Why the US Invaded Iraq

Then you didn't bother to read my opinion at the bottom of the post after articles cut and paste. That is your choice if you refuse to have intelligent discussion on here about this topic.

If you had bothered to read my opinion, you would realize I didn't blame Clinton. But if you aren't interested in time lines or history or facts about Iraq, then that is your choice. That's too bad.

 

And for the record, you weren't a member here then, CB, but I was against going into Iraq. I felt we should stay put in Afghanistan. Then I was called names on here because of not wanting to save the Iraqi people from the hands of a brutal dictator who made human beings walk into human meat grinders and used chemicals to kill the Kurds, etc. I was belittled and called a racist because I didn't want to help a bunch of muslims who had been fighting among themselves with their tribes and their islamic sects for centuries and would have no use for democracy the way we know it.

The sad thing about it is, if we chose to, we could have carpet bombed Iraq and never lost one US troop and saved billions of dollars, especially since we were told we were not going to be nation building, but carpet bombing a country to rubble would not be acceptable in today's politically correct world. I mean, when we carpet bombed in WW2, that was okay then with the American people, but it is not acceptable in today's standards. Today, we are supposed to build a nation before we subdue them. In WW2, we subdued them, defeated the enemy, and then built the nation out of the rubble.

 

The reasons are defined in the Congressional resolution that authorized it. There were many reasons and, therefore, many points to discuss. A lot of people strongly supported it. Then it became a war on Bush rather than a war on Iraq and terrorism. Then a lot of people conveniently forgot that they strongly supported it. They traded loyalty to the cause we sent our warriors to fight while they were still engaged in it for petty political in-fighting. They tried to focus on only one reason that turned out not to be so solid and ignored all the others. They claimed Bush lied on purpose and it was all his fault. They seized ever negative report - as if war is not always full of them - to present the whole of it as an evil war. They advertised those things that should have remained low key and handled by adequate and proper processes already in place. They put aside what was best for the fight for what was best for their political agenda. They helped our enemies by giving them hope. But, there's nothing new under the sun. It was only about 40 years ago that the same types did the same type thing. They're worth no more today than they were then. I will not be giving thanks for them today. I will be giving thanks for our warriors who continue to do what we ask of them - and do it well - and those few leaders we have who can make a critical decision and stick with it for more than a month or two even when it does them personal harm.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past <NOBR>11 years,</NOBR> every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including <NOBR>al Qaeda</NOBR> members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

Yep, it's just like I thought. It's Clinton's fault!

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see!!

Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Pro 29:9 If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.

To the left, there is no chance of reasonable or logical dialog; only the recitation of the willingly absorbed talking points.

Fact and logic are totally immaterial!

You notice that to the left, if you oppose their ideas, you automatically are 100% condoning everything that the R/Bush admin has done!

Like I said the willingly blind will never see.:BangHead:

 

Where the enemy WAS is the operative word there. Most of them, including the leadership, escaped into the tribal regions of Pakistan.

Al Qeada formerly ruled the Afghanistan government, and were forced out. The Sunni in Iraq, who initially accepted Al Qaeda with open arms, are now their enemies. Many of AQ's former supporters now revile them. Even the Pakis are going after them in the border regions. How does this translate into a recruiting bonanza?

 

Actually, I did some research after 09/11 before we went into Afghanistan or Iraq and there were huge recruiting efforts on the Internest, mostly from servers in the US. (Even from some muslim college groups at our own universities and muslim internet forums.) I was particularly disturbed about the fact that they were here in the US, using our servers to recruit for the jihad.

By chance, I hooked up with a person in the UK who was doing the same thing as I was over there and together we worked to turn lists of websites and server companies over to British and US authorities. Even though some sites were in arabic, the pictures told what they were up to. I believe other Americans were and continue gathering information from the Internet, as well, and this has greatly helped in information gathering against our enemies. The jihad recruiting sites are usually up for only a short time and then pop up again at another IP address, but they don't seem to have as great access to US and UK servers as they once did. Now there seem to be a few American companies who peruse the web and gather info, but back then, it didn't seem there were or they weren't as coordinated as they now are. Anyway, I no longer have time to sleuth.

Perhaps you have a point that Iraq did escalate the recruitment efforts for Iraq. But fighting them there is far better than fighting them in US cities and streets and with that premise, I do agree with the administration. That does not negate the fact that there have been countless terror attacks since 09/11 at other places than Iraq, India being the latest.

 

We carpet bombed North Viet Nam. It did no good there and it wouldn't have worked in Iraq. Besides, we would have taken out the oil fields. I think the best option for fighting terrorism is to use covert CIA squads.

 

Bombing North Viet Nam was very effective while it was used. The targets were military installations and industrial infrastructure that supported such. It is credited with bringing them back to the "peace" talks although we eventually gave away the victory.

We also used covert means to attack the Viet Cong Infrastructure in Viet Nam but people raised many objections to it. Various opinions continue to exist on its effectiveness. It is risky and difficult to manage unintended consequences. I lean towards those analysis that conclude the program was more favorable than not. I think such operations are not feasible on a large scale and can not fully replace tactical military operations.

No single tactic is all inclusive of all needs at a given time. We need to apply whatever works to win a war while staying within the recognized law of warfare. We have plenty of capability to chose from. What we're often lacking in these modern times is resolve - not means!

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq28-2008nov28,0,3564357.story

Reporting from Baghdad -- Iraqi lawmakers today approved a pact allowing U.S. forces to stay in the country through 2011 after winning support from skeptics by promising a public referendum on the plan.


For the benefit those of you who still think this is Bush's war, this timetable lands our troops in the perfect position to be election 2012 fodder.

 

So now it will become Obama's war. He will stay the course for the reasons I already mentioned above.

 

I'm sorry, but I believe this will go down in history as one of Bush's greatest blunders. It will be viewed as Bush's war, not Obama's.

 

No one single President can own any war. It takes a vote from congress to support it. In the case of Iraq it also was supported by a good number of other countries.

 

It will still be Bush' war in the same way Vietnam remained LBJ's. He ordered the troops in so will always have ownership.

 

You would be correct if the president presented factual truths for Congress to make proper decisions. The war congress voted for is not what we found when we got there.

As for the other countries, a good number??? What good number? Wasn't another fault of Bush is that we didn't wait for the UN? Had we of waited for the UN before invading we wouldn't have so much responsibility in seeing a good, viable Government put in place. We would also be able to shift our forces to Afghanistan and let the US do peace keeping in Iraq.

 

You seem to have forgotten that the things Congress believed were being said long before Bush was in office, and that the Congress had the access to the same intelligence Bush did. If Congress was wrong, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force &mdash; if necessary &mdash; to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past <NOBR>11 years,</NOBR> every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including <NOBR>al Qaeda</NOBR> members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.