I was just watching another propaganda video on the war. I have an honest question. . . since we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you still support going into iraq?

Now look at it this way, knowing that Saddam was going genocide on his people similar to that of the Hitler against the jews, would you say we should go in? Saddam also invaded other countries like kuwaiit, if he invaded another country, would you support invervention? I'm just curious.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 12-30-2007).]

I was questioning the first conflict when I was in the Air Force with more information than the public had at the time. The second one made less sense.

Yes.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: ...since we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction...

Really? Just because we didn't find a warehouse full?
We did find some, and the remnants of some more.
I think they were there.
I also think that, probably, Syria hid the largest portion of them for Saddam.
Of course, I have no proof of that. Just my gut feeling.

I think I still would have gone.
In retrospect, it seems like we underestimated the aftermath of the power vacuum that resulted, though.

Short answer, no.

We do know that Saddam had WMD's. Now where they went?? destroyed, hidden, given to another country or group? that's a real good question.

Saddam was a real SOB but I wonder what action would have created the most good for the people of Iraq and the rest of the world. He was the cap on a bottle full of shaken sh!t. We removed the cap and now we are suffering the consequences. I really do hope that peace will come to Iraq but its going to be a long, long time.

I thought it was a huge mistake at the time.
All the reasons [excuses] since given for the invasion have proven to be false.
But Cheney and Rumsfeld, and some others had been planning the invasion since at least 1994,if not earlier, and there was no stopping them.
I still think it was a mistake.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 12-30-2007).]

There are a whole bunch of "What Ifs" for a yes or no answer so here is my qualified opinion:

1) We should have piked Saddam's skull in 1990 so going back in 2003 would never have been a question.

2) Having failed at that, although we didn't find a secret munitions cache with launch-ready warheads we DID find weapons that were banned by UN sanctions, we DID find Terror training camps which were used by Al Qeada, Islamic Jihad, and others, we DID find Saddam had been rewarding homicide bombers with cash payments to their surviving families, we DID find evidence of continued nuclear weapons research which found its way to Syria and required a bombing mission to destroy, and Saddam had deliberately interfered with UN weapons inspectors and defied several UN resolutions. These items on there own undoubtedly warranted military action after 12 years of failed negotiations.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Really? Just because we didn't find a warehouse full? We did find some, and the remnants of some more. I think they were there. I also think that, probably, Syria hid the largest portion of them for Saddam. Of course, I have no proof of that. Just my gut feeling. I think I still would have gone. In retrospect, it seems like we underestimated the aftermath of the power vacuum that resulted, though.

I tend to agree they were there. Or at the least the components to make them were and at the last minute shuffled away or well hidden. Its always possible he was just flexing his wings to make people believe they where there when really they weren't, but if thats the case can you blame us for believing it ?

Even so, that was just one reason to go. Mass murder of his people was another good one. So was aiding and abetting terrorist organizations.

WMD was just one reason, the one that broke the camels back, so to speak.

And i totally agree "we" underestimated the aftermath. ( i didn't, but the planners of the war did )

quote Originally posted by Toddster: my qualified opinion:

quote Originally posted by sostock: We do know that Saddam had WMD's. Now where they went?? destroyed, hidden, given to another country or group? that's a real good question.

This is what I think most people forget. We know about how much he had. Remember, we sold him a lot of crap. We know how much he used, and we know how much the U.N. weapons inspectors verified destroyed. The numbers don't add up.

If I sell you 5 bombs, you use 2 of them and I see you've destroyed 1 more, I have to wonder what happened to the other 2?

But that said, knowing how everything played out, no, I wouldn't have gone in - at that time and in that manner. I would have concentrated on finding Osama first and worried about Saddam after. I have no doubt we would eventually take him down if someone else didn't do it first. It was just a matter of who and when, not if.

Why is this even a question? Do any of you actually remember what this war was about?

The answer is no and it's really that simple. Yes we eliminated a dictator, but we're building 14 bases in Iraq. We have no intention of leaving Iraq, ever. And even if US soldiers are withdrawn, contract military will stay in their place.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Really? Just because we didn't find a warehouse full? We did find some, and the remnants of some more. I think they were there. I also think that, probably, Syria hid the largest portion of them for Saddam. Of course, I have no proof of that. Just my gut feeling. I think I still would have gone. In retrospect, it seems like we underestimated the aftermath of the power vacuum that resulted, though.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: This is what I think most people forget. We know about how much he had. Remember, we sold him a lot of crap. We know how much he used, and we know how much the U.N. weapons inspectors verified destroyed. The numbers don't add up. If I sell you 5 bombs, you use 2 of them and I see you've destroyed 1 more, I have to wonder what happened to the other 2? But that said, knowing how everything played out, no, I wouldn't have gone in - at that time and in that manner. I would have concentrated on finding Osama first and worried about Saddam after. I have no doubt we would eventually take him down if someone else didn't do it first. It was just a matter of who and when, not if.

