Iraq War (a few facts)

[John Ho]

The main reason given to the public for going to war was that Iraq was acquiring nuclear type materials and if so nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of terrorists. We haven't found any WMDs and their links to terrorists who operate outside the Middle East is shaky at best.

What I'm offended by is that the Bush administration lied to us about Saddam's links to 9/11 and that their judgement was so incompetent regarding nuclear materials and WMDs.

Ultimately people need to be judged by their results and not their intentions. I don't question that the President had the right motives in invading Iraq. But I am disgusted that he was so wrong in both the prewar and postwar scenarios for Iraq. The man is incompetent.

[andyfox]

1. If the war was a continuation, that is, not a new war, why did Bush go to Congress for authorization to conduct it?

Clinton was a fine multi-tasker.

2. When did Hussein use WMDs on the Kurds? I believe it was 1988.

3. Between Hussein and . . . what? 9/11? Evidence please. There is plenty of public evidence that the neocons wanted a war with Hussein before 9/11. And that they wanted one with him on 9/12 no matter what the evidence of who was responsible for 9/11 showed.

4. I agree that learning history and applying common sense would be a good component of an effective foreign policy. The British experience in Iraq would have been a good place to start, followed by the American experience in Vietnam.

5. Those crazy Arabs, always fighting. Good thing we live in a peaceful country, never at war.

[2planka]

Fact noun. 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

Opinion noun. What billUCF confuses with facts.

Sorry to nitpick, but I thought this thread would contain some actual facts. Statements like "Anyone who..." and "Just ask the ...." are anything but factual.

This guy is just a troll.

[John Ho]

Nobody cares about Cindy Sheehan. But polls show over 50% of Americans believe going to Iraq was not worth the cost.

But instead of using those polls you use Cindy Sheehan. It's easier to demonize one person you don't like than to demonize over 50% of the population right?

[andyfox]

Here's what James Baker said when asked why we did nothing:

"Diplomacy--as well as the American psyche--is fundamentally biased toward 'improving relations.' Shifting a policy away from cooperation toward confrontation is always a more difficult proposition--particularly when support for existing policy is as firmly embedded among various constituencies and bureaucratic interests as was the policy toward Iraq."

Domestic special interests had a stake in the survival of Saddam. Exports to Iraq of American agricultural products were large: 23 percent of U.S. rice exports went to Iraq; a million tons of wheat. When members of Congress threatened to pass a sanctions bill against Iraq, the White House opposed the measure.

In 1989 President George Herbert Walker Bush took power and ordered a review of United States policy toward Iraq. The study deemed Iraq a potentially helpful ally in containing Iran and nudging the Middle East peace process ahead. The "Guidelines for U.S.-Iraq Policy" swiped at proponents of sanctions on Capital Hill and a few human rights advocates who had begun lobbying within the State Department. The guidelines noted that despite support from the Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State Departments for a profitable, stable U.S.-Iraq relationship, "parts of Congress and the Department would scuttle even the most benign and beneficial areas of the relationship, such as agricultural exports." The Bush administration would not shift to a policy of dual containment of both Iraq and Iran. Vocal American businesses were adamant that Iraq was a source of opportunity, not enmity. The White House did all it could to create an opening for these companies.

"Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities."

Hussein locked up another $1 billion in agricultural credits. Iraq became the ninth largest purchaser of U.S. farm products. As Baker gentilely put it in his memoirs, "Our administration's review of the previous Iraq policy was not immune from domestic economic considerations."

[andyfox]

The 9/11 report said that there was no collaboration between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

It was after the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Bin Laden said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that, therefore, Al Qaeda should hook up with the Iraqis who were resisting the invaders.

[John Ho]

Muslim fundamentalists HATED Saddam Hussein. His regime, while horrible, was secular. An alliance between Al Quaeda and Iraq pre 9/11 is just stupid.

[Abednego]

So we drew them out ...... ingenious

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't know how much I actually appreciated that!

* * *

My personal rating system for such texts is Equivalent Lifetime Added, or ELA for short. It has a scale starting from one minute and going up until three months (this is my personal estimate of the maximum amount of time that a single comedic episode can add to a person's life).

Your post rates a solid 15 minutes in ELA points.

Feel free to try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT is a contribution to discussion.

[PokerMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
Al-Queda existing in Iraq is only one reason to take out SH. There are numerous other reasons which the UK, Spain and other countries don't have. The only fault I give the Bush administration is not having a decent PR program to explain the Iraq liberation. Here are some of the other reasons.

1. Iraq has been a supporter of terrorism longer than I have been alive.
2. Iraq invaded Kuwait and was poised to invade Saudi Arabia.
3. SH regime massacred tens of thousands of his own people, often using WMD to accomplish this.
4. SH balked at over a dozen UN resolutions to let inspectors perform their job.
5. SH did not abide by the cease fire agreement he personally signed in 1993.
6. In the 1980's he started a war with Iran where over 1 million people on both sides were killed.
7. The civilized world would be negligent to allow SH to have control over a significant portion of the world's oil supply.

I am just glad that we have Bush as our president. The Democratic party is falling apart and all they do is bitch about things. They have provided no solutions. It is easy to be the Monday morning quarterback and criticize. It is real leadership to take action and stand your ground. Just look at how recent American history holds Ronald Reagan up as an excellent leader and how we pity the failure of a Jimmy Carter.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) You have no evidence to support this. Ayman Zawahiri (Bin-laden's chief ally) tried for 20 years beore 9/11 to overthrow governments and install Islamist regimes in which every attempt failed. Do you really think Hussein would ally himself with that kind of movement when he's more worried about keeping his dictatorship intact? He did support families of suicide bombers but those groups were conerned with a Palestinian state and probably the downfall of Israel, not with converting Iraq to a hardcore Islamist state.

2) In 1991, yes. We had economic interests in Saudi Arabia so of course we're not going to jeopardize them by letting him take over that country.

3) He did massacre thousands of Iraqis. The last I know of him using WMDs was when he used chemical weapons in 1988 against the Kurds. A little research into the particular weapons he had would show that they broke down after a year or two in storage and were unusable.

4) Of course he would balk at the UN inspectors. He couldn't make his weapons anymore like he used to. Despite all of his attempts to stop the inspectors from doing their job, we were still able to aquire enough information to show that he wasn't making any chemical weapons. Since his previous supply was useless you can assume he didn't have any chemical weapons to use in an attack.

6) Started the war with weapons we provided. Oh, and that was over 20 years ago, and the war ended 17 years ago. Isn't it a little late to bring that up now?

7) A good portion of the world's big oil exporters (maybe even a majority) have unstable governments. There's been a lot of talk recently about problems in Saudi Arabia and how that regime may not last more than a few more years. I don't know how true it is, but I've seen it on news websites (like I said, take it for what you will [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). Do you think we should go invade Saudi Arabia if this is indeed true? They have more oil than anyone, so by that logic the US should make sure that whoever is in power won't screw us over with oil.