Report says Bush lied about intell for Iraq war...

[Evanescence]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-distorted-prewar-intel-report-says/20080605181509990001#cmnt bgn

This is a new Senate committee....

They've once again concluded that Bush lied about the intell to sell the war...


Gee, we knew this 2 yrs ago....

But the Bush apologists loonies will still lie for their "good Christian man"

The 500,000 dead Iraqi's, 50,000 mamed US troops and 4000 dead US troops among others....would probably think differently.

I so hope this man and his madmen in the Admin are put on trial....I'll be glued to CNN....

Oh, and thru these mountain of lies, we're supposed to believe the official 911story? ha...yeah right....

[Aussie3rddayfan]

It said that Bush's and Cheney's assertions that Saddam was prepared to arm terrorist groups with weapons of mass destruction for attacks on the United States contradicted available intelligence.

This was a justification I never followed let alone believed. It was made to sound like Iraq was a direct threat to the US. That many lives would be lost if no action was taken. The WMD argument smelled rotten from the beginning, yet despite worlwide public displeasure, and the direct oppostion of the United Nations, Bush went ahead and started a war for which he clearly had other motives. The findings by the UN after the invasion only proved the point. No nuclear or biological ordinance was found. I am thankful George Bush will no longer be in power at the end of this year. Great power bring great responsibility, but that was a lesson he never learned.

[danbos]

Of course they're going to say that...and of course it's going to come out now, in an election year to try to make Republicans look bad...not that I'll be voting for McCain anyways.

The 500,000 dead Iraqi's, 50,000 mamed US troops and 4000 dead US troops among others....would probably think differently.

And on this, how many Iraqis do you think would be dead if we didn't go there. How many more will die if we pull out like the Democrats want us to. And on the U.S. numbers, those are extremely deceiving...at first glance that seems like a lot of people, but for a war that has lasted 6 or so years, it's extremely low.

Welcome to How to Lie with Statistics 101.

[danbos]

Oh, and on the WMDs, if my president gets a report that a country has WMDs, and tries to investigate, and the leader of that country won't let anyone search, and acts extremely suspicious, I'd rather see my president go to war than sit back and wait for us to get nuked first...there's no question that Sadaam hated the US.

[sandyandporter]

Of course they're going to say that...and of course it's going to come out now, in an election year to try to make Republicans look bad...not that I'll be voting for McCain anyways.

It only makes them look bad to people that insist on drawing party lines for every issue.


And on this, how many Iraqis do you think would be dead if we didn't go there. How many more will die if we pull out like the Democrats want us to. . If that was why we went... to protect the Iraqi people... then why haven't we gone to the other countries where situations are much, much worse? Say BURMA for example. That had nothing to do with why we went there.

And on the U.S. numbers, those are extremely deceiving...at first glance that seems like a lot of people, but for a war that has lasted 6 or so years, it's extremely low.

I don't think the parents, families and friends of those 4000 people would feel the same way. I don't care HOW you choose to look at it..... 4000 dead soldiers is a lot!

Welcome to How to Lie with Statistics 101.

Welcome to You Bought the Spin 101.

[Howlin' Wolf]

oil.

its plain and simple.

[Sam!]

It only makes them look bad to people that insist on drawing party lines for every issue.


If that was why we went... to protect the Iraqi people... then why haven't we gone to the other countries where situations are much, much worse? Say BURMA for example. That had nothing to do with why we went there.



I don't think the parents, families and friends of those 4000 people would feel the same way. I don't care HOW you choose to look at it..... 4000 dead soldiers is a lot!



Welcome to You Bought the Spin 101.

More U.S. soldiers died on average each year under Clinton I than under Bush II. Look it up.

[sandyandporter]

More U.S. soldiers died on average each year under Clinton I than under Bush II. Look it up.

What does that have to do with anything? This isn't a "who killed more people" contest.

[Evanescence]

Yep, OIL....Oil it is....

