Whether Saddam Huessien had WMD's or not is no longer an important issue to the war in Iraq.
MorgMcA said 04/09, 05:33 PM
i am tired of hearing about how "we must pull out of iraq now, because Bush lied and there weren't any WMD's". maybe it's just Seattle politics, but who cares anymore. the fact is he didn't, so what, we need to be there now for other reasons and whether he did have them or didn't is a matter of the past that no longer matters. maybe it did matter when every intelligence agency in the world knew he did, then they all found out they were wrong, but this war is about something else entirely so stop whining about the missing WMD's, get over it, and look at what's going on now, then tell me what you think about it, not what you think about something that stopped being relevant 5 years ago.
IamFry said 04/10, 02:27 AM
I think that any time that there is suspicion that the chief executive lied to his "bosses", there is "an issue."
And the fact that no WMDs turned up, in conjunction with a plethora of testimony that this administration had a hardon for Saddam, leads us to believe that a "big deal" has transpired.
Look, everyone on this site knows that I have it out for Bush, not unlike the way that Bush had it out for Saddam,, but I'm a zealot of the American Constitution, and I believe that someone has abused it.
MorgMcA said 04/12, 09:41 PM
OK, if you want, say he lied to us about it. say our intelligence community lied to us. say that the UN watchdog, who was monitoring Saddam's activities regarding the development of WMD's lied to us, when they reported highly suspicious behavior. Ok, if that's what you want to do, then do it, but recognize that there are other things that are more important for us to deal with. for example, establishing a viable iraqi government, securing peace for the area, routing out Al-Qaeda, and generally making sure that sustainable peace is possible.
to use an example of another conflict. Kosovo; i completely disagree with our taking any action in the conflict, however i also recognize that we have taken irrevocable action in securing an independant status for Kosovo, and that now are obligated to recognize the formal independance for the province. i disagree with the past action, but recognize the need for further action.
the last thing we want is to allow iraq to become another Somalia or former Afghanistan. complete anarchy would be catastrophic for the people of iraq, for the world, and for us, as extremist frequently sprout from anarchy. WMD's get past it, let's deal w/ the now.
IamFry said 04/15, 06:48 PM
Let me ask you something; if you're out at a club and your doofy friend, with whom unfortunate circumstances have coupled you for the evening, picks a fight with the wrong group of guys, sure, a large fight will ensue, and there are pressing immediate things to consider, such as the fight at hand, but are you just gonna let doofy slide? Hell no!
Bush got the information that he wanted to get and disseminated it to the American people to promote his agenda: getting Saddam Hussein. All of a sudden, the general public was privy current government intelligence and also, Saddam Hussein suddenly had wmds.
Kosovo was different; we knew what we were there to do - stop a genocide. And we did it! With about 35 US casualties. Yet THAT'S the action you disagree with... The alleged reasons for the Iraq war have changed multiple times.
This country is comprised of enough people that we can be concerned with a war overseas AND government corruption at home, and the former doesn't excuse the latter.
MorgMcA said 04/15, 10:02 PM
let me clarify kosovo. i didn't bring it up to debate that, if you want, challenge me with another forum. the only reason why i brought it up was to show the evolution of my stance. from adamantly disagree to ok well let's do what we gotta do.
as far as the doofy friend example goes. yeah i'm gonna help him fight even if it does mean i'll get my head bashed in too. i'm not going to simply say "hej, this is your fight, you go get beat up." nor am i going to punch my friend in the jaw for getting in the fight. at this point i'm not worried about how it started, i'm worried about defending my friend. if i have an issue with the way he was involved in starting it, i'll pull him aside later, not now while the big guy's about to crush his skull with a beer mug. to bring this point back, let's not lose the fight because we don't like how it started, let's win and make sure that it doesn't happen again, like legislate against it, but let's win.
whining about how something started isn't going to finish it. people, at least seattlites, complain that starting the war was irresponisble and lost the US alot of respect, i say leaving now compouds the problem and makes it worse.