I think these 2 statements about sum up what I think...

quote Originally posted by aceman:

i.e. I "qualify" my answer with the explanation that followed.

Let's not find another excuse to misinterpret my posts for the sake of a bash fest. K?

qualified opinion
Definition

Accountant's or auditor's opinion of a financial statement for which some limitations existed, such as an inability to gather certain information or a significant upcoming event which may or may not occur. opposite of unqualified opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did you become an accountant or an auditor? And, wtf does it have to do with Iraq?

Stop trying to be an arrogant ass and maybe you wouldn't get a raised eyebrow.

Knowing what we know now, versus what we knew then is second guessing. What I do know is that we should have finished the job the first time we were there. Then we had huge support from many countries. If we had finished the job the first time, this would all be a shared responsibility. Iraq was not just a threat to that region, Iraq was a threat the world over. We made a mistake when we didn't continue all the way to Bagdad and take out Saddam when it could have easily been done and the UN was on board to share in re-establishing the government and in rebuilding. But, hind sight is always 20/20. Though, at the time I was all for finishing what Saddam had started in Kuwait.

------------------
Ron

It's the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us the freedom of the press.
It's the Soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us the freedom of speech.
It's the Soldier, not the politicians
That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It's the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag.

I backed off invading Iraq before the invasion took place as I felt is was a very bad idea.

Good gayhod in heaven did I take a beating for doing so. Still do.

"I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners, two things that are usually frowned on during pecetime."
P. J. O'Rourke

I think our money could've better spent developing our energy resources in the United States. George Bush never liked the U.S. oil industry.

I supported the Afgan invasion and think we should have followed ben forgotton and the al kiddies in to Pack tribal areas
also think saudi arabia was a better more worthy target as the 9-11 boys and their leader
along with the funding [like deep throat said ''follow the money''!!!] came from there
goddamm insane was a SOB but had nothing to do with 9-11 or the war on terror

SO NO

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b:I supported the Afgan invasion and think we should have followed ben forgotton and the al kiddies in to Pack tribal areas also think saudi arabia was a better more worthy target as the 9-11 boys and their leader along with the funding [like deep throat said ''follow the money''!!!] came from there goddamm insane was a SOB but had nothing to do with 9-11 or the war on terror SO NO

Excellent summation of the situation! Seems a lot of people forget that Osama and Saddam were enemies, so Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sorta like saying, "on December 7 1941 Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, so to get back at them, let's bomb Brazil!" Brazil would be thinking, "Hey, WTF did I do?!?"

quote Originally posted by aceman: qualified opinion Definition Accountant's or auditor's opinion of a financial statement for which some limitations existed, such as an inability to gather certain information or a significant upcoming event which may or may not occur. opposite of unqualified opinion.

Learn the English language, objectives in particular "my qualified opinion" means that the opinion is qualified, not me.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 12-31-2007).]

I just get a kick out of how people like Todd STILL even now after all that we know, will distort reality for this enormous failure. Evidence of a Nuclear program? Holy f^%$n **** Todd, are you serious? This has been dragged through the mud so many times and it always comes up the same, we found dismantled unusable decades old pieces of metal that at one time were used in a nuclear program that were discarded and buried in a dump. This is your evidence?

What else is there? Oh yeah that's right, the WMD that we DID find. Does anyone remember what those WMD's were? I certainly do, they were pre 1991 decades old discarded sarin gas munitions. Yes they were chemical weapons at one time, but were unusable AND were discarded. This story came up because ex Senator Rick Santorum brought it up for political gain, and his statements were immediately debunked by the Department of Defense. Everything isn't the way you remember it Todd.

