If Saddam Had Stayed

[Virus]

And we may have radicalized a generation of Iraqi youth in the process.

Video footage of US marines radicalizing Iraqi youth:

 

[BeAChooser]

We don't have any country seriously threatening to attack or invade the US.

Really?

Not even Iran?

Or North Korea?

Or China?

You must be living in a cave.

And surely Iraq would have been on that list right now, had we not removed Saddam and his regime. Afterall, this a man who had these sorts of murals hanging in government offices:

Even if they were so inclined, very few would have the capability to do so in any meaningful way.

LOL! I suppose you agree with Obama's statement that we can "absorb" attacks … even with WMD.

And we may have radicalized a generation of Iraqi youth in the process.

Al-Qaeda and Saddam were doing quite well at that before we came along.

I always knew that Iraq wasn't a radical Islamic government that would ally themselves with Al Qaeda.

Which as I pointed out, numerous intelligence agencies, including the 9/11 Commission, as well as documents uncovered in Iraq after the invasion, dispute.

It's better to wait to act and always be in the right by defending yourself than to preemptively act and be wrong as we were with Iraq.

But we weren't wrong about Iraq's violation of the agreement it made to stop the fighting in 91. We weren't wrong about the ambitions that Saddam and his regime still had up until the invasion. We weren't wrong about the involvement of Iraq in terrorist activities of all sorts. We weren't wrong about Iraq being in contact with al-Qaeda. That's what the various posts and links in this thread prove. You are doing nothing but ignoring those posts and just regurgitating the same broken record.

I'm curious. Do you believe that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11?

It wasn't incredibly effective in the hands of terrorists in Tokyo.

They only killed a dozen and sent 5000 to the hospital … 500 of which where kept there … 50 of which which were considered in critical condition. It wasn't effective at all.

Of course, those terrorists made the mistake of using a VERY crude means of distributing the sarin. They poked holes in plastic bags and hoped air currents would spread the stuff. Experts say that if they's used a more active distribution method, they could have killed thousands. And had they used a higher purity sarin (theirs was just 40%), they could have killed ten thousand or more. Nah … terrorist attacks are nothing to fear. We have your assurances.

Also, Iraq wasn't known to have any relevant stockpiles of sarin before the invasion or after.

You are either woefully uninformed or a liar. Iraq was thought to have considerable stockpiles of sarin before the invasion. Numerous intelligence agencies (and not just in the US) stated this. In fact, here's what the guy who led the previous UN inspection team told the US Congress in 1998 about that:

Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads ... snip ... Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. ... snip ... Iraq still has components (high explosive lenses, initiators, and neutron generators) for up to four nuclear devices minus the fissile core (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) ... snip ... Iraq has retained an operational long-range ballistic missile force that includes approximately four mobile launchers and a dozen missiles.

The fact is you can't reliably make ANY claim that Iraq had no sarin stockpiles just before the invasion … because you can't honestly answer the 6 questions I asked earlier. The fact is we don't know what materials went to Syria before the war. But the ISG stated they had a witness they judged "credible" who said WMD related materials were moved to Syria right before the war. The ISG stated that they had to shut down the search because someone was targeting ISG personel and their Iraqi contacts. The American official in charge of high level Iraqi prisoners has stated he had multiple contacts with Iraqis who consistently said WMD materials had been moved to Syria. Documents recovered in Iraq's files after the invasion suggest that special materials (Iraq's way of referring to WMD) were moved to Syria in truck convoys. Iraq also went out of it's way to destroy files, computers, etc that the ISG said were related to WMD. They were obviously covering their tracks.

A few remnants were found after the invasion and were believed to be from around the time of the Iran-Iraq war. With a shelf life of ~5yrs, even if they had once contained sarin and were just left as they were, they would have been ineffective.

Obviously, you didn't bother to read this thread or the ISG report. Too lazy? Because both prove you wrong. The binary sarin shell insurgents tried to use as an IED contained 4-5 liters of 40% sarin … same as the material in the Tokyo subway attack that experts said could have killed thousands had it been properly dispersed. Binary shells have indefinite shelf lives. And Iraq's own scientists said their development program was extremely successful. Yet folks like you would ask us to believe that Saddam then never produced and deployed any? Even the ISG questioned that claim.

Iraq was not a threat to the US and would not have been an ally with Al Qaeda. Tariq Aziz definitely agrees with the latter.

LOL! Tariq Aziz was/is trying to keep himself from being executed. And of course you forget that they found audio tapes of Saddam and his top staff discussing the use of WMD against the US in the late 90s. Of course, Saddam said Iraq would never do that (well aware that a tape was running) but did you listen to his aides? But his aides were very open to the idea.

Tariq Aziz was one of them. He can be heard on a tape saying

" Sir, germ, biological, we can arrange a house, we can arrange a truck, with biological, this is simple to arrange. This is easy. With any biological [weapon], you can use a truck with germ . . and fill the water tank and kill [unintelligible]. And this not a country, it is not necessary to suspect a country, anyone can do it. Anyone can do it, and American, in a house near the White House. They would not have much reason, except the institutes. They have big institutes, like Hakim. (Unintelligible) Hakim, and it is known that it was destroyed."

He's very clearly advising Saddam that a biological attack could be made against the US … even an attack on the White House … with credible deniability.

And you claim he'd agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US.

 

[willhaven]

Really?

Not even Iran?

Or North Korea?

Or China?

You must be living in a cave.

Which one has threatened to invade the US and has the means to do so?

And surely Iraq would have been on that list right now, had we not removed Saddam and his regime. Afterall, this a man who had these sorts of murals hanging in government offices:

[qimg]http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg[/qimg]

When was Saddam planning to invade the US?

LOL! I suppose you agree with Obama's statement that we can "absorb" attacks … even with WMD.

