Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Iraq's Significance to the 2016 Elections

YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 10:20:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
There's a lot of misinformation out there with regard to what exactly led up to the Iraq war, which Bush initiated, and which became a point of considerable controversy during and afterward.

These are the absolute facts:

1. Bush did not lie to the American people. Neither did Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else. That's not how it happened.

2. There was very strong evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, and there was very clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use them against either the Kurds or Iran.

3. The Iraq War happened because of bad intelligence, in tandem with a history of belligerency that the United States helped to create.

This information is publicly available for anyone to verify in a variety of ways; the sources range from congressional archives, to declassified intelligence reports (at the behest of a lot of journalists who used the Freedom of Information Act to access them), to the statements of men and women who were working for the CIA and the general US intelligence outfit at the time.

Here is what happened:

Saddam Hussein had a strategy of deterring what he perceived was an imminent and ver real threat from both Iran and the Kurds, based on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Hussein used chemical weapons to wage genocide on the Kurds, and kill thousands of Iranians.

Saddam got the chemical weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war from the United States, and, in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush. It is one of the single most incompetent foreign policy decisions that had been made regarding the Middle East since the Carter administration.

Saddam's used nearly all of the weapons he got from the United States on efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. Neither the United States, nor the Western Intelligence community knew this.

A little over a decade later, George W. Bush was elected president of the United States.

September 11, 2001 came and passed, and the world was forever changed because of what transpired on that, the darkest day in our national history: Islamic terrorists who were part of the Al Quaeda terrorist network orchestrated the most lethal and evil terrorist attack against the people of the United States in our history. That group operated out of Afghanistan.

Then President George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Afghanistan, to dismantle, degrade and destroy Al Quaeda, and forces of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East in what became known as the War on Terror.

In the course of fighting the war on terror, evidence emerged that Iraq may have been engaged in state-sponsored terrorism; however, that specific terrorism was unrelated to the September 11 attacks. In particular, the US Intelligence Community learned that Saddam Hussein endeavored to use chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, which would cause regional instability. The geopolitical implications of this potential regional conflict were substantial.

The Bush Administration demanded international inspections through UN auspices of Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles. Saddam Hussein refused to allow the inspectors access.

Hussein assumed that Bush did not intend to go to war with Iraq, given the US's historical cooperation with Hussein in previous wars, and the relationship that existed between Saddam Hussein and George H. W. Bush. This is significant because Hussein's strategy of both deterring Iran, and the Kurds, as well as maintaining control of the specific oil wells he did, required using the threat of chemical weapons to discourage his enemies' ambitions to take from Hussein the critical territory he controlled, and from which he extracted oil.

Hussein denied the inspectors' access every single time, despite numerous warnings of dire consequences from the Bush administration. Bush did not waver; it was his objective to find out if there were chemical weapons. Bush knew that Saddam likely had them, based on what his father's administration did in the late 80s.

Donald Rumsfeld learned, through the US intelligence community, that "bullet proof evidence" existed which confirmed Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. The bulletproof evidence included intercepted discussions among Saddam Hussein's military leaders regarding a plan to use chemical weapons, to achieve Iraq's regional goals. There was no indication that Saddam was bluffing, despite Washington insider's suspicion that he was.

George Bush reviewed an intelligence report that alerted him to these findings, which had also been indirectly prepared by Dick Cheney. The report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons; he had every intent to use them; and the United States could easily overpower the weak regime and remove that capacity from Saddam. These findings were shared with the Senate, and Congress, who authorized the Bush Administration to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Iraq, for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein's ability to use chemical weapons against his regional opponents. In less than a few months, the United States maintained effective control of the entire country. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, imprisoned, subject to a western style trial, found guilty and executed by hanging.

There were no chemical weapons. The stockpiles were empty. Saddam was bluffing the entire time.

Contemporaneous with the removal of Hussein from power, Hussein's military was disbanded, and government, dismantled. Key members of the Hussein house and administration were located and killed in combat or executed. Iraq's political infrastructure was destroyed. This led to widespread internal and regional instability, mostly caused by those people who the United States disbanded, who were former members of Iraq's military.

---

If any of us here were in Hillary's position, we very likely would have voted for the Iraq war too. Unless you have a philosophical objection to the use of US military force, you would have supported it based on what was known at the time the vote in the senate was held.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 10:27:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Moral of the story: If you get the American public angry, they will do wild things, like creating power vacuums on the other side of the world and building massive walls on the Mexican border.

Hay world....Stop trolling America. Kthx
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 10:28:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I say this not because I'm a Bush apologist, or so much a Clinton supporter.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but I'm also someone who has a healthy respect for the facts. The truth matters more than politics, and the truth about Iraq and our leaders, and former leaders, has been spun and obscured by so many for their own political purposes.

The current Republican attacks on Bush for Iraq are disgraceful. The Democrats attacking Clinton for supporting Iraq is no different. Sometimes people make mistakes, because our systems of intelligence, intelligence verification, and the like are inadequate or misleading. That's what happened in Iraq.