SO much of this cames back to PNAC - Project for a New American Century. This Neocon, radical think tank was a who's who of powerful Reps that have a long history in politics. They proposed the war to Clinton who refused. They had an open letter to him about it. They also wrote a "constitution" of sorts called- Rebuilding America's Defenses. This radically minded Doc called for advancing America's superpower status around the world, building more US military bases around the world and esp in the Middle East. It also called for removing Saddam and a few others in the Middle East. Syria was on their list.

The reason for being in the Middle East? OIL !!!!!!!!!!!!! Protect the Oil for US interests....

This is IMPERIAL thinking....as if the US is an Empire. She is not..she is a Republic.

This has nothing to do with the election....Govt watch dogs pulled this out of the woodwork 2 yrs ago. GWU is a VERY reliable and non-biased govt watch dog with VERY reliable sources, they had uncovered declassified Docs 2 yrs ago about the CIA informant, CURVEBALL.

OH, and that think tank- PNAC? Almost all the key players went from this "innocent" think-tank in the late 90s, to this Admin in 2000. Bush and Cheney hand picked these madmen...with the idea of going to war in the Middle East.

This entire lot needs to be put on trial for war crimes and crimes aginst the constitution. Crack open the books and lets see all the dirt inside. While we're at it, lets look at 911...hook up the lie detectors...no more BS and excuses. Its time we get some real answers from these JACKALS and get to the bottom of things. We need to take back our country before someone thinks WE need a regime change...

Relibale and non-biased sources:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/index.htm

George Washington University's Govt watch dog group-- declassified Docs about how Bush and company KNEW that the source - a man called CURVEBALL was BOGUS. They were warned but Bush insisted on the war...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

Wikipedia - PNAC - Project for a new American Century

List of key figures in PNAC- Note the names....almost 2 dozen tied to this Admin....

Project directors
[as currently listed on the PNAC website:]

William Kristol, Co-founder and Chairman[1]
Robert Kagan,[1]Co-founder
Bruce P. Jackson[1]
Mark Gerson[1]
Randy Scheunemann[1]



[edit] Project staff
Ellen Bork, Deputy Director[1]
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow[1][73]
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow[1]
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow[1]
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director[1]
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate[1]



[edit] Former directors and staff
Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director[74]

[edit] Signatories to Statement of Principles
Elliott Abrams[21]
Gary Bauer[21]
William J. Bennett[21]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[21]
Richard B. Cheney[21]
Eliot A. Cohen[21]
Midge Decter[21]
Paula Dobriansky[21]
Steve Forbes[21]
Aaron Friedberg[21]
Francis Fukuyama[21]
Frank Gaffney[21]
Fred C. Ikle[21]
Donald Kagan[21]
Zalmay Khalilzad[21]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[21]
Norman Podhoretz[21]
J. Danforth Quayle[21]
Peter W. Rodman[21]
Stephen P. Rosen[21]
Henry S. Rowen[21]'
Donald Rumsfeld[21]
Vin Weber[21]
George Weigel[21]
Paul Wolfowitz[21]



