ISIS in the Middle East is growing

[NotfooledbyW]

John Mace had no concerns about collateral damages in 2003 when he said we were justified to go to war with Iraq based upon a decade of Saddam Hussein bad behavior while Mace admits he knew Saddam was not a threat.

@John_Mace

What spin is needed? This is exactly what Bush had been saying all along. The inspectors were inspecting for WMDs. S.H. showed that he was only interested in stalling and not dealing with what was required of him under the cease fire terms of Gulf War I.

Still, we should’ve taken him out after we liberated Kuwait in the 90s. Do any of you anti-Iraq war folks disagree with that?

@John_Mace

You guys seem to have forgotten that he only let the inpsectors in after the US started stages the military for war. Do you really think he would have otherwise?

@John_Mace

Simon:

It is an indisputable fact that SH refused the latest round of inspections until the US readed forces for war. Were we supposed to to keep our forces on full alert near Iraq indefinitely, as there is no reason to believe that SH would have allowed inspections to continue indefinitely? Terms of the first Gulf War did not have an expiration date.

Hey, I was not in favor of going to war with Iraq, because I did not believe Iraq was a significant threat to the US. But I do believe we were justified in doing so based on SH’s behavior since the Gulf War.

And I’m just not ready to pounce on Bush everytime he says something that might be interpreted as being deceitful. What is the point here? Do you believe that Bush is denying that inspectors did not, in the end, get into Iraq after we readied our forces for war? Do you think he “forgot”? Or do you think, as is much more reasonable, that you are putting his words under a microscope and misinterpreting what was meant?

I absolutely positively am very certain that Saddam Hussein was not a threat in 2003 because he was in fact cooperating with inspectors before Bush and apparently Mace felt it was justified to bomb a nation being peacefully inspected by the UN and at a time when nobody in Iraq was killing each other, no al Qaeda in Iraq, sectarian wars or bombings etc.

So now Mace attacks my argument based upon collateral damage concerns following the biggest massive military style invasion of terrorists the modern world has ever seen.

There was no ‘justification’ for applying the collateral damage that the US and UK applied to Iraq in 2003. None.

In defending themselves now the government of Iraq will cause collateral damage as well, but I see it as justified in facing the threat being thrown at them at this moment in history.

Collateral damage is a tragic part of war but it will happen. That is why no one should start a war when there is no threat and no one should say it is justified when there is no chance in hell that it ever was.