Bush's desire was to protect the United States from state-sponsored terrorism, and that was a reasonable goal; at the time, based on what was "knowable" he chose the best possible option. There is no way Bush could have known Saddam was bluffing. It was one of Iraq's most closely guarded state secrets, the maintenance of which was critical to Iraq's regional strategic objectives at the time.

Bush did not lie to the American people. Rumsfeld did not lie to Bush. No one lied. They were just wrong.
Tsar of DDO
Carcharus
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 8:44:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I agree. Any reasonable politician, given the intelligence that was provided to the senior officials immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, would have tried - in some means - to prevent Iraq from using chemical weapons. It was merely a mistake by intelligence, not necessarily a mistake in decision-making. Criticising Bush's decision on account of there being no chemical weapons is a flawed position because intelligence suggested there was, and President Bush did weigh everything before an actual invasion. Chemical weapons were in violation of multiple agreements, so the decision, based on given intelligence, was justified at least to the extent that intelligence provided such information.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 11:41:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 8:44:03 AM, Carcharus wrote:
I agree. Any reasonable politician, given the intelligence that was provided to the senior officials immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, would have tried - in some means - to prevent Iraq from using chemical weapons. It was merely a mistake by intelligence, not necessarily a mistake in decision-making. Criticising Bush's decision on account of there being no chemical weapons is a flawed position because intelligence suggested there was, and President Bush did weigh everything before an actual invasion. Chemical weapons were in violation of multiple agreements, so the decision, based on given intelligence, was justified at least to the extent that intelligence provided such information.

Unless people but things in place to get to a desired conclusion on the "intelligence" because they had already decided that some changes were needed in the middle east to achieve certain goals.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 4:57:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 11:41:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Unless people but things in place to get to a desired conclusion on the "intelligence" because they had already decided that some changes were needed in the middle east to achieve certain goals.

This is pure speculation and paranoia
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:13:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 11:41:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/31/2016 8:44:03 AM, Carcharus wrote:
I agree. Any reasonable politician, given the intelligence that was provided to the senior officials immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, would have tried - in some means - to prevent Iraq from using chemical weapons. It was merely a mistake by intelligence, not necessarily a mistake in decision-making. Criticising Bush's decision on account of there being no chemical weapons is a flawed position because intelligence suggested there was, and President Bush did weigh everything before an actual invasion. Chemical weapons were in violation of multiple agreements, so the decision, based on given intelligence, was justified at least to the extent that intelligence provided such information.

Unless people but things in place to get to a desired conclusion on the "intelligence" because they had already decided that some changes were needed in the middle east to achieve certain goals.

It's a lot easier to believe that the United States was engaged in some elaborate conspiracy to redraw maps in the Middle East than it is to believe that the United States screwed up, isn't it?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:16:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 4:57:49 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 1/31/2016 11:41:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Unless people but things in place to get to a desired conclusion on the "intelligence" because they had already decided that some changes were needed in the middle east to achieve certain goals.

This is pure speculation and paranoia

Well, yes and no.

There are a lot of people abroad who see the United States as a very powerful, imperial, despotic world power that subjugates the world to its will and will manipulate the media and world leaders alike to co-opt both to America's purposes.

It's true that the United States plays hardball better than any other country.

That doesn't mean that Iraq was an elaborate conspiracy --but it's easier for a lot of people to believe that Iraq was an elaborate conspiracy than it is to believe that the US had bad intelligence.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:24:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 10:20:54 PM, YYW wrote:
There's a lot of misinformation out there with regard to what exactly led up to the Iraq war, which Bush initiated, and which became a point of considerable controversy during and afterward.

These are the absolute facts:

1. Bush did not lie to the American people. Neither did Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else. That's not how it happened.

2. There was very strong evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, and there was very clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use them against either the Kurds or Iran.

3. The Iraq War happened because of bad intelligence, in tandem with a history of belligerency that the United States helped to create.

This information is publicly available for anyone to verify in a variety of ways; the sources range from congressional archives, to declassified intelligence reports (at the behest of a lot of journalists who used the Freedom of Information Act to access them), to the statements of men and women who were working for the CIA and the general US intelligence outfit at the time.

Here is what happened:

Saddam Hussein had a strategy of deterring what he perceived was an imminent and ver real threat from both Iran and the Kurds, based on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Hussein used chemical weapons to wage genocide on the Kurds, and kill thousands of Iranians.

Saddam got the chemical weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war from the United States, and, in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush. It is one of the single most incompetent foreign policy decisions that had been made regarding the Middle East since the Carter administration.

Saddam's used nearly all of the weapons he got from the United States on efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. Neither the United States, nor the Western Intelligence community knew this.

A little over a decade later, George W. Bush was elected president of the United States.

September 11, 2001 came and passed, and the world was forever changed because of what transpired on that, the darkest day in our national history: Islamic terrorists who were part of the Al Quaeda terrorist network orchestrated the most lethal and evil terrorist attack against the people of the United States in our history. That group operated out of Afghanistan.

Then President George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Afghanistan, to dismantle, degrade and destroy Al Quaeda, and forces of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East in what became known as the War on Terror.

