Originally Posted by mork29

I think that is a very important point. Everybody was all "for the war" at the beginning.

I guess that's true if you redefine "everyone". Before the war started, 10 million people protested in unison. This was the largest singularity in human history. Sounds pretty revisionist to say "everyone was all for" the Iraq debacle.

Of course, at the beginning, we were told Saddam had nukes ready to go off in Atlanta, that Osama bin Forgotten had personally delivered to him on one of their joint 9/11 planning sessions.

Yes your right Newbie, there was 10 to 6 million protesters made up largely by people from other countries, which not only demonstrated the war in Iraq but war in general. To some no war is worthy. At the time of the beginning of the war, in the place it matter (America), the poll I believe said 58% of America agreed with the war.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

the poll I believe said 58% of America agreed with the war.

The vote passed in both houses of congress by a much better majority. There were many checkpoints that could have prevented this war, amongst them was Saddam's abject refusal to comply with inspections and come completely clean about his capabilities. The post invasion reports bear this out. For whatever reason Saddam wanted us to think he had more capability than he did, and that misguided intelligence is a major contributing factor to why we are there.

If someone killed a bunch of school kids with an Uzi, and the cops come round by my house next door asking to search it since I have prior convictions for possession of automatic weapons, telling the cops, "Maybe I got an Uzi, and maybe I don't, but you cant search my house" wouldn't be the most intelligent thing to do.

Originally Posted by cbwm

For whatever reason Saddam wanted us to think he had more capability than he did, and that misguided intelligence is a major contributing factor to why we are there.

Exactly!!! We invaded Iraq for not having weapons of mass destruction. Sort of like the cop who pulls you over for speeding, and then demands proof you weren't going 120 mph.

That "whatever reason" is Iran. Which also happens to be the reason why Reagan and Daddy Bush sent Saddam all those WMD in the first place.

im glad someone has finally addressed this issue. The US may be the most powerful nation in the world but that does not give her the right to invade any country that has oil. George Bush has gotten the US into another Vietnam. the US let 9/11 happen so they would have the perfect excuse to get a foothold in the middle east. now saddam has gone but in his place: lawlessness, regular suicide bombings and a rising death toll. when will america learn to stop sticking her nose in where its not required.

Originally Posted by robertjordan

im glad someone has finally addressed this issue. The US may be the most powerful nation in the world but that does not give her the right to invade any country that has oil. George Bush has gotten the US into another Vietnam. the US let 9/11 happen so they would have the perfect excuse to get a foothold in the middle east. now saddam has gone but in his place: lawlessness, regular suicide bombings and a rising death toll. when will america learn to stop sticking her nose in where its not required.

Yeah your right, we should just let everyone who wants to attack America, who are we to protect ourselves and our freedom.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Yeah your right, we should just let everyone who wants to attack America, who are we to protect ourselves and our freedom.

Yeah.... ok.... you think Bush did it because Saddam wanted to attacked the U.S.

Apparently Congress did.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Apparently Congress did.

Congress wanted to attack the U.S.?

Or did they vote on what they were told by the Bush administration?

Originally Posted by joder

Or did they vote on what they were told by the Bush administration?

There he was, human intelligence operative, secret agent Dubya, gathering the intelligence. He then passed the information up to his handler, codename Shrub, who then passed the information off to a group of analysts(George, Georgie, and Jorge) for processing. Together they came to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to develop WMD, and potentially had links to terror organizations. This information was then passed off to the Bush administration who permitted Congress to review the information so they could make an informed decision. Sounds good. I'm buyin.

Originally Posted by cbwm

There he was, human intelligence operative, secret agent Dubya, gathering the intelligence. He then passed the information up to his handler, codename Shrub, who then passed the information off to a group of analysts(George, Georgie, and Jorge) for processing. Together they came to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to develop WMD, and potentially had links to terror organizations. This information was then passed off to the Bush administration who permitted Congress to review the information so they could make an informed decision. Sounds good. I'm buyin.

