The Invasion of Iraq - Still The Right Thing To Do
- Login to post comments
The Invasion of Iraq - Still The Right Thing To Do
George W. Bush made the right decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The facts are, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had and used Chemical weapon against the Iranians, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs; attacked 6 nations (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and Bahrain); violated the terms of the Gulf War surrender, planned the assasination of a former U.S. President, collaborated with and harbored terrorists; and was – according to The New York Times - one year away from building and Atomic Bomb before he was finally overthrown.
None of the clever arguements I have heard to date have done anyting to make the Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, VX gas, and (tons of) Uranium go away. And the UN has even admited that the "old" WMD found was not degraded.
NOTE: This list contains no news from Free Republic, Foxnews or Newsmax, just the plain old MSM, so Liberals, if you dismiss these then you are admitting your intellectual bankruptcy.
Hat Tip to Chris Donohoe, Sua Sponte 75, NL207, dahliatravers, Mean Gene Dr. Love, and SFCMAC for some descriptions/links.
I. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was known to have WMD(even Democrats declared that he did) and used them in at least 3 separate situations.
- Chemical weapons used against Iran: BBC - Chemical weapons: Blister agents
- Chemical weapons used against Kurds: BBC - Iraqi Kurds recall chemical attack
- Chemical weapons used against Sunnis: Human Rights Watch - The Iraqi Government Assault on the Marsh Arabs
- President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, and others also thought Saddam had WMD: SNOPES - See these Statements & see Acsa.net too
- Nancy Pelosi issued a statement: www.House.gov - “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology”
II. There is a long list of WMD found in Saddam Hussein's Iraq
- Ah ha! The UN says the WMD was NOT degraded See Page 30: United Nations - UN document S/2003/580 of 30 May 2003
- Anthrax: CNN - Laurie Mylroie: Is Iraq involved with U.S. terror attacks?
- Chemical Weapons: DoD - Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
- Chemical Weapons: Washington Post - Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered
- Cyclosarin: BBC - Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas bid'
- Mobile Chem Labs: CNN - U.S.: Mobile labs found in Iraq
- Mobile Chem Labs: CNN - Second suspected mobile weapons lab found in Iraq
- Mustard Gas, Sarin, and Tabun: United Nations – Unresolved Disarmament Issues
- Mustard Gas, and Sarin: CNN - Gas shell findings a concern for Iraq arms inspector
- Nuclear Bomb: CNN - Defector: Iraq could have nukes by 2005
- Nuclear Bomb: Daily Telegraph - UN inspectors uncover proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans
- Nuclear Bomb: National Review - Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
- Nuclear Bomb:New York Times – Saddam was 1 year away from building nuclear bomb
- Nuclear Bomb: MSNBC - Interview with a Bombmaker: Saddam Hussein’s former atomic-bomb developer says Iraq is on course to gain ‘full nuclear status’
- Sarin: MSNBC - Bomb said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq
- Sarin: CBS News - Iraq Sarin Find Worries U.S.
- Unexamined Bunkers: NY Sun - Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim
- Uranium: Washington Post - U.S. Faulted for Leaving Tons of Uranium in Iraq
- Uranium: USA Today - U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization
- Various WMD: WorldNet Daily - Saddam's WMD have been found
- Various WMD: CIA - DCI Special Advisor Report on Iraq's WMD
- VX Gas: WorldwideStandard.com - VX gas
- NEW! WMD moved to Syria: Book - Saddam's Secrets
- WMD moved out of Iraq: MSNBC - Officials: Terrorist attacks in Jordan averted
- WMD moved out of Iraq: NY Sun - Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
- WMD moved out of Iraq: The Sunday Telegraph - Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
- Chemical Suits/Gear: CNN - UK: Chemical suits found in Iraq
III. Banned Weapons found in Saddam Hussein's Iraq
- MiGs, a banned weapon: BBC - Iraqi aircraft 'buried in desert'
- Missiles, a banned weapon: Slate - This Was Not Looting
IV. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a History of Aggression, attacking 6 other nations.