In the course of fighting the war on terror, evidence emerged that Iraq may have been engaged in state-sponsored terrorism; however, that specific terrorism was unrelated to the September 11 attacks. In particular, the US Intelligence Community learned that Saddam Hussein endeavored to use chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, which would cause regional instability. The geopolitical implications of this potential regional conflict were substantial.

The Bush Administration demanded international inspections through UN auspices of Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles. Saddam Hussein refused to allow the inspectors access.

Hussein assumed that Bush did not intend to go to war with Iraq, given the US's historical cooperation with Hussein in previous wars, and the relationship that existed between Saddam Hussein and George H. W. Bush. This is significant because Hussein's strategy of both deterring Iran, and the Kurds, as well as maintaining control of the specific oil wells he did, required using the threat of chemical weapons to discourage his enemies' ambitions to take from Hussein the critical territory he controlled, and from which he extracted oil.

Hussein denied the inspectors' access every single time, despite numerous warnings of dire consequences from the Bush administration. Bush did not waver; it was his objective to find out if there were chemical weapons. Bush knew that Saddam likely had them, based on what his father's administration did in the late 80s.

Donald Rumsfeld learned, through the US intelligence community, that "bullet proof evidence" existed which confirmed Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. The bulletproof evidence included intercepted discussions among Saddam Hussein's military leaders regarding a plan to use chemical weapons, to achieve Iraq's regional goals. There was no indication that Saddam was bluffing, despite Washington insider's suspicion that he was.

George Bush reviewed an intelligence report that alerted him to these findings, which had also been indirectly prepared by Dick Cheney. The report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons; he had every intent to use them; and the United States could easily overpower the weak regime and remove that capacity from Saddam. These findings were shared with the Senate, and Congress, who authorized the Bush Administration to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Iraq, for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein's ability to use chemical weapons against his regional opponents. In less than a few months, the United States maintained effective control of the entire country. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, imprisoned, subject to a western style trial, found guilty and executed by hanging.

There were no chemical weapons. The stockpiles were empty. Saddam was bluffing the entire time.

Contemporaneous with the removal of Hussein from power, Hussein's military was disbanded, and government, dismantled. Key members of the Hussein house and administration were located and killed in combat or executed. Iraq's political infrastructure was destroyed. This led to widespread internal and regional instability, mostly caused by those people who the United States disbanded, who were former members of Iraq's military.

---

If any of us here were in Hillary's position, we very likely would have voted for the Iraq war too. Unless you have a philosophical objection to the use of US military force, you would have supported it based on what was known at the time the vote in the senate was held.

Good enough, EXCEPT inspections. We still had inspectors and inspections going.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:30:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 10:20:54 PM, YYW wrote:
There's a lot of misinformation out there with regard to what exactly led up to the Iraq war, which Bush initiated, and which became a point of considerable controversy during and afterward.

These are the absolute facts:

1. Bush did not lie to the American people. Neither did Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else. That's not how it happened.

2. There was very strong evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, and there was very clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use them against either the Kurds or Iran.

3. The Iraq War happened because of bad intelligence, in tandem with a history of belligerency that the United States helped to create.

This information is publicly available for anyone to verify in a variety of ways; the sources range from congressional archives, to declassified intelligence reports (at the behest of a lot of journalists who used the Freedom of Information Act to access them), to the statements of men and women who were working for the CIA and the general US intelligence outfit at the time.

Here is what happened:

Saddam Hussein had a strategy of deterring what he perceived was an imminent and ver real threat from both Iran and the Kurds, based on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Hussein used chemical weapons to wage genocide on the Kurds, and kill thousands of Iranians.

Saddam got the chemical weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war from the United States, and, in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush. It is one of the single most incompetent foreign policy decisions that had been made regarding the Middle East since the Carter administration.

Saddam's used nearly all of the weapons he got from the United States on efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. Neither the United States, nor the Western Intelligence community knew this.

A little over a decade later, George W. Bush was elected president of the United States.

September 11, 2001 came and passed, and the world was forever changed because of what transpired on that, the darkest day in our national history: Islamic terrorists who were part of the Al Quaeda terrorist network orchestrated the most lethal and evil terrorist attack against the people of the United States in our history. That group operated out of Afghanistan.

Then President George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Afghanistan, to dismantle, degrade and destroy Al Quaeda, and forces of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East in what became known as the War on Terror.

In the course of fighting the war on terror, evidence emerged that Iraq may have been engaged in state-sponsored terrorism; however, that specific terrorism was unrelated to the September 11 attacks. In particular, the US Intelligence Community learned that Saddam Hussein endeavored to use chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, which would cause regional instability. The geopolitical implications of this potential regional conflict were substantial.

The Bush Administration demanded international inspections through UN auspices of Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles. Saddam Hussein refused to allow the inspectors access.

Hussein assumed that Bush did not intend to go to war with Iraq, given the US's historical cooperation with Hussein in previous wars, and the relationship that existed between Saddam Hussein and George H. W. Bush. This is significant because Hussein's strategy of both deterring Iran, and the Kurds, as well as maintaining control of the specific oil wells he did, required using the threat of chemical weapons to discourage his enemies' ambitions to take from Hussein the critical territory he controlled, and from which he extracted oil.

