The Invasion of Iraq was Justified - From Another Thread

And there's a hypothetical that as we speak, North Korea could be sending nukes to California.

So why don't we act now?

Or is there a difference?

Dookiestix wrote:

And there's a hypothetical that as we speak, North Korea could be sending nukes to California.

So why don't we act now?

Or is there a difference?

Yes, Dookie!

As Brandon will explain you, NK is a threat! Iraq was invaded because it wasn't one...

Iraq was a country under the control of a very evil dictator, which had tried to annex its neighbors, who had developed WMD and used them, and had had continuing development programs. There was great deal of uncertainty about its state of disarmament, and it had lied and deceived during at least part of its weapons inspections. By any sane logic, this is a threat. North Korea is a threat too, but we no longer have the option of invasion, since their nukes make them essentially invulnerable.

Why is it that North Korea merits no invasion (correctly), when the (subsequently disproven) pretenses under which Iraq was invaded, are actually being admited by Pyong Yang?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Iraq was a country under the control of a very evil dictator, which had tried to annex its neighbors, who had developed WMD and used them, and had had continuing development programs. There was great deal of uncertainty about its state of disarmament, and it had lied and deceived during at least part of its weapons inspections. By any sane logic, this is a threat. North Korea is a threat too, but we no longer have the option of invasion, since their nukes make them essentially invulnerable.

I've never asked you: where did the Iraqi WMD go? Or weren't there any?

I've never asked you: where did the Iraqi WMD go? Or weren't there any?

Who knows?

Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country.

Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.

The existence of WMD had been the stated reason in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.

[...]

Former head of UN weapons inspections Hans Blix also said there was no surprise in the announcement.

"We have believed that there weren't any weapons since around May or June 2003. First came David Kay in September 2003 [who said] that he hadn't found any weapons and that was a big sensation - but he thought that there were programmes still," he told the BBC.

"But then came Duelfer last November [who] said that he hadn't seen any programmes, but maybe Saddam would have intended to restart the programme, and there is no evidence of that.

Mr Blix said he assumed it would be natural for the United States to now report their finding to the UN Security Council "because the US took the inspections out of the hands of the UN to undertake it themselves".

But former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said he hoped Mr Blair and Mr Bush would now admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

"Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us," he said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

But former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said he hoped Mr Blair and Mr Bush would now admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

"Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us," he said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

Well, no one disagrees that he had them at one point

the only bone of contention is when they were destroyed.

Sure it's possible that they still exist somewhere. Who knows?

the probability that he was still hiding them, as he had before, was significant

Brandon

The proliferation of WMD is a serious concern and one that needs to be dealt with.

There are institutions through which to do this.

Saddam was a bad guy who did bad things and needed to be dealt with.

Again, there are institutions through which to do this.

This war would be justified if the US had gotten a UN resolution. They didn't.

Nothing done after that point can be justified. Even if it eventually results in good.

Ends vs Means.

old europe wrote:

I've never asked you: where did the Iraqi WMD go? Or weren't there any?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Who knows?

To recap, here are the things President Bush can't find:

- WMD in Iraq
- Osama bin Laden
- the link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden
- the guy who sent the anthrax through the mail

... and his butt with two hands and a flash light.

Quote:

Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country.

Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.

The existence of WMD had been the stated reason in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.

[...]

Former head of UN weapons inspections Hans Blix also said there was no surprise in the announcement.

"We have believed that there weren't any weapons since around May or June 2003. First came David Kay in September 2003 [who said] that he hadn't found any weapons and that was a big sensation - but he thought that there were programmes still," he told the BBC.

"But then came Duelfer last November [who] said that he hadn't seen any programmes, but maybe Saddam would have intended to restart the programme, and there is no evidence of that.

Mr Blix said he assumed it would be natural for the United States to now report their finding to the UN Security Council "because the US took the inspections out of the hands of the UN to undertake it themselves".

source

Quote:

But former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said he hoped Mr Blair and Mr Bush would now admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

"Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us," he said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

source

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Well, no one disagrees that he had them at one point

That is not in dispute in large part because he was supplied the means and the material by US (during Mr Rumsfeld's earlier SecDef tenure ), during the Iran-Iraq war during the 80s.

Quote:

the only bone of contention is when they were destroyed.

If that is/was the only bone of contention, progressing with the inspection program, which did indisputably destroy the stockpiles not already defunct, would have yielded the desired effect.

It is revisionism to say that invasion was initiated for denying someone the potenial to develop WMD. The justification at the time reffered to irrefutable evidence of existing WMD and the imminent threat of their usage, not questioning destruction of decade-old material, and wondering whether they were being developed to be used someday maybe.

Quote:

Sure it's possible that they still exist somewhere. Who knows?

Quote:

the probability that he was still hiding them, as he had before, was significant

Saying probabilities were "significant" and asserting they may still exist are matters of speculation and definition of the word significant. Despite being touted over and over again by the administration, and now by revisionist claimants, the evidence at the time did not support these claims. The evidence now clearly rejects them.

There was no harm in waiting a month or two.

None whatsoever. We have the highest technology available when it comes to surveillance and satellites. We could have kept an eye on things while letting the UN weapons inspectors finish their job. Why didn't we?