Why did the U.S. attack Iraq?

"besides--he tried to kill my daddy"=GWB. & Money& power.

 

When the subject of Iraq having WMD was first thrown out as a justification for war, my first thought was, so what?

I have no doubt that Iraq had WMD at some point because the USA gave them the technology during the Iraq/Iran war back in the 80s.

So what if Iraq had WMD? What is the justification for invading their country on the bases of having weapons that the USA, Russia, England, France, ISRAEL, India, Pakistan and other countries that I can't remember have?

Now if Iraq had actually used those weapons against the USA then fine, all bets are off but Iraq was not a threat to the USA, with or without WMD. Having a nuke is not the same thing as being able to deliver it to the other side of the world.

Oil, money, power, supporting Israel, placement of military bases close to Iran and other countries we want to kill, etc, etc.

That is what it was about, not about WMD.

And of course, as long as we are only killing Muslims, thats ok, right?atriot:

 

BINGO! We have a winner.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

 

L

 

Israel is a big fat spoiled baby and the US is its whipped bitch.

 

So, is the complete lack of similar quotes from Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Gephardt, Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman, The Breck Girl, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Feinstein, Graham, etc, etc, etc mean that no Democrat affirmed those points or that Mr Caddell's political bias forced him to exclude them?

 

This isn't about condemnation of one party over another. I posted the quotes in chronological order. That's all. You are a very touchy republican, I must say. If you weren't being led around by your political emotions, you might have thought far enough ahead to post the quotes from Clinton, Gore, etc. etc. instead of complaining that they weren't included.

 

Of course it is and many replies to your OP reflect that. You hold these particular quotes up as the definitive, "story of how the U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war". That is either an ignorant misrepresentation or a purposeful misrepresentation.

And nothing was spoken by anyone else that pertained to why the US attacked Iraq?

Neither touchy or a Republican. I admit some conservative positions (I am a Constitutionalist) but they are tempered by more progressive ones on drugs, abortion, gay rights, unionism (32 year member of a trade union) . . .

If anyone is touchy it is you. You present the unequivocal, end-all-be-all explanation of why we attacked Iraq from a highly partisan standpoint. Now you are casting aspersions and accusations about me who just asked a simple question about your intellectual integrity. Howsabout you just relax and take a breath there Sparky?

Why don't you do yourself a favor and do the legwork yourself and post them yourself . . . I mean unless the only purpose of your OP was to try to lead others down the primrose path of YOUR "political emotions" and biases.

I will post quotes from one particularly hypocritical 'political expediency over all other concerns' weasel though, just for fun:

"We do know that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other
deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the
world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas.
We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons,
including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. . . .
The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent.
But it is real. It is growing.
And it cannot be ignored."

​

Tom Daschle
October,2002

​

“We have yet to see any evidence that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction.”

Tom Daschle
January, 2003

And what the heck, one from Albert Armand Gore:

"I think that the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power is a worthy objective, and I support that,"

​

Former Vice President Gore
November, 2002​

​

 

Sorry, but "story of how the U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war" is not false.

I'm sorry you're offended that I didn't mention everyone who lied. Is this an emotional issue for you?

And yes, my only purpose in the OP was to try to lead others down the primrose path of MY "political emotions" and biases. The question for you is what are you going to do about it?

 

Rick Oshea,
storch posted some information that he found relevant to the thread. You so far have done nothing to dispute that information other than to voice an unsubstantiated opinion.

If you have something relevant to say, would you please provide information that supports your view, as storch has asked you to do? I would be interested to see any information you can provide.

 

How was Rick Oshea's post not relevant to the thread? He pointed out that people from both parties contributed to or were complacent in ginning up the WMD story. You disliking what he pointed out, does not make it any more or any less relevant.

Also, he has since substantiated his claim with a few quotes, which frankly is more than was required of him. If your recollection of the event was incomplete, you could easily have fact checked him yourself.

 

No, Rick had a problem with the man who compiled the list, and he wants to take it out on me. I'm not a republican or democrat, and so his rant was just that--a rant.

My point was that the whole affair was bullshit. Rick wants to create an issue out of the fact that some liars were left off the list. I say let him take issue, since it's not an issue.

 

Originally Posted by storch
This isn't about condemnation of one party over another.
Rick, could you please point out some of the many replies that are a condemnation of one party over another?

