Read the reasons for the use of force agains Iraq

[spidey07]

It's very disturbing to see post after post saying the war was all about weapons of mass destruction. Educate yourself please. If you happen to notice since we started Israel isn't getting suicide bombed on a daily basis like it used to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

" * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* 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 were "known to be in Iraq."
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* 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.
"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Why even bother, so many people will never understand more than WMDs and will hold on that and only that no matter what the truth is.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I heard it first hand when I listened Bush address the nation. He said Iraq had WMDs and had to be removed before he could use them or pass them to the terrorists.

So stop apologizing for him.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why even bother, so many people will never understand more than WMDs and will hold on that and only that no matter what the truth is.

Well I hate to cite Wikpedia but it's a good synopsis. The actual Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 in full should be read as well, it spells out the some 23 reasons.

read it

 

[WHAMPOM]

To Bush apologist. He is not your Messiah! Or anyone's!

 

[sandorski]

Umm, we know, we've heard it all a million times and explained why it still wasn't sufficient a million times.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
To Bush apologist. He is not your Messiah! Or anyone's!

Who passed the authorization for use of force? Congress, that's correct.

 

[jackschmittusa]

spidey07

If you are going to try to make a case, why bother to include the BS?

AQ in Iraq was known to be bogus.

Even GWB knew that Sadaam had nothing to do with 911.

Using poison gas didn't seem to be such a big thing for years. Why dust it off now?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
To Bush apologist. He is not your Messiah! Or anyone's!

Who passed the authorization for use of force? Congress, that's correct.

Who actually sent the troops in? GWB.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, puleeze. If anything the stupidest war in American history LET them in.
You haven't posted reasons, you've posted excuses, and poor ones at that. Bush deeply desired a war with Iraq, and aluminum tubes, yellow cake, anything to get us there was just fine.

Seriously, your best recourse would be to let the memory of this whole thing just pass instead of pointing out how pin-headed it all was.

 

[spidey07]

Hayabusa, Your post is exactly why you should read the reasons for the use of force. I think you have convinced yourself of some kind of alternate reality when the facts are staring you right in the face, yet you refuse to accept them.

Is that what cognitive dissonance really feels like?

Let's take a look...
" * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
no longer happening
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]
no longer happening
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
nope, not going on any more
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
that one was halted
* 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.
not going on
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
debatable
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
not happening, no more daily attacks on isreal or US territories
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
working well
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
still working well
* 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.
following stated policy, mission accomplished

 

[Farang]

So if I decide to kill a person, and list the reasons:
>They spat on me
>They stole my spare change
>They murdered by child
>They raped my wife
>They had plans to murder my other children

And only the first two end up being true, does that still justify my killing that person? You can't pick a few reasons out and just because they are true, then say that the war was justified. Most of the reasons for war you listed in your OP ended up being false or irrelevant, and the ones that were true did not provide enough cause for an invasion.

 

[StageLeft]

From whitehouse.gov

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.

/thread

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
From whitehouse.gov

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.

/thread

A verbal gaf by a press briefing vs. congressional passed resolution?

Have you READ the resolution?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Educate yourself please.

Follow you own advice. Better yet, enlist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Hayabusa, Your post is exactly why you should read the reasons for the use of force. I think you have convinced yourself of some kind of alternate reality when the facts are staring you right in the face, yet you refuse to accept them.

Is that what cognitive dissonance really feels like?

Let's take a look...
" * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
no longer happening
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]
no longer happening
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
nope, not going on any more
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
that one was halted
* 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.
not going on
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
debatable
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
not happening, no more daily attacks on isreal or US territories
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
working well
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
still working well
* 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.
following stated policy, mission accomplished

Lets see...
Hans Blix was more of an expert on inspections than Bush. He didn't see a need for war.
WMDs... Wasn't happening
Saddam is gone- good. Unfortunately Bush decided that he wanted Saddam's head on a platter, and a few hundred thousand Iraqis died for his lack of vision.
Saddam hadn't been a serious threat since he had his ass handed to him in the Gulf War. Non issue.
Saddam was less of a threat than many nations in supporting terrorism, including Saudi Arabia. He was a wonderful strawman for you.
"Fighting terrorists" Yeah, too bad we went into Iraq instead of concentrating where the terrorists were. How many Iraqis were on those 9/11 planes again?
Authorization to fight terrorism? What a disconnect. Fighting terrorism was never contingent on killing Iraqis.
Removing Saddam? Great idea! Let's have a few hundred thousand die for it. Hey, maybe killing a few hundred thousand Americans would have been worth it too?


What else do we have? Al Qaeda in Iraq. "Debatable" Pretty much like aliens probing someones rectum. Hey, it's debatable. Was someone from Al Qaeda ever within the borders of Iraq. I'll bet they were! I'll bet we had some in NY on 9/11 too. I supposed we should have bombed them. Can't be too careful.

GB the Greater. Now he wasn't a fool. Yeah, Saddam would have loved to take him out, but he wasn't a merciless cowboy like his fool son who didn't know or care how many would die to get even. He was ever the better man. When he went to war with Saddam, he knew the consequences of staying. He had intelligence and knew what suffering was. He'd seen it, and had no desire to inflict death on innocent Iraqis. What needed to be done was done.

That's where you and Bush fail. Neither one of you have seen what real misery and death are like. You haven't seen dying children, mothers clutching lifeless babies who died because of OUR actions. No, Sr and I have a fair bit in common. You and Jr have your video game world where making excuses to murder innocents is de riguer. He didn't even know Sunni, Shia or Kurd. He went in like a bull in a china shop, wounding and causing to be wounded.

