War? What For?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ophie
  • Start date Start date
O

Ophie

Guest
So no WMDs have been found in Iraq. The search has been called off. Many people had predicted before this war that none would be found, looks like they were right. What a shocker!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the main reasons for going to war with Iraq the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had all kinds of WMDs and was an "imminent threat" to the security of the US?

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

Okay so he doesn't have any. What the hell is this war about then? Where do we go from here? And how come Bush STILL cannot admit that he may have made a mistake???
 
Ophie said:
So no WMDs have been found in Iraq. The search has been called off. Many people had predicted before this war that none would be found, looks like they were right. What a shocker!! Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the main reasons for going to war with Iraq the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had all kinds of WMDs and was an "imminent threat" to the security of the US?

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

Okay so he doesn't have any. What the hell is this war about then? Where do we go from here? And how come Bush STILL cannot admit that he may have made a mistake???
Click to expand...

Excellent post... Excellent quotes...

The reasons Bush hasn't admitted that it was a mistake would be because the people that support him's heads would explode.

If he admits that it was a mistake, than 1000's upon 1000's of lives died for nothing. The United States would forever be tarnished by a horrible "mistake".
 
Whether he admits to it or not (he'll never admit to ANY mistake) it WAS a mistake. And all those naysayers turned out to be right. That's gotta sting!
 
"The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

-George W. Bush
 
Ophie said:
"The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

-George W. Bush
Click to expand...

Instead... multiply the terrorist threat by 100, and that was the result of his actions.
 
hi sugartits.

Ophie said:
"The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

-George W. Bush
Click to expand...
 
Ophie said:
Okay so he doesn't have any. What the hell is this war about then? Where do we go from here? And how come Bush STILL cannot admit that he may have made a mistake???
Click to expand...


I am pissed no WMD's were found. But from a strategic viewpoint, what if the elections go through and and are successful? This would be a turning point in the Arab middle east. It could show other Arab countries it is possible. The idea of having bases in Iraq to threaten Iran is Syria has alot of strategic importance also.

I personally think it was enough reason to get rid of Saddam for paying 25,000 to suicide bombers in Israel and trying to assasinate a former American President. Also, he thumbed his nose at the agreements made at the end of the first Gulf War. I just wish the planning was better.

I think History will have to judge if Iraq was the right thing or not. I agree though, it could go either way depending what Iraq looks like in 5-10 years.
 
Nowhereman said:
I am pissed no WMD's were found. But from a strategic viewpoint, what if the elections go through and and are successful? This would be a turning point in the Arab middle east. It could show other Arab countries it is possible. The idea of having bases in Iraq to threaten Iran is Syria has alot of strategic importance also.

I personally think it was enough reason to get rid of Saddam for paying 25,000 to suicide bombers in Israel and trying to assasinate a former American President. Also, he thumbed his nose at the agreements made at the end of the first Gulf War. I just wish the planning was better.

I think History will have to judge if Iraq was the right thing or not. I agree though, it could go either way depending what Iraq looks like in 5-10 years.
Click to expand...

Now you're thinking like the NEOs... :D What happened to Ralph?
 
Now I've learned from one of Gold's posts in the PSBB that we have serious plans to airstrike Iran.

Thanks to the Iraq debacle, a military action against Iran, a country WITH nuclear weapons, will generate even more of an economic catastrophe.... Had we not pre-emptively invaded Iraq for no reason, we would have global support and the funds to deal with Iran. But that's not an option anymore, is it?

Of course, Iran hasn't attacked us. They just haven't ceased their nuclear weapons program. Then again, neither has the U.S of A..... Who do you think the Middle East trusts more with WMD's??? Bet it's close!!!
 
Nowhereman said:
I am pissed no WMD's were found. But from a strategic viewpoint, what if the elections go through and and are successful? This would be a turning point in the Arab middle east. It could show other Arab countries it is possible. The idea of having bases in Iraq to threaten Iran is Syria has alot of strategic importance also.

I personally think it was enough reason to get rid of Saddam for paying 25,000 to suicide bombers in Israel and trying to assasinate a former American President. Also, he thumbed his nose at the agreements made at the end of the first Gulf War. I just wish the planning was better.

I think History will have to judge if Iraq was the right thing or not. I agree though, it could go either way depending what Iraq looks like in 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
Well officials from the Bush administration have already started to say that the elections might not really go as well as they'd hoped they would, and it's really not about the elections now anyway. It's about building a foundation for democracy, blah, blah. The story changes every 5 minutes anyway. I read somewhere that less than 40% of the people are probably even going to get a chance to vote. I mean, would you want to go out and vote if you knew the insurgents were waiting out there so they could blow you up for trying to vote?
 
Good Doctor HST said:
Now I've learned from one of Gold's posts in the PSBB that we have serious plans to airstrike Iran.

Thanks to the Iraq debacle, a military action against Iran, a country WITH nuclear weapons, will generate even more of an economic catastrophe.... Had we not pre-emptively invaded Iraq for no reason, we would have global support and the funds to deal with Iran. But that's not an option anymore, is it?

Of course, Iran hasn't attacked us. They just haven't ceased their nuclear weapons program. Then again, neither has the U.S of A..... Who do you think the Middle East trusts more with WMD's??? Bet it's close!!!
Click to expand...

Now you're using logic. That's uncalled for sir! :D
 
Ophie said:
Well officials from the Bush administration have already started to say that the elections might not really go as well as they'd hoped they would, and it's really not about the elections now anyway. It's about building a foundation for democracy, blah, blah. The story changes every 5 minutes anyway. I read somewhere that less than 40% of the people are probably even going to get a chance to vote. I mean, would you want to go out and vote if you knew the insurgents were waiting out there so they could blow you up for trying to vote?
Click to expand...

What's the percentage of people who vote in the U.S.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top