We absorbed 9/11. It doesn't mean we don't need to be vigilant and protect ourselves when necessary.

Al-Qaeda and Saddam were doing quite well at that before we came along.

How many Iraqis were involved with Islamic terrorism and Al Qaeda? You won't find many examples. None on 9/11.

Which as I pointed out, numerous intelligence agencies, including the 9/11 Commission, as well as documents uncovered in Iraq after the invasion, dispute.

Sorry, but a government which would have a Christian as their 2nd hand man wouldn't be an ally of Al Qaeda. Tariq Aziz was born a Christian and has gone as far as saying (recently revealed) that Saddam and Al Qaeda would not have gotten along. Their ideology was simply not compatible, aside from hating the US.

Unlike those in Al Qaeda, Saddam was no ideologue. He was in it for himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100922/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_interrogations

WASHINGTON – Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, a prominent member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told the FBI that the dictator "delighted" in the 1998 terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa but had no interest in partnering with Osama bin Laden, declassified documents show.

"Saddam did not trust Islamists," Aziz said, according to handwritten notes of a June 27, 2004 interrogation, although he viewed al-Qaida as an "effective" organization.

No nuclear weapons — or any sign of an active nuclear program — have been found in postwar Iraq, and the Aziz interrogation records support arguments that while Saddam viewed the U.S. as his enemy, he was also hostile to al-Qaida and its radical religious ideology.

Saddam considered bin Laden and other Islamic extremists to be "opportunists" and "hypocrites," Aziz told the FBI, during one of four interrogations in a U.S. detention facility in Baghdad.

"In Aziz's presence, Saddam had only expressed negative sentiments about UBL," the interrogation summary said, referring to bin Laden.

In Aziz's fourth 2004 interrogation, he was quizzed about Saddam's attitude toward al-Qaida, including the group's link to the deadly 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"As a dedicated anti-American, he delighted in it," the summary paraphrased Aziz as saying of the bombings. "The United States had bombed his country and tried to kill him. It was, therefore, no surprise that Saddam was pleased."

Aziz also told his questioners that Saddam thought al-Qaida was "an effective organization," but he said he knew of no Iraqi government effort to develop a relationship with al-Qaida.

I'm curious. Do you believe that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11?

Absolutely. I'm no truther. 19 hijackers, 4 planes, political/religious ideology fed by decades of heavy handed US involvement in the middle east.

They only killed a dozen and sent 5000 to the hospital … 500 of which where kept there … 50 of which which were considered in critical condition. It wasn't effective at all.

Of course, those terrorists made the mistake of using a VERY crude means of distributing the sarin. They poked holes in plastic bags and hoped air currents would spread the stuff. Experts say that if they's used a more active distribution method, they could have killed thousands. And had they used a higher purity sarin (theirs was just 40%), they could have killed ten thousand or more. Nah … terrorist attacks are nothing to fear. We have your assurances.

And again, Saddam did not trust Islamists. Even if he had weaponized sarin, he would be unlikely to hand it to a terrorist group for use against us. He simply did not trust groups like Al Qaeda.

You are either woefully uninformed or a liar. Iraq was thought to have considerable stockpiles of sarin before the invasion. Numerous intelligence agencies (and not just in the US) stated this. In fact, here's what the guy who led the previous UN inspection team told the US Congress in 1998 about that:

"Thought to have" being the operative part of the sentence. We never bothered to verify that Iraq had WMDs, we just assumed that they did. We never found them.

The fact is you can't reliably make ANY claim that Iraq had no sarin stockpiles just before the invasion … because you can't honestly answer the 6 questions I asked earlier.

The CIA report disagrees with you.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq
unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons
and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document
complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF).

ISG is aware of BW-applicable research since 1996, but ISG judges it was not conducted in connection with
a BW program.

Obviously, you didn't bother to read this thread or the ISG report. Too lazy? Because both prove you wrong. The binary sarin shell insurgents tried to use as an IED contained 4-5 liters of 40% sarin … same as the material in the Tokyo subway attack that experts said could have killed thousands had it been properly dispersed. Binary shells have indefinite shelf lives. And Iraq's own scientists said their development program was extremely successful. Yet folks like you would ask us to believe that Saddam then never produced and deployed any? Even the ISG questioned that claim.

Of course he had sarin at one point. There is just no evidence that they had weaponized sarin that was hidden from inspectors before the invasion in 2003. They wanted to get rid of sanctions and continue to have WMDs, but all signs point to Iraqi WMD capability being effectively nil when we invaded.

ISG investigated pre-OIF activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was
judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no
CW activity, unlike previously assessed.

He's very clearly advising Saddam that a biological attack could be made against the US … even an attack on the White House … with credible deniability.

And you claim he'd agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US.

With what weapons? The magical WMDs they didn't have?

 

[DC]

Really?

Not even Iran?

Or North Korea?

Or China?

You must be living in a cave.

And surely Iraq would have been on that list right now, had we not removed Saddam and his regime. Afterall, this a man who had these sorts of murals hanging in government offices:

[qimg]http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg[/qimg]





LOL! I suppose you agree with Obama's statement that we can "absorb" attacks … even with WMD.



Al-Qaeda and Saddam were doing quite well at that before we came along.



Which as I pointed out, numerous intelligence agencies, including the 9/11 Commission, as well as documents uncovered in Iraq after the invasion, dispute.



But we weren't wrong about Iraq's violation of the agreement it made to stop the fighting in 91. We weren't wrong about the ambitions that Saddam and his regime still had up until the invasion. We weren't wrong about the involvement of Iraq in terrorist activities of all sorts. We weren't wrong about Iraq being in contact with al-Qaeda. That's what the various posts and links in this thread prove. You are doing nothing but ignoring those posts and just regurgitating the same broken record.

I'm curious. Do you believe that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11?



