what did they use as a reason?
Go back and read the history Cosmored. There is no ulterior motive or conspiracy. It primarily had to do with his refusal to show disposition of WMD, as agreed to to end Desert Storm, in an after 9/11 world, when he had known associates of terrorists. You have to remember, this guy was absolutely evil. He actually used WMD.
There was a legitimate concern that his weapons would end up in the hands of terrorists.
what weapons? the inspectors said they didn't have any. and they were right.
my question to you should have been "what did they use as a legitimate reason."
Are you a liar or an idiot?
They said they didn't/couldn't find any, and were blocked and delayed every step, which could give time to move them.
Please Cosmored...
Where did they say Saddam didn't have any, or are you parroting liberal journalists interpretations?
Link please.
the inspectors......that were there......said there weren't any. moron
WC still saying the Iraq war (and his full support) was justified, in any measure.
Link please.
Saying they didn't find any is not the same as saying they didn't exist and moved. Besides, that is not the point Cosmored. Saddam did not allow proper inspections in a timely manner to confirm anything.
damn, you're stupid.
It was the REPUGS who pulled the inspectors out, not Saddam throwing them out.
Yes, the inspectors were pulled out after it was clear that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections. It was a futile waste of time and money.
yes, iraq surely was.
the inspectors said then and now that they had NO INTERFERENCE from Saddam.
No interference once they got to a location. The interference was getting to locations when planned.
---dp---
this new forum sucks.
A simple search will yield some insightful information if you look. Here is the first one I found:
link: Timeline of UN weapons inspections
I'm sure there are more detailed ones if you look.
It's easier to assume someone, they don't agree with politically, devised a plan to go to war.
nice try. powell himself said the evidence used to justify the war was deliberately misleading.
I just want to see the part where they had intelligence of any actual weapons. It was pretty evident they had no clue after they were let into any number of sites and couldn't find the factories so they came up with that bull --again unsubstantiated-- mobile truck lab fiction.
Iraq was a sovereign nation and all of our allies but 1 refused to come along because they knew it was too. The decision apparatus is not so simple as "a man with a plan" in any case but it is not very hard to see that confirmation bias and assumptions that would make WC proud were what drove the decision. Wishful thinking makes awful policy.
Think of what you are saying...
What would be the logic? What would be the benefit? I could think of some but none of them are apart of your "war for oil" nonsense.
People are still waiting for the do ents to be translated? There were no WMD in Iraq. Then goalposts moved to the 'liberators/spreading democracy' angle, another massive fail.
IMO, it was all about the neocon lust for warmongering, projection of power and pent up anger about 9/11. Dubya's way to 'finish the job' his dad (a much smarter man) started.
The 'we have the bigger ' and ' the UN'. Wasted thousands of American lives and international credibility in the name of an ideological brain fart. And sure, the oil is there, might as well take it.
The whole thing was obviously compounded by having sheer incompetent people like Rumself in any leadership capacity. I agree with Winehole's post on the other thread about the GOP. Iraq will hang over the GOP head for a long, long while, like Vietnam hang over the Democrats for a long time.
The original goal post were the 12 UN resolution violations. If "neo-cons" were trying to extort facts, so was the rest of the intelligence communities from UK to Russia. Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi all thought that Saddam had WMD's and all thought we were less safe with Saddam having those in his hands!
You usually have pretty logical opinions but then your moronic liberal side comes out and this kind of stuff spews.
International credibilty. The countries who hate us now, were the ones cheering after 9-11.
We did not lose Iraq. If they fall into a civil war, it will be on Obama's hands for making an arbitrary pull-out date with no real logical strategic reason, besides to fulfill one of his only campaign promises.
The idea that Middle Easterners are too stupid to have democracy, coming from people who are all too willing to increase government control on our lives, at the cost of our freedoms is pretty ironic.
Let the Sunni's be propped up by a brutal dictator to suppress the Shiite thereby maintaining a war like state with Iran.
Pelosi and Kerry are idiots, and Bill understood that there was no reason for invasion, and so he did not invade. Same for Bush Sr who kicked their asses out of Kuwait then proceeded to put a chokehold that didn't cost anywhere near as many American lives or money. They were the level-headed, smart people. The fact is Russia, along with China and every other country not named the US or UK didn't buy the 'mobile chemical labs' strawman, because there were no mobile chemical labs, and none was found post invasion, which, if anything, legitimizes everyone alleged intel but the US and UK.
Powell coming out later saying they basically ran photoshopped pics at the UN presentation just basically confirms what a good amount of people thought back then (me included), it was all a dog and pony show.
There's no logic to apply here, because frankly we're 10 years later and nobody has a ing idea why we invaded Iraq. No WMD. No mobile labs. Saddam was an asshole but he ran a fairly secular country where the two primary factions coexisted. We did an ethnic cleansing with the surge and the Iraqis still don't want anything to do with us. We were never welcome as 'liberators' and that place is heading back to the cluster it was before we got there.
You have short memory. Countries like Germany, France, Canada, etc didn't take lightly the fact that after getting ran from the UN, the US/UK turned around and went unilaterally into war. None of those countries joined the initial "Coalition of the Willing", which in the post world-war II world was unfathomable. Countries like the UK still have ripples over the decision to go to war today. Americans in general have very little pulse of the general sentiment about the US outside of the US, so I'm not going to hold it against you. But the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation the way it was done didn't sit well. Now you could say you don't give a about that, and that's fine. But a lot less countries are buying the "beacon of hope" today after det one.
There was no winning or losing because there was no end-game. We didn't know why we were there, and we still don't. We didn't know what to do once Saddam was removed, and we improvised on spot. We surged, then we cleansed and re-took control, then we placed a puppet. Now the puppet is still a puppet but nobody wants us there. They didn't want us when we got there, and they still don't want us, and they won't want us later on.
I'm not saying they're stupid. I'm simply saying democracy isn't ingrained in their culture and you can't force-feed it into them. A whole lot of countries through history went through military coups, civil wars, temporary democracies, more coups, wars, then eventually settled on democracy. It was a long, drawn up process where people finally decided what worked for them and what didn't. The thought you can just walk into any of these heavily tribal and religious countries and just "change" people by dropping bombs on their houses, and tell them it's for their own good, is ridiculous.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote