No? The topic is are Bush's reason for going to Iraq vindicated.

And you say they are. Yet you haven't bothered to refute any of my points, so apparently there is no point in this thread, you just want to hear yourself speak?

Here's an interesting site. It shows excerpts from speeches President Bush made regarding Iraq - from before 9/11 and after.

It would seem as though the issues Bush has had were the following (being but 11 at the time of the war, I wasn't all that informed as to how he sold the war to the US):
1. Iraq has been dodging sanctions. This appears to have been true.
2. Iraq has refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq. This was also true.
3. Iraq has not fully dismantled its weapons program. From the Wikileaks documents cited in the article krellin posted (assuming it was correct) this also appears to be true.
4. Iraq has the ability to sell some of its weapons to terrorist organizations. Ability? Yes. Chances of it possibly happening? Who knows.

Nowhere, at least on the website that I saw, did Bush accuse him of building new WMD's. New launch vehicles? Yes. But not procuring and developing new WMD's. Bush was afraid that a regime known to harbor Sunni extremist terrorists and that denies entry to UN weapons inspectors for years would sell chemical weapons to Al Qaeda. It seems plausible to me.

Now, does plausible mean that its justification for the war? No. But the issue at hand here is whether or not Bush lied to the public. And I don't think he did.

GAH!!! Yes...the reason we went to war was the WMD's in Iraq. This information says that YES, there were WMD's in Iraq. chemical warheads found in stockpiles all over the place. the US military destroyed a lot of them. Others were brought home.

Bush needed "vindicating" because he was accused of lying about Iraq possessing WMD's. Since they DID possess WMD's, Bush is vindicated. Bush did not lie.

THAT is the topic.

It is not about whether or not we should have gone to war. It is not about whether or not France wanted to blow up their parts-buyer. It is about one simple question: Did Bush lie about Iraq having WMD's. The answer *clearly* is NO, he did NOT lie.

um, "remnants" is a word you don't seem to get. A few holdovers isn't a chemical weapons program OR a nuclear program (ie, no centrifuges). Bush lied on both counts.

Anyway, never argue with an idiot. He'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience. I"m sticking my my theory that he's off his meds.

Under Bush II, when the military went to the known Iraqi nuclear storage site they couldn't be bothered to leave guards behind to secure the material.

Ogion....good little dance monkey...Yeah....hundreds of references to the "remnents" of the WMD program...those hundreds of references equals hundreds of buried caches of chemical weapons warheads, you fucktard.

ONE chemical weapon warhead released in Syria was enough to take us to the brink of war if good old Vladimir Putin hadn't stepped us and saved his pal Assad...

Good little dance monkey...you just keep pretending that existing WMD's aren't WMD's, because that's what you Slave Masters have told you to say, and you are good at ignoring facts...

Rando - that has nothing to do with the topic. But thanks for flinging your brand of poo.

And further to Ogion's point, he had these chemicals in 1991. They were known, and that's why weapons inspectors were assigned by the UN security council, to verify that they had been removed - they hadn't.

But at what point did the slow dis-arming of Iraq suddenly justify war? Bush decided terrorism was now a big threat.

Did Iraq have any links to Al-Qaeda? Did Iraq have the ability to threaten the US, or perhaps her allies?

When Bush said: “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” - President Bush, 3/19/03

Was Bush right? Was there evidence that Iraq was planning to use these weapons, or considering selling them? Is that contained in your wiki-leaks document?

There was no evidence that Saddam was planning on cooperating operationally with Al Qaeda ((according to the wiki)). But he was providing them safe haven. Which, isn't that all Afghanistan did? And nobody questions the decision to invade Afghanistan.

All this argument over the WMDs is more or less irrelevant. We were at war with Iraq from 1991 on. Remember the no-fly zones? Saddam constantly shot at allied aircraft.

As long as the no-fly zones remained, we had a stake in the ultimate transition to a post-Saddam Iraq. Say there was no invasion in 2003. Say instead that Saddam stuck around until the Arab Spring happened, as it would have regardless of American adventures in the Middle East. It's reasonable to think the Iraqi people would have risen up against Saddam like they have against Assad, and that Saddam would have been at least as brutal as Assad has been. Could we have sat back and allowed that to happen while the no-fly zones existed? No, of course not. So we would have been drawn in, and not on our own terms as happened in 2003.

This scenario works just as well with a power struggle between Saddam's sons, a coup against him by the army, a Shiite revolution, etc. The point is that as long as the no-fly zones were there we were going to have another war in Iraq. It was just a matter of when and how. Now, it may very well be that the Bush administration still bungled things, but the inevitability of another war in the Gulf is too often unacknowledged by people.

It's not as if the choice was between perpetual peace and horrible war, it was between what kinds of war there would be. Bush still may have made a wrong choice, but it could have been the least worst choice, the worst worst choice, or somewhere in between.

The no-fly zones (covering 60% of Iraq) were illegal. There was no UN authorization for them and the excuse for implementing them changed as time wore on. Invictus neglects to mention that US/UK (so-called "allied") patrols of no-fly zones included frequent bombings of Iraq (250,000 + sorties), killing hundreds of people. All he mentions is Iraq shooting at "allied" planes. He also doesn't mention that Iraq only began defending itself after Operation Desert Fox in 1998, which we all know now was based on lies.

Defending the 2003 invasion by invoking the no-fly zones is just the latest nonsense offered up by the neo-cons, because every other excuse they use has been exposed for being a fraud.

It's almost like you didn't read what I wrote.

I never claimed they were legal. They weren't. But they did exist and were never going away as long as Saddam was still there. As an aside, it's funny you cling to the idea the Israeli settlements are legal and jump on the no-fly zones being illegal, because the argument for the no-fly zones' legality is stronger by far than the argument for the settlements'. Still a loser of an argument, though.

Allied needs no scare quotes.

As for bombings, until the immediate run-up to the Iraq War the bombings were in response to the antiaircraft fire from Iraq.

It's true Iraq started firing in earnest again after Operation Distract People From My Blowjob in 1998. However, Iraq kept firing in the aftermath of the Gulf War until 1993. Even including the lull, that's still the period of 1998-2003 of uninterrupted antiaircraft fire.

Also, a fair reading of my post shows I wasn't defending the 2003 invasion, just saying how the existence of the no-fly zones made war of some sort inevitable. As long as they existed we had a stake in the transition to a post-Saddam Iraq, which would have happened eventually, him being mortal.


But Putin33's opinions here are even more ignorable than in most. He's not just anti-Iraq War (an entirely legitimate point of view), he's literally pro-Saddam (needless to say, an illegitimate point of view). He's said so openly here many times. He doesn't oppose the Iraq War because it was a waste of American blood, treasure, and prestige, he opposes it because it removed a dictator he supported.

"It's almost like you didn't read what I wrote."

I read every word.

"But they did exist and were never going away as long as Saddam was still there."

Another stupid prediction from our resident psychic. You base this on absolutely nothing. The fact of the matter is that the no-fly zones were under tremendous pressure to be lifted in the early 2000s, as countries around the world were outraged by the US/UK's repeated bombings of Iraq under illegal, bullshit pretenses. Ditto the sanctions. As it was, the effort to shut down all civilian air traffic in Iraq under the guise of the no-fly zone was being busted by the Russians, French, and others. The neo-cons were having a fit because their efforts to strangle Iraq were being eroded. That's the reason for the 2003 invasion.

"As an aside, it's funny you cling to the idea the Israeli settlements are legal and jump on the no-fly zones being illegal, because the argument for the no-fly zones' legality is stronger by far than the argument for the settlements'. Still a loser of an argument, though."

A typical red herring from you and not remotely true, anyway. Talk about loser arguments.