They only killed a dozen and sent 5000 to the hospital … 500 of which where kept there … 50 of which which were considered in critical condition. It wasn't effective at all.

Of course, those terrorists made the mistake of using a VERY crude means of distributing the sarin. They poked holes in plastic bags and hoped air currents would spread the stuff. Experts say that if they's used a more active distribution method, they could have killed thousands. And had they used a higher purity sarin (theirs was just 40%), they could have killed ten thousand or more. Nah … terrorist attacks are nothing to fear. We have your assurances.



You are either woefully uninformed or a liar. Iraq was thought to have considerable stockpiles of sarin before the invasion. Numerous intelligence agencies (and not just in the US) stated this. In fact, here's what the guy who led the previous UN inspection team told the US Congress in 1998 about that:



The fact is you can't reliably make ANY claim that Iraq had no sarin stockpiles just before the invasion … because you can't honestly answer the 6 questions I asked earlier. The fact is we don't know what materials went to Syria before the war. But the ISG stated they had a witness they judged "credible" who said WMD related materials were moved to Syria right before the war. The ISG stated that they had to shut down the search because someone was targeting ISG personel and their Iraqi contacts. The American official in charge of high level Iraqi prisoners has stated he had multiple contacts with Iraqis who consistently said WMD materials had been moved to Syria. Documents recovered in Iraq's files after the invasion suggest that special materials (Iraq's way of referring to WMD) were moved to Syria in truck convoys. Iraq also went out of it's way to destroy files, computers, etc that the ISG said were related to WMD. They were obviously covering their tracks.



Obviously, you didn't bother to read this thread or the ISG report. Too lazy? Because both prove you wrong. The binary sarin shell insurgents tried to use as an IED contained 4-5 liters of 40% sarin … same as the material in the Tokyo subway attack that experts said could have killed thousands had it been properly dispersed. Binary shells have indefinite shelf lives. And Iraq's own scientists said their development program was extremely successful. Yet folks like you would ask us to believe that Saddam then never produced and deployed any? Even the ISG questioned that claim.



LOL! Tariq Aziz was/is trying to keep himself from being executed. And of course you forget that they found audio tapes of Saddam and his top staff discussing the use of WMD against the US in the late 90s. Of course, Saddam said Iraq would never do that (well aware that a tape was running) but did you listen to his aides? But his aides were very open to the idea.

Tariq Aziz was one of them. He can be heard on a tape saying



He's very clearly advising Saddam that a biological attack could be made against the US … even an attack on the White House … with credible deniability.

And you claim he'd agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US.

would you agree it was a huge error then, to invade Iraq instead of North Korea?

Iraq seems to have been in a stage of painting pictures while North Korea was actually building Nukes.

 

[Scootch]

Well I don't think we could have invaded North Korea for fear that China would get into the mix and that would be bad. I bet if China threatened to support Saddam in the invasion we probably wouldn't have invaded at all.

 

[joobz]

[qimg]http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, clearly a regime that can commission a mural with clearly awe inspiring artistic talent must have been a threat to our sovereignty. Just imagine how threatening they would have been if they in fact had WMD!!!

 

[Toontown]

Yes, clearly a regime that can commission a mural with clearly awe inspiring artistic talent must have been a threat to our sovereignty. Just imagine how threatening they would have been if they in fact had WMD!!!

Is there some kind of wierd mysticism connected with WMD that I am unaware of? It is as if you believe WMD can only be made once, and then if you use it or lose it, you can never make it again. In fact, your "no WMD" argument, in order to be relevant, requires that to be the case.

I know of no such mystical constraints on the making and use of WMD. I propose that a genocidal family which owned a fourth of the world's oil wealth, which had made and used WMD on a large scale, could in fact do so again.

Captured Ba'ath documents reveal both Saddam's willingness to work with existing terrorist groups as well as Saddam's increasing interest in creating his own terrorist groups and becoming a Big Boss Man terrorist in his own right as a means of power and coercion. WMD would be right handy in that endeavor, and of course they already knew how to make and distribute it.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/

 

[joobz]

Is there some kind of wierd mysticism connected with WMD that I am unaware of? It is as if you believe WMD can only be made once, and then if you use it or lose it, you can never make it again. In fact, your "no WMD" argument, in order to be relevant, requires that to be the case.

We went to war because they supposedly had WMD. We got there, and they didn't.... Just like the weapons inspections has shown. The war was a waste.

I know of no such mystical constraints on the making and use of WMD. I propose that a genocidal family which owned a fourth of the world's oil wealth, which had made and used WMD on a large scale, could in fact do so again.

Yes, a lot of things "could" happen. I was referring to what actually was.

 

[Toontown]

We went to war because they supposedly had WMD. We got there, and they didn't.... Just like the weapons inspections has shown. The war was a waste.

Read the resolutions. We went to war, in part, because the regime had a history of making and using WMD.

Yes, a lot of things "could" happen. I was referring to what actually was.

No you weren't. You were repetitively referring to an extremely small slice of what was, selectively chosen for the specific political purpose of obscuring the larger picture, and fallacious for the reason I pointed out; the manufacture of WMD is not a unique, non-reproducible event.

"What actually was", was an genocidal enemy regime which had vast wealth at it's disposal, a history of making and using WMD, and a deep yearning to do harm to the US.

A regime which was in material breach of the cease-fire agreement.

the shot was there. We took it, in part because of the very real threat posed by terrorists with WMD made in Iraq, and also in very large part because of what will happen if the the jihadists' and the radical left's worst nightmare is realized, and Iraq succeeds:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40371

 

[Virus]

Saddam was no ideologue.

Incorrect. He was a Baathist. A totalitarian ideology inspired by fascism and based on mystical racial superiority and resurrection of past Empires. The Baath had paranoid, delusional hatreds of Jews, Freemasons and imaginary enemies that were deemed responsible for the ills of the Arab world.

