# Why are we in Iraq?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 17, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079 "2006-04-17T23:05:57Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@D.E.S.K.Top668](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D.E.S.K.Top668)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/1 "2006-04-17T23:05:57Z")
Please be careful, folks. I’m not looking for opinions, guesses, hunches, or insults. I’m looking for the reasons that the administration used for the war, before it started. I remember Powell’s infamous “WMD” speech in front of the UN. Were WMD’s the ONLY reason actually used by Bush2v.1? I know that there were interpertations of what various Bush officals said, alleging other reasons, but it seems that they spoke so carefully that they never actually said anything they were interperted as saying.
So, what’s the Straight Dope on Iraq? Are WMD’s the only official reason for the war (pre-invasion?) Are there any statements from Bush officials that out-and-out SAY that “we’re invading because of WMD’s and…?(whatever.)”
I’m not trying to start an argument, I realised (reading another Bush related thread) that, despite the fact I tried to follow the build-up, I had no clear answers on what the administration ACTUALLY said versus what its opponents CLAIM it said.
Please help and thanks in advance, DESK
---
### Author:  [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/2 "2006-04-17T23:12:07Z")
I know my own Prime Minister was very careful about his wording at the time as to why australian troops were going. As I recall, WMDs were mentioned, but the official reason was to get rid of the tyrant. From memory, the US Government told its people both reasons.
---
### Author:  [@TonyF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonyF)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/3 "2006-04-17T23:29:20Z")
Some major points from Bush’s “48 hours” speech ([http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)):
-Lack of security council compliance
-Possession and concealment of “lethal weapons” (WMDs are hinted at)
-Harboring terrorists, including agents of al Qaeda
-U.S. national security (which is threatened by these terrorists)
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/4 "2006-04-17T23:29:37Z")
[Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html): October 2, 2002
> [@](#):
>
> SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
>
> (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
>
> ```
> (1) **defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;** and
>
> (2) **enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq**.
>
> ```
>
> (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
>
> In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
>
> (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
>
> (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
[Fluffiness fleshed out](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html) October 2, 2002 (Rose Garden ceremony)
[Iraqi Regime Danger to America is “Grave and Growing”](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html) October 5, 2002 president’s radio address
[President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) October 7, 2002
> [@](#):
>
> The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
---
### Author:  [@DarrenS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DarrenS)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/5 "2006-04-18T00:14:49Z")
I’m not sure if this constitutes a reason, but I remember just before the war (literally, hours) Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam - leave, or we will attack. I don’t remember the exact wording, but the essence was that Saddam could avoid the conflict by going into voluntary exile.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/6 "2006-04-18T00:38:02Z")
Truly sorry to move this, but it just won’t fly in General Questions.
**samclem**
And, remember, you CAN get factual answers in Great Debates.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/7 "2006-04-18T00:50:44Z")
> [@Squink](#):
>
> [Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html): October 2, 2002
I’m not sure why you left out this part in what you quoted:
> [@](#):
>
> Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
>
> Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
>
> Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
>
> Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
>
> Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235);
>
> Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
>
> Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
>
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
>
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
>
> Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
>
> Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
>
> Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
>
> Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
>
> Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
>
> Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;
>
> Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;
>
> Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
>
> Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;
>
> Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
>
> Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
>
> Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
>
> Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
>
> Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
That is what first occured to me when I read the OP.
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/8 "2006-04-18T00:54:11Z")
Prime Minister Blair moves the resolution for the UK to enter the war:
“1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been, for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate. The first step is a full and final declaration of all WMD to be given on 8 December…”
So for the UK it was all about WMDs.
Interestingly the previous two paragraphs of Blair’s speech were:
"When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for: 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; an entire Scud missile programme.
We are now seriously asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence, he decided unilaterally to destroy the weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd."
Of course, Tony. Palpably absurd. :rolleyes:
> **[Full text: Tony Blair's speech](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq1)**
>
> This is the text of prime minister Tony Blair's speech opening today's debate on the Iraq crisis in the house of Commons, as released by 10 Downing Street.
And, by contrast, the Foreign Secretary’s resignation speech:
“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.”
"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.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? "
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/politics/2859431.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/9 "2006-04-18T00:56:03Z")
> [@D.E.S.K.Top668](#):
>
> Were WMD’s the ONLY reason actually used by Bush2v.1?
IIRC, at the time it came down to two things:
1. WMD’s.
2. A connection between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.
Other reasons were mentioned but not given the same emphasis, although that changed after the invasion and after the above failed to be substantiated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq\_war#Publicly\_stated\_objectives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#Publicly_stated_objectives)
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/10 "2006-04-18T01:47:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> I’m not sure why you left out this part in what you quoted:
Well, it’s a nice enough list of grievances, a description of why we were pissed, but the actual authorization part covers the purposes for which the president could use troops; defending the national security of the United States, and enforcing security council resolutions.