Hussein denied the inspectors' access every single time, despite numerous warnings of dire consequences from the Bush administration. Bush did not waver; it was his objective to find out if there were chemical weapons. Bush knew that Saddam likely had them, based on what his father's administration did in the late 80s.

Donald Rumsfeld learned, through the US intelligence community, that "bullet proof evidence" existed which confirmed Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. The bulletproof evidence included intercepted discussions among Saddam Hussein's military leaders regarding a plan to use chemical weapons, to achieve Iraq's regional goals. There was no indication that Saddam was bluffing, despite Washington insider's suspicion that he was.

George Bush reviewed an intelligence report that alerted him to these findings, which had also been indirectly prepared by Dick Cheney. The report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons; he had every intent to use them; and the United States could easily overpower the weak regime and remove that capacity from Saddam. These findings were shared with the Senate, and Congress, who authorized the Bush Administration to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Iraq, for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein's ability to use chemical weapons against his regional opponents. In less than a few months, the United States maintained effective control of the entire country. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, imprisoned, subject to a western style trial, found guilty and executed by hanging.

There were no chemical weapons. The stockpiles were empty. Saddam was bluffing the entire time.

Contemporaneous with the removal of Hussein from power, Hussein's military was disbanded, and government, dismantled. Key members of the Hussein house and administration were located and killed in combat or executed. Iraq's political infrastructure was destroyed. This led to widespread internal and regional instability, mostly caused by those people who the United States disbanded, who were former members of Iraq's military.

---

If any of us here were in Hillary's position, we very likely would have voted for the Iraq war too. Unless you have a philosophical objection to the use of US military force, you would have supported it based on what was known at the time the vote in the senate was held.

Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:35:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:30:51 PM, slo1 wrote:
Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

If your understanding of the facts is inconsistent with what I said, then you are provably wrong. It seems that your understanding is inconsistent with what I said, and so you must be wrong.

Moreover, you didn't even attempt to contest the issues. You just said "nope!" It's a weak reply, and not one that I can take seriously.

Go ahead now and whine about whatever you want. I'm still not going to be able to take it seriously.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:36:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:24:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/29/2016 10:20:54 PM, YYW wrote:
There's a lot of misinformation out there with regard to what exactly led up to the Iraq war, which Bush initiated, and which became a point of considerable controversy during and afterward.

These are the absolute facts:

1. Bush did not lie to the American people. Neither did Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else. That's not how it happened.

2. There was very strong evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, and there was very clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use them against either the Kurds or Iran.

3. The Iraq War happened because of bad intelligence, in tandem with a history of belligerency that the United States helped to create.

This information is publicly available for anyone to verify in a variety of ways; the sources range from congressional archives, to declassified intelligence reports (at the behest of a lot of journalists who used the Freedom of Information Act to access them), to the statements of men and women who were working for the CIA and the general US intelligence outfit at the time.

Here is what happened:

Saddam Hussein had a strategy of deterring what he perceived was an imminent and ver real threat from both Iran and the Kurds, based on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Hussein used chemical weapons to wage genocide on the Kurds, and kill thousands of Iranians.

Saddam got the chemical weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war from the United States, and, in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush. It is one of the single most incompetent foreign policy decisions that had been made regarding the Middle East since the Carter administration.

Saddam's used nearly all of the weapons he got from the United States on efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. Neither the United States, nor the Western Intelligence community knew this.

A little over a decade later, George W. Bush was elected president of the United States.

September 11, 2001 came and passed, and the world was forever changed because of what transpired on that, the darkest day in our national history: Islamic terrorists who were part of the Al Quaeda terrorist network orchestrated the most lethal and evil terrorist attack against the people of the United States in our history. That group operated out of Afghanistan.

Then President George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Afghanistan, to dismantle, degrade and destroy Al Quaeda, and forces of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East in what became known as the War on Terror.

In the course of fighting the war on terror, evidence emerged that Iraq may have been engaged in state-sponsored terrorism; however, that specific terrorism was unrelated to the September 11 attacks. In particular, the US Intelligence Community learned that Saddam Hussein endeavored to use chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, which would cause regional instability. The geopolitical implications of this potential regional conflict were substantial.

The Bush Administration demanded international inspections through UN auspices of Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles. Saddam Hussein refused to allow the inspectors access.

Hussein assumed that Bush did not intend to go to war with Iraq, given the US's historical cooperation with Hussein in previous wars, and the relationship that existed between Saddam Hussein and George H. W. Bush. This is significant because Hussein's strategy of both deterring Iran, and the Kurds, as well as maintaining control of the specific oil wells he did, required using the threat of chemical weapons to discourage his enemies' ambitions to take from Hussein the critical territory he controlled, and from which he extracted oil.

Hussein denied the inspectors' access every single time, despite numerous warnings of dire consequences from the Bush administration. Bush did not waver; it was his objective to find out if there were chemical weapons. Bush knew that Saddam likely had them, based on what his father's administration did in the late 80s.

