The Bush Administration Was "ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN" That Saddam Hussein Had WMDs

[Billo_Really]

Eritrea attacked Djibouti, 2008
Thailand into Cambodia, 2008
South Sudan into Sudan 2012

Oh wow, I guess you got me there.

 

[Britfire54]

I believe he was convinced. Certainly, his Dem predecessors were !

I don't argue against peoples beliefs.

You're free to believe whatever you want.

Immaterial. The point was that the Dems had ample reason to believe what they did.

But even if he WASN'T, the point was that there was reason for suspecting he had them. The UN's efforts, over many years, were undertaken to establish the truth of this one way or the other.

There was also reason to suspect he didn't have them.

You got that backwards!

The "decision", from the "Decider", forced those efforts to go nowhere.

Rubbish. The UN were given all the opportunity they could wish for, to achieve a worthwhile conclusion. Their efforts, though, were ultimately not only inconclusive, but couldn't move on from being inconclusive !

Blix's people could only go where Saddam's people let them visit. All such inspections were supervised by Saddam's people, all locations they checked pre-advised. In short, it was A FARCE.

Inaction would've been disastrous for two reasons. First, Saddam would've got the message that he could keep WMD's without consequences occurring. He could retain some. He could build some. He could create whatever stockpile he chose, and know the world would permit it.

He didn't have any to retain and didn't have the infrastucture to make any more.

But I do agree, if he could've gotten them, he would've.

Then THIS made his regime dangerous, just for that reason. And, with the UN's uselessness an established and obvious fact, and had Bush NOT acted, right THERE, you have all the justification necessary for invasion - to stop Saddam being a menace !!

Second, every imaginable tinpot dictator WOULD'VE GOT EXACTLY THE SAME MESSAGE. PROLIFERATION WOULD'VE BEEN UNSTOPPABLE.

Therefore, the 2003 invasion HAD to happen.

Does that include the tinpot dictators we put into office, like Pinoche and the Shah of Iran?

Neither regime you mention supported terrorists as Saddam did. Besides, Pinochet died in 2006, and the Shah was deposed decades earlier (and did EITHER retain WMD's, or have hopes of doing so ?).

The real point is that a message of practical culpability was taught by the invasion. Let rogue regimes believe they can stockpile what they like, and what's to stop them ???

HOWEVER, teach them that if they do stockpile, and this will mean they pay an unacceptable price for it, and ...

 

[Britfire54]

.

Yep, Saddam is gone. At a cost of:

• Thousands of young Americans dead
• Thousands of young Americans physically maimed
• Thousands of young Americans psychologically maimed
• Thousands of young American children orphaned
• Thousands of young American families destroyed
• Trillions of dollars borrowed and spent
• Iran's lone mitigating military and its leader destroyed, opening the door for their shenanigans

Let's at least respect those who have suffered and who continue to suffer by telling the whole story.

.

And let's not forget what led to all of this.

Saddam mucking the UN about for well over a decade about its WMD stocks.

Saddam leading a rogue and aggressive regime, one not above attacking other countries, one capable of any atrocity you can imagine.

Saddam having links with terrorists (he even gave safe haven to Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's chief operative in Iraq).

The UN's utter uselessness.

The prospect of what the world would be like, if Saddam could've faced everybody down. Not only could his ambitions thrive, but what tinpot dictator, ANYWHERE, would believe they need be accountable for any weaponry they retain ?

You want a much more unstable, dangerous world to live in, one where terrorists and terrorist-friendly regimes run rings around you ? Then letting the Saddams of this World WIN, is an excellent way of assuring JUST SUCH A FUTURE. FOR YOU, ME, EVERYBODY.

 

[Dubya]

Bush was on record saying he wasn't interested in nation building before the war and only cared about WMD. They knew they would have to occupy Iraq to keep Iran out, so why didn't they prepare for nation building and only change their tune after the WMD wasn't found? They didn't even bring enough water and they were waiting in the desert all that time hoping the third Army could come down through Turkey, but Turkey wouldn't get on board.

 

[Billo_Really]

Immaterial. The point was that the Dems had ample reason to believe what they did.



