We all know that Saddam intentionally misled us to believe he had WMD's, right?

So unless we invade a country, we have to assume that they are just months away from developing a nuclear weapon and using it on us.
Having UN weapons inspectors with free run of the country is no substitute, the lack of any hard data suggesting that they are developing such a device is irrelevant to the process. Invasion is the only choice available.

 

There was no need to invade the country to do a search. UN inspectors were given free access to search the country and found no evidence of WMDs.

WMDs were an excuse. The invasion of Iraq was something the neocons that dominated the Bush administration wanted even before 9/11.

When you get to that understanding let me know.

 

This is the complete head-in-the-sand denialist attitude that I find most fascinating and annoying. And why I largely pull out of these kinds of debates.

You can hand them proof, both from the UN, the military and even the Iraqi government, and they still live in a fantasyland where up is down and what is there is not there. Reference a UNSCR that is all about violations of previous resolution, and people demand to know what was violated. Have the Iraqi Government turn over chemical weapons that had been found in storage 6 years after the invasion, and they still say "nope, no chemical weapons here!". Show the UN resolutions about weapons that were prohibited to Iraq, Iraqi claims that they were all destroyed, and then proof of not only their being used but unfired ones and others under construction and they go "nope, nothing there!".

Is it any wonder that with people like this I barely even bother, they have no grasp of reality, their entire life is based on slogans and fantasy.

 

The only "fantasyland" with the whole Iraq was was the fantasy the Bush administration and neocons and folks like you sold us about Iraq and its WMDs and Al-Queda colloboration and secret terrorist training grounds and missile tubes and yellowcake and rape rooms and killing babies nuclear capability and mobile chemical labs and all the other bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that was fabricated to justify this "mistaken" disaster of a war that has cost us so dearly.

You can take that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and try to sell it to someone who doesn't know better.

 

Mushroom was actually THERE, Whiskers!

He knows INFINITELY more than you about what actually happened. So why don't you go cough up a furball or something?

 

So where a few hundred thousand other people. And they didn't find the WMDs that the neocons told us they had and the Bush said made Iraq and "urgent threat" that justified invasion and occupation.

The true believers will always believe, regardless of the evidence.

 

All I can say is "wow".

I would make the challenge that I should be given an apology when you are proven wrong, but I know it is a waste of time, but here we go anyways.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/chemical-weapon-destruction-plan-proceeding-in-iraq/

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-completes-chemical-weapons-disposal-iraq-declares-stockpile/

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm

http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/A...ruestung_/BioChemie/Verbot-C-Waffen_node.html

As for this making new, it did make news. I remember hearing about this when it happened, I have no idea why you never heard about this.

But yes, I guess you are right, this never happened. This is all a gigantic smoke screen, and never happened.

I guess I should not expect an apology for your basically calling me a liar, will I? Yet you are the one that accuses me of "twisting stuff".

I would offer more references, but I know that would never make any difference to those with closed minds..

 

The chemical weapons production facilities were bombed during the 1991 war, the bunkers containing chemical weapons that were damaged during the 2003, contained chemical weapons that had been turned over to the UN prior to the 2003 invasion, there were no surprises.
Maybe you missed that, maybe you intentionally presented the information to make it seem like Iraq was hiding something.
The fact remains that no WMDs were discovered that were being hidden by the regime.
What was found were munitions buried in disposal sites from the 1980 war with Iran, and munitions that had been turned over to the UN in compliance with the UN resolutions.
Iraq was in compliance when Bush launched the invasion, and there wasn't any hard intelligence that suggested otherwise that had not been checked out and found to be false.

 

Right.... Once again, nothing but repeating lies, shifting the argument and ignoring facts while repeating lies once again.

I should have expected nothing else.

 

If the U.S. and coalition was ever going to instigate a regime change in Iraq through military force; they should have done it in 1991 after the success of driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. We had the troops, equipment and supplies already there, a large portion of Saddam's military was destroyed...but they chose not to. Pres. Bush Sr. was advised that a Sunni/Shiite civil war could break out in a post-Saddam environment.

I think we went into Iraq in 2003, without really understanding the culture or even basic human psychology. Acknowledgement of this shouldn't take away from the blood, sweat and tears of those who actually implemented the regime change and subsequent occupation. The failure was in the civilian leadership who put them there.

The lesson learned is that the U.S., even as the sole super-power on the globe at the moment. has to accept more of the untidiness of a messy world. There will always be despots out there, there will always be regimes responsible for the violations of basic human rights...we have to live with it to some degree. We can still be a global force for good...as the Navy slogan says...we just can't assert our military force anytime or anywhere we please without careful consideration of the consequences. It's my opinion, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was reckless....

Soley my opinion of course.

 

What a load of crap.