Sorry, but a government which would have a Christian as their 2nd hand man wouldn't be an ally of Al Qaeda.

So what? Your analysis omits a crucial factor; They're mad.

 

[joobz]

Read the resolutions. We went to war, in part, because the regime had a history of making and using WMD.

I know the resolution and I know the sanctions were working, as we all learned by the failure of discovering any wmds.

I don't doubt getting rid of saddam was beneficial, but I do doubt the reasons we went in.

No you weren't. You were repetitively referring to an extremely small slice of what was, selectively chosen for the specific political purpose of obscuring the larger picture, and fallacious for the reason I pointed out; the manufacture of WMD is not a unique, non-reproducible event.

So we went to war because saddam wanted WMD?
Sounds like a goal post shift to me.

"What actually was", was an genocidal enemy regime which had vast wealth at it's disposal, a history of making and using WMD, and a deep yearning to do harm to the US.

And clearly, powerless to do anything about it.
Perhaps I'm crazy, but I don't see a reason to start a war when non-military methods were working.

 

[BeAChooser]

Which one has threatened to invade the US and has the means to do so?

You said "threatening to attack or invade the US." And you do realize, don't you, that you don't have to assault the continental US to attack America or Americans?

When was Saddam planning to invade the US?

Ditto above comment.

We absorbed 9/11. It doesn't mean we don't need to be vigilant and protect ourselves when necessary.

But what good is vigilance if you won't act on it? Let's be clear about this. Many on the left have said we should not respond until we are actually attacked. Certainly, that was the policy up until 9/11. Certainly the problem with terrorism is that if you don't deal with potential threats in a preemptive manner, then you will be attacked sooner or later. As we were over and over in the 1990s. And in an age of WMD (and yes, 9/11 was a WMD attack), such an attack may have dire consequences in terms of loss of life, damage, and economic impacts. It's foolish to base your strategy on the ability of your country to "absorb" such attacks.

How many Iraqis were involved with Islamic terrorism and Al Qaeda? You won't find many examples. None on 9/11.

Actually, you are wrong again. And you'd know it if you'd bothered to read the rest of this thread. So I'll just have to repeat the facts for the umpteenth time.

First, there is now considerable evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda, and other islamic terrorist groups, prior to 9/11.

Don't you know that Saddam was giving large amounts of money to the families of islamic suicide murderers to encourage suicide bombings in Israel? You must know this, unless you were living in a cave.

And don't you know that Iraq was involved with muslim terrorists in the Far East? According to a top secret government memo, "a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee." Shakir was detained in Qatar in September of 2001. Found in his possession was contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The Qataris released him and he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he then changed planes to a flight to Baghdad. But before the plane took off, he was detained and for several months the CIA interrogated him in Jordan. All the while, the Iraqi regime pressured Jordan to release him. And finally they did, at which point Shakir is believe to have fled to Iraq. But in your cave, I guess you didn't hear this.

I guess the cave walls also kept you from learning that the 911 Commission concluded that starting in mid-1998 Iraq took the initiative in offering al-Qaeda help and even safe haven in Iraq? And that Saddam's government basically looked the other way as various terrorist attacks against the West and it's allies were funded and planned by terrorists in Iraq … even from Baghdad? This is all well documented. How could you not know it? Unless you were in a cave?

The 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that "statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments." It said "intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country." It stated that "postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq." It's a myth that Zarqawi and other al Qaeda operatives lived in Saddam's dictatorship without receiving at least the dictator's tacit support. And that's cooperation. Even cave dwellers should be able to admit that.

The Institute for Defense Analyses study of captured Iraqi regime documents found in November 2007 (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/206xwlcs.asp ) that when it came to "attacking Western interests", "captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

A formerly secret memo written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to several senators in October of 2003 stated, among other things, that:

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.

Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport [sic]. Bin Laden specifically requested that [Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed], Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.

According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.

Indeed, documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, included a 1998 memo written by Iraq's intelligence service detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." And just four days after the date on that memo, bin Laden issued his fatwa on the plight of Iraq at the hands of America, calling on his followers to "kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military".

We also know that by the time of the invasion, there were numerous terrorist training camps in operation in Iraq … operated by Iraq. During the invasion, American soldiers encountered people from Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran throughout Iraq … often engaged in acts of resistance and terror. American soldiers found terrorist training camps in Samarra, Ramadi and Salman Pak, all directed by elite Iraqi military units. At Salman Pak, Marines even found suicide vests wrapped in plastic ready for shipment (the question is … to whom?). Facts like these were just ignored by the mainstream media (and the 911 Commission). They too have been living in a cave.

And I could go on and on citing specifics like these. So you are just plain wrong. There are many, many, many examples of Iraqis being involved with Islamic terrorism and Al Qaeda.

As to your claim that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, that's not certain either. First, there is strong reason to suspect that Iraq was involved in the prior attack on the WTC. One of the WTC bombers, an Iraqi, found safe haven in Iraq after that attack. He was still in Iraq at the time of 9/11. Then there are facts suggesting that Atta (one of the 9/11 hijackers) was given a large amount of money by al-Ani (an Iraqi government agent in Prague) in the months just prior to 9/11. And we certainly know that Iraq appears to have had a heads-up about the impending 9/11 attack, since a Iraqi newspaper, owned by one of Saddam's sons (Qusay), published an article that seems to have made reference to it before it occurred. The author was an Iraqi, with ties to Iraqi intelligence, who stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ” bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (perhaps referencing a second Iraqi sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York City as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer," which perhaps references an airplane attack. How could these people have had such foreknowledge of the attack details without Iraq being involved at some level in 9/11? In fact, a court here in the US heard that evidence and ruled that Iraq was indeed involved in 9/11. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry, but a government which would have a Christian as their 2nd hand man wouldn't be an ally of Al Qaeda. Their ideology was simply not compatible, aside from hating the US.

