Saddam and Chemical Ali discussed killing THOUSANDS
Yeah, he was no threat to anyone…
It sure is a good thing that the 1991 war and 1998 bombings destroyed essentially all of Iraq’s chemical weapons capability.
But what was the 2003 invasion for?
Regime change, you may have heard of it.
Really? That’s funny. My understanding from what George W. Bush said was that it was to prevent Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction. But they did not have any, as it turned out. Could you explain that, please?
And given that Iraq is now a shithole of death and misery, what did regime change accomplish?
It’s also unfortunate that the Reagan administration supported Saddam militarily during the period in question so he could create the weapons he used on the Kurds.
Would you like an ad naseum presentation of every prominent democrat speaking out against Saddam’s WMD programs?
Well, the murderous SOB and his murderous sons are dead, the people of Iraq have elected their own government…
When do we invade Zimbabwe?
Second year of Jeb’s first term.
Yes, please, present us with that very persuasive argument that we have never ever seen before. Using quotes out of context and proving that Democrats are politicians proves that Saddam had weapons and was dangerous. That makes perfect sense.
You are aware the regime change also killed thousands, and is continuing to kill, right? Or don’t you care about those thousands as much, for some reason?
And just look at how great they’re doing! 
(1) None of those Democrats was President and made the decision to invade Iraq because of the supposed existence of those WMDs.
(2) Most of those Democrats were relying on intelligence that was being at least filtered through the executive branch.
(3) Most if not all of those statements were made before the weapons inspections revealed that the U.S intelligence regarding WMDs was garbage.
(4) If the Bush Administration was that worried about the existence of WMDs that could end up in the hands of terrorists, why didn’t they bother to guard weapons sites where they might exist (and where high-quality explosive useful in creating nuclear weapons were locked and tagged by the IAEA and known to exist) from looting during the invasion? As another poster used to say, was it mendacity or incompetence?..We report, you decide.
Actually, tens of thousands is more accurate…although such an estimate still might be low. I think a year or so ago, Bush admitted to a number of around 30,000…which was in line with estimates from the Iraq Body Count site at the time. However, that site admits that they count only deaths that are well-verified and that the actual numbers are higher. Estimates of excess deaths since the Iraq invasion published in Lancet number in the hundreds of thousands.
What… Saddam was a bad guy? Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Don26. I would never had known without your help.
When specifically did he start being a bad guy and stop being a bulwark against Islamist expansion, though?
They did exterminate thousands. What’s the news here?
We thought they planned the whole thing using hand gestures and funny faces. Turned out Saddam was lying about ability to produce Weapons of Mime Destruction.
We should have a Strawman of the Day feature here at the SDMB.
Yes, I’ve heard of regime change. Do you know who put Saddam in power?
Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam’s Party in Power
And of course the war was about WMD’s, not regime change.
Vice President Dick Cheney, pressing the Bush administration’s case for toppling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, said Sunday Saddam is aggressively seeking nuclear and biological weapons.
“The United States may well become the target” of an attack, Cheney said.
Cheney said that the United States is justified in striking any country it believes is planning an attack against America, applying the Bush administration’s new foreign policy doctrine on pre-emptive military action to Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62404,00.html
Note that earlier the West wanted Saddam to fight Iran:
“It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power]” and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.” The Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq American howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. These shipments were done without the approval of the U.S. Congress and were in clear violation of the Arms Export Control Act as well as international law…
And who can forget the memorable handshake between Cheney and Saddam?
Where is Cheney now?
And here is a democrat speaking out against the war before it started:
“The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.”
“Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.”
“None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.”
“I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.”
“Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.”
"Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war"
“I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.”
[sigh] Look, Don, you have to look at all this in its proper perspective. The whole world knows what kind of ruler Hussein was. Nobody, least of all Michael Moore or his fanbase, ever had any illusions about that. We all know about his wars of naked aggression, the gassing of the Kurds, the network of part-time secret police informers, etc., etc. That doesn’t mean changing his regime was a good idea. He was contained as a military threat since 1991, after all. And Hussein, for all his brutality, at least governed a society that worked. He maintained public order and most people had jobs and moderate economic prosperity – or at the very least access to adequate food and clean water. (That’s the neglected side of the story – an equally real side – that Moore was telling in the Iraq-before-the-war segment in Fahrenheit 9-11, and shame on John McCain for calling him “disingenuous.”) And now Iraq is a failed state and it’s only going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better, and our continued military presence in the MENA is only breeding more and more anti-American sentiment on the “Arab street.” Every Coalition soldier in Iraq is a recruiter for al-Qaeda. nor are we stabilizing the MENA; to the contrary, more wars in the region flowing out of this one are a distinct possibility. All of which any thinking person could have foreseen before the invasion.
In other news, the war’s death toll on Iraqis tripled in the last half of 2006.