Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Not that i disagree but are you saying we were intentionally lied to about why we needed to go into Iraq to begin with?
Actually no I don't.
but to go into this in depth may take a bit.
Please bear with me
I believe and see it as rather obvious that everyone from the Bush Sr administration through the Clinton Administration. And obviously into the current one, all believed he had them
Or at the very least the very vast majority of people in both parties firmly believed he had them.
There is certainly enough evidence in the form of direct quotes from these people to support this.
And people seem to forget. Or plain do not want to remember it wasn't only our government who claimed he indeed had them.
Just about every other intel agency from just about every major country also claimed he had them.
the question wasn't if he had them. but what to do about it.
So if Bush lied. then so did a lot of other people both here and abroad
As such. And even without WMDs It has been widely reported by just about every news media throughout the years that Saddams goal was to dominate and control the middle east.
He had already shown he had no problem in attacking his neighbors.
As such he was a threat so long as he remained in power
Now while the sanctions were in full effect and fully being enforced by all countries. that threat was seriously diminished.
But. the Sanctions were beginning to break down. It was only a matter of time before they became irrelevant and Saddam would once again become a threat.
Now back to the WMDs. for a moment.
I do believe he had a NBC program (WMDs)
Most countries with any kind of money these days do have them. Including our own
I also believe that after gulf war 1 he had dispersed and hidden this program in such a way that it would be difficult if not impossible to prove he had them.
As far as his Chemical and Bio programs are concerned.
Most people just don't understand how his programs worked.
They expect to find stockpiles of shells filled with the stuff and that's just not how it worked.
For whatever he was. Saddam was a paranoid and didn't trust many people
As such he didn't keep stockpiles of the stuff laying around to be used at a moments notice where it could be used by just anyone who had a mind to. Possibly against him.
When they were to be used. they were mixed or put together on site.
where he would have people mix and/or add these things to the shells just prior to firing them
As far as the chemical weapons go. Most of the chemical weapons were probably made up of duel use chemicals.
Meaning there were other legitimate uses for these chemicals besides weaponry.
As a very basic example
Most homes have such dual use chemicals.
Most people have both bleach and ammonia.
Now in and of themselves and when used properly for cleaning there is no problem and they serve a legitimate purpose which would be hard for anyone to complain about.
But. if you mix the two together. You get a poison gas. Viola you just created a chemical weapon.
As far as his Bio program is concerned.
With Bio weapons you don't need tons and tons of the stuff. A little dab will do ya.
A teaspoon of Anthrax for example can kill a whole lot of people
From everything I've read. the amount of material he is supposed to have you could fit into a common garage.
Now imagine hiding the contents of a common garage in an area the size of Texas. And having 10 years to do it in.
Not exactly the hardest thing in the world to do.
Then there is the still unresolved case of the missing nuclear material.
I believe he had them yes. But he had them in a way that would be difficult if not impossible to prove. So it doesn't surprise me that we haven't been able to find much..
Now. Back to the reasons for war.
Again. I see it as rather obvious that both parties firmly believed he had that capability. I don't believe anyone was intentionally lied to by any administration or party about his capabilities.
Diplomatic solutions were failing. As I said. Sanctions were starting to fall apart.
Secret deals with France. Germany, and Russia were being developed for the full lifting of sanctions.
We know this from the Dilfer report
Once the sanctions were gone. It would be harder and harder to legitimize the reasons for use being there and enforcing anything.
And Saddam again would be completely free to do as he pleased. And again be a threat to the region. And probably be a pretty pissed off one at his neighbors at that. Saddam wasn't real big on forgive and forget.
With him as a threat to the region. we would be a threat to our national interests. That being. the flow of oil from the ME
As I have stated many times here on these boards.
"Oil isn't just in our national interest. it IS our national interest"
And it would be kinda hard for anyone to dispute that
Wars since the beginning of time have been fought to protect or acquire what is the countries interests from trade routes to gold, to sugar and tea.
None were more vital to a countries way of life then oil.
And we must protect and fight for what is in our vital national interests.
Now we knew that Saddam at least HAD a NBC program. It would be downright foolish to assume he either didn't still have them or wouldn't start them up again once sanctions were lifted. Which again as the Dilfer report points out was exactly his intentions once sanctions were lifted
Now. with that in mind we had some choices to make.
We could do nothing and hope Saddam would decide he was going to suddenly change his stripes and play nice nice.
Which was possible. It was unlikely as hell. But it was possible.
We could attack now while he was at his weakest.
Or we could wait and attack later when he has re gathered his strength.
Problem is if by attacking now. We run the risk of looking like fools if nothing was found.
Yet if we wait until later when something does happen.
The potential cost would be much much higher and more difficult
And people would be screaming why something wasn't done before
when we had the chance.
Damned if ya do. Damned if ya don't
Sanctions are a good short term solution to persuade countries on smaller issues.
They are a poor long term solution as they only work if everyone fully and completely participates in them in the long term.
Which rarely if ever happens.
Sanctions wouldn't do the job. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the problems the world now has with North Korea, and Iran and see how well sanctions work in the long term.
Eventually you have to deal with the problem.
IT seems to me foolish to wait to deal with a problem when it has gained strength. And prudent to deal with it when it is at it weakest
You don't wait for a tumor to become cancerous before you deal with it
And you don't wait for a known cancer to spread before you deal with it
You don't leave a loose shingle on the roof un repaired on the off chance it will never cause a leak.
Do I think we were intentionally lied to? No
There were more then enough people on both sides that thought so dating back to well before GW to give that claim any kind of legitimacy
The question was to deal with the situation now. Or later.
To deal with it later just means your passing it off onto someone else
Oil was and is the end game though. No question about it.
Its the reason to be concerned about the WMDs and Saddam trying to dominate the ME. While I don't believe he was a direct threat to us. He was a threat to the ME. and as such he was an indirect threat to us by way of our national interests
And its not just about gas
Plastic being one of the leading byproducts of the oil industry is also absolutely vital to our national interests.
All one without even leaving their seats needs to do is look around them and see how important plastic has become.
Oil, gas and plastic aren't just mere wants. They are at the point of absolute needs. As literally everything comes to a screeching halt without them.
And they will continue to be so well into the foreseeable future
To the point where we cannot tolerate threats to those needs any more then we could tolerate threats to our food supply.
I have said all along I was and are in favor of the actions in Iraq.
The only reason I needed to be given was "Because its Tuesday"
I would have supported it no matter who was in office. Be it Bush,or Clinton
Or Gore. Or if Barbara Streisand were president for that matter.
The way I see people on these boards are however. Had Clinton done it Or had Gore been elected and done it.
Most of the current nay sayers would be in favor of it and most of the current supporters would be whining about it. (note I said most. Not ALL)
Not through any kind of critical thinking though.
though points can be made in either direction through critical thinking
That type of thinking is rarely used here.
But purely out of politics and the bias that comes with it