For what? Nothing that mandated war.

Generation of vipers indeed.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Of course you'll draft a resolution that makes war sound like a reasonable course. I mean if you look at Hitler's declaration of hostilities in 1939 against Poland, you'll find it quite reasonable given the climate in Europe at that time.

The way the war was sold and the way it was carried out is what people have issue with. It was based on lies and faulty, unchecked data. The things like "Al Qaeda" and WMDs were fabricated, outright. Al Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq until after Saddam. The WMDs were never found.

I mean really, think critically for three goddamn seconds and you'll understand why this war was illegal and immoral.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

I mean really, think critically for three goddamn seconds and you'll understand why this war was illegal and immoral.

You're talking to group of people who are unable to think clearly and have abandoned reason a long time ago...

It's a fools folly to banter with them...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Of course you'll draft a resolution that makes war sound like a reasonable course. I mean if you look at Hitler's declaration of hostilities in 1939 against Poland, you'll find it quite reasonable given the climate in Europe at that time.

The way the war was sold and the way it was carried out is what people have issue with. It was based on lies and faulty, unchecked data. The things like "Al Qaeda" and WMDs were fabricated, outright. Al Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq until after Saddam. The WMDs were never found.

I mean really, think critically for three goddamn seconds and you'll understand why this war was illegal and immoral.

I see you also have not read the resaons for the use of force against Iraq and have chosen to ignore history and fact. You keep harping on WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq, what about all the majority of other reasons?

Why do people choose to ignore facts? This kind of mental illness is really fascinating.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Of course you'll draft a resolution that makes war sound like a reasonable course. I mean if you look at Hitler's declaration of hostilities in 1939 against Poland, you'll find it quite reasonable given the climate in Europe at that time.

The way the war was sold and the way it was carried out is what people have issue with. It was based on lies and faulty, unchecked data. The things like "Al Qaeda" and WMDs were fabricated, outright. Al Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq until after Saddam. The WMDs were never found.

I mean really, think critically for three goddamn seconds and you'll understand why this war was illegal and immoral.

I see you also have not read the resaons for the use of force against Iraq and have chosen to ignore history and fact. You keep harping on WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq, what about all the majority of other reasons?

Why do people choose to ignore facts? This kind of mental illness is really fascinating.

Would we have gone into Iraq without the events of 911?

 

[IronWing]

spidey07 give it up. Your man is a war criminal and disgrace to this nation. His policies are moral outrages as well as abject practical failures. He spent a ton on money and wasted thousands of lives to achieve nothing. Less than nothing. Unless you count W's dad and Cheney's buds making out like bandits. Continuing to spin Bush's lies and perversions is an insult to the soldiers who died carrying out his orders.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Would we have gone into Iraq without the events of 911?

Probably not, but there was already a boiling point before then. Everything changed on that day just like you can connect a powder keg event to other wars.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ironwing
spidey07 give it up. Your man is a war criminal and disgrace to this nation. His policies are moral outrages as well as abject practical failures. He spent a ton on money and wasted thousands of lives to achieve nothing. Less than nothing. Unless you count W's dad and Cheney's buds making out like bandits. Continuing to spin Bush's lies and perversions is an insult to the soldiers who died carrying out his orders.

When was the last time Israel had mass suicide bombings funded by Iraq?
When was the last time US territories were attacked?

Saving lives is what we did. THAT'S what we achieved. To say nothing was achieved is just being totally dishonest and really just plain ignorant to facts.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ironwing
spidey07 give it up. Your man is a war criminal and disgrace to this nation. His policies are moral outrages as well as abject practical failures. He spent a ton on money and wasted thousands of lives to achieve nothing. Less than nothing. Unless you count W's dad and Cheney's buds making out like bandits. Continuing to spin Bush's lies and perversions is an insult to the soldiers who died carrying out his orders.

When was the last time Israel had mass suicide bombings funded by Iraq?
When was the last time US territories were attacked?

Saving lives is what we did. THAT'S what we achieved. To say nothing was achieved is just being totally dishonest and really just plain ignorant to facts.

When will we be invading Saudi Arabia for funding terrorists around the world, including the 9/11 gang?

When was the last time US territories were attacked by Iraq?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ironwing
spidey07 give it up. Your man is a war criminal and disgrace to this nation. His policies are moral outrages as well as abject practical failures. He spent a ton on money and wasted thousands of lives to achieve nothing. Less than nothing. Unless you count W's dad and Cheney's buds making out like bandits. Continuing to spin Bush's lies and perversions is an insult to the soldiers who died carrying out his orders.

When was the last time Israel had mass suicide bombings funded by Iraq?
When was the last time US territories were attacked?

Saving lives is what we did. THAT'S what we achieved. To say nothing was achieved is just being totally dishonest and really just plain ignorant to facts.

When will we be invading Saudi Arabia for funding terrorists around the world, including the 9/11 gang?

When was the last time US territories were attacked by Iraq?

LOL! You haven't read the reasons either. Think back to when our planes were being fired upon.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Read the reasons for the use of force agains Iraq
Topic Summary: So many seem to think it was just "WMD"

It's very disturbing to see post after post saying the war was all about weapons of mass destruction.

Educate yourself please.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Why even bother, so many people will never understand more than WMDs and will hold on that and only that no matter what the truth is.

From whitehouse.gov

But make no mistake

we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction.

The only one's needing educating in here is the OP and those that support his vile agenda.