Huh? Iraq Invaded Cause Saddam Killed 140 Villagers?

No one buys your BS, Brandon, i'm surprised that you still attempt to peddle it . . .

Bush explained this over and over and over. What's so difficult to understand? We invaded Iraq because after a dozen years, Saddam Hussein had not furnished the proof he was required to by treaty that all WMD and WMD development programs had been destroyed.

There was some change he had destroyed them yet mysteriously refused to provide convincing proof, but also some chance that he has simply hidden them better. A serious WMD arsenal in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein could have been a tragedy for the world. Just one nuke or bioweapon in an American city could kill hundreds of thousands of people. We simply had to finally, at long last, go in and resolve the issue. Had he been continuing to develop these weapons, there might have been a finite window of opportunity before it was too late.

I thought juniors stated reason was that Iraq had missiles that could reach our shores within an hour, had purchased yellowcake and were an imminent nuclear threat.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush explained this over and over and over. What's so difficult to understand? We invaded Iraq because after a dozen years, Saddam Hussein had not furnished the proof he was required to by treaty that all WMD and WMD development programs had been destroyed.

This was not, in fact, a part of the Shrub's contention. He secured his war powers based upon a contention that Hussein had recently attempted to obtain materials from which fissionable material could be made. The entire Wilson/Plame affair revolves around precisely that contention on his part.

Quote:

There was some change he had destroyed them yet mysteriously refused to provide convincing proof, but also some chance that he has simply hidden them better. A serious WMD arsenal in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein could have been a tragedy for the world. Just one nuke or bioweapon in an American city could kill hundreds of thousands of people. We simply had to finally, at long last, go in and resolve the issue. Had he been continuing to develop these weapons, there might have been a finite window of opportunity before it was too late.

1. He certainly didn't say that Iraq had missiles that could reach the US. Indeed, the most likely form of delivery would be a suitcase bomb walked or shipped into the target country in pieces.

2. Not true. Bush said that he wouldn't wait until the danger was imminent. Had Hussein merely pushed his nuclear program further underground, he might have had a working nuke within a small number of years, particularly so if he attempted to buy the fissionable material rather than make it. No one who understands the dynamics disputes this. Such estimates are inherently imprecise, and you really wouldn't want to let Hussein get very close to the position North Korea now enjoys. Then, there is the whole other issue of bioweapons.

3. Your beloved yellowcake story is one of thousands of bits of information leading to the conclusion made at the time of invasion that Iraq might well have retained WMD and/or programs. Indeed, just the superficially obvious history of Iraq's WMD activities would permit that conclusion.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush explained this over and over and over. What's so difficult to understand? We invaded Iraq because after a dozen years, Saddam Hussein had not furnished the proof he was required to by treaty that all WMD and WMD development programs had been destroyed.

This was not, in fact, a part of the Shrub's contention. He secured his war powers based upon a contention that Hussein had recently attempted to obtain materials from which fissionable material could be made. The entire Wilson/Plame affair revolves around precisely that contention on his part. You are tarting up the Shrub's lie with your own language about Hussein's alleged failure to cooperate.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.

There was some change he had destroyed them yet mysteriously refused to provide convincing proof, but also some chance that he has simply hidden them better. A serious WMD arsenal in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein could have been a tragedy for the world. Just one nuke or bioweapon in an American city could kill hundreds of thousands of people. We simply had to finally, at long last, go in and resolve the issue. Had he been continuing to develop these weapons, there might have been a finite window of opportunity before it was too late.

Here you have left the realm of anything remotely related to the Shrub's contentions at the time he sought war powers. That his spin doctors may have trotted out something similar after the fact does not justify your specious contention that these were the reasons for the invasion at the time the invasion was launched. Then, we were repeatedly told that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that lying gobshite Cheney came out with sneering remarks to the effect that we knew under which palm tree they had hidden them. You've injected your irrational paranoias into the bare statements of the Shrub (who can't handle sentences that long) to create this myth of what the Shrub said that you now attempt to peddle.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

You make outrageous claims, and then try to suggest that i have to disprove them. Nonsense, those who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proof.