Donald Rumsfeld learned, through the US intelligence community, that "bullet proof evidence" existed which confirmed Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. The bulletproof evidence included intercepted discussions among Saddam Hussein's military leaders regarding a plan to use chemical weapons, to achieve Iraq's regional goals. There was no indication that Saddam was bluffing, despite Washington insider's suspicion that he was.

George Bush reviewed an intelligence report that alerted him to these findings, which had also been indirectly prepared by Dick Cheney. The report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons; he had every intent to use them; and the United States could easily overpower the weak regime and remove that capacity from Saddam. These findings were shared with the Senate, and Congress, who authorized the Bush Administration to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Iraq, for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein's ability to use chemical weapons against his regional opponents. In less than a few months, the United States maintained effective control of the entire country. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, imprisoned, subject to a western style trial, found guilty and executed by hanging.

There were no chemical weapons. The stockpiles were empty. Saddam was bluffing the entire time.

Contemporaneous with the removal of Hussein from power, Hussein's military was disbanded, and government, dismantled. Key members of the Hussein house and administration were located and killed in combat or executed. Iraq's political infrastructure was destroyed. This led to widespread internal and regional instability, mostly caused by those people who the United States disbanded, who were former members of Iraq's military.

---

If any of us here were in Hillary's position, we very likely would have voted for the Iraq war too. Unless you have a philosophical objection to the use of US military force, you would have supported it based on what was known at the time the vote in the senate was held.

Good enough, EXCEPT inspections. We still had inspectors and inspections going.

What do you mean "we still had inspectors and inspections going."?
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:37:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

As someone who was old enough to pay attention are have reason to care, I can say the entire sales job of Iraq as an existential was preposterous. The facts described are not wrong (entirely), just the conclusion. Many people, both in the government and citizenry were VERY skeptical of the "proof", and objected strenuously to the nonsense.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:39:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:36:28 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:24:14 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/29/2016 10:20:54 PM, YYW wrote:
There's a lot of misinformation out there with regard to what exactly led up to the Iraq war, which Bush initiated, and which became a point of considerable controversy during and afterward.

These are the absolute facts:

1. Bush did not lie to the American people. Neither did Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else. That's not how it happened.

2. There was very strong evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons, and there was very clear evidence that Saddam Hussein intended to use them against either the Kurds or Iran.

3. The Iraq War happened because of bad intelligence, in tandem with a history of belligerency that the United States helped to create.

This information is publicly available for anyone to verify in a variety of ways; the sources range from congressional archives, to declassified intelligence reports (at the behest of a lot of journalists who used the Freedom of Information Act to access them), to the statements of men and women who were working for the CIA and the general US intelligence outfit at the time.

Here is what happened:

Saddam Hussein had a strategy of deterring what he perceived was an imminent and ver real threat from both Iran and the Kurds, based on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Hussein used chemical weapons to wage genocide on the Kurds, and kill thousands of Iranians.

Saddam got the chemical weapons he used in the Iran-Iraq war from the United States, and, in particular, the administration of George H. W. Bush. It is one of the single most incompetent foreign policy decisions that had been made regarding the Middle East since the Carter administration.

Saddam's used nearly all of the weapons he got from the United States on efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. Neither the United States, nor the Western Intelligence community knew this.

A little over a decade later, George W. Bush was elected president of the United States.

September 11, 2001 came and passed, and the world was forever changed because of what transpired on that, the darkest day in our national history: Islamic terrorists who were part of the Al Quaeda terrorist network orchestrated the most lethal and evil terrorist attack against the people of the United States in our history. That group operated out of Afghanistan.

Then President George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Afghanistan, to dismantle, degrade and destroy Al Quaeda, and forces of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East in what became known as the War on Terror.

In the course of fighting the war on terror, evidence emerged that Iraq may have been engaged in state-sponsored terrorism; however, that specific terrorism was unrelated to the September 11 attacks. In particular, the US Intelligence Community learned that Saddam Hussein endeavored to use chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, which would cause regional instability. The geopolitical implications of this potential regional conflict were substantial.

The Bush Administration demanded international inspections through UN auspices of Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles. Saddam Hussein refused to allow the inspectors access.

Hussein assumed that Bush did not intend to go to war with Iraq, given the US's historical cooperation with Hussein in previous wars, and the relationship that existed between Saddam Hussein and George H. W. Bush. This is significant because Hussein's strategy of both deterring Iran, and the Kurds, as well as maintaining control of the specific oil wells he did, required using the threat of chemical weapons to discourage his enemies' ambitions to take from Hussein the critical territory he controlled, and from which he extracted oil.

Hussein denied the inspectors' access every single time, despite numerous warnings of dire consequences from the Bush administration. Bush did not waver; it was his objective to find out if there were chemical weapons. Bush knew that Saddam likely had them, based on what his father's administration did in the late 80s.

Donald Rumsfeld learned, through the US intelligence community, that "bullet proof evidence" existed which confirmed Iraq's possession of chemical weapons. The bulletproof evidence included intercepted discussions among Saddam Hussein's military leaders regarding a plan to use chemical weapons, to achieve Iraq's regional goals. There was no indication that Saddam was bluffing, despite Washington insider's suspicion that he was.

