'Dead wrong' on Iraq; little known about today's enemies

[4dmin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7331220/



On Saddam, the commission stated that “we conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”


What do you think about he WMD lie???

[Jaimecbr900]

I wouldn't call it a lie. It clearly says in the report that they may have made a mistake in analysing and conclusions drawn on the data received, BUT it was also clear that it was in no way politically motivated.

In other words, it's a big mistake but it was a mistake that can clearly be linked to one source. If high level intelligence people are telling you they conclude something, what else do you have to go by? You can't go there and "see" for yourself BEFORE making a decision. So you have to rely on those people, who are supposed to be "experts", and make your decisions that way.

[4dmin]

I wouldn't call it a lie. It clearly says in the report that they may have made a mistake in analysing and conclusions drawn on the data received, BUT it was also clear that it was in no way politically motivated.

In other words, it's a big mistake but it was a mistake that can clearly be linked to one source. If high level intelligence people are telling you they conclude something, what else do you have to go by? You can't go there and "see" for yourself BEFORE making a decision. So you have to rely on those people, who are supposed to be "experts", and make your decisions that way.
anytime you are lead to belive something that is a lie, doesn't neccesarily say that the someone meant for it to be a lie, but it never the less it was. i find it amazing that the US was so blind to such things; furthermore even if it was "politically motivated" do you actually think it would come to light?

i think my biggest ??? would be the "what if's..."... think about this intel if it was the same being used for a nuclear attack, do you feel safe?

[civic95]

Well just remember, and I feel like I've said this 1000 times "Saddam had 12 years to cooperate with inspectors to PROVE HE DID NOT HAVE WMD's". Failure to cooperate=your hiding something=only 1 option. This really could of all been avoided.

[uncle_el]

anytime you are lead to belive something that is a lie, doesn't neccesarily say that the someone meant for it to be a lie, but it never the less it was. i find it amazing that the US was so blind to such things; furthermore even if it was "politically motivated" do you actually think it would come to light?

i think my biggest ??? would be the "what if's..."... think about this intel if it was the same being used for a nuclear attack, do you feel safe?


i agree with you in principle, but as to whether it was a lie, i define a lie as "purposefully avoiding the truth when asked or giving statements... deliberate attempts at hiding the facts when the truth is known... deliberate attempts at telling anything other than the", and thus would term most of what's been said by bushco as mis-statements or mistruths... in other words, i don't think bushco was lying... but i do think they did not tell the truth. ;)

sadly, we didn't know anything. we built up a case built on a bunch of speculation... in other words, we pretty much built up a case on hearsay!



Well just remember, and I feel like I've said this 1000 times "Saddam had 12 years to cooperate with inspectors to PROVE HE DID NOT HAVE WMD's". Failure to cooperate=your hiding something=only 1 option. This really could of all been avoided.

inspectors came, saw, and found nothing plenty of times. he said he didn't have them, and he didn't. inspectors were there before the war, found nothing... we've been there two plus years now, still nothing... and now we have this report which corroborates what saddam was saying for 12 years... no wmd.

[Sledlude]

war in iraq= war for oil
a lot of people made a lot of money of this war. its a damn shame. whats even worse is that people believe all the propaganda bullshit theyre fed.

[SaraX5]

war in iraq= war for oil
a lot of people made a lot of money of this war. its a damn shame. whats even worse is that people believe all the propaganda bullshit theyre fed.
I totally agree. If anyone sincerely thinks we are going to war in Iraq to make them a democracy and that we are there to liberate the people they are seriously mistaken. Its so sad how people eat up everything they hear. Its like people can't even think for themselves anymore. If we cared about liberating and freeing the people in Iraq where were we during the whole situation in Rwanda?? hmmm there is no oil there, so why liberate them? The whole world revolves around which countries economy is doing the best and how we can do better. I can't think of any country whose leaders SERIOUSLY care about liberating & freeing people of another country, its about money & OIL!
Why do you think gas prices are through the roof? OPEC wants the US to start using their own oil reserves and Bush is totally not feelin it.

