"Iraq supplied al-Qaeda with WMDs" -- Does this report justify the war?

Great Debates
161

Well just for your knowledge Monty the US has vetoed over 60+ resolutions for Israel. Israel is disobeying loads of UN resolutions and has disregarded many more in the past. Much more than Iraq ever managed.

The UN created Israel and so I would think it strange that they be accused of anti-semetic… Also why does the US defend Israel so much ? Seems the jews back in the US are setting US foreign policy no matter what ?

Iraq, Korea, Angola, Indonesia, China, India, Pakistan, Libya… etc… are all dangerous. I was asking if Iraq was more dangerous than Korea ? It’s not. So why go after the oil rich country? I thought Al Qaeda was the enemy… then suddenly its someone else much easier to find and defeat. Its easy to say that Saddam was a monster… so are dozens of other leaders the US has supported and allied with.

As for the Bully question… don’t you think the US is setting a bad example that Russia and China might follow of invading smaller countries in pre-emptive strikes ? If the US can… why cant others ? Why have laws at all… ?

If I am against the War in Iraq I am NOT in favor of Saddam… the same way you say Bush isnt in favor of War Criminals by analogy. So stop repeating the conservative Mantra about liberals loving Saddam. While you are at it you could stop thinking that anyone opposed to war is Anti-Semetic, liberal, gay or otherwise in favor of terrorism. You should start understanding what is happening in the world instead of repeating key effect phrases being fed to you.

So if Terrorism is not a simple problem to be solved why do you and Bush think that simple solutions like taking over Iraq will solve it ? Military answers to complex political-economic issues certainly seems the wrong way to go.
162

One obvious answer is because we say so and we’re the biggest for the time being. Nobody is going to come right out and say so, but it seems to me like it’s the only possible answer available.

And, of course, that is only for the time being. I’m old enough so that will probably last me. Based on the arguments of some of GW’s supporters they might be young enough that it could make a big difference to them.

163

[ nitpick ] That is a mantra chanted by mindless partisans of the right wing, but there are a great many conservatives who are too intelligent to get involved with that sort of thoughtless name-calling.

One should not attribute to all conservatives the actions of a few right-wing bigots who identify themselves as “conservative.”

[ /nitpick ]

164

That’s true, but like Moslem’s saying that fanatics don’t represent Islaam and Christians saying that Falwell and Robertson are not representative, don’t tell us, tell them clearly and often. Responsible conservatives need to call the “mindless partisans of the right wing” to account. If I do it I’m a “kneejerk liberal” or I’m a “partisan of Saddam and Osama” and the phrase “water off a duck’s back” comes to mind.

165

Nah.
Extremist bigots cannot be controlled by the people with whom they claim to associate. That is why I also speak out against the cry of “fascists/fascism” when uttered by the mindless partisans of the left wing.

166

Defeatist!:wink:

167

Ahem.

I’m not sure where the idea came from, but it’s not true that all conservatives or all Republicans were in favor of the invasion of Iraq. Just because I saw the invasion of Iraq as irresponsible foreign policy that has put our national security at risk unecessarily doesn’t mean that I stopped being conservative or stopped being Republican.

If you’ll notice, I’ve been trying to get monty2_2001 to account for his spouting.
It is a thankless task.

168

3 posts in a row by 3 of my fave posters. Intelligent, insightful, and magnanimous. What more can a laid back Aussie ask for?

169

A green card?

170

Thank you no… look at my view from my loungeroom…

Boo Boo’s loungeroom view

I’m happy to read the opinion’s of American’s - and indeed having lived in the USA during my teenage years I’m quite au fait with the place, but I’ve already found perfection thanks.

171

Plus, they 've got Elle McPhereson. Grrrrrrrr…

172

You would be amazed by how few people actually would like to live in the US… many at best just want to work and go home with the money.

That BBC program did the polls on this.

173

No I wouldn’t.