[edit] Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports[23]
Elliott Abrams[7][9]
Kenneth Adelman[75]
Richard V. Allen[18]
Richard L. Armitage[7]
Gary Bauer[18][75]
Jeffrey Bell[18][75]
William J. Bennett[7][9][18][75]
Jeffrey Bergner[7][9][18]
John R. Bolton[7][9]
Ellen Bork[75]
Rudy Boschwitz[18]
Linda Chavez[75]
Eliot Cohen[22][18][75]
Seth Cropsey[18]
Midge Decter[18][75]
Paula Dobriansky[7][9]
Thomas Donnelly[22][18][75]
Nicholas Eberstadt,[18][75][76]
Hillel Fradkin[18][75][77]
Aaron Friedberg[18]
Francis Fukuyama[7][9][18]
Frank Gaffney[18][75]
Jeffrey Gedmin[18][75]
Reuel Marc Gerecht[18][75]
Charles Hill[18][75]
Bruce P. Jackson[18][75]
Eli S. Jacobs[18]
Michael Joyce[18]
Donald Kagan[22][18][75]
Robert Kagan[7][9][22][18][75]
Zalmay Khalilzad[7][9]
Jeane Kirkpatrick[18]
Charles Krauthammer[18]
William Kristol[7][9][22][18]
John Lehman[18][75]
I. Lewis Libby[22]
Tod Lindberg[75][78]
Rich Lowry[75]
Clifford May[18][75]
Joshua Muravchik[75]
Michael O'Hanlon [79][80]
Martin Peretz[18][75]
Richard Perle[7][9][18][75]
Daniel Pipes[75]
Norman Podhoretz[18][75]
Peter W. Rodman[7][9][18]
Stephen P. Rosen[22][18][75]
Donald Rumsfeld[7][9]
Randy Scheunemann[18][75]
Gary Schmitt[22][18][75][73]
William Schneider, Jr.[7][9][18][75]
Richard H. Shultz[18][81]
Stephen J. Kantany[82]
Henry Sokolski[18]
Stephen J. Solarz[18]
Vin Weber[7][9][18]
Leon Wieseltier[18]
Marshall Wittmann[18][75]
Paul Wolfowitz[7][9][22]
R. James Woolsey[7][9][75]
Dov Zakheim[22]
Robert B. Zoellick[7][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC#Rebuilding_America.2 7s_Defenses

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"

This Account Has Been Suspended. Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
www.newamericancentury.or g/ - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

PNACs website has been suspended....gee, imagine that....

[danbos]

oil.

its plain and simple.

False.

It's plain and simple, if we want they're oil, we can leave now, wait in Kuwait for a while, let them all kill each other and come in a take their oil.

[danbos]

I don't think the parents, families and friends of those 4000 people would feel the same way. I don't care HOW you choose to look at it..... 4000 dead soldiers is a lot!

Do you think those 4000 people were not willing to give their lives to save the lives of many Iraqi people? That kind of the point of being a soldier, every soldier there ever was knew that they might have to give their life for another person, and since there has not been a draft, those people who dies must have been willing to make that sacrifice.

[sandyandporter]

Do you think those 4000 people were not willing to give their lives to save the lives of many Iraqi people? That kind of the point of being a soldier, every soldier there ever was knew that they might have to give their life for another person, and since there has not been a draft, those people who dies must have been willing to make that sacrifice.

Justify it any way you want. 4000 people is a lot of people. You act as though I'm attacking the soldiers and I'm not. I was stating that you were blase' about the deaths of 4000 people.

There are people in my life that I am willing to die for. Doesn't mean that I WANT to die for them. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be TRAGIC if I died for them. But I'm willing.

Jesus was willing to die for us. Jesus HAD to die for us. IMHO it's still a tragedy that had to happen. It still makes me incredibly sad that he HAD to die.

These soldiers didn't HAVE to die. You can argue about whether we should have gone to war, why we're at war, are we winning the war... ad nauseum. Doesn't change the death toll. Doesn't change the toll it's taken on us as a country, doesn't change anything. Argue all day long. Doesn't comfort a mother who lost her son, a wife who lost their husband, a child who lost their dad.

4000 people is a lot of people. That was my point.

[danbos]

Justify it any way you want. 4000 people is a lot of people. You act as though I'm attacking the soldiers and I'm not. I was stating that you were blase' about the deaths of 4000 people.

There are people in my life that I am willing to die for. Doesn't mean that I WANT to die for them. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be TRAGIC if I died for them. But I'm willing.

Jesus was willing to die for us. Jesus HAD to die for us. IMHO it's still a tragedy that had to happen. It still makes me incredibly sad that he HAD to die.