LOL! I guess we might as well put America's security in your care. Right? Because you believe every word uttered by Aziz … a man with a death sentence hanging over his head if he could be connected to al-Qaeda. You must also believe the Capitalist West and Communist USSR couldn't possibly have been allies against Hitler and Japan. Afterall, "their ideology was simply not compatible." Right? That's your logic. Your demonstrably faulty logic.

And again, Saddam did not trust Islamists. Even if he had weaponized sarin, he would be unlikely to hand it to a terrorist group for use against us. He simply did not trust groups like Al Qaeda.

Sure. Saddam was completely sane. Never mind his ordering a WMD attack on Israel (a non-combatant) during the first Gulf War. Never mind his ordering an assassination attempt on an ex-US President. Never mind his refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors in 2003, and thus averting an invasion that was sure to topple him and probably lead to his and his sons' deaths. He was completely sane and would never dream of using muslim fanatics as a means of striking his enemy the US.

"Thought to have" being the operative part of the sentence. We never bothered to verify that Iraq had WMDs, we just assumed that they did. We never found them.

But the whole point of this thread is that just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean Iraq didn't have them right up to the invasion. The fact remains that multiple sources said WMD were moved to Syria before the invasion. The fact remains that the ISG said that they could NOT rule that possibility out. The fact remains that the ISG said they had what they believe is a credible source telling them that happened. And the fact remains that you can't tell us the contents of the trucks convoys that went to Syria before the invasion, or what was in the files, computers and labs that Iraq spent so much time and effort sanitizing before, during and after the invasion. The fact remains that you can't even provide a believable answer why Saddam wouldn't have put binary sarin warheads … his most capable weapon … a weapon that his scientists said was very successful … into production. And the fact remains that the invasion of Iraq wasn't JUST about finding WMD. Only someone who spent the last 9 years in a cave would think that.

The CIA report disagrees with you.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The CIA report does not answer any of the 6 questions I asked. Not a one. It doesn't say what the contents of the trucks were. It doesn't say what the sanitized files, computers, etc contained. It doesn't say that WMD definitely did not go to Syria. It doesn't explain how that binary sarin warhead just happened to turn up as an IED if it was the only one left in Iraq. Do you know what the odds against that happening were given that there were millions and millions of conventional artillery shells that insurgents could have picked up and used instead?

The fact is the ISG only says it "judges" that certain things are true. It does NOT say those things "definitely" are true. Because as what you quoted noted, the "ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction" of Iraq's WMD stockpiles. The ISG had to make a conclusion from very incomplete data … thanks in large part to Iraqi efforts to sanitize the paper trail. Thanks in large part to reticence on the part of Iraqis to tell the investigators anything for fear of implicating themselves in WMD activities … for which several have already been hanged. Thanks in large part out of fear of retaliation by whoever was out there targeting ISG investigators and it's informants. And the ISG was not in a position to simply declare "we don't know". There was too much political pressure on them to reach the conclusion they did. Even the Bush adminstration would not have wanted to hear that there were Iraqi WMD loose in Syria. Because that would have opened another can of worms. So it was let sleeping dogs lie, even if the end result is a report that suggests there might have been no WMD. Better that then demands we force Syria (a WMD and missile armed state) to turn over whatever the Iraqis gave them under the table. Or else. Especially when Syria wouldn't have wanted to admit they accepted those WMD in the first place.

There is just no evidence that they had weaponized sarin that was hidden from inspectors before the invasion in 2003.

LOL! First, Saddam's regime denied researching such weapons. When that was proven a lie, his regime denied ever testing such weapons. When that was proven a lie, they denied fielding such weapons and claimed to have destroyed all the shells they had produced. But that binary sarin shell used as an IED puts the lie to that, too. But now you are willing to just believe claims he never proceeded beyond testing. His own scientists told the ISG that the program was considered VERY successful. We KNOW Saddam greatly desired possessing WMD. We know (from audio recordings) that he and his staff delighted in fooling the UN as to the scope of their WMD effort and the size of their stockpiles. We know that they considered themselves to still be at war with us. With that sort of viewpoint, why wouldn't Saddam have ordered production ... at least of small quantities of what was clearly his best chemical weapon? What other "very successful" weapon program can you name that Saddam didn't move into production? It's simply ridiculous to think he wouldn't have … especially since he was already violating the cease fire agreement on many other levels. And no one has provided a reasonable explanation of how that binary sarin shell got into the hands of the insurgents ... i.e., where it came from. The ISG doesn't know. They could only speculate … and speculation can be wrong. The ISG said it opened the door to the possibility of others out there. And logic, and Saddam's past behavior, suggests there should have been other out there.

They wanted to get rid of sanctions and continue to have WMDs, but all signs point to Iraqi WMD capability being effectively nil when we invaded.

ONLY if you assume nothing went to Syria. But the ISG specifically stated that it could NOT rule that out. And we have numerous sources both inside and outside Iraq … even in Syria … stating that WMD related items did get moved there from Iraq. You can't just ignore these reports because they don't fit into your naive view of Saddam and Iraq. Unless you want to look foolish and non-skeptical.

With what weapons? The magical WMDs they didn't have?

Your denial can't change what the audio tapes show Aziz and Saddam's aides said regarding using a third party to strike the US with WMD. It won't change what the tapes shows about Saddam and his aides delight in having fooled the UN and US as to the size and composition of Iraq's WMD stockpiles. You can't change what the tapes show by simply ignoring that the ISG concluded that they could not rule out the possibility that WMD related materials were shipped to Syria before the war. Your response only makes you look like you WANT to keep hiding in that cave. Is that the case?

 

[BeAChooser]

We went to war because they supposedly had WMD.

