• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

Just a note. The first Bush explained rather well why going into Baghdad was a bad idea. Wish jr. had read his book.

i think the neocons in the white house got to the prodigal son, the one who never measured up, and whispered in his ear that he could do what his dad did not
take down saddam
the conclusion to bush the first's 100 hour war was long a thorn in the neocons' sides
clearly, the father was MUCH wiser than the son
 
i think the neocons in the white house got to the prodigal son, the one who never measured up, and whispered in his ear that he could do what his dad did not
take down saddam
the conclusion to bush the first's 100 hour war was long a thorn in the neocons' sides
clearly, the father was MUCH wiser than the son

I agree. I actually liked the father. Good man all and all.
 
Just a note. The first Bush explained rather well why going into Baghdad was a bad idea. Wish jr. had read his book.
And what were those reasons why they did not invade Baghdad or remove Saddam, Boo? Do you even know? Please present them.

Do you know what the consequences were (good and bad) of that choice?
 
Last edited:
people still fall for this canard.

we went to war to reshape the region.
 
And what were those reasons why they did not invade Baghdad or remove Saddam, Boo? Do you even know? Please present them.

Do you know what the consequences were (good and bad) of that choice?

 
If they make the claim to me, yes to me. No matter who they make the claim to, they have to present evidence.
Even at the risk of revealing covert operatives, our operations, and providing such important details to the enemy and other countries?

Furthermore, did you know that the ONLY people that the president is obligated to convince is congress? Our gov't is a constitutional-republic, not a democracy.

Do you propose adding new laws?

We shold not be tools and just acept everything said without evidence.
I agree.


I'm fully aware. And there is nothing linking him to working with al qaeda. nothing that held up anyway.
Saddam's relationship with terrorists was growing. The discussion on such relationships was NOT limited to al-qaeda as you falsely assume.

Do you believe that the administration was only concerned with Saddam's associations with al-qaeda rather than any terrorist organization/stateless_militia?

Do you believe that Saddam was associated with no other organization except al-qaeda (later it was discovered that saddam did not trust al-qaeda)?
I prefer the truth. The evidence we had supported that he was not growing and gathering.
I strongly disagree. The evidence-- including documents released by our intelligence agency which unambiguously state saddam's pursuits in this matter--point to the fact Saddam was expanding and growing his associations and reputation with such organizations.

I can provide evidence of some of this if desired. However, as I have seen before, I guess that you will attempt to "explain-away" the evidence with some ad-hoc reasoning in order to fit your preconceived conclusion.

There's an element of opinion in all arguments.
. The fact that the earth orbits the sun or that the US invaded iraq is NOT an opinion and contains no element of opinion. The only one's who claim otherwise are those who wish to distract others with red-herrings about philosophy or existence. Most rational people see these for the smoke-screens and evasion techniques that they are.

I see nothing different in your attempt to conflate your opinion with the facts of what is or what happened.

I don't suggest here I rule the world. But I do ask, is they are reason the government wastes a loved one's life that matters to you? Or are their lives just expendable and cause or truth meaningless to you?
This is NOT a discussion on my personal political or philosophical beliefs. If you wish to discuss that then start a new thread. This is a discussion on what really happened up to and during the iraq war as well as the reasons and motivations by our leaders for their decisions and actions. Please stay focused.
 
I can't see videos fromy my phone.

I'll take your answer as: I don't know but someone else claims to who made this video and I believe them.

It was Dick Cheney's own words.
 
So dick chaney's opinion is valuable to you when you agree with him but worthless when he doesn't. How very consistent of you.

The consequences of the invasion of Iraq have proven his predictions in 1994 were accurate. He was right on. It is what it is.
 
The consequences of the invasion of Iraq have proven his predictions in 1994 were accurate. He was right on. It is what it is.

I agree that it is debatable whether invading Iraq and removing Saddam was worth the effort, both from a pre-war point of view and in hind-sight.

What I have disagreed with is the claim that the administrations reasons for war was limited to the following:
1) Oil
2) WMDs
3) Saddam's believed association with al-qaeda
 
I agree that it is debatable whether invading Iraq and removing Saddam was worth the effort, both from a pre-war point of view and in hind-sight.

What I have disagreed with is the claim that the administrations reasons for war was limited to the following:
1) Oil
2) WMDs
3) Saddam's believed association with al-qaeda

There could have been a hundred reasons for invading Iraq, but the only legitmate reason for the USA to invade any country is an imminant threat to our security.
 
There could have been a hundred reasons for invading Iraq, but the only legitmate reason for the USA to invade any country is an imminant threat to our security.
You are entitled to your opinion. Others may agree.

I disagree because the world is far too complex and dynamic to judge actions based on such a platitude.
 