This is very accurate. It happens exactly like this. Especially the part about congress getting its information only from the white house. Congress has NO ability to read intelligence briefings that comes out of the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc... They only get spoon fed by the pres. They have no closed door meetings. They have no intelligence briefings. They get most of their news from CNN!
</sarcasm>

It sounds like a Sith Lord to me.

Originally Posted by mork29

This is very accurate. It happens exactly like this. Especially the part about congress getting its information only from the white house. Congress has NO ability to read intelligence briefings that comes out of the NSA/CIA/FBI/etc... They only get spoon fed by the pres. They have no closed door meetings. They have no intelligence briefings. They get most of their news from CNN!
</sarcasm>

Who are the NSA and CIA under? Come on, you guys know they take direction from the president of the U.S. Interesting they said exactly what he wanted them to (and were wrong).

Originally Posted by joder

Who are the NSA and CIA under? Come on, you guys know they take direction from the president of the U.S. Interesting they said exactly what he wanted them to (and were wrong).

Who is the approving authority on deciding who heads the NSA and CIA again? Oh, that's right... congress does that.... But of course they're nothing but Presidential lapdogs.... Even though they directly report to both Congress and the President.....

All I have to say is that is a cop out. If it was a Democratic president you would say the opposite.

The President just does not have that much power to be the soul reason out country went to war. There are many factors any many people that contribute blame, and to say that it is all Bush’s fault or even his staff is just ridiculous. I find it funny that when ever Bush does something stupid everyone loves to talk about how Bush is the stupidest man to ever walk the face of the earth, but on the same token he masterminded a wonderful and devious plot to take an entire country to war at his own will and pleasure. It can’t be both.

Well, I guess when facts fail you, the next choice is to start using the word "if".

If we had a Democratic president, we would have put our tails between our legs and ran after the first dozen had died.... I can back that up with an example or 2 if you'd like.... but we've already gone over that here....

Iraq didn't attack the U.S.

Let's see if you can name the country that most of the terrorists came from that attacked on 9/11 which is the same country that has given monetary support to terrorists. And who was holding hands with their leader?

Originally Posted by joder

Iraq didn't attack the U.S.

Let's see if you can name the country that most of the terrorists came from that attacked on 9/11 which is the same country that has given monetary support to terrorists. And who was holding hands with their leader?

So your saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Well, that would have been much harder on the economy.... and much harder logistically.... I'm not saying I like Saudi Arabia, but it wouldn't have been in our best interest as a whole.

To be honest, there are dozens of countries out there which are valid targets for military action in my mind. However, Iraq was the only one to ever use Bio/Chem weapons, to take serious efforts to thwart weapons inspectors, it was also the one to most recently show imperialistic intent, and it was the one that you had the best shot at selling to the UN. Granted that didn't work, but there was a shot at it.

However, your argument does confuse me. You seem "anti-war", but then try to argue against war in Iraq by pointing out another war target.... Are you saying we should be playing world cop and attacking Saudi Arabia? If your not, then your argument is sorta week.

Originally Posted by mork29

So your saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Well, that would have been much harder on the economy.... and much harder logistically.... I'm not saying I like Saudi Arabia, but it wouldn't have been in our best interest as a whole.

To be honest, there are dozens of countries out there which are valid targets for military action in my mind. However, Iraq was the only one to ever use Bio/Chem weapons, to take serious efforts to thwart weapons inspectors, it was also the one to most recently show imperialistic intent, and it was the one that you had the best shot at selling to the UN. Granted that didn't work, but there was a shot at it.

However, your argument does confuse me. You seem "anti-war", but then try to argue against war in Iraq by pointing out another war target.... Are you saying we should be playing world cop and attacking Saudi Arabia? If your not, then your argument is sorta week.

1) Who said I was anti-war? Maybe I'm just against a war based on a lie. And maybe I'm against people who support it just because a Republican started it.

2) I never said we should have attacked Saudi Arabia. You assume that because? I think we should have put money into developing alternate forms of energy and never done any business with them again. The U.S. supported sanctions against Iraq. Why not against Saudi Arabia? Oh that's right, oil.