That was only ONE of many reasons. No matter how many times our side of this debate points this out ... draws your attention to what Bush actually said about the reasons for war in his 2003 SOU speech to the American people, you folks keep repeating the assertion it was all about WMD. It's rank dishonesty on your part and you know it, joobz. But then that's in-character.

 

[joobz]

That was only ONE of many reasons.

It was THE reason, and when that was found to be wrong, they started to emphasize the "other reasons."
If the WMD were real and actually found, then you would claim that proved the war valid.

Let's be honest here. You'll use any reason to justify the war. Including wild speculation. Personally, I have no problems admitting the mistake. I believed Bush and our admin when they said Saddam had WMD and posed a risk to our nation. I was wrong.

It's rank dishonesty on your part and you know it, joobz. But then that's in-character.

If you wish to characterize me as dishonest, you are welcome to. But your attempted characterization doesn't improve your argument.

 

[Toontown]

I know the resolution and I know the sanctions were working, as we all learned by the failure of discovering any wmds.

The sanctions weren't "working". They were a stopgap. The temporary absence of WMD simply meant the sanctions would have been lifted and the regime would have been back in business.

I don't doubt getting rid of saddam was beneficial, but I do doubt the reasons we went in.

Right. If you can't besmirch the action, invent a bad motive for the action.

Monkey politics 101.

So we went to war because saddam wanted WMD?
Sounds like a goal post shift to me.

No goal post shift. One of the goals was simply and quite obviously to make sure Saddam never had WMD ever again.

Not simply to make sure he didn't have any at the moment. The momentary presence or absence of WMD in Iraq was not very meaningful as an indicator of it's future presence or absence. He didn't have any before he had it. Then he had it. Then he didn't have it. Moments pass. Time keeps on slipping into the future. And when that happens, things change. Demonstrably, having it or not having it at one moment does not imply having it or not having it at another moment. The ability to have it seems to be a greater determining factor.

And clearly, powerless to do anything about it.

Yuh think?

19 men with plane tickets and box cutters took down the WTC, blew a hole in the Pentagon, and would have crashed a plane into the White House except for heroic preemptive action by the passengers.

Saddam had a way to escape the sanctions through temporary abstinence from WMD and bribery. He had vast oil wealth, the proven ability to make WMD, millions of people at his command, 2 million scalps on his belt, and an endless supply of meanness and stubbornness. Potentially a very bad terrorist, making bin Laden look like Pee Wee Herman. And he only had to be successful once.

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I don't see a reason to start a war when non-military methods were working.

Crazy?

Let's explore that possibility.

You do seem to have a problem with the concept of change, and the concept of not wanting Saddam to ever have WMD, rather than just not have it at an arbitrary moment.

A moment at which he could be expected to have sense enough not to have it. Because he wanted the sanctions lifted, so he could get back to business as usual after monkeyworld's short attention span drifted off. The Bush presidency was only going to last a maximum of 8 years, you know. Then it would be back to not thinking Saddam was a threat at all. Even though he had quite a bit more than box cutters at his disposal.

Hell, he could probably choke half of us to death by the simple expedient of setting all his oil ablaze. And eventually freeze us after the smoke blocked out the sun. Hey, it isn't as if he hadn't done anything like that before. It was just a smaller scale before.

I'm serious. You Neumanns are easy to sneak up on. It has been repeatedly demonstrated how easy you are to sneak up on. I'm not trying to give any bad guys any ideas. That ship has already sailed. But damn, you Neumanns are complacent. Short memories, too.

 

[joobz]

The sanctions weren't "working". They were a stopgap. The temporary absence of WMD simply meant the sanctions would have been lifted and the regime would have been back in business.

from 92 to 2003, Saddam had no WMD. That's not a stop gap.
I remember Saddam kicking out the weapons inspectors.
I also remember that we forced his hand (appropriately).
But we went in Iraq anyway. that was the mistake.

Right. If you can't besmirch the action, invent a bad motive for the action.

Monkey politics 101.

ends don't justify the means. ethics 101.

No goal post shift. One of the goals was simply and quite obviously to make sure Saddam never had WMD ever again.

regime change is a stupid (extremely stupid) political policy which has a history of biting us in the end. Saddam wasn't a threat to the US.

Not simply to make sure he didn't have any at the moment. The momentary presence or absence of WMD in Iraq was not very meaningful as an indicator of it's future presence or absence. He didn't have any before he had it. Then he had it. Then he didn't have it. Moments pass. Time keeps on slipping into the future. And when that happens, things change. Demonstrably, having it or not having it at one moment does not imply having it or not having it at another moment. The ability to have it seems to be a greater determining factor.

So, you are left with speculation as your reason for war.
Well, I'm sorry that I don't find that a morally compelling reason.

Yuh think?

yes.

19 men with plane tickets and box cutters took down the WTC, blew a hole in the Pentagon, and would have crashed a plane into the White House except for heroic preemptive action by the passengers.

So? Saddam wasn't involved with that.

Using your reasoning, we should also attack
Syria, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, ..... ANy nation which may (in the future) pose a threat.

Saddam had a way to escape the sanctions through temporary abstinence from WMD and bribery. He had vast oil wealth, the proven ability to make WMD, millions of people at his command, 2 million scalps on his belt, and an endless supply of meanness and stubbornness. Potentially a very bad terrorist, making bin Laden look like Pee Wee Herman. And he only had to be successful once.

Funny that for as "Lex Luthorian" you make him sound, he had no ability to stop us from taking over Iraq in a matter of days. All those potential WMD (that he supposedly had), and didn't use any off them.

I'm serious. You Neumanns are easy to sneak up on. It has been repeatedly demonstrated how easy you are to sneak up on. I'm not trying to give any bad guys any ideas. That ship has already sailed. But damn, you Neumanns are complacent. Short memories, too.

repeatedly demonstrated? easy to sneak up on?
What are you even talking about?