"http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-fina l-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I just get a kick out of how people like Todd STILL even now after all that we know, will distort reality for this enormous failure. Evidence of a Nuclear program? Holy f^%$n **** Todd, are you serious? This has been dragged through the mud so many times and it always comes up the same, we found dismantled unusable decades old pieces of metal that at one time were used in a nuclear program that were discarded and buried in a dump. This is your evidence? What else is there? Oh yeah that's right, the WMD that we DID find. Does anyone remember what those WMD's were? I certainly do, they were pre 1991 decades old discarded sarin gas munitions. Yes they were chemical weapons at one time, but were unusable AND were discarded. This story came up because ex Senator Rick Santorum brought it up for political gain, and his statements were immediately debunked by the Department of Defense. Everything isn't the way you remember it Todd. "http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-fina l-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

Listen to yourself! Are you serious? Just because it was a "little" nuclear program we shouldn't have been worried?


Uhhh, OK.

Just because you post some words insinuating I authored them, that doesn't make it true. I never wrote anything about a small nuclear program, and I certainly didn't write that there was any nuclear program that was operational.

Either be honest or don't bother replying to my posts.

Let me summarize my post.

Todd made claims that can be easily verified as untrue. Then Todd lied about what I posted, which is also verifiable to anyone who wants to read my small post just two posts up.

Sure, those "old" chemical weapons are harmless, and out of date aspirin no longer works too. I don't want those "old" weapons used on me. What a load of manure.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Just because you post some words insinuating I authored them, that doesn't make it true. I never wrote anything about a small nuclear program, and I certainly didn't write that there was any nuclear program that was operational. Either be honest or don't bother replying to my posts. Let me summarize my post. Todd made claims that can be easily verified as untrue. Then Todd lied about what I posted, which is also verifiable to anyone who wants to read my small post just two posts up.

Then by all means tell us what you DO mean. It sure sounds like you were downplaying the WMD programs of a known despot to me.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Sure, those "old" chemical weapons are harmless, and out of date aspirin no longer works too. I don't want those "old" weapons used on me. What a load of manure.

OK, you would have no problem invading a few more countries because there are 20 to 30 year old junked sarin canisters buried in an a munitions dump then? I suppose you're right, I'll see in the front lines on the way to just about every state in the US plus half the countries in the world.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: OK, you would have no problem invading a few more countries because there are 20 to 30 year old junked sarin canisters buried in an a munitions dump then? I suppose you're right, I'll see in the front lines on the way to just about every state in the US plus half the countries in the world.

Sure NOW you use the proper word "munitions dump", in your previous post you were making it sound like they had been discarded at the county transfer station! like that would be a good thing.

Lot's of countries have chemical weapons including the US!, so what. Sadams Iraq was a different matter, shall we go into his history of using them, do we need to list the entire ceasefire agreement that let him stay in power after the gulf war and every single UN resolution he was in violation of that lead to the invasion? again?

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Sure NOW you use the proper word "munitions dump", in your previous post you were making it sound like they had been discarded at the county transfer station! like that would be a good thing. Lot's of countries have chemical weapons including the US!, so what. Sadams Iraq was a different matter, shall we go into his history of using them, do we need to list the entire ceasefire agreement that let him stay in power after the gulf war and every single UN resolution he was in violation of that lead to the invasion? again?

OH, so you agree these weapons were discarded in a munitions dump by being dismantled and buried, had no delivery systems, and were 16 years past their effective life? Great so we are in agreement, Iraq posed no WMD threat. They certainly did skirt UN resolutions, but then again so do most other countries that the UN imposes sanctions on. Have we begun the assault on Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Israel, or any other nations yet?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: OH, so you agree these weapons were discarded in a munitions dump by being dismantled and buried, had no delivery systems, and were 16 years past their effective life? Great so we are in agreement, Iraq posed no WMD threat. They certainly did skirt UN resolutions, but then again so do most other countries that the UN imposes sanctions on. Have we begun the assault on Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Israel, or any other nations yet?

Heh, nice try. You either do not know what a munitions dump is or are just attempting to play the words to others that don't. It is not a dump in the sense of "the county transfer station" it is a place that weapons are stored. Yes buried weapons in the dry sand (hiding them) is a common practice there.

So, you have an intact warhead with payload in one place and the intact missile exceeding the range limitations in another and you feel this is no threat, figures.
We went through the out of date thing already, why don't you take a snoot full and then tell us everything is ok.

In fact the Iraq fighters attached an explosive to one of these warheads that failed to detonate at a road block, but "they said", that would be the war, or in reality the Bush opposers, that it was no big deal because it only would have horribly killed several people and by design the warhead is supposed to detonate above the target to spread the chemical.