You are entitled to your opinion. Others may agree.

I disagree because the world is far too complex and dynamic to judge actions based on such a platitude.

So do you believe the US had a right to invade Iraq, destroy it's property and infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and replace it's corrupt regime with another just as corrupt at a cost of a trillion US taxpayer dollars and over 4000 American lives?
 
So do you believe the US had a right to invade Iraq, destroy it's property and infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and replace it's corrupt regime with another just as corrupt at a cost of a trillion US taxpayer dollars and over 4000 American lives?
This is NOT a discussion on my personal political or philosophical beliefs. If you wish to discuss that then start a new thread. This is a discussion on what really happened up to and during the iraq war as well as the reasons and motivations by our leaders for their decisions and actions. Please stay focused.

I agree that it is debatable whether invading Iraq and removing Saddam was worth the effort, both from a pre-war point of view and in hind-sight.

What I have disagreed with is the claim that the administrations reasons for war was limited to the following:
1) Oil
2) WMDs
3) Saddam's believed association with al-qaeda
 
This is NOT a discussion on my personal political or philosophical beliefs. If you wish to discuss that then start a new thread. This is a discussion on what really happened up to and during the iraq war as well as the reasons and motivations by our leaders for their decisions and actions. Please stay focused.

I agree that it is debatable whether invading Iraq and removing Saddam was worth the effort, both from a pre-war point of view and in hind-sight.

What I have disagreed with is the claim that the administrations reasons for war was limited to the following:
1) Oil
2) WMDs
3) Saddam's believed association with al-qaeda
then whose beliefs are you presenting in your posts if those words are not your own?

and your aim is off as you describe the focus of this thread. here it is:
Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

that appeal to change topic direction is the post of one who has painted himself into a corner he does not like. welcome to DP. next time, wave the white flag instead of whining when it becomes obvious you have lost the debate
 
And what were those reasons why they did not invade Baghdad or remove Saddam, Boo? Do you even know? Please present them.

Do you know what the consequences were (good and bad) of that choice?

Yes, I do. He said going it was easy, leaving hard. We did not have world support, and the UN wasn't with us. He knew the cost vwersus the gain was a loser, and he was right.

Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq."[13

Bush, George H. W.

We then played games, hoping the Iraqis would do it. We worked with Chalibi (remember that name) and that led to Kurds getting killed and left without our help. I suggest you goggle Chalabi on that and then ask why Bush jr choose to trust him later.
 
There could have been a hundred reasons for invading Iraq, but the only legitmate reason for the USA to invade any country is an imminant threat to our security.

Blix stated the had weaponized WMD and Saddam told them they hadn't. Blix also stated Saddam was playing games and he believed he still had WMD.
After 911, and ANTHRAX on Capitol Hill... and thanks to Cohen's presentation years before... Americans understood what a small amount of WMD could do.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

David Kay... US Armed Service Committee Testominy

CORNYN: So that, given time, these programs would have matured and Saddam would have been able to reconstitute his WMD arsenal?

KAY: I hesitate, Senator -- only I think that that's the safe assumption. What I don't know over time, and I'm more and more struck with, is how corrupt and destructive that society had become. But you can't count on when it would fall apart. And it might fall apart in ways that are far more dangerous. So I think that is a safe assumption.

CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.


KAY: Senator Warner, I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.


In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Only that is not imminent threat. Nor was Saddam likely to use the little he had. He was far too worried about staying in power. Our own assessment was that he was unlikely to use any wmds unless invaded.
 
Blix stated the had weaponized WMD and Saddam told them they hadn't. Blix also stated Saddam was playing games and he believed he still had WMD.
After 911, and ANTHRAX on Capitol Hill... and thanks to Cohen's presentation years before... Americans understood what a small amount of WMD could do.

But was he an imminant threat to anybody? Nope.
Was he helping Al Qaeda? Nope. Al Qaeda wanted him out as much as we did and the only Al Qaeda bases in Iraq were in the no fly zone protected by US air power.
Bush used WMDs to scare people into supporting the invasion. It was one big conjob.
 
But was he an imminant threat to anybody? Nope.
Was he helping Al Qaeda? Nope. Al Qaeda wanted him out as much as we did and the only Al Qaeda bases in Iraq were in the no fly zone protected by US air power.
Bush used WMDs to scare people into supporting the invasion. It was one big conjob.

Well, enough in Congress believed and voted he was including this current Secretary of State, who told Code Pink of her inside knowledge.

It was justified based on the info we had at the time. Tell me, when was bin Laden an imminent threat? Hitler? This imminent threat BS becomes verified too late. David Kay illustrated the breakdown of Iraq was a more serious threat... and at the time said we may not have dodged a bullet.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom