Huh? Iraq Invaded Cause Saddam Killed 140 Villagers?

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As stated clearly by Bush any number of times, we invaded to resolve the question of whether Hussein had destroyed his WMD or simply hidden them better after years of evasion and deception by him. Had he succeeded in acquiring any of the really nasty sorts of WMD such as nukes or some bioweapons, just one of them could have been used to obliterate a western city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. How many ways and times do you need this explained?

Of course, this sets a precendent where any other nation could, based on your statement, invade the United States just in order to make sure that they aren't selling WMD to dangerous dictators. Given America's track record of doing so in the past (actually, giving away WMD for free), it would be paramount to the security of this any nation in order not to be bombed into oblivion with American WMD.

This is trivially false logic. That is like saying that because it is illegal for felons to own guns, a felon could reciprocate by demanding that non-felons disarm.

The United States has never said that no one can own WMD. We have only said that of the many entities who will seek WMD in the future, a small fraction of individuals who seem likely to wreak havoc with such weapons should be prevented. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.

The United States gave bioweapons to Saddam. By your logic the Kurds (provided they had the capability) could have invaded the US in order to "check out the place".

You liken Iraq or Saddam to a felon, and state that the US are a non-felon.

By what definition? What makes a nation a "felon"?

Proliferation of WMD? Cooperation with terrorists? Cooperation with dictatorships? Not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Torture? Killing civilians? Disappearing people? Invading other countries?

Tell me, Brandon, what of the above does make Iraq a "felon"?

I shall now explain the trivially obvious to you. Iraq was ruled by a dictator, who tortured and mudered his own citizens, including gassing thousands of Kurdish civilians, attempted to use military force to add his neighbors to his own country, and paid the families of suicide bombers. Got it now?

In addition, he is certainly guilty of torturing and murdering his own people for decades. This is certainly enough reason to be in jail.

Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there was a reasonable probability that Hussein still had WMD and/or WMD programs. How is this not a threat?

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As stated clearly by Bush any number of times, we invaded to resolve the question of whether Hussein had destroyed his WMD or simply hidden them better after years of evasion and deception by him. Had he succeeded in acquiring any of the really nasty sorts of WMD such as nukes or some bioweapons, just one of them could have been used to obliterate a western city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. How many ways and times do you need this explained?

Of course, this sets a precendent where any other nation could, based on your statement, invade the United States just in order to make sure that they aren't selling WMD to dangerous dictators. Given America's track record of doing so in the past (actually, giving away WMD for free), it would be paramount to the security of this any nation in order not to be bombed into oblivion with American WMD.

This is trivially false logic. That is like saying that because it is illegal for felons to own guns, a felon could reciprocate by demanding that non-felons disarm.

The United States has never said that no one can own WMD. We have only said that of the many entities who will seek WMD in the future, a small fraction of individuals who seem likely to wreak havoc with such weapons should be prevented. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.

The United States gave bioweapons to Saddam. By your logic the Kurds (provided they had the capability) could have invaded the US in order to "check out the place".

You liken Iraq or Saddam to a felon, and state that the US are a non-felon.

By what definition? What makes a nation a "felon"?

Proliferation of WMD? Cooperation with terrorists? Cooperation with dictatorships? Not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Torture? Killing civilians? Disappearing people? Invading other countries?

Tell me, Brandon, what of the above does make Iraq a "felon"?

I shall now explain the trivially obvious to you. Iraq was ruled by a dictator, who tortured and mudered his own citizens, including gassing thousands of Kurdish civilians, attempted to use military force to add his neighbors to his own country, and paid the families of suicide bombers. Got it now?

Trivially obvious to whom? You think the USA are by definition the "good guy". But doesn't the good guy have to earn his reputation somehow?

What you're basically saying all the time is: We, the United States, were afraid that country X might have WMD. We were so powerful that no other nation on earth could stop us, so we invaded in order to check out country X.