George Bush reviewed an intelligence report that alerted him to these findings, which had also been indirectly prepared by Dick Cheney. The report made it clear that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons; he had every intent to use them; and the United States could easily overpower the weak regime and remove that capacity from Saddam. These findings were shared with the Senate, and Congress, who authorized the Bush Administration to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

George Bush mobilized coalition forces to invade Iraq, for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein's ability to use chemical weapons against his regional opponents. In less than a few months, the United States maintained effective control of the entire country. Saddam Hussein was removed from power, imprisoned, subject to a western style trial, found guilty and executed by hanging.

There were no chemical weapons. The stockpiles were empty. Saddam was bluffing the entire time.

Contemporaneous with the removal of Hussein from power, Hussein's military was disbanded, and government, dismantled. Key members of the Hussein house and administration were located and killed in combat or executed. Iraq's political infrastructure was destroyed. This led to widespread internal and regional instability, mostly caused by those people who the United States disbanded, who were former members of Iraq's military.

---

If any of us here were in Hillary's position, we very likely would have voted for the Iraq war too. Unless you have a philosophical objection to the use of US military force, you would have supported it based on what was known at the time the vote in the senate was held.

Good enough, EXCEPT inspections. We still had inspectors and inspections going.

What do you mean "we still had inspectors and inspections going."?

The war started in the end of March. Our inspectors were pulled out in the MIDDLE of March. Yea, we were inspecting weeks before the show started.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:41:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
This timeline works

http://www.cnn.com...

February 19, 2003 - Inspectors visit the Ibn al Haytham factory northwest of Baghdad and tag 32 al Samoud II missiles.

February 27, 2003 - Iraq agrees to destroy the country's al Samoud II missile stock. However, the letter doesn't specify a date that the missile destruction will begin.

March 10, 2003 - It is revealed that Iraq possesses drone aircraft that could have been used to launch a chemical or biological attack against other countries. The plane has a wingspan of 24 feet five inches, which suggests that it could fly further than 150km/93 miles, which is the limit imposed by U.N. resolutions.

March 18, 2003 - Inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

March 20, 2003 - (local time) U.S. and coalition forces begin military action against Iraq.
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:42:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:37:19 PM, TBR wrote:
Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

As someone who was old enough to pay attention are have reason to care, I can say the entire sales job of Iraq as an existential was preposterous. The facts described are not wrong (entirely), just the conclusion. Many people, both in the government and citizenry were VERY skeptical of the "proof", and objected strenuously to the nonsense.

All rhetoric of existential threats that does not involve nuclear weapons is pretty much nonsense, but the chemical weapons were what was relevant in Iraq.

Slo's understanding of foreign policy and international affairs in this and many other areas is nothing short of manifestly incompetent --and this has been a consistent theme of the posts he produces in both this thread and others throughout the site involving that topic.

That aside, I agree that many people were skeptical until the intel got out with regard to how Saddam's military was going to use their chemical weapons. That was both clear, and convincing, especially in light of the fact that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam both VX and sarin gas.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:43:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:41:15 PM, TBR wrote:
This timeline works

http://www.cnn.com...


February 19, 2003 - Inspectors visit the Ibn al Haytham factory northwest of Baghdad and tag 32 al Samoud II missiles.

February 27, 2003 - Iraq agrees to destroy the country's al Samoud II missile stock. However, the letter doesn't specify a date that the missile destruction will begin.

March 10, 2003 - It is revealed that Iraq possesses drone aircraft that could have been used to launch a chemical or biological attack against other countries. The plane has a wingspan of 24 feet five inches, which suggests that it could fly further than 150km/93 miles, which is the limit imposed by U.N. resolutions.

March 18, 2003 - Inspectors withdraw from Iraq.

March 20, 2003 - (local time) U.S. and coalition forces begin military action against Iraq.

Yup.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:44:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:39:12 PM, TBR wrote:

The war started in the end of March. Our inspectors were pulled out in the MIDDLE of March. Yea, we were inspecting weeks before the show started.

My issue was with your use of the word "we."

They were UN inspectors, not US inspectors.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:46:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:42:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:37:19 PM, TBR wrote:
Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

As someone who was old enough to pay attention are have reason to care, I can say the entire sales job of Iraq as an existential was preposterous. The facts described are not wrong (entirely), just the conclusion. Many people, both in the government and citizenry were VERY skeptical of the "proof", and objected strenuously to the nonsense.

All rhetoric of existential threats that does not involve nuclear weapons is pretty much nonsense, but the chemical weapons were what was relevant in Iraq.

Slo's understanding of foreign policy and international affairs in this and many other areas is nothing short of manifestly incompetent --and this has been a consistent theme of the posts he produces in both this thread and others throughout the site involving that topic.

That aside, I agree that many people were skeptical until the intel got out with regard to how Saddam's military was going to use their chemical weapons. That was both clear, and convincing, especially in light of the fact that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam both VX and sarin gas.

Many people were convinced, but discounting that anyone objected is not accurate. Not just objecting to any war, but objecting to the "fact" that they were any real threat.