Rubbish. The UN were given all the opportunity they could wish for, to achieve a worthwhile conclusion. Their efforts, though, were ultimately not only inconclusive, but couldn't move on from being inconclusive !

Blix's people could only go where Saddam's people let them visit. All such inspections were supervised by Saddam's people, all locations they checked pre-advised. In short, it was A FARCE.



Then THIS made his regime dangerous, just for that reason. And, with the UN's uselessness an established and obvious fact, and had Bush NOT acted, right THERE, you have all the justification necessary for invasion - to stop Saddam being a menace !!

Second, every imaginable tinpot dictator WOULD'VE GOT EXACTLY THE SAME MESSAGE. PROLIFERATION WOULD'VE BEEN UNSTOPPABLE.

Therefore, the 2003 invasion HAD to happen.

Does that include the tinpot dictators we put into office, like Pinoche and the Shah of Iran?

Neither regime you mention supported terrorists as Saddam did. Besides, Pinochet died in 2006, and the Shah was deposed decades earlier (and did EITHER retain WMD's, or have hopes of doing so ?).

The real point is that a message of practical culpability was taught by the invasion. Let rogue regimes believe they can stockpile what they like, and what's to stop them ???

HOWEVER, teach them that if they do stockpile, and this will mean they pay an unacceptable price for it, and ...

It is illegal to attack a country, just because you don't like the size and type of their weapons.

If you don't know how wrong it is, to attack someone who didn't attack you first, then you are completely void of any morality or sense of justice.

 

[Britfire54]

Immaterial. The point was that the Dems had ample reason to believe what they did.



Rubbish. The UN were given all the opportunity they could wish for, to achieve a worthwhile conclusion. Their efforts, though, were ultimately not only inconclusive, but couldn't move on from being inconclusive !

Blix's people could only go where Saddam's people let them visit. All such inspections were supervised by Saddam's people, all locations they checked pre-advised. In short, it was A FARCE.



Then THIS made his regime dangerous, just for that reason. And, with the UN's uselessness an established and obvious fact, and had Bush NOT acted, right THERE, you have all the justification necessary for invasion - to stop Saddam being a menace !!

Second, every imaginable tinpot dictator WOULD'VE GOT EXACTLY THE SAME MESSAGE. PROLIFERATION WOULD'VE BEEN UNSTOPPABLE.

Therefore, the 2003 invasion HAD to happen.

Does that include the tinpot dictators we put into office, like Pinoche and the Shah of Iran?

Neither regime you mention supported terrorists as Saddam did. Besides, Pinochet died in 2006, and the Shah was deposed decades earlier (and did EITHER retain WMD's, or have hopes of doing so ?).

The real point is that a message of practical culpability was taught by the invasion. Let rogue regimes believe they can stockpile what they like, and what's to stop them ???

HOWEVER, teach them that if they do stockpile, and this will mean they pay an unacceptable price for it, and ...

It is illegal to attack a country, just because you don't like the size and type of their weapons.

If you don't know how wrong it is, to attack someone who didn't attack you first, then you are completely void of any morality or sense of justice.

By that reckoning, then, America should never have attacked Afghanistan, either. After all, did Afghanistan, AS A NATION STATE, attack America ?

... nope. TERRORISTS FROM THERE DID.

I suppose all of Al Qaeda's terrorist training camps should've been left alone, then, free to this very day to train thousands MORE terrorists to commit multiple '9/11's' ??

Tell me of the 'morality', or the 'sense of justice', in deciding never to attack those camps !!

You aren't facing the real world, it seems to me. Sometimes, you just do what it takes to avoid greater evils, because if you don't, those greater evils come back to bite you, HARD. And Iraq was shaping up as one such evil, with Saddam's terrorist links added to his refusal to account for WMD stocks, either to admit what he had, OR, to prove their destructions.

But I suspect that nothing will dissuade you from the belief that Saddam deserved to be protected. Forget his shiftiness over WMD's. Forget the brutalities of his regime, the gassing of the Kurds, the mass graves, even the rape rooms. Forget his enthusiasm for predatory invasions of neighbouring Nation States.

No, forget ALL of that, because attacking Bush is FAR more fun ... eh ?