 

Look maybe you are willfully deluding yourself, but Iraq was in compliance with the UN when the invasion was launched, it was a political move to shore up falling poll numbers for the 2004 election, there were no WMDs in Iraq, and trying to sleaze around that fact, by introducing ordinance dug up from 30 year old disposal sites, or chemical weapons already turned over to the UN inspectors doesn't change a thing.
The only lie was that Iraq had active WMD programs and usable stockpiles of WMDs.

 

Oh yes, that is why the UN shortly before had found Iraq in violation of multiple UNSC resolutions, in addition to UNSCR 1441. That is why they not only had but were constructing new and actually used multiple El-Samoud 2 missiles, in violation of UN sanctions.

If they were in such "compliance with the UN", then how do you explain away the use of proscribed weapons?

You can't, and I expect you to once again whine and evade and simply deny, yet again. I give evidence, you simply spin in circles.

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp
These are a series of reports to the UN by Dr. Hans Bix, director of the Iraq compliance team. And all were made prior to the 2003 Iraq War.

Now here is another one, made after the war concluded:

So tell me once again how Iraq was "in compliance".

 

Where some folks curse the darkness you curse enlightenment.

 

If Saddam had used WMD's on Israel or Saudi Arabia and we'd just sat there and let it happen because we weren't sure he had them or not, even after he'd alluded to their existence, now THAT would have been reckless.

Reckless negligence.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't act stupid.

 

So then if Saddam was not in compliance with UN resolutions with respect to the El Samoud 2 rocket, how come the UN was in possession of the El Samoud 2 rockets, and the UN was in the process of destroying them?

At the time of the invasion Iraq was in compliance.

 

Since when did Israel and Saudi Arabia become states of the United States?

If Iraq had had WMDs in 2003 he had had them for 20 years and had never used them outside his country. There was no basis for thinking he'd use them in 2003 justifying and invasion and occupation that was so costly to the US.

 

Thank you for an example of the braindead side of this "debate".

If Iraq was in compliance, and had turned in all weapons and components as required, how was he able to fire them at the Coalition, and have dozens recovered by the US after the invasion?

If he was in compliance, this would be an impossibility. But he was not in compliance, he had assembled missiles stockpiled that the UN did not know about, and he fired many of these missiles at coalition forces in 2003.

[video=youtube;WdV2hT3Mow4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdV2hT3Mow4[/video]

Oh, let me guess - you are also a truther and such things never happened as well.

 

To take a life on the grounds it may...emphasis on may...pre-emptively save a life violates a principle of "Jus Ad Bellum;" Latin for right to war. The principle of proportionality.... the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered,

What attack was suffered?

There were no direct links between Qaeda agents and Saddam's regime...there was no credible evidence for weapons of mass destruction...it was entirely speculation.

Yes, perhaps sanctions put in place post Gulf war I were violated...but again, the principle of porportionality was not followed. A few pot shots taken at NATO F-16 aircraft patrolling a NFZ in Iraqi airspace should not be met with a sustained ground invasion of a sovereign nation.

Another principle...reasonable hope. This entails weighing the costs and benefits of waging war and emphasizes that human life and economic resources should not be wasted on war efforts that are certain to fail. Pres. Bush Sr. was forewarned a foreign military occupation of Iraq would attract animosity, chaos, and an invitation for civil war.
Pres. Bush Jr., ignored these same warnings.

Reckless.

As an aside, the biggest advocates beating the war drum against Iraq had no vested interest in actually bringing about the regime change. The term "chickenhawk" seems appropriate Yes, I defended the invasion for many years..but in good conscience I can no longer do so. I believe good young men and women, with good intentions, did their best...the failure was in civilian leadership and a populace with no vested interest in either it's success or failure. It was a television event for them....turn off the tv, and the war disappears.

Solely my opinion of course.

 

This is a giant red herring. We weren't sold that Iraq was an "urgent threat" to the US that justified invasion because of a few crappy missiles.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

 

Are you conceding that Iraq had no WMDs? Because an El Samoud missile isn't a WMD, it's a rocket.

First, El Samoud rockets were fine and legal, it was only the El Samoud 2 that was found to be outside the acceptable range, and there was a legitimate difference of opinion on that.
The UN said the missiles flew further than 150 KM, which they did in tests, but Iraq claimed that if equipped with warheads they wouldn't fly 150 km.
But Iraq conceded the point and turned over the weapons to the UN, the UN left them there when they pulled out.
So that is why El Samoud 2 rockets were still in Iraq.

And the news from that period was full of references to caches of WMDs, and illegal weapons being discovered, but all those reports were eventually shown to be false.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/03/worlddispatch.iraq
http://www.salon.com/2002/09/14/jews_iraq/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60497-2004Sep3.html

EDIT: There are more sources that discuss A Clean Break, but they're behind paywalls.