IamFry said 04/16, 07:13 AM
Going back to the doofy friend example- you're proving my point! Yes, you're going to help him fight, as chivalry dictates, even if he's not that close a friend, but you're telling me that that's the last he'd hear of it? If you end up getting beat up, kicked out, arrested, whatever, you're not going to bring up his retarded actions?
You're not going to review his behavior and take action? I would. I might kick him out of our circle of friends, as I'd like to see Bush impeached. Either way, it's still an issue.
Look, you can say that if we withdraw from Iraq, chaos would rule, and you might be right, but it might be that chaos will rule for a time whether we leave in one year or one-hundred. Whether we should watch our soldiers die and watch our military be tied up for a few more decades is an issue, but whether the leadership that got us into this position was sound is CERTAINLY still an issue, whether you like it or not,
Comments
Add Your Comment
when judging Bush and those of his administration it is certainly important. When debating policy and what's the next best step in Iraq it is not. Whether or not we needed to be there we are there, so what now?
Skipper04 | 04/11/08
Report Offensive Comment
Bush lied... PERIOD!! He went there to settle his fathers scores and to steal oil. I dont see how it is US's problem or responsibility to "establish a viable Iraqi government". What will the Iraqi's be doing and out of so many hundreds of countries, why is it the US's baby?
CRISP | 04/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Pat are you that nieve? To steal oil? Is that why we still foot the bill for the war while Iraq keeps all oil profits? Have you seen a drop in gas prices? No! So to say we went to war to steal oil just makes you appear to be a simpleton. A viable Iraqi government will help combat terrorism, plain and simple.
ShawnF | 04/14/08
Report Offensive Comment
If we leave Iraq because we no longer like or believe in the reason that we went there in the first place, then we will leave a war-torn country surrounded on all sides by extremist groups with nothing but a weak government and an even greater hatred of the US. If we continue then we do have the opportunity to at least give them the chance to rebuild a sovereign nation, and no they may not be the US' baby but we owe them at least that because that is what we destoyed.
jjrep | 04/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
jjrep, you're wrong. You might need to have your crystal ball serviced, because mine is telling me something completely different.
IamFry | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Where is he wrong Iam? how irresponsible is it to attack another country for no reason, now how irresponsible is it to leave that country to be eaten up by those who want to leave wanton destruction in their trail all because, "oh, this isn't fun anymore." or something to that effect. that's the whole point of this.
MorgMcA | 04/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
MorgMcA for prez!!! I am fry sucks!!! a donkey...probably every night.
PhoenixRules | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Why is he wrong, Morg? Because he's stating unfounded conjecture as fact. He's suggesting that the only path to Iraq's success is by the US staying there. That's completely unsubstantiated and is mostly propagated by people that want us to stay in Iraq!
IamFry | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think one of the big problems with these debates about Iraq (or much of the world in general) is they always turn up to be about how "so and so NEEDS the help of the US". On the case of Iraq, the only people who wanted us were Iraqi expatriates living in lavish homes funded by neo-con think tanks in DC; and they needed us so they could realize their own selfish political aspirations. I'm not saying the Iraqi people weren't getting f*cked up by Saddam, because they were. The problem is is that we turn an argument that is really about America's desire (some would say need) to establish control over certain parts of the world for economic and political domination, into a racist and ethnocentric argument about how some poor group of people wouldn't be able to function without our guidance. People are people. Romans established a civilization with a relative education level of a modern 10th grader and that worked out for 1000 years. Iraqis, who previous to our invasion, were predominantly middle class and decently educated, will solve this problem just fine on their own. And if they want our help, they'll ask for it.
MarkW2525 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
I am not comfortable with the statement that apparently everyone thought Iraq had WMD's, because if that is truly what the rest of the world believed, then it makes their decision to stay out of the war rather strange. The political fallout that would have arisen from staying out of the war had America found WMD would have been large for any western democracy - the government would have been seen as failing to act in the best interests of the citizenry and it would have further strengthened America's global position. I would assert that the active opposition to the Iraq war by governments would have been foolhardy had they actually believed that Iraq possessed the weapons programmes put forward by American and British officials and that it would be discovered following the invasion.
Tickers | 04/10/08
Report Offensive Comment