Bush had the wind at his back, and wanted to do this. The entire administration wanted to do this. All they needed to do was ratchet up the fear cycle.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:48:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:44:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:39:12 PM, TBR wrote:

The war started in the end of March. Our inspectors were pulled out in the MIDDLE of March. Yea, we were inspecting weeks before the show started.

My issue was with your use of the word "we."

They were UN inspectors, not US inspectors.

Fair enough. They WERE UN inspectors. I think omitting the fact that inspections were ongoing only because they were not "we" as in the "US" is very good information.
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:52:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:46:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:42:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:37:19 PM, TBR wrote:
Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

As someone who was old enough to pay attention are have reason to care, I can say the entire sales job of Iraq as an existential was preposterous. The facts described are not wrong (entirely), just the conclusion. Many people, both in the government and citizenry were VERY skeptical of the "proof", and objected strenuously to the nonsense.

All rhetoric of existential threats that does not involve nuclear weapons is pretty much nonsense, but the chemical weapons were what was relevant in Iraq.

Slo's understanding of foreign policy and international affairs in this and many other areas is nothing short of manifestly incompetent --and this has been a consistent theme of the posts he produces in both this thread and others throughout the site involving that topic.

That aside, I agree that many people were skeptical until the intel got out with regard to how Saddam's military was going to use their chemical weapons. That was both clear, and convincing, especially in light of the fact that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam both VX and sarin gas.

Many people were convinced, but discounting that anyone objected is not accurate. Not just objecting to any war, but objecting to the "fact" that they were any real threat.

I didn't "discount that anyone objected." Read what I said.

There were plenty of conscientious objectors, but only very, very few people who doubted the evidence. Almost anyone (and, indeed, this is evident from the overwhelming support Bush got from the AMUF) would have supported the invasion, given the available information.

Maybe it's a bad thing that US politicians are too quick to invade other countries, but that's a separate issue.

Bush had the wind at his back, and wanted to do this. The entire administration wanted to do this. All they needed to do was ratchet up the fear cycle.

That's disingenuous. Bush did have an axe to grind with Saddam because of his father's exceptionally poor judgment in many respects, which he knew then was a disaster, but Bush didn't just invade Iraq because he was all gung-ho to invade Iraq (which is essentially what you're saying).

There was real evidence, which you have linked, to support both the inferences that Saddam had WMD's (i.e. chemical weapons, which Slo, incompitently, does not seem to understand includes chemical weapons), and had the means and intent to use them.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 5:53:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:48:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:44:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:39:12 PM, TBR wrote:

The war started in the end of March. Our inspectors were pulled out in the MIDDLE of March. Yea, we were inspecting weeks before the show started.

My issue was with your use of the word "we."

They were UN inspectors, not US inspectors.

Fair enough. They WERE UN inspectors. I think omitting the fact that inspections were ongoing only because they were not "we" as in the "US" is very good information.

I didn't omit that fact. There were loads of attempts to inspect; Saddam made very sure that they would find nothing, for the purpose of making it appear as if he had something to hide, which we now know that he didn't.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:01:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:52:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:46:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:42:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:37:19 PM, TBR wrote:
Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

As someone who was old enough to pay attention are have reason to care, I can say the entire sales job of Iraq as an existential was preposterous. The facts described are not wrong (entirely), just the conclusion. Many people, both in the government and citizenry were VERY skeptical of the "proof", and objected strenuously to the nonsense.

All rhetoric of existential threats that does not involve nuclear weapons is pretty much nonsense, but the chemical weapons were what was relevant in Iraq.

Slo's understanding of foreign policy and international affairs in this and many other areas is nothing short of manifestly incompetent --and this has been a consistent theme of the posts he produces in both this thread and others throughout the site involving that topic.

That aside, I agree that many people were skeptical until the intel got out with regard to how Saddam's military was going to use their chemical weapons. That was both clear, and convincing, especially in light of the fact that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam both VX and sarin gas.

Many people were convinced, but discounting that anyone objected is not accurate. Not just objecting to any war, but objecting to the "fact" that they were any real threat.

I didn't "discount that anyone objected." Read what I said.

There were plenty of conscientious objectors, but only very, very few people who doubted the evidence. Almost anyone (and, indeed, this is evident from the overwhelming support Bush got from the AMUF) would have supported the invasion, given the available information.

Maybe it's a bad thing that US politicians are too quick to invade other countries, but that's a separate issue.

Bush had the wind at his back, and wanted to do this. The entire administration wanted to do this. All they needed to do was ratchet up the fear cycle.

That's disingenuous. Bush did have an axe to grind with Saddam because of his father's exceptionally poor judgment in many respects, which he knew then was a disaster, but Bush didn't just invade Iraq because he was all gung-ho to invade Iraq (which is essentially what you're saying).

There was real evidence, which you have linked, to support both the inferences that Saddam had WMD's (i.e. chemical weapons, which Slo, incompitently, does not seem to understand includes chemical weapons), and had the means and intent to use them.