Now, what if country Y is afraid that the United States are an evil empire and feels threatened by American WMD? Do they have the right to invade the States "just to make sure" that those WMD not programmed to hit their homeland?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there was a reasonable probability that Hussein still had WMD and/or WMD programs. How is this not a threat?

If this was indeed the case, I'm amazed that more major powers didn't join the invasion forces.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there was a reasonable probability that Hussein still had WMD and/or WMD programs. How is this not a threat?

If this was indeed the case, I'm amazed that more major powers didn't join the invasion forces.

By the way who did we find weapons made by during the war? That's right: French, German and Russia.

Anyone might be afraid of anything, but some things are realistic and some things are not. What you're basically saying is that there is no actual physical reality, and any time America tries to condemn a terrible dictator, it is just as easily condemnable as him. If I say that a criminal should be put his jail for his crimes, the criminal can say that I should be put in jail for my crimes. This is pretty feeble brained stuff.

In the future, many different entities will attempt to acquire WMD. Some of us are saying that the world should try to keep them out of the hands of a few of the worst dictators with histories of muder, torture, and annexing their neighbors. You actually disagree with this?

It happened before WW2, and I expect it to continue.

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there was a reasonable probability that Hussein still had WMD and/or WMD programs. How is this not a threat?

If this was indeed the case, I'm amazed that more major powers didn't join the invasion forces.

France, Germany and Russia were more worried about their possible oil fields when sanctions ended that they wanted to keep out of it. By the way who did we find weapons made by during the war? That's right: French, German and Russia. No wonder they didn't want to help they didn't want to be shot by their own weapons.

Other suspects include former French interior minister Charles Pasqua, the former head of the Russian presidential administration Alexander Voloshin, British lawmaker George Galloway, the son of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and American oil traders Ben Pollner of New York, and David Chalmers Jr. and Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., both from Houston.

Baldimo wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there was a reasonable probability that Hussein still had WMD and/or WMD programs. How is this not a threat?

If this was indeed the case, I'm amazed that more major powers didn't join the invasion forces.

France, Germany and Russia were more worried about their possible oil fields when sanctions ended that they wanted to keep out of it. By the way who did we find weapons made by during the war? That's right: French, German and Russia. No wonder they didn't want to help they didn't want to be shot by their own weapons.

The US was just involved with the oil for food scandal as any other nation, so that tired argument is beyond debunked. Maybe we just got tired of the middle man and wanted the source ourselves. I don't really believe that but it is just as logical as saying the only reason other countries didn't support the war with Iraq was their involvement in the oil for food scandal.

http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/000202.php

Quote:

Other suspects include former French interior minister Charles Pasqua, the former head of the Russian presidential administration Alexander Voloshin, British lawmaker George Galloway, the son of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and American oil traders Ben Pollner of New York, and David Chalmers Jr. and Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., both from Houston.

Rice: After 9-11 "We Could Decide the Proximate Cause Was Al Qaeda"
This morning on NBC's Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice explains why we invaded Iraq:

The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda…or we could take a bolder approach.

This may be news to the Secretary of State but the proximate cause of 9-11 was al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the administration decided to invade Iraq instead of focusing our efforts on destroying al-Qaeda and capturing Bin Laden.

Condi Rice: Verifies what we all Thought

On Meet the Press today, Condi destroyed the premise to go to war with Iraq that the White House pushed on the American people.

Condi Rice said nothing that backs up President Bush's "last resort" war. This is a war of choice in keeping with PNAC's view of the middle east. They wanted to change the face of the middle east and 9/11 was their excuse. Thanks for clearing that up for us Condi.

SEC'Y RICE: I'm quite certain, Tim, that when the American people see every day what they see on their screens, which is violence and, of course, the deaths of Americans and coalition forces, it's very difficult to take. We mourn every sacrifice. But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.

Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. I know it's difficult, but we have ahead of us the prospect, and I think the very good prospect of a foundation for a democratic and prosperous Iraq that can solve its differences by politics and compromise, that becomes an anchor for a Middle East that is changing.