[Jaimecbr900]

Why do you think gas prices are through the roof? OPEC wants the US to start using their own oil reserves and Bush is totally not feelin it.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want someone to get the product YOU SELL from elsewhere? That would mean LESS profits for you, wouldn't it? Sheiks have a LOOOOOOTTTT of toys to pay for and harems are expensive.... ;) It makes no sense to push your biggest customer AWAY into relying upon themselves. U.S. reserves are said to be vast and be able to sustain us for a while. Again, this is heresay, but even if it wasn't why would you wanna push away your biggest customer???

[4dmin]

I totally agree. If anyone sincerely thinks we are going to war in Iraq to make them a democracy and that we are there to liberate the people they are seriously mistaken. Its so sad how people eat up everything they hear. Its like people can't even think for themselves anymore. If we cared about liberating and freeing the people in Iraq where were we during the whole situation in Rwanda?? hmmm there is no oil there, so why liberate them? The whole world revolves around which countries economy is doing the best and how we can do better. I can't think of any country whose leaders SERIOUSLY care about liberating & freeing people of another country, its about money & OIL!
Why do you think gas prices are through the roof? OPEC wants the US to start using their own oil reserves and Bush is totally not feelin it.bahhh ^ i'm so happy someone else said it this time... i've been saying this from the get to... liberate people we have a dictator 100miles off the coast of florida ;)

[Jaimecbr900]

inspectors came, saw, and found nothing plenty of times. he said he didn't have them, and he didn't. inspectors were there before the war, found nothing... we've been there two plus years now, still nothing... and now we have this report which corroborates what saddam was saying for 12 years... no wmd.

Remember that the U.S's stance was not that DIDN'T let the inspectors in. It was that they didn't let them in to where THEY wanted to. This is the reason for the speculation and rumors to have legs. Had he let them run around and under everything they wanted, maybe the "possibility" would not have hatched of them being there. We'll never know for sure. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Jaimecbr900]

bahhh ^ i'm so happy someone else said it this time... i've been saying this from the get to... liberate people we have a dictator 100miles off the coast of florida ;)

Very true, but he's lots of things Saddam wasn't.

1. Old
2. not into public genocide
3. doesn't have the allies Saddam once did.
4. never declared war on the U.S.
5. poses no threat to it's neighbors
6. hasn't invaded any other country

We could go on and on. Fidel is a shell of the man he was back in the 60's. True, he came w/i an inch of catapulting the entire world into a nuclear war, but that was over 40 yrs ago when he had big bad Russia backing him. He's nothing now. He's simply living out his days as a rich man as he let's his country fall apart. When he dies and fresh blood takes over, that's when we need to watchout. Right now, you pose more of a threat than he does. He's got nothing to back him up.

Now, the far east is a different story......

[SaraX5]

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want someone to get the product YOU SELL from elsewhere? That would mean LESS profits for you, wouldn't it? Sheiks have a LOOOOOOTTTT of toys to pay for and harems are expensive.... ;) It makes no sense to push your biggest customer AWAY into relying upon themselves. U.S. reserves are said to be vast and be able to sustain us for a while. Again, this is heresay, but even if it wasn't why would you wanna push away your biggest customer???


Actually.... when you really think about it. It does make sense. Oil is not everlasting. Its eventually going to run out. It takes sooooo maaany years for oil to be produced its not something that you can make overnight. The reason the US isn't using their own oil reserves is because they want to save it and use everyone elses regardless of what the price is until all other oil runs out (which may or may not happen in our lifetime depending on how much the use expands globally) and therefore having the power and ability to make the price of something that only the US has and no one else to therefore use that power to get what you want and have the ability to manipulate the other countries into abiding by your rules and ur game... therefore maintaining the hegemonic status that the US had after the Cold War all over again.
If you ever have a chance you should read about Game Theory cus this is
what it is.
For example... lets say you have a commodity that you never use because you know that one day if you use everyone elses their's will eventually run out therefore everyone coming to you for your commodity because you waited till everyone else was out before you put out what you have knowing that you can people to do almost anything if you have something they need.

