would you like me to take that as NO WMD at all? Or, would you like to amend that statement?

“and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.”

It always was. Wait, there were MANY SIDE BENEFITS!!! More than one cause to fight for!!! The horror!!! C A N ’ T R E M E M B E R T O O M A N Y T H I N G S O R I W I L L F A L L D O W N!!!

“why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?”

Should have destroyed hitler in the 30’s. Hindsight is wonderful.

“why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time?”

Therefore, we couldn’t right a wrong. Great thinking. I hope you are right on every aspect the first time. You won’t get time to reconsider or try another strategy. It’s one and done for you, pal.

“that excuse is just a scapegoat.”

I’m sorry, I don’t remember reading that you have access to classified information and possess a wealth of diplomatic experience. Thanks, but your lack of credentials does not give you the trump card.

“going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.”

How about al qaeda in general?

That’s like saying, “Well we need to destroy Nagumo’s attack carrier force. Let’s not destroy bases of support. No one else allied with Nagumo would launch another attack.”

“turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.”

Clarify “No WMD’s” I want some specifics, please.

“if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem?”

Really? Not much of a problem? Perhaps you haven’t been keeping up on current events, pal. W. was warned by top officials (Powell) that this wasn’t going to be any sort of cake-walk.

Oh, your logic sucks.

Patient: “Doctor, I’ve got bilateral renal stones, a brain tumor, and diabetes.”

Doctor: “I’m sorry. I can’t treat all of them at once so I won’t treat any of them.”

Patient: “Thanks.”

“first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.”

Oh, I love isolationism. It’s had a long and storied career.

“keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.”

Enemies don’t knock anymore.

“let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.”

Let’s hope they don’t realize how uninformed some of our people are.
They might get real aggressive if they knew about our soft underbelly (you).

“let those countries run it like they want.if they don’t like it they can revolt,like we did.”

I’m glad France didn’t agree with you in 1777.

Sometimes, Democracy needs help.

With SEVENTY-PERCENT OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE CASTING BALLOT’S IT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THE IRAQI’S DON’T CRAVE DEMOCRACY.

JeffR

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There are no WMD’s. Why are any conservatives still acting like there could be? We have been all over that country and found Saddam in an underground bunker but you believe we just haven’t stumbled on the WMD’s yet? Even this administration isn’t holding the position that there still might be so why can’t you let it go? It was FALSE intel no matter who said it was there. The one acting on false info will be the one accused of acting hastily, no matter who that is. If someone calls the cops and says there is a guy selling crack next door to them…and the cops bust in, kill two people and fuck up the place looking for crack only to find none, who do you think will be blamed? The guy who made the call? NO.[/quote]

You are changing the argument. I never said there were, I just said if. But on a side note I also remember a former Iraqi defector stating that there were WMD’s, but they are so well hidden that they would never be found. This was before the war.

But right now, instead of the theoretical argument, yes I believe Saddam had WMD’s. Maybe they were gone before Bush made the speech, I don?t know. But I think they probably were there before the war, and either destroyed, moved, or damn well hidden before we got there.

Anyway your argument about somebody calling about crack, and innocent people being killed is completely off the mark. It is more like a crack dealer who didn’t happen to have the crack on him at the time. And instead of just one neighbor, it was 20 very respectable neighbors, 10 other crack dealers, police wire taps, and found were a cache of firearms, and all the tools to make the crack except the cocaine, and the finished product. (Along with detailed printed instructions.)

Now regardless of WMD’s here is the real question. Should we say we are sorry, put Saddam back in charge, and give him back all the weapons that he did have?

And yes this is an honest question. If what we did was wrong, then why wouldn’t it be right to give him back his power? If not, how can anyone say what we did was wrong? Really you cannot have it both ways.

I too do not believe WMD’s were the sole reason for going in, and actually think we should have gone in a long time before this. In fact we made a big mistake not giving the promised support to those who wanted to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War. We would not have had to go in. Instead we let Saddam slaughter them.

If we should feel guilt it is because of that. Also there would have been no need for this war at all because he would have been out of power by the Iraqi people themselves.

Two more things. We did not find Saddam, he was sold out to us. Our forces passed by that “spider hole” many times and never saw it. We may never have found it had we not been told.

Second, try to remember who came to the aid of Saddam. There is a reason for that.

[quote]havoc501 wrote:
the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better. [/quote]

They had their political reasons for being against the war. Jack Chirac for one benefits politically in his country by opposing anything America does.

[quote]we find no WMD’s and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.
why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time? [/quote]

For political reasons. Bush 41 was told not to go very far by his political advisers. It was felt that if they took Saddam out they would have problems in the Mid-East with other countries. I agree the job should have been done then.

[quote]that excuse is just a scapegoat.

going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense. [/quote]

Actually it does make sense. First we did in fact think he had those WMD’s, second the war is on terror. Saddam is a supporter of terrorism, and has in fact attacked American interests, and actually tried to Assassinate Bush I. Zarkowi was in Iraq for medical treatment repeatedly before the war. People said Zarkowi had no ties to Al-Qaeda, until he announced publicly his connection and loyal following of Bin Laden. [quote]

if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem? [/quote]

Why bring up other countries? This is bringing in a completely different subject. Kim Il is different then Saddam, and must be treated differently. This is like asking why the breast cancer treatment is not used on herpes.