174

Then there’s this Washington Post article, which I believe has been mentioned in another thread, but I can’t find where… Dangit. Ah, well, still worth mentioning anyway…

175

People are missing the forest and picking on the trees
The reasons for the invasion involve the overall picture, not just a violation here and there.

Imagine, if you will, an Iraq with all the sanctions lifted, the Oil revenue streaming in, the Germans and the Russians supplying whatever hardware Saddams oil billions can afford to buy. Imagine Qusay and Uday with all the VX and Anthrax they can make. Billions of dollars flowing into a weapons program including missles and nuclear weapons.

Consider that Saddam has already attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and that he has used gas WMDs that other nations shudder from using.

Saddam is proving he approves of terrorist methods by paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam has already tried to kill George Bush Sr. — Saddam who can simply purchase the ingredients for a dirty bomb.

And all of that interpreted in the light of the 9/11 attacks on the US.

It didn’t take a prophet to understand that in the near future, Iraq was going to attack some country with heavy weapons, possibly disguised as terrorists, possibly overtly, or possibly through proxy terrorists like the Palestinians or Hezbollah.

And the lesson everybody had just learned is that the US is very, very, vulnerable.

And we can’t simply wait for Saddam to die because he has those two horrible sons who will carry on in the same tradition, or worse.

Those billions of oil dollars can buy hardware to kill millions of people, and Saddam has no moral qualms against using them in his stated goal of dominating the entire mideast.

Finally, the third world coughs up a dictator so venal and dangerous that even the United States can’t stand him.

176

Yes, I can imagine all that. That’s the problem - much of the case is imaginary.

The sanctions were not lifted, but the oil revenue was coming in anyway.

VX and anthrax seem not to have actually been there. The missiles and nuclear weapons “program” don’t seem to have actually been there anymore.

The attacks you mentioned, the Gulf War, were being prevented from recurring by constant NATO military pressure in combination with the UN weapons inspection/destruction regime.

The “support of terror” stuff has been discussed heavily here, and looks more like the standard “opposition to Israel” stuff, especially when considered in light of financing coming much more heavily from Saudi Arabia and being directed toward the families of people who had already died.

The 9/11 attacks had jack shit to do with Iraq, as we well know.

The US is very vulnerable, yes, and behaving like a bully will only incite us to be attacked again. Meanwhile, diverting resources from the hunt for those who have attacked us and their real and known supporters makes us even more vulnerable to them.

Saddam is a brutal bastard, no one has said otherwise here, but it is also imaginary to suppose he is any worse than a whole host of dicttators, many of whom we’ve allied with.

But thanks for your effort. We deal with the world of facts here, though, not with succumbing to our fears and imaginings. It isn’t a forest/trees situation at all - we do see the forest, and without having to imagine the trees.

177

You’re right. It does not take a prophet. Instead, it takes someone with an overactive sense of paranoia and absolutely no grasp of history.

For example this statement is in error on key points:

He attacked Iran when the Ayatollah had purged the military command and he (wrongly) thought that his invasion would be a walk. Instead, the Iran air force was able to destroy his air force because you don’t need generals to fight an immediate defensive action in the air, following which, there were enough middle level officers left in the military with the intelligence to take over, if not brilliantly, at least adequately to use their own zealous troops to successfully defend the country.

He attacked Kuwait when he thought that he had the “permission” (or at least a statement of unconcern) from the U.S. to take that country and secure its ports for himself. However, the U.S. indicated that he did not have permission and that we were not unconcerned and we led a (real) coalition of countries to defeat him.

His attacks on Saudi Arabia were (ostensibly) attacks on the coalition forces attacking him; he never made an actual attack against Saudi terrirtory.

His attacks against Israel were carried out in the middle of that same war in order to get Israel to retaliate and swing the Arab nations around to oppose the war against Iraq.

He has never initiated an attack against a superior enemy. Given the U.S. reaction in Afghanistan to the WTC/Pentagon attacks, he would have known that any attack on the U.S. (or any U.S. ally) would have brought a return attack. Nothing in his history indicates that he would ever have done that.