[civic95]

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want someone to get the product YOU SELL from elsewhere? That would mean LESS profits for you, wouldn't it? Sheiks have a LOOOOOOTTTT of toys to pay for and harems are expensive.... ;) It makes no sense to push your biggest customer AWAY into relying upon themselves. U.S. reserves are said to be vast and be able to sustain us for a while. Again, this is heresay, but even if it wasn't why would you wanna push away your biggest customer???

Werd! you beat me to it.

I wish we would use our reserves for a 6 month period, maybe that would cause OPEC to lower prices.

[Jaimecbr900]

It takes sooooo maaany years for oil to be produced its not something that you can make overnight.

Actually, oil is not produced. It is found. Nature "makes" it. I think you meant gas maybe. Either way, the problem is not it being found or the amount so much as the lack of competition. If OPEC had more competition, prices would be different.



The reason the US isn't using their own oil reserves is because they want to save it and use everyone elses regardless of what the price is until all other oil runs out (which may or may not happen in our lifetime depending on how much the use expands globally) and therefore having the power and ability to make the price of something that only the US has and no one else to therefore use that power to get what you want and have the ability to manipulate the other countries into abiding by your rules and ur game... therefore maintaining the hegemonic status that the US had after the Cold War all over again.


Very nice word usage there. I'm truly impressed.

That aside, again what you're inferring doesn't make total sense to me. Here's why: There has forever been talk about "oil running out". OPEC doesn't seem to share that same school of thought, and they are IN the business of oil. The U.S. has the capabilities to subtantially decrease the demand for OPEC oil. Problem is that the enviromentalists, freaking PC thing again, have a hissy everytime we start to drill near a tree or an animal. Go figure. Point is that the global conspiracy theory of which you refer would require that other countries be on it too. They consume oil from OPEC too. I just don't see how in a political society like ours, where politicians have a very short shelf life, they would try and stack the deck that far ahead when even they wouldn't be around anymore. Follow? In other words, with the U.S. being so political about everything and votes is what matters sometimes, why would politicians (who rarely sacrifice votes for what's right) sacrifice votes NOW for a better position 50 yrs down the road when most of them won't even be alive?

[AtifSajid]

When the US completely leaves, IRAQ will go back to the state it was in, not immedately, but it will. BET.

[4dmin]

When the US completely leaves, IRAQ will go back to the state it was in, not immedately, but it will. BET. bahhh no doubt, they used camels to transport the votes in the elections how can you expect a country to stand on its two feet against regimes(sp?) when you rely on camels as your major transportation

[BOOSTEDeg]

WMD Lie?? It was proven that he had the ability to make them. He needed to be out of that position anyway. It would have cost us more lives in the long run. I am glad we went in there and put foot to ass. Had his ass hiding in a hole, doesn't get any better. Fearless warlord, MY ASS.

[FrnkPwrs]

I can understand where everyone is coming from, from both sides of the argument. I wish the board never went down, so I could quote from my post before the war. Ok, saddam is out of office. War on terrorism? WOMD? Liberation? Everything but oil! Its like the public was fed several different excuses at several different times and people seem to forget that. I remember vividly posting "Ok, no WOMD, but now we are also there to..." many times. Isnt that figured in the equation somewhat beforehand?

Even the WOMD. Who was really, deep in their heart, afraid that Saddam had these weapons capable of destroying chunks of ATL? Or any major city for that fact? Did anyone start buying nuclear warhead insurance? I mean, the way that people talk about it, its like there was a nuke pointed at Turner Field! Its like Dave Chapelle, "Them niggas in Iraq got yellow cake!" I havent heard of any saddam sanctioned attacks on US soil being diverted since any of the soldiers have been overseas. We always hear about how the terrorist are possibly planning putting bombs in semis, but what about the intel that saddam was part of that action?

Nobody ever noticed how your average person always puts both Saddam and Osama in the same sentence? Even before the "Harboring Terrorist" connection. I feel a lot of people were mislead and manipulated based on the publics demand for action from 9/11. Youve got two guys, and you want to figure out a way to connect one to the other [middle eastern, muslims, terrorism, large weapons, turbins possibly?] and you say that one has "connections to AlQuaeda". The whole US gives you support right? I just feel like the emotions of a lot of people were played on. And even if Castro is not a threat, are there not even more evil dictators than just saddam?

