Why did the U.S. attack Iraq?

Yes, I understand the point . . . that Repubs and Bushites and Neo-Con oil barons and Halliburton lied us into a war of greed and imperialism.

 

I merely asked him to provide any information he had that was relevant, I am sorry, did I ask wrong?

I looked back, and I did not see any substantiation of what he said, more like an attack on what storch posted, which is fine, but it appeared he had other information on this subject, which I am interested in seeing.

Sorry, I am lagging behind a bit on this thread, trying to catch up.

 

My emotional meltdown, Rick? You exposed nothing but your false hope that no one will recognize that my comment about me leading others down the primrose path of my political emotions was just me fucking with you.

You accuse me of blaming republicans. You're becoming hysterical in your failed attempt to make my attack on the war look like an attack on a political party.

You are free to check out my posts if you wish to see where my political affiliations lie. When you do, you'll see what a paranoid little republican whiner you really are and perhaps you will drop the hysterics about who was left off a list.

You know everyone is laughing at your attempt to save face here. I can't believe that you are whining about the fact that I introduced the guy who compiled the list I posted. You don't like the messenger. So, why don't you post a list of an equal number of incriminating comments from both democrats and republicans so that your ridiculous, child-like need for fairness can be satisfied?

 

O.W.L., Rick did not understand the point being made. The reason he did not understand it is because he is so hopelessly lost in his fantasy world of politics where there are good guys and bad guys.

He's just looking for justice where no injustice has been done.

 

lets face it,,, Saddam needed a bath, im just letting u all niggas know this shit for realz.. that wasnt white phosphorus they was spraying them with .. it was Irish Spring. them rag head s be stinking..

 

Is this enough?


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

'Curveball': I lied about WMD to hasten Iraq war
Defector admits he fabricated information to try to bring down Saddam regime

An Iraqi defector who went by the codename “Curveball” has publicly admitted for the first time that he made up stories about mobile bioweapons trucks and secret factories to try to bring down Saddam Hussein’s regime.

"I had a problem with the Saddam regime," Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who fled Iraq in 1995, told The Guardian newspaper. "I wanted to get rid of him and now I had this chance."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball

 

Hey look I got down repped by someone that wasnt there.. did you burn your draft card in the 60s too?.

 

You don't seem a particularly ignorant or prejudiced person - what's with the 'stinking rag head' comment?

 

Because US leadership was concerned about Sadam mistreating the Iraqi people.

No really, they wanted the Iraqi people to be free.

 

LOL

​

 

Lazarus!! I didn't know Jesus was in town. I have a really bad knee I need him to look at. I'm kind of worried because the knee has been bad for about two years, and I've been saved for only one year. And I've heard things--probably rumors--that He won't do pre-existing conditions. That can't be true. It just can't . . .

 

you mean invade not attack Iraq

 

  in·vade
[in-veyd] Show IPA verb, in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing.
verb (used with object) 1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.

3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.

4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.

5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.

at·tack

[uh-tak]
verb (used with object) 1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.

2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.

4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.

5. to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.


Looks like pretty much the same meaning to me.

 

Well, if one wanted to be technical and respect history instead of inventing it, we need to get in the wayback machine and return to 1991 . . .

The authorization of force in UNSCR-678 never expired.

On March 2, 1991 Iraq agreed to fulfill certain demands and conditions in exchange for a "suspension of offensive combat operations . . ."

A temporary, conditional, "suspension of offensive operations" (also referred to as a "cease-fire") realized by Iraq by merely verbally agreeing to UN demands is not the same as a "definitive end to hostilities" to be negotiated after Iraq completes the necessary actions that fulfilled the open items in UNSC resolutions.

Until Iraq complies, the authorization of the use of force remained effective. The only means to nullify that authoriztion of force and make the cease fire a permanent, "definitive end to the hostilities," was for Iraq to comply, to fulfill through action, the Security Council demands. Only Iraq's compliance controlled when the authorization of force was taken off the table.

