Huh? Iraq Invaded Cause Saddam Killed 140 Villagers?

Oh yeah, I'm feeling the patriotic motivation to rise up and fight for my country....'s need to be completely sure that some guy in the middle east destroyed some weapons that some international body told him to destroy because if he didn't then maybe possibly he could be a threat to.... our allies. Yeah, I'd die for that cause.

The "yellow cake" story is the only piece of evidence which the administration was subsequently able to trot out to support its contentions about a nuclear program in Iraq.

North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

FreeDuck wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm feeling the patriotic motivation to rise up and fight for my country....'s need to be completely sure that some guy in the middle east destroyed some weapons that some international body told him to destroy because if he didn't then maybe possibly he could be a threat to.... our allies. Yeah, I'd die for that cause.

I think you may have failed to perceive the idea that had Hussein retained the weapons he had so often concealed and lied about, one might have been set off in a western city killing hundreds of thousands of people. I should think that most people would find the prevention of that a pretty important cause.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

This is utterly false. The "yellow cake" story is the only piece of evidence which the administration was subsequently able to trot out to support its contentions about a nuclear program in Iraq. Were there thousands, or even hundreds, or even just dozens of pieces of information, we'd have had them splashed all over the media long ago. The yellow cake story was the only thing they had to offer, and it was false. Once again, you are injecting your paranoid fantasies into the actual record of the evidence the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad offered to obtain war powers.

The mere fact that:

1. an agressive, evil dictator, had WMD and development programs to perfect them

2. that he had promised at gunpoint to destroy them, and after a dozen years had been guilty of numerous evasions and deceptions, but had not supplied proof of their destruction

was in and of itself enough justification to invade to find out whether they were gone or just farther underground.

You have provided the Shrub's speech to the United Nations, which is not germane to a discussion of the evidence which he provided to Congress to obtain war powers. Your quote of his state of the union address conveniently leaves out the three paragraphs which preceed that passage:

Quote:

North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

Which clearly demonstrate that he is using the known support for terrorist groups of the Persians, and the known weapons of mass destruction programs of the North Koreans in a post hoc fallacy to suggest that the same can be said of Iraq. This does not constitute evidence of the type which you allege, this is simply a series of allegations on his part based upon innuendo and the post hoc fallacy.

Once again, you have made an extraordinary claim which you have failed to demonstrate. It is no obligation to me to disprove your silly claim.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The mere fact that:

1. an agressive, evil dictator, had WMD and development programs to perfect them

2. that he had promised at gunpoint to destroy them, and after a dozen years had been guilty of numerous evasions and deceptions, but had not supplied proof of their destruction

was in and of itself enough justification to invade to find out whether they were gone or just farther underground.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the justification which the Shrub offered in order to obtain war powers. Once again, you are gilding the lily.

One argument at a time. You had contended that Hussein's failure to fulfill his promise to disarm and the resultant possible danger from WMD he might retain was not part of Bush's justification for invading Iraq. I provided a quotation from a speech he gave to the UN shortly before the invasion in which he made precisely this argument to justify an invasion. Who told you we were all compelled to restrict ourselves to a short period when Bush was seeking war powers from Congress? When discussing his stated reasons for invasion, I may use any reasons he stated.

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm feeling the patriotic motivation to rise up and fight for my country....'s need to be completely sure that some guy in the middle east destroyed some weapons that some international body told him to destroy because if he didn't then maybe possibly he could be a threat to.... our allies. Yeah, I'd die for that cause.

I think you may have failed to perceive the idea that had Hussein retained the weapons he had so often concealed and lied about, one might have been set off in a western city killing hundreds of thousands of people. I should think that most people would find the prevention of that a pretty important cause.

Well, the same could be said about North Korea and Brazil and even the US. There is always the chance that dangerous weapons could fall into the wrong hands. I think you fail to perceive that most people don't sign up to give their lives for abstract concepts, especially when it becomes clear that going to war cannot make your country 100% safe, no matter how many countries you invade and occupy. To the contrary, it appears to have the opposite effect.

Brandon9000 wrote:

One argument at a time. You had contended that Hussein's failure to fulfill his promise to disarm and the resultant possible danger from WMD he might retain was not part of Bush's justification for invading Iraq. I provided a quotation from a speech he gave to the UN shortly before the invasion in which he made precisely this argument to justify an invasion. Who told you we were all compelled to restrict ourselves to a short period when Bush was seeking war powers from Congress? When discussing his stated reasons for invasion, I may use any reasons he stated.

Who gives a rat's ass what he said at the UN? No war powers, no war. That's where "the rubber hits the road."

So, when do we get to bring charges? We were the ones that invaded and saved the Iraqi's from this horrible dictator. Don't we get to try him for something?

Did the Germans try Nazi's? (I thought it was an American tribunal, but may be wrong.)

I would think Saddam would be in Gitmo for having threatened and scared the begeezus out of us.

I repeat...

squinney wrote:

So, when do we get to bring charges? We were the ones that invaded and saved the Iraqi's from this horrible dictator. Don't we get to try him for something?

Did the Germans try Nazi's? (I thought it was an American tribunal, but may be wrong.)

I would think Saddam would be in Gitmo for having threatened and scared the begeezus out of us.

We had argued about Bush's stated justification for invasion. I provided a quotation from him in which he argued for invasion based on reasons you had denied he had used as justification. It doesn't matter where he said it, this is a statement of his prior to the invasion giving his reasoning for wanting to invade. What's next, anything he said on Tuesdays is off limits?