[Jaimecbr900]

Yes, there are evil dictators elsewhere, but we haven't engaged any of them yet.

We went to war with Iraq in 1991 the first time. He was supposed to do quite a few things. He blatantly didn't. Someone had to finish the job that IMO should have been done back in 1991. U.N. refused to do it. Intel told the powers that be that they were planning on doing this, harboring that.....there you go, enough reason to finish the job. After the fact, now come all kinds of papers and research and "proof" that intel was wrong, so everyone wants to blame the President for that error. Error was made, if any, by Intel.

Bottomline to me is that Intel mistake or not, Saddam should've been dealt with back in '91. He should've kept a low profile if he knew he'd dodged a bullet back in '91. He didn't. Instead he thumbed his nose up at the U.N. and the U.S.A., period. The U.N. wanted to be a pansy ass and take it, that's their perrogative. The U.S. took it as long as it could and then took action. An action that was 12 years on the back burner. This time they got the job done. I don't understand what all the bleeding hearts are about.

Do you guys NOT agree he should've been dealt with almost 15 yrs ago? If so, what's the difference between 15 yrs ago and today? The objective is the same. The reasoning may be different, but same target/same objective. What's the problem with that? I have yet to see a POSITIVE point made for leaving Saddam in power. Not one. I equate it to Hitler. He committed the same if not more attrocities than he did. What positive did Hitler have? One talked about world domination for Anglos, the other preached a Muslim world......????? Both committed genocide. Both used controlled propaganda to mask their own country's shortcomings and encite their citizens into thinking some other country was to blame. We could go on and on about the similarities. Point is? The world and Iraq is better off w/o Saddam in power than with. The U.N. wanted to be all PC about it before doing it, we simply went in and took care of what had to be taken care of.

Again, I challenge anyone to find a single tangible POSITIVE reason Saddam should have been left in power. I haven't seen one myself, but maybe someone else has.

[FrnkPwrs]

Definately, an evil dictator. I will agree, something needed to be done about Saddam, he definately wasnt somebody on our side. I gve you that. But was the time appropriate? I mean, true, he was in defiance to the UN for noncooperation. Cool. But the US isnt the worlds governing body, nor is it the UNs special police force. Was the US not guilty of noncompliance in our decision to go to Iraq?

I dont blame just GWB at all. Obviously he has support of others in Washington. I guess I consider him somewhat the "spokesman", LOL. But in the same way, you cant just blame Hitler or Saddam.

One positive from Saddam staying in office? How about I name some from our troops staying home. For one the amount of lives lost in Iraq wouldnt be in the process of eclipsing those lost during 9/11, since the amount of AntiMuslim hate crimes already has. There would be a helluva lot of money saved as well. Maybe if our focus was on Bin Laden and actually finding someone who attacked teh country and we know for a fact, it would have helped. I mean, one undercover agent crippled the Mafia in New York.

In comparrison, the millions of dollars spent to get Saddam I would like to see Osama! And Osama was a known threat WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY before 9/11. I remember reading newseeks and him saying very bluntly Americans who pay taxes should die becuase that shows their cooperation with American Government. I remember watching the videos the day of 9/11 and thinking "Damn, this is some Osama Bin Laden type shit" and I had to explain to my mother who he was when Tom Clancy was on phone interview. If I know to think Osama, I would suspect that someone in the government would have figured he was a serious risk WAY before me.

You dont hear that though. You dont hear the government claiming to the "bad intel" when it comes to searching for Osama Bin Laden. Propaganda campaign? I dunno. But I dont call Timothy McVeigh "7th Day Evangalist Christian Oklahoma City Bomber" or say "The Southern Baptist Seaside Rapist". If someone steals your car, Im not going to say "Lets kick down the doors and arrest the president of the Holiday Inn, because the theif stayed there before and harbored them amongst other things..."

I just feel that the price isnt worth the outcome. If it was simply "bad intel", why create a bunch of bullshit to feed to make them scared when they are most vulnerable, and feed on their ignorance. Ask 100 people about the war and see how many people think Saddam and Osama are related, planned 9/11 togethor, etc. etc. etc. All they know is that the two are Muslim!