Similarly, his propaganda support for the families of Palestinian bombers was simply PR intended to cause most of the Arab nations to side with him against UN (US) sanctions. Even those payments were not direct support with money or munitions to the actual terrorist groups. He always kept one step removed from direct support.

The “overall picture” is that he was a bully who wanted to have a free hand to run his own country or to conquer smaller and weaker neighbors. He was using a lot of tricks to get regional support to get the U.S. out of his play pen, but there is no evidence (and no historical support) for the notion that he ever wanted to launch an attack on the U.S. or Europe (or even Israel except as a tool for manipulating regional opinion).

178

Having The Most Powerful Fighting Force in the History of the World actually does have a deterrent effect. You don’t suppose tha Stalin and other Soviet leaders were less bent on doing harm to the US than Hussein do you?

The US military does have a deterrent effect. Al Qaeda is a stateless acotr. Iraq is a state. AQ can pack up and move operations. Iraq is a chunk of the earth. Iraq cannot be packed up and moved to another location.

Hussein wouldn’t’ve attacked the US, even via proxies, any more after 9/12 than he would’ve before 9/10. The same reason that NK doesn’t attack the US.

The security of another nation doesn’t justify a poorly planned $100 billion invasion w/ 60% of our active duty combat troops. Only our own security could justify such a thing. Only stateless actors are in a position to contemplate the kinds of attacks that AQ did. Iraq is a state, not a stateless actor.

Iraq does NOT = al Qaeda.

179

Oh yeah, welcome to the SDMB GD, Radon.

180

The counter-arguments presented by ElvisL1ves and especially tomndebb (ten thousand posts!!!) make some good points and the overall thrust of their reasoning has merit. I’ve never seen any evidence that Saddam would have helped al-Queda, although it could never be ruled out. Just as the US and the USSR allied themselves in 1941, al-Queda and Saddam could have formed an alliance.

Balancing the various concerns is a judgement call. I think that the Bush administration basically took a look at the various factors discussed and came to an honestly different conclusion. That the Bushies came to a different conclusion from you guys I attribute to several factors:
[list=1]
[li]Taking a lot of visible action immunizes the Bushies against charges of do-nothing after the next attack.[/li][li]Personal animus from having the government directly targeted.[/li][li]The 1991 war discovered that Saddams nuke program was further along than expected.[/li][li]A sense of guilt at 9/11, for letting it happen. A desire to close the barn door.[/li][li]A geopolitical decision to not let the US worry about the crazy Arabs, but to let the Arabs worry about the crazy Americans. That is, peace through intimidation.[/li][li]Strike while the iron is hot, while you’ve got the votes.[/li][li]No wag-the-dog accusations if invade in 2003.[/li][li]There may really be some intellgence reports that weigh in with a connection to terrorism or al-Queda. I guess I have to hope so.[/li][li]It is impossible to believe that Saddam destroyed the chemical and biological weapons we know he had without showing the destruction to the UN. Even if that turns out to be what he really did.[/li][li]A genuine concern about Iraqi aggression. Saddams refusal to back down after invading in 1991 and apparant refusal to destroy the chemical, biological and missle weapons afterward do not give warm and fuzzy feelings about him being reasonable and deterrable.[/li][li]A fear that Saddam would use oil supplies as an economic weapon rather than for simple profit.[/li][/list=1]
I do agree that the reasons expressed publicly by the administration aren’t quite as coherent as my presentation here. I guess deep down the administration doesn’t see the need to explain itself, just the need to be right in their own minds. I think they resent public scrutiny and they’ve integrated that resentment with genuine security needs.

I don’t think that the members of the administration were trying to enrich themselves. They had to know all the governments of the world plus the Democrats would be searching for evidence of corruption. I would simply note that starting a war such as this for personal gain has got to be treason (IANAL), and treason in time of war gets the death penalty. If it were justified, I would be wiling to pull the switch.