My nephew rode around in a Stryker Tank for 16 months in Bagdad. Made it home safely last March. He felt that we are trying to impose our western culture in the Iraqi's. I agree since we are trying to introduce democracy. I don't think the muslim world respects democracies or the idea of a democracy. So, even if we prop up a democratic government, it'll probably fall in a few years to a military coup or civil war and return to a dictatorship. Perhaps a Iranian aligned one. The only way to avoid that is a continued military occupation.

The middle east countries were put together by carving up the Ottoman empire after their defeat at the end of world war one. It's not working. That area is going to have wars for a long time. That's why we should be trying to solve our energy problems here, not by trying to keep that part of the world stable.

Topic: Knowing what you do now, would you go into Iraq?

Knowing what I do now , I wouldn't go in. Just shower Saddams with cruise missles.

As things stand now, I believe the U.S. will stay out of Iran, North Korea, and not defend Taiwan. I see us surrendering to the constant flow of citizens of Mexico.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Heh, nice try. You either do not know what a munitions dump is or are just attempting to play the words to others that don't. It is not a dump in the sense of "the county transfer station" it is a place that weapons are stored. Yes buried weapons in the dry sand (hiding them) is a common practice there. So, you have an intact warhead with payload in one place and the intact missile exceeding the range limitations in another and you feel this is no threat, figures. We went through the out of date thing already, why don't you take a snoot full and then tell us everything is ok. In fact the Iraq fighters attached an explosive to one of these warheads that failed to detonate at a road block, but "they said", that would be the war, or in reality the Bush opposers, that it was no big deal because it only would have horribly killed several people and by design the warhead is supposed to detonate above the target to spread the chemical.

In theory you could be right, but in reality in this case you are wrong. Go a couple posts up and go to the Iraq Study Groups link that I posted. It clearly states these were useless old weapons. Useless.

Knowing what I know now, I think we never should've gotten involved with ANY of those towel-headed goat-humpers in the first place. Almost everything we've done to "help" in the Middle East has blown up in our faces.

Some examples:

-- We support Israel. This angers the muslims. It predisposes them against us.
-- We sold arms to Iran and Iraq during the 80s. Then we ended up having to deal with them.
-- We helped arm the Afghans in the 80s, paving the way for the Taliban to take over the country. Now we have to deal with them.
-- We're in bed with the Saudis. So when some of their citizens kill a few thousand of our citizens, we do nothing in the name of peace.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 12-31-2007).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: In theory you could be right, but in reality in this case you are wrong. Go a couple posts up and go to the Iraq Study Groups link that I posted. It clearly states these were useless old weapons. Useless.

I don't know who those people are. I could not get the direct link to work but skimmed their site when I found it.

I tend to believe our military weapons specialists over some self proclaimed global security experts.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Learn the English language, objectives in particular "my qualified opinion" means that the opinion is qualified, not me.

Mr Pot,
I have learned the English language. I posted what a "qualified opinion" meant. I simply raised my eyebrow because ONCE AGAIN, you're trying to use "big words/phrases" to push your arrogant, pompous OPINION that is no more better or knowledgeable to most others here on the forum. I didn't work this time. Go back and understand what some phrases really mean before you try those big words on what you think is an uneducated, auto forum.

signed,

Mr Kettle

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: I don't know who those people are. I could not get the direct link to work but skimmed their site when I found it. I tend to believe our military weapons specialists over some self proclaimed global security experts.

Oh really, well let me inform you then. The ISG was commissioned by George W Bush himself, and consists experts such as:

Military Senior Advisor Panel

* Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr.
United States Navy, Retired
* General John M. Keane
United States Army, Retired
* General Edward C. Meyer
United States Army, Retired
* General Joseph W. Ralston
United States Air Force, Retired
* Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Sr.
United States Army, Retired

And it's primary members are:

http://www.usip.org/isg/members.html

Led by:

The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan group of prominent Americans. It was led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, the nation’s 61st secretary of state and honorary chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, former congressman and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

http://www.globalsecurity.org

http://www.usip.org/

Best I can see, these are not the same places. Plus your original story (which I could not find) is 4 years old! What are you trying to pull.


Because a chemical has degraded to let's say 25% of it's original strength does not render it "useless" by any stretch.

[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 12-31-2007).]

Hell no. I said it was a stupid idea when they announced it and I haven't seen evidence worthy of changing my mind over yet.