Why did the U.S. attack Iraq?

Its ok storch, he is just another person that still has complete trust in the American system. To believe that things are still run by checks and balances let alone the constition just really shows his age.
He says hes a constitutionalist....
The truth is i still dont know what his point was....troll.

 

He probably works for the government.

 

Rick,

Alright, let me see if I can get my point across in this way:

My opinion is that the UN was wrong in sanctioning the no-fly zone over Iraq. Do you think they were wrong?

 

O.W.L,

Agreed

 

The U.S. attacked Iraq because of a personal vendetta; and because of oil. Bush Jr. wanted to kill Hussein because of what he did to his old man. The attacks on 9/11 was a perfect excuse for him to smear the truth and attack Iraq rather than the country that really attacked us: Afghanistan and Bin Laden. It was a diversion. If you remember, the weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq because the Bush Administration knew there were no WMD there. So, they just pulled them out and started bombing and killing all those innocent people. Yes Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but at least he gave women the right to education, and at least form a stable government there. Now, it's nothing but a mess. Oh, and not to mention the fact that Iraq has a lot of oil. So, those are the reasons why the U.S. attacked Iraq. My thoughts and prayers go out to all who fought for this great country. Let their deaths not be in vein.

 

No need to drag others into this. A quick review of the posts will reveal those who saw your post as at least an affirmation of an anti-right-wing / anti-NeoCon etc viewpoint and they posted in like form.

My only "agenda" is inserting some reason and truth into your thread. That we are 'probably' on opposite sides on political issues is not something that I am uncomfortable with or embarrassed of, or either defensive or apologetic for.

I think there is only one tweaker between us.

And again your comments are not connected to what was written. I never refuted or questioned the veracity of the quotes you provided, only the context in which they were presented.

I am well aware of all that was said by all manner of US and International officials during that period, which is why I questioned your intellectual integrity presenting that list as definitive evidence of how the "U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war".

At best your statement was a half-truth because (assuming for a moment that everyone buys into the "lie" part) those quotes represent how HALF the "U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war".

If your intent was to make a comment about the 2003 war being an ill-advised venture without adding any political spin, you failed miserably.

And you deliver!

Again, not disputing the veracity of the quotes, nor do I have a problem with a self described "unrepentant liberal" compiling a list of quotes, even if he only includes quotes from Repubs / Bushites. As I said, I wouldn't expect a "unrepentant liberal" to include Democrats saying the same things.

I only asked if you knew that Democrats spoke of exactly the same things and if you recognized that the very selective list you provided might be a product of the compiler's political bias.

So, let's finally get those questions out of the way:

Did you recognize that the list only contained Repub / Bushite quotes?
If so, did you know that dozens of prominent Democrats were saying the exact same things in that period?
If you were aware that Dems were just as vocal saying exactly the same things and you were aware that the list compiled by a "unrepentant liberal" contained no quotes from Dems, why would you think that you could represent it, then or now, as having no political bias?

Or were you just completely ignorant of all these points?

 

Actually I'm demonstrating trust in the International system and the UN. I happen to have read all the relevant documents and I believe the UN's assessment of Iraq's open UNSCR items (well, I believe them more than those who put themselves in the "U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war" camp).

You don't know yet what you don't know yet and you think that makes you smart.

And I have no confidence you are capable of discussing that.

Wow, that you can't understand what I post means I'm a troll?

 

Rick,

I'm trying to open a discussion with you for the purpose of finding out what you think about something.

Let's start again:

My opinion is that the UN was wrong in sanctioning the no-fly zone over Iraq. Do you think they were wrong?

 

There are three possible answers.

 

For each no-fly zone?

So six answer possibilities?

Answer for general purposes: I say yes for both the North and South no-fly zones.

 

The U.N. did not sanction the no-fly zones. I would continue this, but you are not even aware of the fact that the U.N did not sanction or set up these zones.

 

Personally I think it was all a load of bull, just like 9/11.
Bush was Darth Vader, and Cheney is the Darth Sideous.

 

LOL

You say that as if I should care. Have you forgotten already that I'm the one who believes the 2003 "war" was simply a revocation of the temporary, conditional cease-fire established by UNSCR-687 and was 100% 'sanctioned" by the UNSC Resolutions Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, in force since 1991?