"Allied needs no scare quotes."

Yes, it in fact does. "Allied" implies there was some kind of coalition of no-fly zone enforcers and you know it. It was just a sadistic bombing campaign by the Anglo-Saxons, two countries, and nobody else.

"until the immediate run-up to the Iraq War the bombings were in response to the antiaircraft fire from Iraq."

That's horseshit. You believe every lie the US military produces to cover their ass. And anyway, this is yet another example of neo-cons like you changing the excuse as it suits you. The Northern and Southern Watches were supposedly implemented for humanitarian purposes, and you're telling me bombing Iraq 12 times a month from 1998 to 2003 was justified because Hussein had the temerity to defend his country from these illegal patrols. Nice.

"However, Iraq kept firing in the aftermath of the Gulf War until 1993. Even including the lull, that's still the period of 1998-2003 of uninterrupted antiaircraft fire."

Why the hell should any country not defend its air space when it was just inundated with high altitude bombs in 1998? I love you spin this as if Iraq was the aggressor, when you admit that Iraq had abided by these bullshit zones until American aggression in 1998, and their response to that unprovoked attacked was used to justify the subsequent terror bombing for the next 5 years, until the launch of all out invasion and destruction in 2003.

"Also, a fair reading of my post shows I wasn't defending the 2003 invasion"

Yes, you were liar. You love to couch your support for intervention in these bullshit "least bad" terms. You're saying that Bush lying about WMDs is irrelevant, that we were going to have to fight sooner or later, and that 2003 was better than 2011 because in 2003 it was on "our own terms". You're such a fraud you can't even be honest about what you are saying. You know the Iraq war is unpopular so you have to tip toe around your support because heaven forbid Mr. Argumentum Ad Popularum ever be caught with an egregiously unpopular opinion.

"But Putin33's opinions here are even more ignorable than in most. He's not just anti-Iraq War (an entirely legitimate point of view), he's literally pro-Saddam (needless to say, an illegitimate point of view)."

So very predictable. You don't have a case at all so you have to resort to your obligatory grandstanding and deflect from the fact that you're a shameless apologist for Bush, at a time when you do nothing but bitch about everything Obama has done.

Unlike you and others who pretend to have "opposed" the war when it became a self-evident clusterfuck, I've opposed every act of aggression against Iraq. Yes. That includes the slaughter of a million children via sanctions, that includes the no-fly zones, that includes the 1991 war, that includes everything. I make no apologizes for opposing your gruesome crusades and your disgusting lies and vilification campaigns to demonize anybody with an independent foreign policy. Iraq was a secular, progressive, center of learning with an award winning healthcare system. All of it destroyed. Thanks to lackeys of imperialism like you who never met a war you didn't support, and never met an opponent of America that you didn't think was run by Nazi monsters and Asiatic hordes that deserved death and destruction.

tl;dr

Cue Invictus side-stepping this completely, launching his typical personal attacks, and appealing the supposed popularity of his own position.

That's all he ever does. He's a one-trick pony. The most predictable person here.

You're a law student with the attention span of a gnat.

***BREAKING NEWS***
Right-Wing Republican Mr KK Krellin shocks Webdip forum by announcing that Bush was a great president.
Gasps and laughter could be heard amongst shocked members as 'The Krell', 45 of no fixed abode embarked on his maniacal rant, arms flailing wildly and eyes bulging the crazed individual talked about Iraq,Bush,poo and monkeys. An eye witness at the scene said that at this time there were men in white coats with big nets and tramadol and that the patient would soon be captured and returned.
It is said that at first everything seemed normal at the internet cafe but then 'all hell broke loose' as a stunned public bunch of geeks and gamers guffawed as he suddenly shouted "Bush was right, death to Saddam, Liberal conspiracy theory.
One gamer was reported as saying "I was on for my high score on GTA when this totally-wired nut job did a whoopsie in the corner, dude my feng shui has taken a beating, I'm guessing this guy is some kind of veteran that didn't get his dole cheque this month"
As this story unfolds we will all of the latest news .... and talk to someone who knew him before he turned against his govt ....... be right back