There wasn't any real "new" intelligence to speak of. Bush went shopping for it, and found little. It's not like he came into office with a goal of dealing with Iraq, this was convenient timing, and a break with foreign policy. Yea, Bush was gung-ho. It was all working so well for him.
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:02:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 6:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:52:40 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:46:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:42:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:37:19 PM, TBR wrote:
Lol, I couldn't get past the "strong evidence" for chemical weapons. Don't try to argue on facts until you get you facts straight. Secondly the argument to invade was made on weapons of mass destruction.

Try again.

As someone who was old enough to pay attention are have reason to care, I can say the entire sales job of Iraq as an existential was preposterous. The facts described are not wrong (entirely), just the conclusion. Many people, both in the government and citizenry were VERY skeptical of the "proof", and objected strenuously to the nonsense.

All rhetoric of existential threats that does not involve nuclear weapons is pretty much nonsense, but the chemical weapons were what was relevant in Iraq.

Slo's understanding of foreign policy and international affairs in this and many other areas is nothing short of manifestly incompetent --and this has been a consistent theme of the posts he produces in both this thread and others throughout the site involving that topic.

That aside, I agree that many people were skeptical until the intel got out with regard to how Saddam's military was going to use their chemical weapons. That was both clear, and convincing, especially in light of the fact that George H. W. Bush gave Saddam both VX and sarin gas.

Many people were convinced, but discounting that anyone objected is not accurate. Not just objecting to any war, but objecting to the "fact" that they were any real threat.

I didn't "discount that anyone objected." Read what I said.

There were plenty of conscientious objectors, but only very, very few people who doubted the evidence. Almost anyone (and, indeed, this is evident from the overwhelming support Bush got from the AMUF) would have supported the invasion, given the available information.

Maybe it's a bad thing that US politicians are too quick to invade other countries, but that's a separate issue.

Bush had the wind at his back, and wanted to do this. The entire administration wanted to do this. All they needed to do was ratchet up the fear cycle.

That's disingenuous. Bush did have an axe to grind with Saddam because of his father's exceptionally poor judgment in many respects, which he knew then was a disaster, but Bush didn't just invade Iraq because he was all gung-ho to invade Iraq (which is essentially what you're saying).

There was real evidence, which you have linked, to support both the inferences that Saddam had WMD's (i.e. chemical weapons, which Slo, incompitently, does not seem to understand includes chemical weapons), and had the means and intent to use them.

There wasn't any real "new" intelligence to speak of. Bush went shopping for it, and found little. It's not like he came into office with a goal of dealing with Iraq, this was convenient timing, and a break with foreign policy. Yea, Bush was gung-ho. It was all working so well for him.

Ok, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that that's the case. (It wasn't, but still... we're going to explore this together.)

Why do you think Bush was so gung-ho to invade Iraq?
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:04:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 5:53:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:48:13 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:44:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 5:39:12 PM, TBR wrote:

The war started in the end of March. Our inspectors were pulled out in the MIDDLE of March. Yea, we were inspecting weeks before the show started.

My issue was with your use of the word "we."

They were UN inspectors, not US inspectors.

Fair enough. They WERE UN inspectors. I think omitting the fact that inspections were ongoing only because they were not "we" as in the "US" is very good information.

I didn't omit that fact. There were loads of attempts to inspect; Saddam made very sure that they would find nothing, for the purpose of making it appear as if he had something to hide, which we now know that he didn't.

That is one narrative. Another is that given by Clarke and Blix.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:05:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:07:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 6:05:40 PM, TBR wrote:
Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

Water trucks are used for chemical decontamination...
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:14:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Why do you think Bush was so gung-ho to invade Iraq?

I think there are plenty of reasons ranging from simple propaganda to practical. Remember, at this point he was dismissing the importance of getting Osama. That was a tough get, but shifting to getting Saddam was much more doable. Stabilizing Afghanistan was not going to be an easy task, but the thought sure was that we could make the democracy we wanted in much more stable Iraq. Further, he did have the wind at his back. He had insane approval levels, had the entire government lining up to vote for invasion of any type.

If I were to put one overriding reason that Bush et. al. wanted to do this was nation building. If they could get exactly what they wanted in Iraq, they could move outwards from there.
YYW
Posts: 36,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:16:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 6:14:50 PM, TBR wrote:
Why do you think Bush was so gung-ho to invade Iraq?

I think there are plenty of reasons ranging from simple propaganda to practical. Remember, at this point he was dismissing the importance of getting Osama. That was a tough get, but shifting to getting Saddam was much more doable. Stabilizing Afghanistan was not going to be an easy task, but the thought sure was that we could make the democracy we wanted in much more stable Iraq. Further, he did have the wind at his back. He had insane approval levels, had the entire government lining up to vote for invasion of any type.

If I were to put one overriding reason that Bush et. al. wanted to do this was nation building. If they could get exactly what they wanted in Iraq, they could move outwards from there.

So... he wanted to invade Iraq because he wanted to invade Iraq? That's circular, and it's not a good or persuasive reason.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 6:16:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 6:07:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/31/2016 6:05:40 PM, TBR wrote:
Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

"Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks."

Water trucks are used for chemical decontamination...

Water trucks are also used to keep dust down. Why jump to the conclusion?