---
### Author:  [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/11 "2006-04-18T02:13:11Z")
I never believed WMD were the reason anyway.
Seems to me the (unspoken) reasoning went like this:
1. Because Saddam remains in power, we must keep our troops in Saudi Atabia to protect its oil fields and keep Saddam in check.
2. The presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia is a major source of irritation in the Muslim world, and a major recruiting point for _al Qaeda_. (Much of bin Laden’s rhetoric had to do with infidel troops in the Muslim holy land.)
3. If we remove Saddam from power and establish a stable and friendly government there, we can get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and maybe eliminate a recruiting point for terrorists.
4. We can’t admit this is our motivation, because it will look like we are working on bin Laden’s wish list. Besides, it’s too complicated for a sound bite, and won’t sell internationally.
5. We’d better come up with something simple to sell to the public. WMD! Yeah, that’s it!
Some of you may remember that Bush was talking about “regime change” in Iraq _before_ he started talking about “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/12 "2006-04-18T02:34:05Z")
Well, if we can read between the lines and speculate as to why we THINK we are in Iraq, my own guesses are:
1. Force projection: We went there to project force in an unstable region that also just happens to hold a large percentage of the worlds oil reserves. This would show that the US COULD project decisive force in the region and perhaps serve as an object lesson to other trouble makers. I think that THIS aspect was mostly successful, though subsequent events (i.e. the whole insurgency thing) erroded the effect greatly…arguably to a point that is now worse than it was pre-invasion.
1a) Secure the resource: We wanted to basically secure the oil reserves in Iraq and remove them from the hands of a regime we found unstable and perhaps dangerous…especially with all that oil money at its command.
1b) Basing and rapid response: We wanted to have a secure base in a friendly nation (one we installed) where we could basically respond rapidly to future threats to the worlds oil supplies. In addition we as part of number 1 we wanted to pre-empt such emergencies by being in the region…basically hanging the threat of future US operations over their heads (this didn’t work out exactly as planned).
1. Regime change: We went there to basically overthrow an unstable and aggressive regime with a history of agression towards its neighbors.
2. Spread democracy: After 2 above we wanted to install a new democratic government in the region that would be a model that other nations there could look at and eventually want to emmulate (it didn’t work out quite as planned of course).
3. WMD: Yeah, its on the list. We certainly didn’t want WMD (chem/bio weapons) in the hands of such an unstable regime…especially not in a regime that happens to be located where it is, right smack in the middle of the worlds oil reserves. We also couldn’t be sure if Saddam would either use his WMD covertly against American intersts in the region…or even against America directly.
That said I have to think that WMD were more an excuse that gave us a window of opportunity to invade. I think this was a reason that was easier to explain (read spin) to the American people as THE reason to invade. Within the actual administration though I think it was more an excuse…not the core reason.
Just my guesses…
-XT
---
### Author:  [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/13 "2006-04-18T04:52:39Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> Snip-snip-snip…
>
> 1. WMD: Yeah, its on the list. We certainly didn’t want WMD (chem/bio weapons) in the hands of such an unstable regime…especially not in a regime that happens to be located where it is, right smack in the middle of the worlds oil reserves. We also couldn’t be sure if Saddam would either use his WMD covertly against American intersts in the region…or even against America directly.
I agree with most of what you said, but I don´t think it´s… hmmm, _fair_ to call Saddam´s regime an unstable thing, au contraire, it was quite solid; it withstood GW I of all things, and in spite of the sanctions it reminded on it´s place. The image of an unstable Saddam flipping like a pancake and handing his mythological WMDs to his sworn enemies is pure propaganda.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/14 "2006-04-18T05:25:23Z")
> [@Ale](#):
>
> I agree with most of what you said, but I don´t think it´s… hmmm, fair to call Saddam´s regime an unstable thing, au contraire, it was quite solid; it withstood GW I of all things, and in spite of the sanctions it reminded on it´s place. The image of an unstable Saddam flipping like a pancake and handing his mythological WMDs to his sworn enemies is pure propaganda.
Well, I was saying from the perspective of the administration. Also, maybe ‘unstable’ would be better put as ‘destablizing’…as in they were a destablizing nation in the region since they pretty much made most of the other nations in the neighborhood distinctly uneasy.
I agree that Saddam most likely wouldn’t have given WMD to just anyone with a grudge against the US…but I disagree that he might not have given some to his own Fedayeen (or other home grown groups operating in Iraq) to use either against the US or against US interests abroad. The caviot being he would have only done it if he felt he could get away with it without any of the heat coming back on him.
So, yes…fairly unlikely but not completley improbable. And again, we are supposed to be looking at this from the administrations (and the intelligence community in the US) perspective…and what THEY believed and was their motivation. I’m not saying that I buy it…especially not with hindsight on my side.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/15 "2006-04-18T05:51:23Z")
> [@Squink](#):
>
> Well, it’s a nice enough list of grievances, a description of why we were pissed, but the actual authorization part covers the purposes for which the president could use troops; defending the national security of the United States, and enforcing security council resolutions.
Defending the US is always going to be the reason. The OP is asking what we were defending against. Some of the “whereas’s” are redundant, but those are the reasons we said we were going to war for.
---
### Author:  [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/16 "2006-04-18T13:34:50Z")
If the administration was being complete and honest in February 2003, when (then) Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations, then the title of his presentation should say it all - [IRAQ: FAILING TO DISARM](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/17434.pdf)
---
### Author:  [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/17 "2006-04-18T15:38:20Z")
> [@DarrenS](#):
>
> I’m not sure if this constitutes a reason, but I remember just before the war (literally, hours) Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam - leave, or we will attack. I don’t remember the exact wording, but the essence was that Saddam could avoid the conflict by going into voluntary exile.
[President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030317-7.html)
---
### Author:  [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/18 "2006-04-18T16:15:28Z")
> [@New Iskander](#):
>
> [President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/print/20030317-7.html)
Yet another perfect example of the Weapons of Mass Deception used to manipulate the American populace into accepting this bloody madness.
To wit:
[quote=George Bush]
[ul]
[li]Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.[/li][li]The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.[/li][li]The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. [/li][li]Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.[/li][li]Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. [/li][li]t is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.[/li][li]And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”[/li][li]Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.[/li][li]The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.[/li][li]The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I mean, really, just how much more Bushit could one cram into a speech? Note as well, **that even if Saddam left the country under Geogie’s ultimatum** , **US forces would still be invading Iraq!**
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/19 "2006-04-18T16:53:25Z")
Well, now, **Red** , let’s be generous here! Saddam adamantly refused to give up what he didn’t have. In the face of such stubborn intransigence, what else could The Leader do?
---
### Author:  [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)
#### Post date: [April 18, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079/20 "2006-04-18T18:46:42Z")
> [@spoke-](#):
>
> I never believed WMD were the reason anyway.
>
> Seems to me the (unspoken) reasoning went like this:
>
> 1. Because Saddam remains in power, we must keep our troops in Saudi Atabia to protect its oil fields and keep Saddam in check.
>
> 2. The presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia is a major source of irritation in the Muslim world, and a major recruiting point for _al Qaeda_. (Much of bin Laden’s rhetoric had to do with infidel troops in the Muslim holy land.)
>
> 3. If we remove Saddam from power and establish a stable and friendly government there, we can get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, and maybe eliminate a recruiting point for terrorists.
>
> 4. We can’t admit this is our motivation, because it will look like we are working on bin Laden’s wish list. Besides, it’s too complicated for a sound bite, and won’t sell internationally.
>
> 5. We’d better come up with something simple to sell to the public. WMD! Yeah, that’s it!
> Some of you may remember that Bush was talking about “regime change” in Iraq _before_ he started talking about “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Boy, your cynicism is quite generous.
I myself don’t see the US Military giving up any of its ME bases too soon, as they are strategically located to send forces quickly to various nearby places where they might be used.
My own cynicism was based on the old Lebanon/Grenada switcheroo from the Reagan years.
1. Well, we’ve overthrown the Taliban, which louses up a really stable base of operations for Al Qaeda. It’ll be a long time before they have logistical wherewithal to try anything like THAT again.
2. This search for bin Laden, due to the nature of the region and its people, is quickly turning into an intractable miasma. We don’t know when or even if we’ll capture him, which is quickly becoming annoying to the electorate.
3. Iraq’s a buncha pussies, we can have them mowed down in a week, and everyone hates Hussein anyway.
4. We’ll de-emphasize bin Laden (remember the I-don’t-know-where-he-is-he’s-not-that-big-a-concern jazz?), emphasize Iraq, and when we have another victorious “video game war” (remember the bated breath with which the news anchors awaited “shock and awe”?) and the cheap oil starts flowing, everyone will forget bin Laden altogether, at least hopefully until he’s some other President’s problem.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-iraq/353079.md?page=2)