Iraq war preventable?????

[IronMentality]

Yup, our vastly booming economy, with GDP at $12.4 Trillion dollars. Thanks for clarifying how great the economy has been. Close to half our budget is broken Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. LOL you left wingers!

 

[IronMentality]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...

That would be the budget that doesn't include costs related to Iraq? Or have they finally fixed that little oversight...

Originally posted by: IronMentality
"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."

You haven't explained anything - You can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

But more importantly, if Saddam was willing to leave, why was it necessary to invade?

Most importantly, if several high intelligence figures, including the leaders of such countries said Iraq had WMDs, it was necessary to invade to get rid of that threat. It's pretty simple.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: IronMentality
[YAWN]

TNM93, U.S. intelligence, UK intelligence, Russian intelligence, French intelligence, and German intelligence - were quoted constantly in the Times and Post in the 1990s during the Clinton adminstration as saying Iraq is posing a grave and serious threat to our security, due to unaccounted for WMDs. If any fabrication was done, it didn't start in 2002.

Except you're missing the part of nothing was actually there. No one is denying the numerous reports and articles saying the opposite, but here's the thing: all of them were wrong.

And our military spending is not at its lowest as a percentage of our GDP. From Bush Sr. to the end of the Clinton years, they cut massive amounts of military spending and brought it lower than the current numbers as a percentage of our GDP.

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: IronMentality
[YAWN]

TNM93, U.S. intelligence, UK intelligence, Russian intelligence, French intelligence, and German intelligence - were quoted constantly in the Times and Post in the 1990s during the Clinton adminstration as saying Iraq is posing a grave and serious threat to our security, due to unaccounted for WMDs. If any fabrication was done, it didn't start in 2002.

And? The intelligence never claimed to have a smoking gun. Even Bush couldn't find the smoking gun with Niger. Clinton has come out in numerous interviews and stated that he didn't know for sure. Here is an article on the fabrication:

Text

Ahmed Chalabi claimed a lot of the WMD reports. Well, we know he was later found to be a suspect in spying. BTW, the New York times is one newspaper. Even the NY Times has come out and stated it was slow at correcting the WMD claims.

Text

 

[IronMentality]

So was the Iraq war preventable with the evidence we had at the time? Absolutely not. Looks like we need to help them setup a country and get out then. It's called being a realist, something leftists know nothing about.

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Yup, our vastly booming economy, with GDP at $12.4 Trillion dollars. Thanks for clarifying how great the economy has been. Close to half our budget is broken Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare. LOL you left wingers!

Lets just get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We need more weaponry. :roll:

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course the various intelligence services around the world believed that Saddam might have WMD's- it's what they wanted to believe, and more importantly, what the hawks in the Clinton admin wanted them to believe. So a continuous stream of speculation was represented as fact, leading up to the Bush Admin's invasion, when, guess what? There weren't any... Which wasn't really much of a surprise to those who had deliberately fluffed up their reports to reinforce the prevailing popular sentiment... Of course, they had hedged those reports heavily, using phrases like might, could, indications, possibilities, dual use, and my fave, "unaccounted for".

Hans Blix claimed that the weapons inspectors' work would be completed in a matter of months, just weeks before the invasion, and their report would have put the whole thing to rest- no evidence of WMD's or related programs. That couldn't be allowed to happen by the Bush Admin's logic, so they invaded rather than waited...

After 9/11, and the Neocon admin's ruthless campaign of fearmongering and agitprop, the invasion of Iraq was a done deal, something they'd sought from the end of GW1. But now they had an excuse, a lever, a rationale previously nonexistent. GWB said "Find me a way" early in his Admin, and they did. 9/11 became the rallying cry, the justification for anything and everything the wanted, whether these things had anything to do with each other or not...

It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to- it's what the boss wanted, and that was enough.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: IronMentality
So was the Iraq war preventable with the evidence we had at the time? Absolutely not. Looks like we need to help them setup a country and get out then. It's called being a realist, something leftists know nothing about.