Tell me more about 'moral stances' ... please ...

 

[jtpr312]

Eritrea attacked Djibouti, 2008
Thailand into Cambodia, 2008
South Sudan into Sudan 2012

Oh wow, I guess you got me there.

Not too hard as most of what you say is BS.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not too hard as most of what you say is BS.

No, you only got me there.

At least I have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

.

Yep, Saddam is gone. At a cost of:

• Thousands of young Americans dead
• Thousands of young Americans physically maimed
• Thousands of young Americans psychologically maimed
• Thousands of young American children orphaned
• Thousands of young American families destroyed
• Trillions of dollars borrowed and spent
• Iran's lone mitigating military and its leader destroyed, opening the door for their shenanigans

Let's at least respect those who have suffered and who continue to suffer by telling the whole story.

.

This is the same line of thinking that would look at the D-Day invasion and would rather look at the lives lost, money wasted, than what actually was achieved.

Despite all this talk about what President Bush did, preventing a tyrant from building a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, what was the end result of simply having sanctions. Take Iran for example, I'd dare any from the left try to prove that continued negotiations and sanctions have swayed that nation's interests of pursuing nuclear weapons. Let's look at the fact of what sanctions accomplished under Iraq, and what accomplishments ( or rather the lack thereof ) we are finding in Iran. Where is the deterrent from simply refining plutonium in Iran and having terrorists obtain the capability of developing a nuclear bomb? What would those on the left condemning all those Americans lives that were lost in Iraq, were left to explain the result of a nuclear bomb ( instead of simply just a plane ) exploding in the heart of New York City? Did sanctions actually work to deter under Presidents Clinton AND Bush, and are they working at all to deter Iran today? Lets see if we will hear any evidence from the left, or will they remain silent and continue to try and place blame on President George W. Bush.

 

[Billo_Really]

By that reckoning, then, America should never have attacked Afghanistan, either. After all, did Afghanistan, AS A NATION STATE, attack America ?

No it did not. Therefore, attacking Afghanistan was illegal according to international law.

I suppose all of Al Qaeda's terrorist training camps should've been left alone, then, free to this very day to train thousands MORE terrorists to commit multiple '9/11's' ??

If we would just remove our military from the ME, they wouldn't have any reason to train terrorists.

Tell me of the 'morality', or the 'sense of justice', in deciding never to attack those camps !!

You only attack, when you, yourself, are attacked.

Anything short of that, is aggression.

You aren't facing the real world, it seems to me. Sometimes, you just do what it takes to avoid greater evils, because if you don't, those greater evils come back to bite you, HARD. And Iraq was shaping up as one such evil, with Saddam's terrorist links added to his refusal to account for WMD stocks, either to admit what he had, OR, to prove their destructions.

Being linked to terrorists as been completely debunked and he had no WMD's after 1993.

But I suspect that nothing will dissuade you from the belief that Saddam deserved to be protected. Forget his shiftiness over WMD's. Forget the brutalities of his regime, the gassing of the Kurds, the mass graves, even the rape rooms. Forget his enthusiasm for predatory invasions of neighbouring Nation States.

This whole "taking out Hussein because he was a bad guy" thing, really doesn't wash. We knew just how bad he was 20 years earlier when we were selling him arms to fight the Iranians. If that was the reason to take him out, why didn't we do it back then?

But I will tell you what I will forget, is this phoney caring you're showing for the Iraqi people. We both know you don't give a shit about them. You certainly don't care about the over 1 million of them that died as a result of our invasion.

No, forget ALL of that, because attacking Bush is FAR more fun ... eh ?

Tell me more about 'moral stances' ... please ...

If you want to consider Bush being held accountable for the crimes he committed in office an "attack", so be it.

I call it justice, which, BTW, is a moral stance.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is funny as all hell to see a liberal object to being called a "liberal" but demanding to be called a "progressive" as though the terms had any meaningful distinction between them.

I don't object to being called a liberal. It's a liberal country founded on the principles of liberalism. Why would anyone object to that?