It's not an issue of short memory, it's an issue of facts and logic. You haven't presented any. All you have is speculation.

Let's recap:
1.) The claim was Iraq had WMD
2.) Because of that, they posed a threat to the US.
3.) We went to war primarily for that reason.
4.) They didn't have WMD.
5.) The primary reason for the war was false.

 

[Virus]

Joobz, have you read Bush's address to the UN? You're cherry-picking one reason for the war then claiming Iraq should have remained under fascism because No WMD were found. But it wasn't just about the WMD, the administration just did a bad job of explaining what was America's most liberal war.

Reasons for the war according to Bush in 2002:

Saddam had refused to cease gross human rights violations as per UN resolution 668.

Saddam had refused to account for 600 missing POW from the Gulf War. Including a US pilot. As per resolution 686 and 687.

Saddam failed to end involvement with terrorist organizations as per resolution 687.

Iraq had failed to come completely clean on WMD. Interviews with former Iraqi generals revealed that even they thought Saddam had a stash of WMD up his sleeve. Saddam could never come clean because he believed fear of WMD was keeping Iran and local rebellions at bay. Saddam continually violated his obligations regarding WMD inspections.

Saddam was engaged in illicit trading. Saddam was using the Oil for Food program to scam the UN and procure arms and build elaborate palaces. The sanctions were never going to work because Saddam was mad, didn't care one whit about his captive population and had no sense of morality to appeal to.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/12/national/main521781.shtml

The broader rationale for the war was to **** with the Islamofascists that declared war on America. To "drain the swamp" of Arab tyranny that was holding the region back and producing ****ed up people. Someone had to get stomped and turned into the staging ground of Arab and Muslim democracy and Saddam drew the short straw. The reasons he drew that straw are outlined above, along with the fact that 25% of the world oil supply was going to waste on a brutal, mad, genocidal and fascist regime.

Iraq now enjoys a free press, free elections, an alliance with the US, a stupendous amount of oil wealth at its disposal.

Victor David Hanson, preeminent military historian and all-round great guy says this;

The truth about Iraq is that, for all the tragedy and the loss, the U.S. military performed a miracle. After nearly seven years, a constitutional government endures in that country. It is too often forgotten that all 23 of the writs for war passed by the Congress in 2002 — from enforcing the Gulf I resolutions and stopping the destruction of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, to preventing the Iraqi state promotion of terrorism, ending suicide bounties on the West Bank, and stopping Iraq from invading or attacking neighbors or trying to acquire WMD — were met and satisfied by the U.S. military. It is also too often forgotten that, as a result, Libya gave up its WMD program; Dr. Khan’s nuclear franchise was shut down; Syria left Lebanon; and American troops in Saudi Arabia, put there as protection against Saddam, were withdrawn. Perhaps a peep about some of that — especially the idea that in an oil-short world, Saddam Hussein might have been more or less free to do what he pleased again in Iraq. (The verdict is out on Iran; playing a genocidal Hussein regime against it was morally bankrupt. Currently, Shiites participating in consensual government could be as destabilizing to Iran in the long run as Iranian terrorists are to Iraq in the short run.)

Furthermore, the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq helped to discredit the entire idea of radical Sunni Islamic terrorists, and the loss of thousands of foreign radical Islamists in Iraq had a positive effect on U.S. security — despite the fallacy that we created them out of thin air by being in Iraq. Kurdistan was, prior to 2003, faced with the continual threat of genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein; today it is a booming economy. All that would have been impossible without U.S. intervention.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson090310.html

 

[Toontown]

from 92 to 2003, Saddam had no WMD. That's not a stop gap.

Yes it is. Nothing but a stopgap. Sanctions are nothing but a stopgap, by definition. And keeping the sanctions on Iraq indefinitely would most likely have eventually brought about a failed state condition. And what do failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan attract?

So, you are left with speculation as your reason for war.
Well, I'm sorry that I don't find that a morally compelling reason.

That wasn't speculation. That was an explanation of the nature of time as change.

There was a regime in power in Iraq which had a history of making and using large amounts of WMD. You would have left that regime in power, thereby giving it the opportunity to reconstitute it's WMD.

So? Saddam wasn't involved with that.

That wasn't my point. My point was, if some guys with plane tickets and box cutters could do all that damage, how much damage could a tyrant owning a fourth of earth's oil supply do, if repeatedly given opportunities?

Using your reasoning, we should also attack
Syria, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, ..... ANy nation which may (in the future) pose a threat.

No. By my reasoning, we might do one or two of those if we had the resources and the legal pretext. However, we don't have the resources to go after all of them, therefore there is no reasoning under which we would attempt such an ambitious and costly project. We have to pick our shots. Iraq was the shot we picked.

If any of these other big bad countries want to step up to the plate and start slapping some sense into the rogues of the world, they have my blessing.

Funny that for as "Lex Luthorian" you make him sound, he had no ability to stop us from taking over Iraq in a matter of days. All those potential WMD (that he supposedly had), and didn't use any off them.

Now there's some novel dodgeball reasoning. If a military operation is successful, that means it was unnecessary. Have you discovered a new principle?

Well. That certainly makes war an unattractive option. It is only 'correct' to go to war if the enemy is strong enough to kick the crap out of us. Somehow, that just doesn't seem logical.

repeatedly demonstrated? easy to sneak up on?
What are you even talking about?

Pearl harbor. 9/11. The near collapse of the entire world economy because of a housing bubble. Stuff like that.

It's not an issue of short memory, it's an issue of facts and logic. You haven't presented any. All you have is speculation.

Let's recap:
1.) The claim was Iraq had WMD
2.) Because of that, they posed a threat to the US.
3.) We went to war primarily for that reason.
4.) They didn't have WMD.
5.) The primary reason for the war was false.