No matter how many times you repeat your claim, you cannot escape its fatal fallacy. We simply, factually did not HAVE to invade Iraq even if they truly did have the alleged massive stockpiles of WMDs. There are many countries with WMDs. There was nothing so uniquely dangerous and urgent about Iraq that left invasion as our only possible option, any more than it is our only option for Israel or Pakistan or North Korea (a far more real and significant threat, by the way). We invaded Iraq because Bush and his merry band of neo-conmen wanted to invade, NOT because we needed to.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: IronMentality
So was the Iraq war preventable with the evidence we had at the time? Absolutely not. Looks like we need to help them setup a country and get out then. It's called being a realist, something leftists know nothing about.

Yes, if it only were that easy.

Anyone remember the statement "Iraq oil sales will fund the reconstruction"?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: IronMentality
So was the Iraq war preventable with the evidence we had at the time? Absolutely not. Looks like we need to help them setup a country and get out then. It's called being a realist, something leftists know nothing about.

No matter how many times you repeat your claim, you cannot escape its fatal fallacy. We simply, factually did not HAVE to invade Iraq even if they truly did have the alleged massive stockpiles of WMDs. There are many countries with WMDs. There was nothing so uniquely dangerous and urgent about Iraq that left invasion as our only possible option, any more than it is our only option for Israel or Pakistan or North Korea (a far more real and significant threat, by the way). We invaded Iraq because Bush and his merry band of neo-conmen wanted to invade, NOT because we needed to.

You seem to be failing to realize one important point: he is American and America does it what it pleases and expects not only no retaliation but also to be thanked by those we've screwed.

Why is it America can use the M.E. as it's geopolitical playground (overthrowing and/or propping up regimes it feels benefits it at the time) but when a few terrorists manage to
slap America back in the face we are outraged, abhorred and out for (even more) blood?

Seriously, where in the hell does this hypocrisy and arrogance come from? If we export violence it will be imported back onto the US eventually.

We expect everyone to lie down and bend to our will and seem shocked and taken aback when someone actually refuses to do it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: IronMentality

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...

That would be the budget that doesn't include costs related to Iraq? Or have they finally fixed that little oversight...

Originally posted by: IronMentality
"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."

You haven't explained anything - You can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

But more importantly, if Saddam was willing to leave, why was it necessary to invade?

Most importantly, if several high intelligence figures, including the leaders of such countries said Iraq had WMDs, it was necessary to invade to get rid of that threat. It's pretty simple.

That is ridiculous.

You didn't invade North Korea.

You had the chance to look for the weapons without invading, and without Saddam being present.

Your story doesn't work at all.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not.

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?

You are trolling with your obviously simplified and suppressed evidence "Step two" comment.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not.

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?

You are trolling with your obviously simplified and suppressed evidence "Step two" comment.

Normally I would agree - unfortunately, IM is presenting his argument in pretty simplistic terms:

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Irregardless we'd still have to enter the country whether Saddam got into coalition custody in Dubai or Baghdad.

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Go find the dozens of articles in the late 1990s the NY Times and Washington Post ran about weapons programs during the Clinton adminstration instead.

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Thank you clarifying there is a difference of having and supposedly having something. And when Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin in accordance with U.S. Intelligence include over a decade conclude Saddam had weapons on top of a decade of not accounting for WMDs, that I think in clarifying that that occurred, is NOT trolling and is a perfect answer in to whether the war was preventable or not.

Now I'll admit this last quote is barely English, but it essentially says the war was not preventable, because Britain and Russia were pretty sure Saddam had WMDs. No allowance or consideration of or for inspectors, Saddam voluntarily giving up power, or any other solution that isn't invasion is made.

Now I'm quite sure that the United States has WMDs, so would the world be justified in using this as a reason to invade? Afterall, much of the world believes that the current leaders in America have used those weapons to murder a number of their own citizens, and a great number of foreigners, in a quest to secure wealth and power for those at the top.

If Saddam couldn't be trusted with weapons that didn't even exist, how are we supposed to trust Bush with weapons that do?

(BTW, I haven't given up on America yet, I'm just responding at the same level as IM's original posts).

 

[IronMentality]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...

That would be the budget that doesn't include costs related to Iraq? Or have they finally fixed that little oversight...

Originally posted by: IronMentality
"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."

You haven't explained anything - You can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

But more importantly, if Saddam was willing to leave, why was it necessary to invade?

Most importantly, if several high intelligence figures, including the leaders of such countries said Iraq had WMDs, it was necessary to invade to get rid of that threat. It's pretty simple.

That is ridiculous.

You didn't invade North Korea.

You had the chance to look for the weapons without invading, and without Saddam being present.

Your story doesn't work at all.

It is Bush 41's fault that Bill Clinton organized an agreement with North Korea that did absolutely nothing to prevent them from enriching uranium?

 

[IronMentality]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not.

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?

You are trolling with your obviously simplified and suppressed evidence "Step two" comment.

Normally I would agree - unfortunately, IM is presenting his argument in pretty simplistic terms:

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Irregardless we'd still have to enter the country whether Saddam got into coalition custody in Dubai or Baghdad.

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Go find the dozens of articles in the late 1990s the NY Times and Washington Post ran about weapons programs during the Clinton adminstration instead.

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Thank you clarifying there is a difference of having and supposedly having something. And when Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin in accordance with U.S. Intelligence include over a decade conclude Saddam had weapons on top of a decade of not accounting for WMDs, that I think in clarifying that that occurred, is NOT trolling and is a perfect answer in to whether the war was preventable or not.

Now I'll admit this last quote is barely English, but it essentially says the war was not preventable, because Britain and Russia were pretty sure Saddam had WMDs. No allowance or consideration of or for inspectors, Saddam voluntarily giving up power, or any other solution that isn't invasion is made.

Now I'm quite sure that the United States has WMDs, so would the world be justified in using this as a reason to invade? Afterall, much of the world believes that the current leaders in America have used those weapons to murder a number of their own citizens, and a great number of foreigners, in a quest to secure wealth and power for those at the top.

If Saddam couldn't be trusted with weapons that didn't even exist, how are we supposed to trust Bush with weapons that do?

(BTW, I haven't given up on America yet, I'm just responding at the same level as IM's original posts).

And this type of liberal speak is why the GOP won 81% of counties in the country in the 2004 elections. Keep it up!

 

[sandorski]

Don't even know why this is being discussed anymore. It's been brought up repeatedly for years and shot down everytime.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: IronMentality

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...

That would be the budget that doesn't include costs related to Iraq? Or have they finally fixed that little oversight...

Originally posted by: IronMentality
"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."

You haven't explained anything - You can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

But more importantly, if Saddam was willing to leave, why was it necessary to invade?

Most importantly, if several high intelligence figures, including the leaders of such countries said Iraq had WMDs, it was necessary to invade to get rid of that threat. It's pretty simple.

That is ridiculous.

You didn't invade North Korea.

You had the chance to look for the weapons without invading, and without Saddam being present.

Your story doesn't work at all.

It is Bush 41's fault that Bill Clinton organized an agreement with North Korea that did absolutely nothing to prevent them from enriching uranium?

No, although to be fair, Bush had no problem engaging in one illegal war, I wonder why he feels so bound by agreements WRT NK?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: IronMentality
And this type of liberal speak is why the GOP won 81% of counties in the country in the 2004 elections. Keep it up!

What does anything I said have to do with living in a larger county?

Also: since I'm not American, I'm not just sure what influence I have in American politics.

Thanks for addressing nothing in my post.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not.

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?

You are trolling with your obviously simplified and suppressed evidence "Step two" comment.

Normally I would agree - unfortunately, IM is presenting his argument in pretty simplistic terms:

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Irregardless we'd still have to enter the country whether Saddam got into coalition custody in Dubai or Baghdad.

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Go find the dozens of articles in the late 1990s the NY Times and Washington Post ran about weapons programs during the Clinton adminstration instead.

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Thank you clarifying there is a difference of having and supposedly having something. And when Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin in accordance with U.S. Intelligence include over a decade conclude Saddam had weapons on top of a decade of not accounting for WMDs, that I think in clarifying that that occurred, is NOT trolling and is a perfect answer in to whether the war was preventable or not.