- Attacked Iran launching the Iran-Iraq War: Bartleby.com - Iran-Iraq War
- Attacked Kuwait launching Gulf War: Nti.org - Missile Chronology (Note, #3-5 same link)
- Attacked Saudi Arabia (Gulf War): (see #2)
- Attacked Israel (Gulf War): (see #2)
- Attacked Qatar (Gulf War): (see #2)
- Attacked Bahrain (Gulf War): CNN - Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq
V. Terrorists have been found in Iraq & there were numerous associations between Iraq & terrorists
- Abu Niddal, Rome Airport Massacre: National Review - Dead Terrorist in Baghdad
- Abu Abbas (#1): CNN - U.S. captures mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking
- Abu Abbas (#2): BBC - Cruise ship hijacker dies in Iraq
- Ayman al-Zawahiri: CNN - Pentagon: Bin Laden deputy complains about money, Iraq tactics
- al-Zarqawi: Kaleejtimes.com (running an AP story) - Saddam refused to hand Zarqawi to Jordan: King Abdullah
- Saddam had contacts with Al Qaida: Slate - A Loser's History
- Saddam had contacts with Al Qaeda: Weekley Standard - Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
- Saddam had contacts with Al Qaeda: Weekley Standard - Case Closed
- Saddam had contacts with Al Qaeda: Weekley Standard - Yes, There Is a Connection
- Saddam worked with Terrorists: NY Sun - Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show
- Saddam worked with Terrorists: CNN - On tape, Hussein talks of WMDs
- Terrorist camp in Iraq: Weekly Standard – Saddam's Terror Training Camps
- Terrorist camp in Iraq: MSNBC - Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
- Terrorist camp in Iraq: PBS – Interview: Sabah Kodah
- Terrorist camp in Iraq: GlobalSecurity.org - Salman Pak / Al Salman
- Terrorist camp in Iraq: Guardian - Al-Qaida running new terror camp, say Kurds
- Terrorist camp in Iraq: Intelmessages.org - Salman Pak - Iraq's Own Terrorist Training Camp
VI. Violation of Gulf War Surrender Terms
- Radar tracking & SA missiles fired upon "No Fly Zone" Aircraft: Cdi.org - Military Action in Iraq: 1990-2002 (a violation of Gulf War surrender terms)
VII. Other Casus Belli
- Assassination attempt on former President George Bush, Sr.: Washington Post - U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
Finally, we have this insightful quote from The Russian business weekly Itogi: "Even if Colin Powell had presented the UN with an atomic bomb confiscated from Saddam, the Europeans would have been unlikely to agree to start a war."
_______________________________________________
It's either or, and it is not a loaded question. You have to ask weather we would be better with what we have, and what it took to get there. Or should we have just left Saddam alone? You cant ignore the fact he would still be thumbing his nose at us, and breaking the UN resolutions. You cannot ignore that he would still be trying to acquire nukes and other resolution breaking weapons. You either have to say, that would be fine, or concede the war and his subsequent removal was the right thing to do.
It doesn't surprise me in the least you don't think making an effort to make the world safer for America is worth it.
There's an argument to be made, for sure, against the War in Iraq. Personally, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think it was the right thing to do at the time. Iran is a different matter and, to my mind, unrelated entirely regarding the nuclear issue. They've always wanted to be the dominant power in the Islamic world, and nukes insure that stance. Iraq lost that race when they invaded Kuwait in 1991. They obviously thought we'd sit that one out and were profoundly wrong. We destroyed enough of their military power in the few short months we were there, Saddam's nuclear inspirations were set back beyond his lifetime -and he knew it.
As for the Wikileaks data on Iraqi civilian deaths: Two comments. First, civilians are very hard to determine given the revolving door between malignant armed combatant and benign civilian. Surely many of the "civilians" were targeted as either armed Iraqis or armed insurgents.
Secondly, I havn't seen any specifity regarding the various causes of those "civilian" deaths. If there's information on that that I'm unaware, please link it. But if I had to, I'd guess there many more "civilian" (probably more correctly characterized as such) deaths due to insurgent IED's and suicide attacks than American or NATO attacks.
