Iraq War a Mistake

[Skeptic Ginger]

That Saddam had used chemical weapons against the Kurds was not the justification for going to war after 9/11.

The justification for going to war after 9/11 was that Saddam had WMD's and was looking to use them against the USA and its allies or supply them to Al Qaeda to use against the USA or its allies.

That Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds is just as irrelevant to this thread as it was to the justification for invading Iraq. It's a distraction.

For reasons found in our natural brains, 16.2 cannot hear this.

 

[The Big Dog]

But is not evidence that he had them.

Of course it is. We know he had them. What you meant to say is whether there was evidence that he had destroyed them all. There was not:

U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

 

[The Big Dog]

Tap dance tap dance, round and round
cling to anything
protect your mind
You bought a lie and to it you're bound.

 

[Bogative]

and as evidence of that had used WMD in the past to kill thousands of people.

Saying that today makes you some dupe shilling for Bush.

Saying that in 1998 made you the National Security Adviser.

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

 

[DavidJames]

Fascinating that Republicans running for president will now admit hind sight suggests the war was wrong but Internet posters refuse to budge.

 

[Biscuit]

and as evidence of that had used WMD in the past to kill thousands of people.

The October 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

To paraphrase an oft used line - the plural of irrelevance isn't relevance. Like I said,

That Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds is just as irrelevant to this thread as it was to the justification for invading Iraq. It's a distraction.

 

[Biscuit]

Fascinating that Republicans running for president will now admit hind sight suggests the war was wrong but Internet posters refuse to budge.

Perhaps they think they are answering the wrong question.

 

[The Big Dog]

To paraphrase an oft used line - the plural of irrelevance isn't relevance. Like I said,

I'm a bit at a loss, what I quoted is one of the many justifications for the Iraq War resolution that are actually written right in the Iraq War Resolution, yet you are declaring Congress's stated intent to be irrelevant?

That is a bit puzzling....

 

[johnny karate]

and as evidence of that had used WMD in the past to kill thousands of people.

The October 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Sounds like a pretty convincing case for justifying the war.

So it leaves me wondering why you would then refuse to vote for anyone who voted for it:

My rule is I don't vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war. Will you join me on that?

Do you support the war or not?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you support the war or not?

No, at the time, I was disturbed that they were diverting assets from The War in Afghanistan

 

[johnny karate]

No, at the time, I was disturbed that they were diverting assets from The War in Afghanistan

But in light of the cogent and airtight arguments you are presenting in favor of the war, why do you still maintain a rule to not vote for anyone who supported it?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Therefore, it is difficult for me to conclude that attempted genocide of the Kurds using a WMD is an obsolete data point.

Are you also still planning to go see a movie at your local drive-in theater?

 

[The Big Dog]

But in light of the cogent and airtight arguments you are presenting in favor of the war, why do you still maintain a rule to not vote for anyone who supported it?

i was actually responding to someone who claimed that the gas attacks on the kurds were irrelevant.

So I am quoting from the iraq war resolution.

i already responded to your question, tho

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you also still planning to go see a movie at your local drive-in theater?

not sure what that has to do with genocide....

any non sequitors about the holocaust?

 

[sunmaster14]

Not to mention Wilson had no motive to write his op-ed other than whistle blowing on the Bush yellow cake fabrication.

You mean other than the fact that he's a grandstanding blowhard, and partisan to boot? No, I guess not.

That Libby was found guilty of covering up the outing Plame certainly has weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby#Verdict

Covering up for an alleged crime which didn't actually exist. Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, who didn't know she was covert (probably because there was little reason for her to be at the time), and Libby had no idea that Armitage was responsible. The investigation should have ended immediately after Fitzgerald found out that Armitage was the source. Everything after that moment was a witch hunt and an exercise in entrapment.

And Clarke was right that Rice ignored the PDB, ignored his warnings pre-911, and it would seem the Bush admin had indeed wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.

Ignored the PDB? Have you even read the PDB? It's a vague, stale, nothingburger. Here, I'll summarize it for you: There's a group of bad guys, and they say they don't like us, and since they've done a lot of bad things abroad, and we've attacked them from time to time, it makes sense that they'll want to do bad things here. Oh, and by the way, three years ago a foreign intelligence agency - we can't tell you which one, but it hails from a country with really good pasta, although, unfortunately, also with a history of gross incompetence when it comes to fighting terrorism - said that these bad guys want to hijack a plane in the US to gain release of the "blind sheikh." Actually, scratch that because we can't even confirm that that rumor is even a rumor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sunmaster14, you're on the losing team. You really should pay more attention to the facts.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sunmaster14, you're on the losing team. You really should pay more attention to the facts.

I like when you write poems.

Or declaring how you are a skeptic!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Indeed.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster14, you're on the losing team. You really should pay more attention to the facts.

Are we playing a game? What is there to win or lose?

 

[sunmaster14]

No, at the time, I was disturbed that they were diverting assets from The War in Afghanistan

The nation building in Afghanistan was always a lost cause. That "country" is a wasteland. It's also a logistical nightmare to maintain an occupying force. Pivoting from Afghanistan to Iraq was the right strategic move. If you look at history, Afghanistan has repelled militarily superior invaders many times, and Iraq has been overrun many times. Iraq was the real prize.