Now I'll admit this last quote is barely English, but it essentially says the war was not preventable, because Britain and Russia were pretty sure Saddam had WMDs. No allowance or consideration of or for inspectors, Saddam voluntarily giving up power, or any other solution that isn't invasion is made.

Now I'm quite sure that the United States has WMDs, so would the world be justified in using this as a reason to invade? Afterall, much of the world believes that the current leaders in America have used those weapons to murder a number of their own citizens, and a great number of foreigners, in a quest to secure wealth and power for those at the top.

If Saddam couldn't be trusted with weapons that didn't even exist, how are we supposed to trust Bush with weapons that do?

(BTW, I haven't given up on America yet, I'm just responding at the same level as IM's original posts).

It also does not take into account that the US intel community was convinced of the WMD argument, and that the intelligence from the other countries cited was echoes.

Since he probably has no idea what an echo is in this context, it's where one country says "here is intel about X". When that is repeated, then we hear about it, it's called echoing. This administration just used it as "evidence" which intel is not for what should now be painfully obvious reasons.

The war was entirely preventable. This has been a little like listening to a drunk driver saying he couldnt avoid the crowd. Yes he could have. He could not have gotten behind the wheel.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not.

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

I guess that is the reason hindsight is 20/20.

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

They did, but not because of WMD. They did it because we simply don't believe as they do, and you champion that.

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?

Not directed at me, but I always go to Hot Deals first. It is generally a lot more productive. You know, factual.

 

[Genx87]

If this was true and Saddam was sincere, why didnt he hold a press conference, and then promptly leave right after Bush gave him the ultimatium?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this was true and Saddam was sincere, why didnt he hold a press conference, and then promptly leave right after Bush gave him the ultimatium?

It was something that was probably proposed by some-one, elevated to discussion and shot down by egos.

Now it is being resurrected in hindsight.

Just like the situation with the missing WMD.
Information was available for all scenarios. People paid attention to what they wanted to hear. Even if there were none, Saddam chose to continue the charade for his benifit.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: IronMentality

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
Troll? The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about.

Sorry, I missed the part of your little rant that explains:

1. Why there is no evidence of these widely 'acknowledged' WMDs.

2. Why one nation has the right to invade another over WMDs, when the invading nation in fact has far more destructive weapons.

"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."

None, i repeat none of those people concluded that Hussein HAD weapons of mass deception. They concluded that it was important to PREVENT him from having/making them. All the rhetoric you can find that contradicts this is taken out of context. The purpose of such rhetoric was to pressure him (Hussein) into allowing weapons inspectors full access. Let me guess, you get your "info" from right-wing blogs and BushCo, Hanity, Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Coulter, etc? If BushCo depended on previous leadership so heavily why did he ignore the OBL threat that Richard Clarke informed him of?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not.

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

I guess that is the reason hindsight is 20/20.

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

They did, but not because of WMD. They did it because we simply don't believe as they do, and you champion that.

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?

Not directed at me, but I always go to Hot Deals first. It is generally a lot more productive. You know, factual.

Let's see, UN inspectors had access, Saddam was actually making more efforts than usual towards transparency, and there was no current evidence of weapons. You're right, the invasion had to be 'right now' because if they waited, it might have become clear to the American people how unnecessary it really was.

Maybe you could be more clear though - who is it that invaded America, that I am currently defending? Iraq did? Maybe you could explain.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Let's see, UN inspectors had access, Saddam was actually making more efforts than usual towards transparency, and there was no current evidence of weapons. You're right, the invasion had to be 'right now' because if they waited, it might have become clear to the American people how unnecessary it really was.

Maybe you could be more clear though - who is it that invaded America, that I am currently defending? Iraq did? Maybe you could explain.

Why is that the UN inspectors were only granted access when the sabres were rattling?
How many times were they interfered with? Why?
How many times were they ejected.
And what happened every time to allow them back in?

This is the same problem that others have with the ME threads.
Selective memory/tunnel vision without looking at the complete pattern.

Saddam was acting guilty and refuing to comply with the rules that he agreed to.
Albiet, he was over a barrel when he agreed to those rules, however, he was the one the forced the issue at the time.