[quote]first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy. [/quote]

Yes, I remember that people said we didn’t need to get involved in WWII for the exact same reasons. Just care about yourself, and don’t worry about the rest of the world. Regardless of Pearl Harbor, Hitler was in fact starting to build weapons specifically to attack America way before we even thought about getting involved.

We cannot exist if we just stick our heads in the sand.

Yes, they can, and they did, after our first attack. Saddam put an end to that, and in a very public, and brutal way, like publicly burning people alive.

Besides are we not supposed to care about our fellow man? Personally I don’t think we have done enough in the world.

Look at Rwanda. An estimated 800,000 Tutsi’s killed. Clinton was advised by other countries to stay out of that conflict. He was smarter then that “stoopid” Bush and let the other countries dictate our actions, and allowed the Genocide to take place.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mage,

I wanted to suggest that you don’t waste time on pox…

JeffR[/quote]

But I am having so much fun.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
havoc501 wrote:
the war was to be about WMD.he was advised against by many other countries.countries that in hindsight knew better.

They had their political reasons for being against the war. Jack Chirac for one benefits politically in his country by opposing anything America does.

we find no WMD’s and now the war is about ridding the world of a tyrant.
why didn’t we rid the world of him in the 70’s, or 80’s?why didn’t we do it when we were over there the first time?

For political reasons. Bush 41 was told not to go very far by his political advisers. It was felt that if they took Saddam out they would have problems in the Mid-East with other countries. I agree the job should have been done then.

that excuse is just a scapegoat.

going after the terrorist involved in 9/11 makes sense.
turning are attentions to a country that doesn’t have WMD’S or had nothing to do with 9/11 makes no sense.

Actually it does make sense. First we did in fact think he had those WMD’s, second the war is on terror. Saddam is a supporter of terrorism, and has in fact attacked American interests, and actually tried to Assassinate Bush I. Zarkowi was in Iraq for medical treatment repeatedly before the war. People said Zarkowi had no ties to Al-Qaeda, until he announced publicly his connection and loyal following of Bin Laden.

if he felt compelled to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant,why not drop in on n.korea,or are we just going to rid the world of tyranny in countries where there won’t be much of a problem?

Why bring up other countries? This is bringing in a completely different subject. Kim Il is different then Saddam, and must be treated differently. This is like asking why the breast cancer treatment is not used on herpes.

first and foremost let’s take care of business here in our country.
keep are noses outta other countries business,until they come knocking on our door.
let’s hope china never decides that america is corrupt,and it’s ppl need to be freed from democracy.

Yes, I remember that people said we didn’t need to get involved in WWII for the exact same reasons. Just care about yourself, and don’t worry about the rest of the world. Regardless of Pearl Harbor, Hitler was in fact starting to build weapons specifically to attack America way before we even thought about getting involved.

We cannot exist if we just stick our heads in the sand.

let those countries run it like they want.if they don’t like it they can revolt,like we did.

Yes, they can, and they did, after our first attack. Saddam put an end to that, and in a very public, and brutal way, like publicly burning people alive.

Besides are we not supposed to care about our fellow man? Personally I don’t think we have done enough in the world.

Look at Rwanda. An estimated 800,000 Tutsi’s killed. Clinton was advised by other countries to stay out of that conflict. He was smarter then that “stoopid” Bush and let the other countries dictate our actions, and allowed the Genocide to take place.
[/quote]

i will admit that my point of view is more from the feeling i get than the info that i know.
and you gents seem well informed on current affairs.
i still can’t help the feeling i get about this situation.

i understand the need to help others and to step in and take action when things will affect us.
i understood him going after bin laden and al queida(sp?) after 9/11.what doesn’t make sense is why our focus changed.please explain.
i can’t wrap my head around the reasons i being given.
1.wmd-okay this makes sense,but we get there and there are none found.plus rumors going around of trumped up intel about wmd.

2.if i understood the persons post a little earlier,maybe saddam had the wmds moved while he was stalling the un.ok,thats cool.when we didn’t find them,why didn’t we try and find where they went or at least where all the money went and to whom it went to,that saddam was spending on wmd.

3.mudering tyrant.i do understand this too and don’t want to come off as uncaring or soft.soft i ain’t.

i believe he should have been ousted,but was now a good time?we are trying to trounce a terrorist group and then are attention is diverted and pretty much directed toward the saving of another country.

my point is how much mudering already took place in iraq,and how much was happening right now.we obviously didn’t care enough to help the revolt or at least come to their aid then,why now when we are in turmoil.i don’t believe saddam was murdering huge amounts or any of his ppl when we went in.if i’m wrong and i could be,then i’m sorry.

if our mission was to stop iraq from using it’s wmd,when we found none we should have moved on,either searching for the wmd or putting our full focus back on bin laden and saved freeing iraq after we took care of al queida.

i’ve heard there are more terrorist factions in iraq now than when we invaded.is this true?if so,how are we helping our cause?

and please understand, i just don’t want to see americans dying in a war that didn’t need to be fought.