It's rather refreshingly novel to see Krellin championing
the Wikileaks / Julian Assange cause
Or is it an example of Krellin "cherry picking" from Wikileaks,
and seizing upon that material which suits his idealogical purposes ( as convoluted as they might be ) & trumpeting loud & long,
and ignoring all material from Wikileaks that might threaten his (Krellin's ) blinker'd, bombastic, and nonsensical political views

@Putin/Invictus, yo're completely off topic. Did Bush lie to get public support for a war against Iraq.

if you want to talk about the merit of the Iraq war, or otherwise, please do, but at the very least address the original question first.

Ora, that point is not even worth discussing. That Bush lied is clear (Bush's CIA admitted that WMDs were destroyed in '91), that the propaganda was self-evident bs is also clear. The public gets no sympathy from me.

It's interesting - over here in the UK, the focus was not whether or not Saddam had had, or continued to have WMD programmes, but whether there was an imminent risk. The 'dodgy dossier' with the claims that Saddam could launch/deploy within 45 minutes should be the focus, not if Iraq still had WMDs.

And Putin - 1991 was a war of aggression against Iraq? I could have sworn they invaded and occupied Kuwait. Guess my memory is faulty

Hee heehe haa haa - look at them dance! I especially like the random attacks directed towards me...simply delicious how easy the monkey are to ply in to action...Fling you poo, little dance monkey!

Krellin when sbyvl returns he's gonna make you look like Putin33

blah blah blah attack attack attack blah blah blah

It seems that many of you accept this principle : "If a country has weapons of mass destruction or produces weapons of mass destruction, that alone is sufficient justification for an invasion of that country". I'm not commenting on whether or not Iraq had WMD. I'm talking about the broad acceptance of a principle.

Does the USA have WMD? Yes. Does Russia have WMD? Yes. Is that ok? If so, why is that ok?

What is the logic behind allowing certain countries WMDs and not allowing others? Is it perhaps just a case of "We've got them, and we won't allow anybody else to catch up with us, but we are afraid to argue with any of the other bullies around." ?

Nobody accepts that principle. There are more qualifiers than *just* possessing WMDs. There is a question of rationality in handling them. Evaluation of who is in command and the stability of the government possessing them. China has them, but we know China wouldn't use them wantonly any more than we would.

Probably the most important (and perhaps only) qualification for having WMDs is having no opponents strong enough to deny them to you.

Hussein, without provocation, invaded Kuwait. Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds. It's really not that fucking difficult to figure out why people wouldn't want him to have WMD's...

If we decided to use a WMD on one of our own cities - say Cincinatti - because Obama didn't like something the newly elected Republican mayor said, then I'm pretty sure the UN would be scrambling to find a way to punish us, take away out WMD's, etc. Of course, the UN would have to stand in line behind the many armed US citizens that would stand up in revolt against the government. And....of course of course...since the UN can't do jack shit without the might of the US military to enforce their will....nothing would happen at all...

....leading us, of course, to tendmote's truth.

The real question is why there are so many Utopian dreamers in the webdip community -- people who seem so utterly detached from reality that they actually ask questions like "Why is that OK" as if global politics/military might/etc is something that is supposed to follow some "fair" set of rules, as opposed to being the chaotic endeavor of rightfully selfish nations whom seek to be on top, and stay on top, as is natural to the human condition. The silly notion that nations are supposed to play nice with each other, and be fair and equal, blah blah blah is the crap of science fiction, and has little to nothing to do with reality as demonstrated throughout the entirety of human history.

We want to be the most the powerful, and keep others from being our equal, because it ensures our survival, and increases the prospect of us existing as we choose to exist. what is so hard to figure out about that?