• 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

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.

.

LOL Are you actually comparing Hitler to Saddam as a threat? My God you guys will say anything to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq. It took two weeks to completely anialate Iraq with minimal loss of US life. He was no threat to anyone. Zero threat.
The invasion of Iraq will go down in history as the costliest mistake ever. And in the end the US will have gained absolutely nothing.
It was never justified. We had more justification to invade China, Iran or North Korea.
 
and your aim is off as you describe the focus of this thread. here it is:
I joined this thread to debate misrepresentations of the facts. The misrepresentation that Iraq was solely about WMD's, oil, and/or saddam's association with AQ.

I did not join to debate whether invading iraq was or was not a good idea. Especially with the likes of this bunch.

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
Whoop-di-do! You think you've "painted me into a corner" or that I'm running away . Good for you.

The most telling part of your response is the amateur remark about "losing the debate". Do you think this is a high school debate where points and grades are awarded? I think you need to reanalyze your purpose.
 
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.

Boo, look at the broader picture.

Why did we NEED to stay and rebuild? Why would we leave Saddam intact the first time? Why do we give a damn about the region? Why not just remove him and allow some new chump to take over? Why did we remove him and STAY the 2nd time, spending magnitudes more money, energy and man power?

Because we are just "nice" guys?
Because we want iraq's oil?
Because we want to stop al-qaeda?
 
America was right all along.
 
America was right all along.

When it is all said and done what will the American people have gained from invading Iraq? Probably about the same as what we gained invading Vietnam.
 
LOL Are you actually comparing Hitler to Saddam as a threat?
Tell me, when did Hitler become an imminent threat? Was it:
In 1932? 1934? 1936 when they marched into the Rhineland? Or was it 1939 when he marched into the Sudatenland?

There were literally dozens of moments showing he was an imminent threat. Churchill saw this in the early 30's... but nobody listened. Hitler broke treaties and tested how far he could go. Saddam did the same. The only difference is Saddam had WMD, in which small amounts in the hands of idiots could kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands. The result wouldn't merely be catastrophic from a human toll, but what it could do to society.

My God you guys will say anything to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Look, Democrats voted to send troops to war based on the info at hand. Democrats YEARS BEFORE were vocal about the threat. You ignore what Kay stated, Cohen warned about, and 12-years of letting the idiot show us how corrupt the UN is. This should have been dealt with in 1994, latest 1998... but Clinton never saw it in the polls.

t took two weeks to completely anialate Iraq with minimal loss of US life. He was no threat to anyone. Zero threat.
He used and had WMD? "Connect-the Dots" ... remember that? Even some Dems like Hillary did.

The invasion of Iraq will go down in history as the costliest mistake ever. And in the end the US will have gained absolutely nothing.
:doh
A democracy in the ME... the elimination of a tyrant hostile to the US. WMD threat eliminated.

It was never justified. We had more justification to invade China, Iran or North Korea.
LOL... he lost war, agreed to reveal his WMD and didn't... after 12-years. It was more than justified.

Saddam had his chances, that he didn't take them (probably thinking he bought off the UN)... was his choice.

.
 
Last edited:
When it is all said and done what will the American people have gained from invading Iraq? Probably about the same as what we gained invading Vietnam.

post of the month
 
LOL... he lost war, agreed to reveal his WMD and didn't... after 12-years. It was more than justified.
.

.
He did reveal them. He said they were destroyed after the first war and he was right.
Justified? My God man Saddam was impotent. He wanted there to be some doubt so Iran wouldn't attack. It cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to replace one ruthless corrupt regime with one just as bad.
Only a total fool actually still believes it was in our best interests to invade Iraq. It was a huge costly mistake and in the end Americans will have gained nothing..


Admit it. Had it been Clinton that invaded and no WMD stockpiles were found you would have crucified him. You are just protecting your boy.
 
Last edited:
Boo, look at the broader picture.

Why did we NEED to stay and rebuild? Why would we leave Saddam intact the first time? Why do we give a damn about the region? Why not just remove him and allow some new chump to take over? Why did we remove him and STAY the 2nd time, spending magnitudes more money, energy and man power?

Because we are just "nice" guys?
Because we want iraq's oil?
Because we want to stop al-qaeda?

None of the above.

Best explination I heard was from a Straffor article Muley gave be back at WS. It's expensive to get a membership, but they blamed Bush for telling the wrong lie. Too easy to dispute his lie. But that the real reason was to have a base close to Iran. I don't know. But the big picture for me is that this has cost too much interms of lives and money for too little. I think the first Bush had it correct.
 
He did reveal them. He said they were destroyed after the first war and he was right.
ROTFLMAO... FAIL.

You cannot be serious. You are!!! You trust a madman over Hans Blix, and all our allies that stated otherwise? Even the UN stated otherwise... otherwise Saddam would have had sanctions lifted.

Justified? My God man Saddam was impotent. He wanted there to be some doubt so Iran wouldn't attack.
FAIL. You completely ignore Kay's and Blix's warnings about WMD, and Cohen's dramatic illustrations showed what small amounts of it can do... unweaponized. Blix told us Saddam had weaponized WMD when Saddam claimed he didn't. Surprised?!

It cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to replace one ruthless corrupt regime with one just as bad.
FAIL. Sorry. They don't kill their neighbors, aren't a threat to us, doesn't terrorize the population, has a constitution and holds free elections enthusiastically supported by the population.

Only a total fool actually still believes it was in our best interests to invade Iraq. It was a huge costly mistake and in the end Americans will have gained nothing..
FAIL. See above.

Admit it. Had it been Clinton that invaded and no WMD stockpiles were found you would have crucified him. You are just protecting your boy.
Post 911 I doubt it. And after Saddam threw out the Inspecteurs de la UN... he had every right.

You don't hear me complain about Obama in Afghanistan except the troops should be able to engage. It's war. Civilians will die... especially the way the terrorists operate.

.
 
Last edited:
So, can't trust, so invasion was going to happen no matter what Saddam did? That's what I hear you saying Zimmer. And I would agree with you on that, but not for the same reasons. We were never afraid of Saddam. Our own assessment said he wasn't like to use anything even if he had something unless we invaded, and he sat there for years, no real way to store things. We simply did not see him as the kind of threat that required invasion.
 
ROTFLMAO... FAIL.

You cannot be serious. You are!!! You trust a madman over Hans Blix, and all our allies that stated otherwise? Even the UN stated otherwise... otherwise Saddam would have had sanctions lifted.

FAIL. You completely ignore Kay's and Blix's warnings about WMD, and Cohen's dramatic illustrations showed what small amounts of it can do... unweaponized. Blix told us Saddam had weaponized WMD when Saddam claimed he didn't. Surprised?!

FAIL. Sorry. They don't kill their neighbors, aren't a threat to us, doesn't terrorize the population, has a constitution and holds free elections enthusiastically supported by the population.

FAIL. See above.

Post 911 I doubt it. And after Saddam threw out the Inspecteurs de la UN... he had every right.

You don't hear me complain about Obama in Afghanistan except the troops should be able to engage. It's war. Civilians will die... especially the way the terrorists operate.

.

Saddam did destroy his WMDs after the first gulf war. That is why we did not find any when we invaded. There weren't any left. Even Bush admitted that. As for Iraq being a threat to our security ony a compete idiot could possible believe that. You were duped into wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives. Bush capitalized on fear like yours to get support to invade. Ten years from now Iraq will still be in chaos and closely aligned with Iran. We will have gained nothing from the invasion. You have failed just like the invasion.


Blix?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/18/iraq.iraq

The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.

The claim came on the same day that President George Bush stated more bluntly than ever that there is no evidence to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 - despite 69% of Americans believing Saddam had a personal role, according to a recent Washington Post opinion poll.
 
Last edited:
You don't hear me complain about Obama in Afghanistan except the troops should be able to engage. It's war. Civilians will die... especially the way the terrorists operate.

.
Afghanistan was a just war for that is where Al Qaeda, with government support planned and trained for 9/11. The invasion of Iraq weakened our fight to capture and kill those responsible. All our resources should have been directed in Afghanistan. If they had, that conflict would have been successfully completed years ago.
 
Afghanistan was a just war for that is where Al Qaeda, with government support planned and trained for 9/11. The invasion of Iraq weakened our fight to capture and kill those responsible. All our resources should have been directed in Afghanistan. If they had, that conflict would have been successfully completed years ago.

When we invaded Iraq, right or wrong, and Al Qaeda joined the fight, we killed far more Al Qaeda than we have in Afghanistan. As far as WMDs, Bush said they were there and was wrong, Obama said the stimulus would fund shovel ready jobs and then admitted there was never any such thing. IMO, if you call Bush a liar for WMDs, you have to call Obama a liar for "shovel ready jobs", especially when every conservative knew and said there was no such thing, but liberals in congress voted to go to war.
 
When we invaded Iraq, right or wrong, and Al Qaeda joined the fight, we killed far more Al Qaeda than we have in Afghanistan. As far as WMDs, Bush said they were there and was wrong, Obama said the stimulus would fund shovel ready jobs and then admitted there was never any such thing. IMO, if you call Bush a liar for WMDs, you have to call Obama a liar for "shovel ready jobs", especially when every conservative knew and said there was no such thing, but liberals in congress voted to go to war.

Iraqis. Iraqis merely used the name to get supplies and some help. We have not killed many that were actually the al Qaeda that attacked us. Even if we count foriegn participants. They made up about 5% (this can be linked if you really don't remember), and only 5% of those had any previous connection to any terrorist organization. So, even that was more invention than anything actually resembling taking the war to our enemy. in stead, Iraq was just used to hurt us.
 
Iraqis. Iraqis merely used the name to get supplies and some help. We have not killed many that were actually the al Qaeda that attacked us. Even if we count foriegn participants. They made up about 5% (this can be linked if you really don't remember), and only 5% of those had any previous connection to any terrorist organization. So, even that was more invention than anything actually resembling taking the war to our enemy. in stead, Iraq was just used to hurt us.

