America the Gutless

[Andy]

Even Bush accepts that there are no WMD in Iraq.

I admire your loyalty to the cause though however misguided it is.

LOL I'm not loyal to Bush. He has done many things I don't agree with, and have stated so. That doesn't change the fact WMDs were found in Iraq. Facts are not dependent on who says what. They are, what they are. Namely the truth.

Moreover, you failed, horribly, to answer the question. The truth is, you don't have answers, only attacks. This is the mockery and failure of your argument.

 

[Plainspeaker]

If there were WMD in Iraq why did the Bush administration change the charge to regime change?

Why didn't Iraq use them against the coallition forces?

 

[BigRob]

If the US is going to invade countries that are not attacking it on the grounds of regime change then a reasonable person would expect them to start with the worst cases and there are many cases meriting regime change before Iraq.

The United States rarely gets involved for purely humanitarian reasons. Somalia was really the only case of that, and it was a disaster.

The fact is that the US attacked Iraq on the pretext of WMD. If this was really the reason for the attack they shouild have withdrawn when it became clear there were no WMD (to many in the world this was before the war started).

To many in the world it was not as well. Also, we should not have left after not finding WMD's. Situations change, there was much more at stake for the US than finding a weapon in Iraq after we invaded. After no weapons were found, there was still many others aspects of the conflict that were reasons to stay. These reasons negate any WMD findings.

But they didn't and everyone should be shocked by the mid-stream change of reason to regime change because it indicates that the US wanted to attack Iraq whether they had WMD or not (this would explain the appaling intel which was dished up to order).

Trying to sell the war to the public after you discover you had bad intel is not new. It is certainly not the reason we have stayed in Iraq either.

And the regime change claim is lame because of the reasons stated above.

Regime change was simply to try to sell the war to the public again. It has nothing to do with why we invaded and why we stayed.

So you are left wondering why the US really attacked Iraq and it is impossible to see any realistic reason that holds water other than for oil.

What else does Iraq have that puts it at thr front of the 'need for regime change' list?

We attacked because all the intelligence we had at the time (and many other governments confirmed the intel) said Iraq was pursuing WMD's. If any state in the region gets a bomb, then it is going to spark an arms race in the Middle East. This is not good for anyone.

You can argue we attacked for oil, but that claim holds no validity. The first major oil deal the new Iraqi government signed was with China. It would seem if we attacked for oil a US company might have landed that deal...

Again, we did not invade Iraq for regime change. You cannot look at situations through the lens of what we know now and then make the assumptions, you must look at only what was known at the time of the actual decision.

 

[Plainspeaker]

The previous Bush administration went to war with Iraq to get them out of Kuwait and when they were out of Kuwait withdrew.

Same should have happened when no WMD were found IF that was the reason for going to war.

The US did not invade N Korea who definitely do have WMD.

I wonder why?

You cannot have reliable intel about a country having nuclear weapons when they don't.

The size of the plant required is too great to hide and the US could easily see it from space.

They knew there was no WMD.

Otherwise you have to admit that US intel services are a joke.

But nobody got fired for this alleged monumental intel failure.

If you are not troubled by all this inconsistency then good luck to you.

Huge numbers of people are though and it is partly why the Bush admionistration and the US is held in all time low esteem around the world right now.

 

[BigRob]

The previous Bush administration went to war with Iraq to get them out of Kuwait and when they were out of Kuwait withdrew.

There was a bit more too it than that, this is a very simplistic description.

Same should have happened when no WMD were found IF that was the reason for going to war.

A simplistic assumption based off a simplistic description of the war in 1991.

The US did not invade N Korea who definitely do have WMD.

I wonder why?

China perhaps?

You cannot have reliable intel about a country having nuclear weapons when they don't.

First of all, there is no such thing as "reliable intel." The fact that people think it exists is laughable. We had what we had, which was convincing, and agreed upon by numerous other intelligence communities around the world.

When no weapons were found, intel proved to be wrong.

The size of the plant required is too great to hide and the US could easily see it from space.

This is interesting since the current case in Iran, we have no idea where the majority of their program is. Do you not think we could just run a satellite over there to find out? It really does not work this way either, except of course in movies.

They knew there was no WMD.

No they did not. Saddam's inner circle did not even know. In fact a general asked why they did not use them on the US soldiers during the invasion.

(came from cabinet meeting minutes captured at a palace)

Otherwise you have to admit that US intel services are a joke.

But nobody got fired for this alleged monumental intel failure.

Like I said, there is not such thing as "reliable" intelligence. The US intelligence service certainly does leave something to be desired.

Aside from that, it is not the Intelligence community's job to make the decision. It is there job to provide the best intelligence they can get. That is their job, they did it. Why should they get fired for it?

If you are not troubled by all this inconsistency then good luck to you.

This is how it has been done for decades. Is it a good way to do it? No. Is it Bush's fault? No.

That said, I am of the mindset of what do we do now? I think the surge was the right move, Obama did not. I think it shows poor leadership on his part to continue to pretend like we should not be at war, when we are, and there are drastic consequences if we do not win it.

[/quote]
Huge numbers of people are though and it is partly why the Bush admionistration and the US is held in all time low esteem around the world right now.[/QUOTE]

You can make that case, but only partly. None of that has any bearing on the conduct of the war or the intelligence in the lead up of course.