I do love how you on the right say the word "liberal", in the same vain as the f-word.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Yep, Saddam is gone. At a cost of:

• Thousands of young Americans dead
• Thousands of young Americans physically maimed
• Thousands of young Americans psychologically maimed
• Thousands of young American children orphaned
• Thousands of young American families destroyed
• Trillions of dollars borrowed and spent
• Iran's lone mitigating military and its leader destroyed, opening the door for their shenanigans

Let's at least respect those who have suffered and who continue to suffer by telling the whole story.

.

This is the same line of thinking that would look at the D-Day invasion and would rather look at the lives lost, money wasted, than what actually was achieved.

Despite all this talk about what President Bush did, preventing a tyrant from building a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, what was the end result of simply having sanctions. Take Iran for example, I'd dare any from the left try to prove that continued negotiations and sanctions have swayed that nation's interests of pursuing nuclear weapons. Let's look at the fact of what sanctions accomplished under Iraq, and what accomplishments ( or rather the lack thereof ) we are finding in Iran. Where is the deterrent from simply refining plutonium in Iran and having terrorists obtain the capability of developing a nuclear bomb? What would those on the left condemning all those Americans lives that were lost in Iraq, were left to explain the result of a nuclear bomb ( instead of simply just a plane ) exploding in the heart of New York City? Did sanctions actually work to deter under Presidents Clinton AND Bush, and are they working at all to deter Iran today? Lets see if we will hear any evidence from the left, or will they remain silent and continue to try and place blame on President George W. Bush.

What was achieved, what was promised, and at what cost, is precisely my point.

Americans -- still heartbroken, shaken and vulnerable after the attacks of 9/11 -- were told stories of "mushroom clouds" and the imminent threat posed by Saddam by the Bush administration. They were told of direct connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as if Saddam were somehow directly connected to the 9/11 attacks.

While the administration was able to stoke further fears and intensify the anger of American citizens at Saddam at their weakest moment, many of us knew that going to war with Saddam (especially while we were still at war in Afghanistan and unable to locate bin Laden) was a bad idea.

There was no proof of massive stockpiles of WMD; there was no proof that Saddam's acquisition of nuclear weapons was imminent; there was no proof that Iraq had attacked us (isn't that kind of important?). All we had were wild-eyed threats of what could be, provided by people who were overcome with what they felt was "patriotism", who had long since decided they wanted to play GI Joe in Iraq.

So, despite the pleas of many Americans, we invaded a sovereign country that had not attacked us. The one sovereign country in the region which had long provided a mitigating military presence against Iran. All at great cost to us, as I have detailed.

And guess what? Turns out there was no nuclear program; turns out there were no massive stockpiles of chemical weapons; turns out Saddam was bluffing about all this, probably to keep Iran honest; turns out we were not hailed by the Iraqi people as liberators; turns out the war apologists had to change their tune from "Saddam is going to kill us all with a mushroom cloud" to "we're here to free the Iraqi people". What an insult.

What remains? A fragile (to be charitable) and artificial Iraqi "democracy" with multiple radical religious groups waiting in the wings to move in and seize control; a completely emboldened Iran, able to advance its military agenda in a wide variety of overt and covert ways with virtual impunity, able to disrupt global oil prices with a fiery speech; and a few Americans who simply refuse to admit that those other Americans who opposed this horrific war were right. Why? Because they think that it will indicate weakness and provide political ammo for "the other side".

So while many of us were called "un-American" for not wanting to go into Iraq, it turns out that we're feeling vindicated. But the momentary pleasure of vindication is quickly washed away by the horrific costs we have paid, and the horrific costs we will continue to pay, as a result of this travesty.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is funny as all hell to see a liberal object to being called a "liberal" but demanding to be called a "progressive" as though the terms had any meaningful distinction between them.

I don't object to being called a liberal. It's a liberal country founded on the principles of liberalism. Why would anyone object to that?

I do love how you on the right say the word "liberal", in the same vain as the f-word.

I didn't say YOU were one of the liberals who objects to being called a liberal, first of all.

But this is not a "liberal" country and it was not founded by "liberals." It was founded by revolutionaries and that's not synonymous with "liberal."