 

Well I do agree with you that you weren't being particularly biased in your post. You did use the all inclusive "U.S. Government", and not any particular party.

And regardless of whether every democrat in the country was supporting the war and the WMD story, your point would certainly still stand... the whole affair was bullshit. I don't think he was refuting that. If he was, he certainly did not do it successfully.

His original post, in my eyes at least, simply made the point that both parties were involved, and that Jim Caddell's list of quotes did not reflect that. Whether it was an attack on political favoritism that you yourself have, I'm not sure.

However "Still Kicking" making the claim that Rick's post was not relevant to the thread and that it was an unsubstantiated opinion, is absolutely absurd. That's all I was trying to point out.

 

Well, we'll wait for Rick to bring me the many replies in this thread that are a condemnation of one party over another before we determine just how deep his biases go.

 

Because we had an idiot (GWB) in office. He will go down in history as the most intellectually challenged U.S. president since we decided to hotfoot it from England. And let's not even begin to debate his questionable morals and ethics: I'm not sure the crazy "Christian" dude ever read Plato or Christ. Certainly not in any heartfelt sort of way.

He was all about keeping up appearances. Big time. And we are still paying for this. And we will continue to pay for his ignorance and ego for many years to come. Jesus, he flushed America down the toilet during his first term in office. Which begs the question... :toilet:

Poet

 

why cant people see that the right/left paradigm is a hoax? The Right and the Left just have different pathways leading us down that same road. The Right and the Left are like two wings on the same ugly bird, with the same flight plan.
These parties pretty much stand the same in many areas(foreign policy, taxes will raise no matter what), this is why they always debate on shit like abortion and gay marriage, where they actually have different views.

its actually funny to see the two sites battle to the death, because nothing is going to change no matter which side it is. We would have gone to Iraq no matter who was in office. The president has little control over what happens...
think about all off the deals that are made, and the favors that still need to be re-payed that none of us really know about. These things happen, you would be ignorant not to think so. besides...if Iraq had WMD we are the ones that gave it to them in the past anyways.

to Rick:
why the fuck does it matter who was left out of the quote list anyways...

 

No need to apologize, true or false was not a topic I questioned.

Again, no need to apologize; I don't operate on "feelings" in debate, nor do I get offended by what people say. I don't get emotionally invested in discussions, it is an intellectual exercise for me based entirely in reason, logic and facts. I must say that you sure do apologize a lot for such a snippy, snipy, accusation throwing guy.

Exposing it as such was well worth the minimal effort and energy I expended . . . Watching your emotional meltdown is just a bonus.

Do you want a tissue?

Look, I presumed that entire lead-in paragraph was your words; the first sentence is not at all controversial:

"A man named Jim Caddell, who refers to himself as “the Unrepentant Liberal,” compiled a list of quotes regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD and justification for U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq."
​

Coming from a person "who refers to himself as “the Unrepentant Liberal” I would not expect an even handed compilation.

Your second sentence presents these quotes as the here-it-is-you-don't-need-to-read-anything-else-this-is-who-gets-the-blame list:

"The quotes, when placed in chronological order, tell the interesting story of how the U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war."
​

My first post only questioned your intellectual integrity; whether you recognized that the quotes were ONLY from Repubs / Bushites, asking if you were aware that Caddell's compilation is NOT an accurate representation of the discourse of that time and whether you wanted to use Mr Caddell's not-in-dispute, self described, "I am an Unrepentant Liberal" bias as cover for your one-sided post.

I was actually giving you a way out. I asked:

"So, is the complete lack of similar quotes from [Dems] mean that no Democrat affirmed those points or that Mr Caddell's political bias forced him to exclude them?"
​

Now, you could have said, "you know, I guess there were Dems out there but I didn't look for any . . . " That would have been the unemotional, reasoned answer instead of calling me "a very touchy republican". Christ on a Pink Pony that sure is funny though . . .

Yeah, you definitely need a tissue . . . And when you cite Brian Becker as support for your position I think you better reassess how you politically self-identify.

I have no problem with that. Just acknowledge that you went all-in with a partisan leftist's spin to make your point and it bit you in the behind.

I'm quite satisfied now with the outcome of my original post. Thanks for your concern.

 

PLEASE TELL ME WHY IT MATTERS THAT IT WAS FROM A LIBERAL POINT OF VIEW? It doesn't matter what quotes were up there.....do you even understand the point that was made?