All your points are either false, misleadingly incomplete, or irrelevant, consisting of cherry-picked random facts, half-truths, and falsehoods intended to arrive at a predetermined false conclusion:

Let's do a real recap, and let's try to do a better job of presenting the relevant facts this time:

1.) Iraq had produced and used large quantities of WMD, much of which was never accounted for. Iraq was suspected of having WMD, and/or the capability to make WMD. The propensity to use WMD had already been repeatedly demonstrated. The illegitimate regime was and had been in 'material breach' of a number of UN resolutions for the past 12 years, thereby preventing a cease-fire from going into effect. Under international law, this allows a resumption of hostilities in pursuance of stated objectives, in this case "peace and stability in the area".

2.) For numerous reasons, the illegitimate regime ruling Iraq was deemed an ongoing threat to world peace and stability, and likely to pass WMD to terrorists, which need not be tolerated, and in fact cannot be tolerated under existing tenets of US constitutional law, which requires the government to use all available means to defend US citizens.

3.) We went to war to eliminate the long-term threat to world peace and stability posed by the Hussein regime, and the long-term threat posed to our people, among a number of other reasons listed in several resolutions, as well as other strategic considerations presented in speeches and policy statements.

4.) Saddam is dead. His successors are dead. His regime is shattered. A fledgeling democratic republic has taken it's place. Iraq and it's critical and irreplaceable oil has been returned to it's rightful owners - the people of Iraq.

5.) The goals of the invasion and occupation have been accomplished. The rest is up to the Iraqis.

6.) Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my fuzzy white ass.

 

[joobz]

Yes it is. Nothing but a stopgap. Sanctions are nothing but a stopgap, by definition. And keeping the sanctions on Iraq indefinitely would most likely have eventually brought about a failed state condition. And what do failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan attract?

using this reasoning, any long term foreign policy decision would be a "stop gap"

Is Cuba a "stop gap"?

That wasn't speculation. That was an explanation of the nature of time as change.

But you have no evidence for any of those "change" items. that is, by definition, speculation.

and I noticed you ignored both the points on failed regime changes AND the ethical point I raised.

Pearl harbor. 9/11. The near collapse of the entire world economy because of a housing bubble. Stuff like that.

Oh. And that relates to this.....How???

All your points are either false, misleadingly incomplete, or irrelevant, consisting of cherry-picked random facts, half-truths, and falsehoods intended to arrive at a predetermined false conclusion:

Nope.

1.) Iraq had produced and used large quantities of WMD, much of which was never accounted for. Iraq was suspected of having WMD, and/or the capability to make WMD. The propensity to use WMD had already been repeatedly demonstrated. The illegitimate regime was and had been in 'material breach' of a number of UN resolutions for the past 12 years, thereby preventing a cease-fire from going into effect. Under international law, this allows a resumption of hostilities in pursuance of stated objectives, in this case "peace and stability in the area".

Past 12 years? Evidence for that?

2.) For numerous reasons, the illegitimate regime ruling Iraq was deemed an ongoing threat to world peace and stability, and likely to pass WMD to terrorists, which need not be tolerated, and in fact cannot be tolerated under existing tenets of US constitutional law, which requires the government to use all available means to defend US citizens.

Yes, a proactive war was sanction to prevent future threats based upon evidence that wasn't reliable(factual). that's an ethical problem in my book. I know some people like to pretend like we are the rough and tumble good guys in a action movie, but that is only a delusion. A delusion which goes against many of the principles our country was started on.

3.) We went to war to eliminate the long-term threat to world peace and stability posed by the Hussein regime, and the long-term threat posed to our people, among a number of other reasons listed in several resolutions, as well as other strategic considerations presented in speeches and policy statements.

Now we go to war to eliminate a threat to "world peace", not just our borders and sovereignty?

4.) Saddam is dead. His successors are dead. His regime is shattered. A fledgeling democratic republic has taken it's place. Iraq and it's critical and irreplaceable oil has been returned to it's rightful owners - the people of Iraq.

A yes, the ends justify the means. Good ethical argument.

5.) The goals of the invasion and occupation have been accomplished. The rest is up to the Iraqis.

It's over, so it was the right thing to do.
Interesting.

6.) Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my fuzzy white ass.

Well, isn't that a logical argument.

 

[joobz]

Saddam had refused to cease gross human rights violations as per UN resolution 668.

Many countries have gross human rights violations. Are we to invade them all?

And this was the whole reason behind the "we'll be greeted as Liberators" meme, which was woefully wrong.

Saddam had refused to account for 600 missing POW from the Gulf War. Including a US pilot. As per resolution 686 and 687.

I know little of this point and agree it is a strong point in your favor.

Saddam failed to end involvement with terrorist organizations as per resolution 687.

again, many countries fall into this category.

Iraq had failed to come completely clean on WMD. Interviews with former Iraqi generals revealed that even they thought Saddam had a stash of WMD up his sleeve. Saddam could never come clean because he believed fear of WMD was keeping Iran and local rebellions at bay. Saddam continually violated his obligations regarding WMD inspections.

The intelligence was faulty, and the weapons inspections were working.

Saddam was engaged in illicit trading. Saddam was using the Oil for Food program to scam the UN and procure arms and build elaborate palaces. The sanctions were never going to work because Saddam was mad, didn't care one whit about his captive population and had no sense of morality to appeal to.

As does other existing rulers.

Iraq now enjoys a free press, free elections, an alliance with the US, a stupendous amount of oil wealth at its disposal.

Yes, I hope in the end, the Iraqi people I hope the Iraqi people thrive and are able to lead healthy happy lives. I hope they ARE the major beneficiary of the war. After all (Besides our soldiers), they were the ones who have already suffered the most.