 

[Plainspeaker]

So why did the US not allow the UN to finish their inspection?

Clue - because it would result in the wrong answer

 

[BigRob]

So why did the US not allow the UN to finish their inspection?

Clue - because it would result in the wrong answer

Or because there were 12 Security Council resolutions calling for action, and that Saddam threw out inspectors before letting them back in.

Add that to the fact that best intel we have says they have the program (along with numerous other intel groups) the best decision with that information is to go.

 

[Plainspeaker]

You are wrong

Hans Blix reported that SH was co-operating.

The US did not get the UN backing because the UN saw war as a last resort and wanted the inspection to be completed.

The US rushed into war because WMD was never their reason in the first place.

And hey presto, no WMD and a change of reason to regime change.

This stinks and you can smell it.

 

[BigRob]

You are wrong

Hans Blix reported that SH was co-operating.

The US did not get the UN backing because the UN saw war as a last resort and wanted the inspection to be completed.

The US rushed into war because WMD was never their reason in the first place.

And hey presto, no WMD and a change of reason to regime change.

This stinks and you can smell it.

I am not really going to argue the point with you. The evidence hardly backs up your claims.

You can obviously think anything you like about the situation. I will tell you from experience that your reasoning had nothing to do with it, but that is as deep as I will go on the matter. Take that as you will, but that is how it must be.

 

[Andy]

If there were WMD in Iraq why did the Bush administration change the charge to regime change?

Why didn't Iraq use them against the coallition forces?

At what point did Bush change the 'charge' to regime change?

The Iraqi forces crumbled very quickly. There was very little fighting at all. Why didn't Iraq use conventional weapons, let alone WMDs? Answer? They all surrendered.

I'll remind you again, prior to the war an Iraqi company heard test fires, thought the war had started, march across the boarder and attempted to surrender to a British company which told them they were not ready and sent them back.

We can speculate on this all you want. Here's my speculation. I believe Saddam shipped most of the WMDs out of the country, to the likes of Syria perhaps. I think others are still hidden buried in the sand somewhere.

I believe the reason Saddam did this was in case he was caught and put on trial in a UN court, or other nation, that he would be able to claim he didn't have them because we "didn't find them". Of course we did find some, and it's widely documented. Of course letting the Iraqi's themselves try him thwarted his plan.

Still doesn't change the point that no matter how you cut it, or spin it, the fact remains, Saddam had WMD and was supporting terrorists and was in fact attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Andy]

You are wrong

Hans Blix reported that SH was co-operating.

The US did not get the UN backing because the UN saw war as a last resort and wanted the inspection to be completed.

The US rushed into war because WMD was never their reason in the first place.

And hey presto, no WMD and a change of reason to regime change.

This stinks and you can smell it.

The UN has never been useful. It was their own UN resolutions that called for action in the first place, and was supported by the democrats and Bill Clinton, before Bush was ever elected.

Further, the claim we 'rushed' to war is as laughable as your entire argument is baseless. We waited 2 years to go into Iraq, and 10 years prior to that waiting for Saddam to abide by the cease fire he agreed to.

If Saddam had disarmed his entire WMD program, and sold off all his Uranium, and shown all the evidence of this to the UN inspectors as planned, we would have even thought to deal with him in '94 '98 '01 and '03.

The only thing that stinks is the lack of evidence and illogical conclusion you came up with.

 

[Plainspeaker]

There is one tiny hole in your argument.

There were no WMD.

Actually most of what you say is wrong.

And American supporters of the war only say the UN is useless now because it didn't back the war.

Like the US Government who started the war on WMD and then changed to regime change they have an argument for all seasons.

 

[Libsmasher]

There is one tiny hole in your argument.

There were no WMD.

How do you KNOW there were no WMDs? You DON'T know. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of logic knows it's almost impossible to prove a negative.

Like the US Government who started the war on WMD and then changed to regime change they have an argument for all seasons.

OBVIOUSLY Capt. Megathink, regime change would have been imposed even if WMDs HAD been found.

 

[Plainspeaker]

If there were WMD the US Government would be parading them in triumph.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Also, they wouldn't have needed to change the story to regime change.

Clearly there is no point discussing this with most of the neo-cons posting on this board as you seem incapable of accepting anything negative about the Bush administration.

Winston Churchill said that the strongest argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter. I think he had you in mind.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Even Bush accepts that there are no WMD in Iraq.

I admire your loyalty to the cause though however misguided it is.

President Bush never said there weren't any WMD's! Have you been smoking CRACK???

No WMD's??

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year
Evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys

New evidence: Saddam's WMD in Lebanon
Weapons transferred to Syria before war, then to Bekaa Valley

Deadly Nerve Agent Sarin Is Found in Roadside Bomb


Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq

U.S. transferred uranium from Iraq without U.N. authorization

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States didn't have authorization from the U.N. nuclear watchdog when it secretly shipped from Iraq uranium and highly radioactive material that could be used in so-called "dirty bombs," U.N. officials said Wednesday.
The nearly 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items transferred from Iraq to the United States last month had been placed under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the sprawling Tuwaitha nuclear complex, 12 miles south of Baghdad, the officials said.