I didn’t say anything about the US getting out of the Middle East – just out of Saudi Arabia. I’m sure the administration envisioned a continuing presence in Kuwait and Iraq. Gotta keep that oil flowing.
What Iraq wasn’t was an intentional distraction from Afghanistan and the failure to capture bin Laden. The Bush administration had its bead drawn on Iraq long before bin Laden slipped the noose.
As usual, right you are comrade.
Thanks for setting me straight before Isk came back and dropped the hammer on moi.
BTW, where did the sickle go?
Not really. Saddam was required not to just destroy his WMDs, but to verify that they had actually been destroyed, which he failed to do. Now, we can argue about whether that’s worth going to war over, but there is no question that he did not comply with the terms of the cease fire from Gulf War I. So it wasn’t a matter of him showing us weapons that he didn’t have, but of his inability to account for all the weapons that were supposed to have been destroyed.
A sound point, but to bring this back on track, as per the OP that was not a reason the administration stated for starting a war. There is probably find a sub-clause of a subsidary paragraph that mentions poor accounting though. Rather, the administration inflated the ‘failure to account’ into full-blown evidence for the claim of continuing possession and manufacture.
True, but you don’t have to look for a “sub-clause of a subsidary paragraph”. Just look at paragrpah #4 of the joint resolution in my post #7 of this thread.
I never supported the war, and wouldn’t have supported it even if Saddam really did have WMDs. I just never understood the need to misrepresent Bush’s position or motives in order to argue that case.
Which reads:
?
Ok
Hmm…reads like more Bushit to me, in fact, one that we’ve already heard over and over…and debunked over and over:
UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (emphasis added)
Iraq was not supposed to just destroy its WMDs all by itself, but to do so in a verifiable way. They didn’t.
Like I said, I don’t consider that to be worth going to war over, but there is simply no question that Saddam did not comply with the terms of the cease fire form Gulf War I.
Uhm… that gote was from the joint resolution, not me. The OP asked for the reasons given for why we went to war. That was one.
Quote. double typo, with a freudian slip thrown in for good measure. 
Oh, and BTW, John, as opposed to BushCo, they weren’t lying when they submited a lenghty report that stated:
Fair enough, John. Still bullshit*
*Note the subtle change of adjective 
Which has what exactly to do with my point that they were required to destroy them in a such a way that the UN Inspectors could verify the destruction? You’re throwing stuff out that I’m not going to argue with, and which are irrelavent to this thread.
The OP asked a very speficic question, which I’ve tried to answer. I’ve even stated clearly that I don’t consider the answer to be sufficient to justify the war. I simply see no need to pretend that Saddam was actually in compliance with the terms of the cease fire when he demostrably was not.
I never thought that was anything but an honest mistake, but the change is noted. Thanks.
You could have just said the reference you gave was a typo and quoted the correct one.
It wasn’t a typo. Both are correct, but the second one gives more detail.
Then it was a bad argument. Paragraph #4 didn’t substantiate the claim that Iraq’s ‘failure to account’ was a reason given for the war.
Another Red Fury explosion has occured. Shall I pick up the pieces?
Very well, let’s try to get serious and think without interraptions for a span of few minutes, please.
It was always a policy of US gov’t to remove Saddam. I call for my first witnesses: Messrs. Ritter and Hersh,
Once we established the intent, let’s consider the means in disposal. There were only three solutions: 1) sanctions (Clinton’s way), 2) invasion (Bush’s way) and 3) making a deal with Saddam (Ritter’s way).
Sanctions were tried and failed. I bring my next group of witnesseses, members of UN humanitarian mission in Iraq,
By 2001, the sanctions policy turned into unmitigated humanitarian didaster, failed to influence Saddam regime and became the potent propaganda tool for Al-Qaida.
All the major partners in 1991 coalition abandoned US and began establishing relations with Saddam’s regime. US was left standing alone, vilified, holding a big sack of shit in its hands.
That leaves us with the simple choice between ‘removing Saddam by force’ or ‘making a deal with Saddam’.
That’s where Bush purported ‘scaremongering’ comes in. Because Bush argument is pure and simple that Saddam was too dangerous to be cut loose.
Scott Ritter thinks otherwise. He thinks US had to swallow its pride and idealism and make a deal with Saddam. However, as an honest man, that’s what he had to say in his book “Endgame” (closing paragraphs in Chapter 9),
Considering all this, Mr. Ritter still would prefer to make a deal with Saddam. Would You?
Sorry I haven’t responded to my own thread, PC problems :rolleyes:
First off, thanks to all those who gave factual responses. My Google-Fu is weak and rather then go through all the half truths and “we said that they said,” I figured I’d get the straight dope here, and it seems to me that I have.
As I started this thread for factual answers, I probably won’t be involved (beyond reading) from here on in, should it continue.
Thanks, DESK
Well, gosh, since you put it that way…yeah. I would. I would prefer just about any course of action other than the shitswamp we are currently slogging through, with (you may have noticed) no end in sight.
Your argument depends on an unstated and unsupported premise: that Saddam was a threat of an intolerable dimension, he must be dealt with instanter, and if several thousand of our best and brightest and an untold number of innocent civilians needs be sacrificed to the urgent necessity, well, shucks, too bad for them, nasty break.
That farmers wart on your toe might, in some uncertain time, develop into a fatal cancer. Shall we chop off your leg, then?