It's also important to remember what shapes or shaped your views on that war. There is no pro-war media element out there. Even FoxNews can't be considered "pro-war" as a media outlet; though some of their commentators were certainly supportive of the effort. But virtually all other major media outlets are decidedly anti-war. Same for activist organizations. Name one prominent pro-war activist group that staged massive rallies nationwide in support of the Iraq Invasion. But with a quick Google search, you can find dozens against. My point with this is that in 2003 we were all force-fed much more negative information than positive, and that continues through today. You only hear what [those groups consider] went wrong with the campaign (so-called torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.) and not the after-action report of what went right. And you won't for a long, long time due to operational security. At some point, without a counter message, we all tend to believe what we're being told; even if it is largely false or replete with holes.
I always thought the WMD was a periphery argument. Liberals like to focus on it, but clearly GWB indicated several other reasons in the work up to the invasion -notably Iraq's unwillingness to adhere to UN resolutions.
But in my mind, I assumed that there was no way the Taliban would remain in Afghanistan once we responded to 9/11. So where would they go? Iran and Pakistan, for sure, but why not Iraq? Does anyone honestly think that Saddam would put his beat-up army at the border to try and stop the Taliban from seeking safe harbor? I mean, the current situation in Iraq -after the war- shows that different religious factions are willing to work together, or embrace the other for material gain. Why wouldn't secularist Saddam have done it in 2003? Of course he would. Anything to get back at us for Desert Storm.
That's why I always thought the "we should have stayed in Afghanistan all along and gone after Bin Laden" argument was so foolish. He wasn't in Afghanistan. So why remain there? Wasn't the goal to go worldwide if necessary to root out those who perpetrated and supported the vicious acts of 9/11?
Of course, there are those who might suggest that if that were the case, why not go into Iran rather than Iraq? the simple answer is because Iraq already had UN sanctions and a case could be made to the world (we did secure the backing of 48 other countries by the start of the invasion) that Iraq was led by a rogue dictator the world would be better off without. Iran, on the other hand, was/is led by a religious element- a much more difficult proposition for a case for war. Additionally, building some sort of allied, democratic nation in the heart of the middle east that was not named Israel, was most likely to happen in Iraq.
To me, it was always these reasons above all others that made Iraq the next, natural front in the War on Terror (overseas contingency operation thingy.) It was the right thing to do at the time- I just wish we had politicians with the stones to go all in -opposition casualties be damned- rather than allow those with weapons to blend back into civilian society only to fight another day. Callous, maybe, but carpet-bombing was all the rage in WWII; it's not like warfighting is a clean and bloodless proposition.
Are you trying to make the leap that had the US not invaded Iraq, Iran may not have the desire to pursue nuclear weapons? Or that Iran would not have intervened against the US by proxy?
I'm not sure I understand the substance of your reply to my comment.
What do you think Saddam would be up to these days if we had left him in place? Probably just living the Iraqi dream, right?
It's funny, last week someone said (Mark Levin?) that they thought the Wikileaks Iraq dump was the "October Surprise".
If it was supposed to be, then that is a major FAIL after finding all the further evidence of WMD.
"Oops! Bush was right all along!"
- Login to post comments
This is why I love debating you. If this was anyone else they would have been accusing me of BDS, changing topics and asking me loaded questions like, You wish Saddam was back and in charge right?
BK, i just try to look at it with an atruistic point of view. I realize as Americans we have to fight for the greater good and sometimes there has to be collateral damage.
I do not know if over 65000 is accurate or not but nevertheless, if Obama turned into the horrible dictator everyone says he will and decides to terminate anyone that gets in his way and rules the US with a Iron fist, gay marriage is legal, all drugs are legal, The death squads are all over, there is abortion on demand.
Canada decides to come in and save us, we are thankful for Canada because they are going free us from Obama. However after Canada comes in, they cannot restore order in the is country, there are suicide bombers all over the place, we cannot go our to a restaurant without fear of being shot or blown up. Our schools with children inside are beling blown to bits, Churches and other places of worhip are blown up. We do not feel safe in our homes. Canada announces that they have stayed long enough and will pull out in two years and the US can fall under Iron Fist rule again. It was terrible under a terrible dictator, but when thousands and thousands of people are killed and you cant even trust the police because they are corrupt. You tend not be too grateful for the folks that freed us, but cannot protect us from terrible violence.
Sorry BK, perhaps in years to come, this war will be worth it, but for at this moment in time. I really feel it was not worth the price that we paid.