Neither was this Republic founded on principles of "liberalism. In point of fact, the principles upon which this Republic was founded are principles which many of you liberals today oppose.

Why DO lots of liberals object to being called liberals? Ask them, kid.

I love how you liberals tend to over-generalize. But I'll tell you what. SOME aspects of what used to be referred to as political "liberalism" are highly worthy things. Many are far from it. I suppose the description by conservatives of many of you liberals AS "liberals" is offensive to so many of you liberals due to the numerous attributes of "liberalism" which are so different from what it used to mean.

 

[Sallow]

.

Yep, Saddam is gone. At a cost of:

• Thousands of young Americans dead
• Thousands of young Americans physically maimed
• Thousands of young Americans psychologically maimed
• Thousands of young American children orphaned
• Thousands of young American families destroyed
• Trillions of dollars borrowed and spent
• Iran's lone mitigating military and its leader destroyed, opening the door for their shenanigans

Let's at least respect those who have suffered and who continue to suffer by telling the whole story.

.

This is the same line of thinking that would look at the D-Day invasion and would rather look at the lives lost, money wasted, than what actually was achieved.

Despite all this talk about what President Bush did, preventing a tyrant from building a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, what was the end result of simply having sanctions. Take Iran for example, I'd dare any from the left try to prove that continued negotiations and sanctions have swayed that nation's interests of pursuing nuclear weapons. Let's look at the fact of what sanctions accomplished under Iraq, and what accomplishments ( or rather the lack thereof ) we are finding in Iran. Where is the deterrent from simply refining plutonium in Iran and having terrorists obtain the capability of developing a nuclear bomb? What would those on the left condemning all those Americans lives that were lost in Iraq, were left to explain the result of a nuclear bomb ( instead of simply just a plane ) exploding in the heart of New York City? Did sanctions actually work to deter under Presidents Clinton AND Bush, and are they working at all to deter Iran today? Lets see if we will hear any evidence from the left, or will they remain silent and continue to try and place blame on President George W. Bush.

9/11 was not WWII.

 

[Sallow]

It is funny as all hell to see a liberal object to being called a "liberal" but demanding to be called a "progressive" as though the terms had any meaningful distinction between them.

I don't object to being called a liberal. It's a liberal country founded on the principles of liberalism. Why would anyone object to that?

I do love how you on the right say the word "liberal", in the same vain as the f-word.

I didn't say YOU were one of the liberals who objects to being called a liberal, first of all.

But this is not a "liberal" country and it was not founded by "liberals." It was founded by revolutionaries and that's not synonymous with "liberal."

Neither was this Republic founded on principles of "liberalism. In point of fact, the principles upon which this Republic was founded are principles which many of you liberals today oppose.

Why DO lots of liberals object to being called liberals? Ask them, kid.

I love how you liberals tend to over-generalize. But I'll tell you what. SOME aspects of what used to be referred to as political "liberalism" are highly worthy things. Many are far from it. I suppose the description by conservatives of many of you liberals AS "liberals" is offensive to so many of you liberals due to the numerous attributes of "liberalism" which are so different from what it used to mean.

Sure it is.

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
liberal - definition of liberal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

That's the problem with you folks. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Speak English. That's what we speak in this country.

 

[Oldstyle]

I hate to point out the painfully inconvenient, Sallow...but the text book definition of what a liberal "is"...bears little resemblance to how the modern day far left liberal functions. Tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Truthmatters]

we dont tolerate your lies

You know the ones like tax cuts inxcrease revenues

 

[Oldstyle]

And English is what we "used to" speak. Now in much of the country we also have to speak Spanish. Why? Because someone decided that it was a good idea to have "English as a second language" classrooms.

 

[Oldstyle]

we dont tolerate your lies

You know the ones like tax cuts inxcrease revenues

Heck, TM...you're a Barack Obama supporter...you not only "tolerate" lies...you eat them up with a spoon and have been for years.

 

[Oldstyle]

we dont tolerate your lies

You know the ones like tax cuts inxcrease revenues

And the REAL lie being pushed by idiots like you is that raising taxes will increase revenues. Ask the State of New Jersey how raising taxes on millionaires worked out for them? Duh?