[Jaimecbr900]

Was the US not guilty of noncompliance in our decision to go to Iraq?


Actually, there's a big difference in the two though. Iraq was supposed to comply as part of their surrender back in 91. The U.S. is under no such aggreement with anyone, let alone the U.N. The U.N. itself said that "sanctions" was the answer. Answer to what? Non-compliance? The U.N. wanted to keep slapping his hand while they should have been slapping his face and handcuffing him.




One positive from Saddam staying in office? How about I name some from our troops staying home. For one the amount of lives lost in Iraq wouldnt be in the process of eclipsing those lost during 9/11, since the amount of AntiMuslim hate crimes already has. There would be a helluva lot of money saved as well. Maybe if our focus was on Bin Laden and actually finding someone who attacked teh country and we know for a fact, it would have helped. I mean, one undercover agent crippled the Mafia in New York.


True, but remember that Saddam was actively allowing terrorist to train in his country. Who's to say that today they'd have a massive force trained and ready to do us harm had we NOT gone in there and dismantled that?

I give you money saved.

I also give you we should go after Ossamah with both barrels.



If someone steals your car, Im not going to say "Lets kick down the doors and arrest the president of the Holiday Inn, because the theif stayed there before and harbored them amongst other things..."


You should IF the president of that Holiday Inn KNEW he was a thief. Saddam KNEW the terrorist were training there. He KNEW who they were. And more importantly, he KNEW who they were training to KILL. They were training to KILL us. He let it happen because he agreed with it. So, it's a wee bit different.

[FrnkPwrs]

I agree its differents, that was just a debate jab to try to pull some other people in! I cant give him knowing that terrorist training was going on that much merit though, Ill be honest. Im sure that there are other places besides Saddam country where the commander-and-chief is aware of of wrong doings. Now I would be pissed if it was something like he had a visible hand in the corruption. If someone is usually enthusiast about something, they usaully show some sort of support through actions. Show me some records of money being wire x'fered to for use by AlQuaeda. Show me records of weapon purchases with the intent to give them to Al Queada. Hell, a recording of him saying "Hey, if you ever need anything, I got you" to someone! That would have me as heated as the average person. I see him as a dick, but not too good to go to hell because he deserves the hell of hell. Just a dick

[Mika31p]

Ok I agree in alot of what you all had to say..But realy this goes back farther than alot of people know about.. Yes osama and Sadam have alot in comon..But believe it or not they were in watch by the U.S even back in the late 70's..People are nieve to the fact that Iraq isnot the start of it all.there has been an ongoing problem.. You are now hearing about afgan more..awell..But we have been in more countries than that fighting for liberation.. kosovo afgan.chech to name a few ..Yes we have lost alot of lives for reasons wrong and right..But we have been losing soldiers live's because of this..I came in to the marines in 93 got out and now serving in the Army..I do not agree in alot of stuff that goes on..But there is alot of good coming out of this. But all at the cost of losing Some realy good people.. The soldiers ..Boostegeg I agree we needed to go over and put the foot to Sadam ass and someday we will get osama..

[Vteckidd]

THe bottom line is this IMO:

Whether or not there was WMD, whether it was a lie or not, Saddam had been defying the UN and the world for 12 years after Desert Storm 1. We had "decent" intel that told us that he "may" have had WMD and there was credible evidence that he was seeking "information" on how to build and make nuclear and chemical weapons. He was a torturer, a tyrant, and he ruled with an iron fist. He was a very dangerous person, now we had him in a "container" with no fly zones, and he was limiited on his exports. but the fact is he terrorized his own people , killed, raped, murdered, thousands of innocent people. he starved his own people to death.

We went to war cause no one else had the balls to do it. matter of fact, most other countries had ties and shady dealings with iraq , thats whay they didnt want war.

Everyone wants to blame the fact taht we could have prevented 911. Then, we get credible evidence, and here is someone that has basically said "fuck you" to the entire world (saddam) for 12 years, and had even admitted to wanting to nuke us, and we go after him. to send a message that we arent going to sit back and watch it happen again (911). so we do something to prevent a possible future attack and people bitch about how the president lied to us blahblahblah. well i for one say who cares if he lied, the greater good was freeing iraqi people and taking out a potential terroristic threat to the US.

[FrnkPwrs]

THe bottom line is this IMO:

Whether or not there was WMD, whether it was a lie or not, Saddam had been defying the UN and the world for 12 years after Desert Storm 1. We had "decent" intel that told us that he "may" have had WMD and there was credible evidence that he was seeking "information" on how to build and make nuclear and chemical weapons. He was a torturer, a tyrant, and he ruled with an iron fist. He was a very dangerous person, now we had him in a "container" with no fly zones, and he was limiited on his exports. but the fact is he terrorized his own people , killed, raped, murdered, thousands of innocent people. he starved his own people to death.

We went to war cause no one else had the balls to do it. matter of fact, most other countries had ties and shady dealings with iraq , thats whay they didnt want war.

Everyone wants to blame the fact taht we could have prevented 911. Then, we get credible evidence, and here is someone that has basically said "fuck you" to the entire world (saddam) for 12 years, and had even admitted to wanting to nuke us, and we go after him. to send a message that we arent going to sit back and watch it happen again (911). so we do something to prevent a possible future attack and people bitch about how the president lied to us blahblahblah. well i for one say who cares if he lied, the greater good was freeing iraqi people and taking out a potential terroristic threat to the US.

LOL, i all of this has been rebutted already. Look at pauls post. Liberate people 90 miles off the coast. Did you know that going to Iraq was in defiance of the UN also? Did you know that the US is in UN violation more than saddam by going to Iraq? Anyone in the US can research on how to make explosives and weapons of destruction. North Korea is more of a threat, we dont see any offensive actions with them. I hope "decent" intel and "maybes" are good enough for you to legitimize the millions its cost for this "war" and the lives already lost. If he we have been lied to about the reason he went over there, maybe hes lying about a lot of other things...

[Vteckidd]

LOL, i all of this has been rebutted already. Look at pauls post. Liberate people 90 miles off the coast. Did you know that going to Iraq was in defiance of the UN also? Did you know that the US is in UN violation more than saddam by going to Iraq? Anyone in the US can research on how to make explosives and weapons of destruction. North Korea is more of a threat, we dont see any offensive actions with them. I hope "decent" intel and "maybes" are good enough for you to legitimize the millions its cost for this "war" and the lives already lost. If he we have been lied to about the reason he went over there, maybe hes lying about a lot of other things...
YOu cant equate the US being in defiance about going to war with saddam violating sactions against him. Why, because its two totally different subject matters. WE the US were ATTACKED, not the UN. We had shown our case to the UN and they didnt back us becuase FRANCE, GERMANY were in cahoots with IRAQ over the food for oil program, and they had lots of money invested in iraq.

IMO, its was a greater good to take a potential threat out, that had been running his mouth and violtaing UN sacntions. what kind of governing body is the UN when they wont reprimand or go after someone that has violated them for 12 YEARS? so we took a stand, sometimes you have to do that in life.
I GUARANTEE if we go after korea, the SAME people will be crying and complaining that we shouldnt go. its WAR PEOPLE, people die, thats what happens. it sucks, andmy prayers go out to everyone of those families, but its war. these people SIGNED UP to do this, no one is MAKING these soldiers do to war, it is their CHOICE, and we should respect it. We are doing nothing if we dont support them, they are geting the job done, no matter what the media says, or what you belive.
did you guys honestly think we were going to go in , kick ass, and leave and everything would be hunky dorry? hell fucking no. its going to tkae time, and it will be worth it in the long run.

[4dmin]

We went to war cause no one else had the balls to do it. matter of fact, most other countries had ties and shady dealings with iraq , thats whay they didnt want war.
did you forget about haliburton(sp?) had off shore ties to iraq previous the war, so that makes the us just as guilty.

[Jaimecbr900]

did you forget about haliburton(sp?) had off shore ties to iraq previous the war, so that makes the us just as guilty.


Loose ties at best. Anybody can come with those if you dig long enough.

Besides, even if you are correct about that....we STILL went to war despite your assumptions of ties. So what does that prove anyway? That we had the nads to go do what had to be done despite previous dealings with Iraq?

[4dmin]

Besides, even if you are correct about that....we STILL went to war despite your assumptions of ties. So what does that prove anyway? That we had the nads to go do what had to be done despite previous dealings with Iraq?he was trying to state that no one else had the balls to go over b/c of shady dealing w/ iraq yet us companys were using off shore companys to do the same including ones our VP ran

[Vteckidd]

holy shit jaime and i agree !

[FrnkPwrs]

YOu cant equate the US being in defiance about going to war with saddam violating sactions against him. Why, because its two totally different subject matters.
But the strength in the USs argument was he was in defiance of the UN and was hiding all these WOMD that were "definately" there. The US was acting as a vigilante. If we werent sitting with the military that we have, that could be motivation for other countries to attack us, because we feel that we can do whatever we want despite the UN.

Liberation wasnt an issue until we were already in the process of attack. If the old forums were up, i pointed that out numerous times. People seem to forget that I would point out, "wow, we've been iraq for a month, and now there are all these statements about how the US wants to liberate the people, and still no WOMD!"


WE the US were ATTACKED, not the UN. We had shown our case to the UN and they didnt back us becuase FRANCE, GERMANY were in cahoots with IRAQ over the food for oil program, and they had lots of money invested in iraq.
LOL, the US wasnt ATTACKED by Iraq. The US was attacked by terrorist.


what kind of governing body is the UN when they wont reprimand or go after someone that has violated them for 12 YEARS? so we took a stand, sometimes you have to do that in life.
And doesnt it make the US look like jackasses since we said that the UN needed to do something about him because of his hiding of WOMD, but he has none. So we took a stand, and was dead wrong. Saddam may have been uncooperative, but its like if they police come to you and are like "Im going to search your house for drugs" and there are none, you are dead wrong.


I GUARANTEE if we go after korea, the SAME people will be crying and complaining that we shouldnt go.
Thats the thing, your country should have confidence in your decisions as a president. My main gripe in this war thing is that it wasnt in the countries best interest based on its financial condition, and also that i wasnt convinced that the reasons we were going to war were strong.


did you guys honestly think we were going to go in , kick ass, and leave and everything would be hunky dorry? hell fucking no. its going to tkae time, and it will be worth it in the long run.
Thats how it was marketted in the beginning...

[Jaimecbr900]

he was trying to state that no one else had the balls to go over b/c of shady dealing w/ iraq yet us companys were using off shore companys to do the same including ones our VP ran

I got it. That's why I was saying that the normal reaction when you have a monetary interest is to look for excuses NOT to go...ala France and the rest of the cowards. So therefore, why would Haliburton even matter since we DID go to war with Iraq? I think what you guys are trying to elude to there is that since we went to war with Iraq it somehow would directly BENEFIT Haliburton somehow. If that's so, I'd like to know how. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying I don't see the tie or the logic behind it.

[lemansz]

What do you think about he WMD lie???


nop big deal, iraq needed invading.. again.. and disarming.. and saddam removing from office. he was building another arsenal, whether they had WMD's or not. I think they would if they could. There was evidence of attempts to start a nuclear program. Either we invaded then... or 10 years later when he had twice the strength..

I think alot of poeple just do not understand the concept. Iraq was not just chilling out. They had been rebuildign their army since the last gulf war. They were not going to " be good" They were goign to sell oil, until they had enough money to build a superpower. That was his goal.

Here are examples of several other countries that ARE GOIGN TO BE A PROBLEM IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

NORTH KOREA
CHINA....

that is the short list.

[4dmin]

They had been rebuildign their army since the last gulf war. They were not going to " be good" They were goign to sell oil, until they had enough money to build a superpower. what else would they do after the gulf war? decide to disband??? :rolleyes: superpower, right there is no way that would happen, economic status is just dictates superpower.

[Hulud]

check out my "Sound Familiar" topic