So lets skip a decade or so and Iraq is still coasting on the temporary cease-fire as many UN demands remain unfulfilled. UNSCR-1441 (Iraq's "final opportunity to comply") issued in 2002 states:

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,. . .

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; . . ."

​

The resumption of offensive operations in 2003 was the revocation of a conditional and temporally enacted cease fire that long overstayed its usefulness. Iraq had been in material breach of the provisions of resolution 687 which established a cease-fire for over ten years. This revocation finally took place after Iraq had failed to avail itself of it's "final opportunity to comply" granted by UNSCR-1441.

That's all there is to it and to argue differently is either ignoring the truth and saying the UN has no authority or just arguing anti-American political ideology.

 

Yeah, Rick, we've all been subjected to that bullshit years ago. Many of us have since researched the issue and found that the official story on Iraq is for those who are either ignoring the truth or just arguing pro-American political ideology.

 

I'm still waiting for you to point me to the posts of the people who exposed a political bias. But you're not going to show me that, are you? No, you're not, and we both know why. You failed to even research this thread enough before talking out your ass like someone who's already decided what's true.

 

But the "official story" that I posted shows a basic premise of your position to be untrue. You said that the "U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war" but in reality we can at least include a majority of the nations having seats on the UN Security Council as supporting if not making the same statements you posted from US Repubs and Bushites. . .

The truth is; a conditional temporary cease-fire existed for over a decade without any real action by Iraq to fulfill UN demands that would allow a permanent end of hostilities to be negotiated and the original authorization of force for member states to act against Iraq was in force without restriction.

The only one spouting a provably "false pretext" here is you.

I remembered you said . . . :

. . . and I looked. According to what you said there you exposed your political bias in the 4th post in this thread:

Brian Becker?

IAC and International A.N.S.W.E.R. and World Workers Party Brian Becker????? A guy that makes the "unrepentant liberal" of your first post look like Newt Gingrich?

None are more blind than those who refuse to see.

I know enough to know that your premise is not supported by an honest examination of the situation. At best it is a superficial theory held out of convenience because it is all you hear and all you read and all you care to know about because you have no one around you to challenge it only validate it. (very common affliction among the "socially / politically aware" left)

It is clear your premise is only held as an emotional construct because you react like a scalded cat to any challenge to defend your position . . . It's all about how you "feel" not what you know and opposite information like my posts are perceived as a threat to your "feelings" which is evident in both the angry reaction and how you project your "feelings" of insecurity and hostility on me. Just for shits and giggles, let's make a sentence out of them:

So, I'm very touchy, led around by political emotions, that you are sorry I'm offended by what you say, presuming this is an emotional issue for me, that I have a problem with the man who compiled the list and I just want to take it out on you, that I'm becoming hysterical and what a paranoid little republican whiner I really am and perhaps I will drop the hysterics about who was left off a list because everyone is laughing at me because of my whining ridiculous, child-like need for fairness . . .
​

Just heaps of projection with a smattering of insults.

Your posts contain not one syllable of on-point, logical reasoned rebuttal to me or any actual defense of your deeply-felt, suitable for a protest signboard but not a discussion board, "story of how the U.S. government lied to the world as a thinly-veiled false pretext for war". . .

How pathetic.

Awaiting your reply with morbid curiosity LOL.

 

A little something on facebook I thought to share here:

 

Don't you know better than to expose your lack of understanding that one poster does not equal many? You have to stop and edit yourself after every statement, Rick, to make sure you don't give the impression that you have an agenda here. A good rule of thumb is that when one becomes many in your mind, or vice versa, and you're oblivious enough to not know better than to post this evidence of your bias, you know you have an agenda and are easily tweaked.

And on top of that, this is yet another example of your knee-jerk reaction to info that is true but doesn't come up to your standards of disclosure.

 

And what you point out as "just heaps of projection with a smattering of insults is nothing of the sort. You do have a child-like response to the source of the list. You don't contest the truth of it, only the source; much like a toddler might refuse milk from anything other than his blue bottle.