Read News Stories About the "War on Terrorism" You Will Never See On CNN

[No*s]

I don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done....but I'm glad somebody finally stopped putting up with Saddam Hussein's shananagans and actually DID something (rather than allowing it to go on for another twelve years).

And no, I do not know that Saddam was not a threat. We knew he had WMD and missiles that violate the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf War, we knew he was a madman bent on conquering his neighbors when the time is right (a la Hitler), and we knew he wasn't fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors. I don't blame Bush for finally confronting Saddam's lack of cooperation in a forceful manner...I blame Saddam Hussein for refusing to cooperate with the inspectors fully, and I blame countries like Germany, France and Russia for rejecting a U.N. ultimatum that may have finally gotten through to Saddam that he can't get away with that stuff anymore.

Would you have us invade Iraq then if you knew what we know now? It did turn out he didn't have them. I don't think Bush was dishonest when he made the decision. I think he honestly believed it. However, I also think it was a mistake -- there were no WMDs based on what we know now.

While I hate preemptive strikes, I can't blame Bush for thinking the way he did. I also can't say that the U.S. shouldn't use its military might...it's just a matter of how (how the U.S. should use its imperial power would be a great subject for another thread...I might have to make that one).

I'm just curious over whether you think there would have been a better course of action knowing what we do now...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course not. If we knew then what we know now, inspections would have been unnecessary, much less an invasion.

Maybe we should have booted him out the first time around, when many Iraqis were in rebellion and the U.S. garnered more favor with them....and the rest of the world.

 

[No*s]

Of course not. If we knew then what we know now, inspections would have been unnecessary, much less an invasion.

Maybe we should have booted him out the first time around, when many Iraqis were in rebellion and the U.S. garnered more favor with them....and the rest of the world.

I didn't know where you'd fall on that scale. I didn't like the war from the get-go and still consider it an embarassing mistake, but I have little tolerance for people who say today they hate it, while yesterday they called for war. However, I understand your position quite well. I was just curious if you thought we would still have had sufficient grounds to do it anyway.

Thanks for the answer .

 

[Yerda]

I don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done....but I'm glad somebody finally stopped putting up with Saddam Hussein's shananagans and actually DID something (rather than allowing it to go on for another twelve years).

On this I think I agree.

I am particularly disappointed, though, that the situation was manipulated for years and that we prevented the Iraqi people from liberating themselves by enforcing sanctions upon them.

And no, I do not know that Saddam was not a threat.

A threat to who?

Every country with weapons is a threat. That's the point in the bloody things. However, while we're on the subject, Iraq was described as "a ruined country, not a threat to anyone" by U.S. nuclear scientists from Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2311.htm published in Mercury News)

We knew he had WMD and missiles that violate the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf War, we knew he was a madman bent on conquering his neighbors when the time is right (a la Hitler).

Hitler again? This gets thrown around all the time. George Bush is like Hitler so is Fidel Castro, the Pope, my next door neighbour, and his pet cat.

and we knew he wasn't fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors.

Fully?

Try reading this article which was published in the Guardian newspaper (11/11/03), http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/

According to Mr. Monbiot, Saddam Hussein seems to have been very cooperative, America was having none of it.

Again try this by the same author: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/10/08/thwart-mode/ published 8th of October 2002. It details a very uncooperative USA.

I don't blame Bush for finally confronting Saddam's lack of cooperation in a forceful manner...I blame Saddam Hussein for refusing to cooperate with the inspectors fully, and I blame countries like Germany, France and Russia for rejecting a U.N. ultimatum that may have finally gotten through to Saddam that he can't get away with that stuff anymore.

...Yes, it appears Saddam Hussein is not cooperating, lets kill tens of thousands of his oppressed people. Off course should we stumble into an oil well or two...

If Saddam Hussein had switched to Euros, as he was considering coincidentally, the dollar would have suffered and other nations might have followed suit. The collapse of the dollar from its dominant position is a strong possibility, the USAs massive debts might weigh considerably more in such an instance. Off course this won't be allowed to happen as long as the USA has guns pointed up everybody's noses.

If you feel bored then try these:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5334.htm (Interview with Noam Chomsky).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4869.htm (Interview with Rolf Ekeus-weapons inspector with video)

I'll leave you with this little snippet from schnews.org issue 355:

Bush and his militaristic government argue that they have to bomb Iraq because Saddam won’t comply with United Nations weapons inspectors. So best forget that the Bush administration denied international inspectors access to U.S. chemical and biological weapons-related facilities because it might violate “commercial interests”.

 

[Godless Dave]

Would you have us invade Iraq then if you knew what we know now? It did turn out he didn't have them. I don't think Bush was dishonest when he made the decision. I think he honestly believed it.

If Bush honestly believed there were WMDs in Iraq then he's even dumber than people say. The UNSCOM inspectors had found nothing. Most of the evidence from the CIA, the DIA, and the Pentagon said Saddam did not have WMDs.

However, I also think it was a mistake -- there were no WMDs based on what we know now.

Hate to say we told you so, but millions of us told him so.

I'm just curious over whether you think there would have been a better course of action knowing what we do now...

Fight Al Qaeda. Iraq was a minor, non-immediate problem. Meanwhile Al Qaeda had attacked US soil.

 

[Godless Dave]

No*s, you say "based on what we know now" as if it were a surprise that Iraq had no WMDs or programs to make them. It was not a suprise. At all.

 

[No*s]

Godless Dave,

You need to carefully reread my posts. I blatantly stated I opposed the war when it was first proposed. I haven't changed my mind since then. If you want to cherry-pick posts so you can argue against somebody, I'm sure you can find real Bush supporters. I am not one of them.

 

[Godless Dave]

I wasn't accusing you of being a Bush supporter, I was just confused by the phrase "what we know now".

 

[No*s]

I wasn't accusing you of being a Bush supporter, I was just confused by the phrase "what we know now".

Ah. Sorry. It was a polite phrase to acknowledge there is always the possibility of error. What we know on any given subject can always be wrong.