Ok, I guess you define Al Qaeda differently than members of Al Qaeda did. I know I am not going to change your mind, but consider this: if they called themselves Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan called them Al Qaeda, and they had the same goals and mission as Al Qaeda, and did the same things Al Qaeda did, and if their main goal was to cause a civil war in Iraq that would harm innocent Iraqis, and if their leader was a high ranking member of Al Qaeda, what exactly made them not Al Qaeda?
 
When we invaded Iraq, right or wrong, and Al Qaeda joined the fight, we killed far more Al Qaeda than we have in Afghanistan.

And you know this how? Most people killed in Iraq were just Iraqis.
 
Ok, I guess you define Al Qaeda differently than members of Al Qaeda did. I know I am not going to change your mind, but consider this: if they called themselves Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan called them Al Qaeda, and they had the same goals and mission as Al Qaeda, and did the same things Al Qaeda did, and if their main goal was to cause a civil war in Iraq that would harm innocent Iraqis, and if their leader was a high ranking member of Al Qaeda, what exactly made them not Al Qaeda?

Your mistake is in thinking they had the same goals. Those in Iraq simply wanted us out of Iraq, so they could hold on to the power they had. Hardly the same goals as those who attacked us on 9/11. In fact, the goals of those fighting us in iraq were many and varied. Hardly anything that could be said to be unified.

And define leader. Mostly there was just someone who corrdinated resources to those willing to fight. Hardly a leader.
 
Iraqis. Iraqis merely used the name to get supplies and some help. We have not killed many that were actually the al Qaeda that attacked us. Even if we count foriegn participants. They made up about 5% (this can be linked if you really don't remember), and only 5% of those had any previous connection to any terrorist organization. So, even that was more invention than anything actually resembling taking the war to our enemy. in stead, Iraq was just used to hurt us.

This story has some real insights - interviewing people involved in the insurgency

Four Corners - 11/10/2010: Secret Iraq - Insurgency

I don't know whether it will work outside Australia but for us there is a link to stream video of the program at the bottom of the page
 
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.

.

Saddam Hussein was actually more than an imminent threat regarding using toxic poisons in 1982-1983.

Because he actually used them at that time.

You know what we did to stop him? We did nothing except continue to back him in his war against Iran.

We supplied him with military intelligence, supplied him guarantees him on loans of billions of dollars, and even ***wait for it*** removed his country from our list of terrorist nations.

That's what we did when he was an actual threat, a loose cannon who was slaughtering his own people and the Iranians with WMDs.

Its all politics, guy.

If its politically expedient to back him no matter what, then we back him. But when he's an essentially powerless threat, we stupidly invade even if its not necessary.
 
Not that I really care either way but patrons may be interested in this I found:


YouTube - ResearchForTruth75's Channel

"I think that the FACT NO intelligence service IN THE WORLD fundamentally disagreed with the American and British analysis is PROOF ENOUGH it was as good as it could get on the facts."

Tim Trevan -- Former UN Weapons Inspector
 
Saddam did destroy his WMDs after the first gulf war. That is why we did not find any when we invaded. There weren't any left. Even Bush admitted that.

In other words, accoring to you, the weapons were destroyed prior to the Clinton admin launching Operation Desert Fox - in which the stated purpose was to degrade his ability to use the WMD's they believed he had.

Can we now start chanting "Clinton lied and people died"? Or was it just faulty intelligence that caused the clinton admin to believe Iraq still had the WMD?

I come down on the side of faulty intelligence. However, I asume that to be consistent, you believe that clinton lied. Must have been to divert from Monica after all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
In other words, accoring to you, the weapons were destroyed prior to the Clinton admin launching Operation Desert Fox - in which the stated purpose was to degrade his ability to use the WMD's they believed he had.

Can we now start chanting "Clinton lied and people died"? Or was it just faulty intelligence that caused the clinton admin to believe Iraq still had the WMD?

I come down on the side of faulty intelligence. However, I asume that to be consistent, you believe that clinton lied. Must have been to divert from Monica after all.

If you remember, many said just that. And Clinton was accused of doing that just to divert attention from his problems, as you suggest. So, there has been some consistency on that. Iraq has been used as a whipping boy more than once. What hasn't been proven is that he was anywhere near the type of threat that required invasion or justiifed a 100,000 lives and billions, let alone trillions of dollars.
 
If you remember, many said just that. And Clinton was accused of doing that just to divert attention from his problems, as you suggest. So, there has been some consistency on that. Iraq has been used as a whipping boy more than once. What hasn't been proven is that he was anywhere near the type of threat that required invasion or justiifed a 100,000 lives and billions, let alone trillions of dollars.

I don't care what many people said. Althoguh, I really don't recall "many" stating that Clinton was lying when he said that Iraq had WMD's. I only recall the conversation being about what to do about it and that the timing was circumspect. However, did you say it? Do you claim that Clinton lied when he started the bombing campaign?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Back
Top Bottom