These soldiers didn't HAVE to die. You can argue about whether we should have gone to war, why we're at war, are we winning the war... ad nauseum. Doesn't change the death toll. Doesn't change the toll it's taken on us as a country, doesn't change anything. Argue all day long. Doesn't comfort a mother who lost her son, a wife who lost their husband, a child who lost their dad.

4000 people is a lot of people. That was my point.

I never said that they wanted to die...and yes, it is sad that these soldiers had to give their lives for they country, but I am thankful that they were willing to give their lives to fight against a country that appeared to be a threat to our country's safety. I know what it's like to lose someone who didn't have to die, nothing anyone says makes it easier. All I'm saying that that this death toll is very low compared to just about every other war that has happened and people are blowing it out of proportion.

[sandyandporter]

I never said that they wanted to die...and yes, it is sad that these soldiers had to give their lives for they country, but I am thankful that they were willing to give their lives to fight against a country that appeared to be a threat to our country's safety. I know what it's like to lose someone who didn't have to die, nothing anyone says makes it easier. All I'm saying that that this death toll is very low compared to just about every other war that has happened and people are blowing it out of proportion.

I give up. There's no reasoning with you about this I guess. You don't get it.

[The Unknown Gomer]

...and since there has not been a draft, those people who dies must have been willing to make that sacrifice.

Except for those folks who signed up so that the military could pay for college. Or to get out of a dead end life situation.

Did you see that PBS special about the Navy ship the USS Nimitz? They interviewed a LOT of the sailors on that ship, and it was amazing how many of them only signed up because they came from these little dink towns where there weren't any jobs and the only options that they saw for themselves were to either join a gang, sell drugs or do some sort of other illegal behavior, or join the military. Many of the folks interviewed didn't actually BELIEVE in the war, but they were kind of stuck fighting it by then.

So not everyone who is fighting in Iraq is actually there by choice.

[danbos]

I've said what I have to say. I sorry that people don't like it, but that's what I think. I believe the war is justified. I also believe that we can't leave no matter if the reason for initially going to war was good or not. I'll be leaving this thread now, feel free to continue bashing your president.

[markie mark]

As long as there's a large gap between the upper and lower class (with little to no middle class), then there's always plenty of army recruits available. Higher numbers of lower class = strong army.

I would bet that there's likely more middle class in Canada (per capita) as our military stinks! However, our middle class is slowly shrinking here as well.

[Evanescence]

300 billion barrels of oil in the Iraqi desert....Gas at 4.00/gal here....reports from around the world that the world is running out of oil...

Coincidence? Nah, not by a long shot....

We HAVE to stay in order to handle and manipulate the oil....PNAC wanted a premanent military presence in the Middle east. Jeb Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Bolton, Scooter, Rove and host of others in PNAC are NOW in this admin. How can this be called a coincidence? Are we that blind?

Timeline:

1997- PNAC formed
1998 - PNAC sends letter to Clinton, asks for regime change in Iraq. Then they write the "Statement of principles- Rebuilding America's defenses"
2000 - Bush appoints his cabinet - 20 or more PNAC members are now in the Bush White House
2003 - Bush uses 911 and propaganda as a means to take out Saddam, fulfilling the dreams of PNAC

PLEASE tell me this is all just a coincidence and for the greater good?

Cheney among others would have known full well of the oncoming oil crisis in the mid to late 90s....this in fact is documented.

Bush will soon sign a security agreement where we will be there for good....to handle and manipulate the oil. This oil will eventually make it here....mixed with the blood shed for the oil. You think we're gonna give up our permanent military base in bagdad? ha, no way...

We used LIES to force democracy on people.....but the real objective was to steal their oil and Americanize the Middle East...or try to. ith the spoils going to Haliburton....Cheney's old company...

Let's forget about the 4000 dead troops...and the 40,000 mamed troops..and the 50,000 traumatized troops (that will never be the same)...lets look at the 500,000 Iraqi lives. Danbo's you basically said, "they were going to die anyway"....

Thats just wrong man....there's justification for killing...and the collateral damage....DEFENSE from an attack is one....stealing oil, is NOT.

Bush lied...we can and have always been able to PROVE it. We're in debt 9 trillion dollars and on the verge of economic collapse. The White House is being run by madmen....I pray they are brought to justice and America is returned to the soverign state she once was.

For those that think regime changes are justified....think about what the founding fathers said:

"America does not seek out monsters to destroy. She does not go abroad in search of monsters but only defends herself in need."

John Adams

[rossid]

Did someone already ask you E about whether or not you get paid for writing these reports under pseudonyms? :P

[danbos]

Danbo's you basically said, "they were going to die anyway"....

Thats just wrong man....there's justification for killing...and the collateral damage....DEFENSE from an attack is one....stealing oil, is NOT.

Okay, I have to respond to that...then I'll be gone from this thread. I admit, that did come out wrong. I was not trying to say that it fine that they died because they would have died anyways. I was trying to say that most of those people died at the hands of their own countrymen, not as a result of us being there. I was trying to say that many more would have died as a result of basically a civil war going on there, so it is misleading to use that statistic to say the war was wrong.

[Les_Is_More]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bush-distorted-prewar-intel-report-says/20080605181509990001#cmnt bgn

The 500,000 dead Iraqi's, 50,000 mamed US troops and 4000 dead US troops among others....would probably think differently.



Where are you getting that "500,000 dead Iraqi's" number? Is the liberal media feeding you that? ;)

This (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) website counts all the civilian deaths, which number ~92,000.

[Evanescence]

I don't do Liberal and Conservatives....Lefts or Rights...

I have seen several non-partisan reports that claim 300,000 to 800,000...so I rounded it off.

I know there's a lot of variables with trying to figure this number....but even if its 10, we're to blame and it was not right....we were not under attack...or directly threatened...end of story.

Oh, and we were lied to as well...

Pray that someone doesn't come here to "liberate" us....killing thousands. It won't be so proud and cute when the worm turns....

[Les_Is_More]

Pray that someone doesn't come here to "liberate" us....killing thousands. It won't be so proud and cute when the worm turns....

That may very well happen to us with radical Islam. They believe Allah commands them to kill or convert all "heathen."

[kiwisongbird]

Sadly, I can't see this war ever ending... it would indeed be interesting to see the demographics of the 'average' soldier in Iraq - I would imagine they would be people from poorer situations etc...the risk of fighting to gain a veteran's pension would likely be worthwhile for many of these 'kids'...

What's the average age?

Guess I'm just getting old thinking that 25 year olds are teenagers, so younger than that at war freaks me out a lot!

And BURMA - yeah, well guess all I can say is let's pray they strike large amounts of oil sometime - I hear they have lots of gas - maybe we could invent vehicles that run on gas then the US war machine would go in there and liberate the Karen, Shan and Karenni people - oh and also the Burmese and oh, maybe even free the DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader An San Soo Kyi... - oh well dreams are free I guess...:rolleyes:

[Aussie3rddayfan]

I don't think the parents, families and friends of those 4000 people would feel the same way. I don't care HOW you choose to look at it..... 4000 dead soldiers is a lot!

Absolutely, it has been 4000 more than necassary. Although when these soldiers joined they knew they might face action, their lives are a tradgic loss for not all that much gain.



I have seen several non-partisan reports that claim 300,000 to 800,000...so I rounded it off.

Not a good idea, E. Don't state something as fact that isn't.

I know there's a lot of variables with trying to figure this number....but even if its 10, we're to blame and it was not right....we were not under attack...or directly threatened...end of story.

Yes. From where I was sitting you got the impression the US government was at imminent threat of nuclear assault; which wasn't true. Truth be told, the argument was never about whether Iraq would pull the trigger if they could - Saddam would not have hesitated even a second if he could launch a nuke at America's heart (and he wouldn't be alone) - but that of IF Iraq had WMD. They didn't, and I am very skeptical about the governments claim that they didn't know. IMO, they went to war in Iraq with some honourable intentions; but also some not so honourable ones.

[Jason]

Sadly, I can't see this war ever ending... it would indeed be interesting to see the demographics of the 'average' soldier in Iraq - I would imagine they would be people from poorer situations etc...the risk of fighting to gain a veteran's pension would likely be worthwhile for many of these 'kids'...:

And you would be wrong.

Debunking the myth of the underprivileged soldier
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-27-soldier-edit_x.htm

[kiwisongbird]

I sit corrected :)

[lilmikey]

oil.

its plain and simple.

I know this sounds over symplistic but if the envirMENTALists will allow us to get the resources we have on our own land than we would need to reley on the middle east as much for our oil.

They complain that we are over there for oil but these same people are stoppng us from getting the oil resources that WE do have. It makes no sense. Where else do they think we are going to get it from??

[Jesuslove]

Okay, I have to respond to that...then I'll be gone from this thread. I admit, that did come out wrong. I was not trying to say that it fine that they died because they would have died anyways. I was trying to say that most of those people died at the hands of their own countrymen, not as a result of us being there. I was trying to say that many more would have died as a result of basically a civil war going on there, so it is misleading to use that statistic to say the war was wrong.

Dan,
If you are so passionate about this war and think it's the right cause, why not join the military?

[Valpo]

Whose oil is being stolen? Iraqi's are now producing much of their own oil to feed back into their own economy. Things have taken a dramatic change for the better, but people would rather keep their heads buried in the sand. Obama will not visit Iraq for this reason. I talk to people I know on the ground in Iraq and they said "this place is nothing like the media is making it out to be."

How do you know things are better in Iraq? Not a big headline anymore. And not because the media is "bored" with it. If it bleeds it leads. And the Iraq lead stories have dwindled a considerable amount.

[danbos]

Dan,
If you are so passionate about this war and think it's the right cause, why not join the military?

1) I'm not that passionate about the war, but I thought that this thread needed another point of view.
2) They wouldn't accept me.
3) I'm really not that fond of the military, after what the Marines did to my cousin.

By the way, I think that question is not even a fair question anyways...it's like asking someone who is posting that we should pray for the saints in Myanmar why they aren't on the next plane over there to take care of all their problems...it's not a fair question.

[Evanescence]

man you guys still at this...

I go away for 3 days and look what happens...oh, well, time to take off my belt...

Who's first? :cool:

[Pouye]

In such a situation, things are always more complex than others want to make things out to be. Simple... they say. Oil... they say. But things are never that simple. Some might have forgotten the Gulf War by now, or even some of the scuffles before that -- but I haven't. Are there oil interests? Of course -- its the Middle East! Were there other reasons to go to war? Surely. Part was to put a stop to a regime that continued to defy the USA and International pressure. Israel had already destroyed (via air strikes) several attempts at Iraq to build a nuclear power plant (a French project), and after Tel-Aviv was attacked, there was an international outcry, and there was great pressure placed on the USA to remove Saddam Hussein from power, as he was a threat to Israel and to other US allies within range of his missiles.

I keep hearing that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction. He certainly did, because he used some of them on his own people.

One of the most valid reasons for going in after Saddam is what I've been saying all along: He was a PROVEN threat to the stability of the Middle East, a PROVEN threat to Israel, and was practicing his own genocide war in Iraq. The leadership in the USA (both Republicans and Democrats) understood that it was not possible to keep up inspections (which were being disallowed), and that left to himself, Saddam would continue to grow in power and rival Iran. Saddam's goal was to unite Sunnis and gain enough power to become a more permanent threat to Israel and the West.

This is not a topic that is easily dismissed. Myths abound, and political strings are being pulled every which direction. Whether or not the USA "made a mistake" in entering this battle is not going to fix our current problem. The blame game will only make things worse (for our situation and troops), as it did for the Vietnam War. Whether or not we went to war on correct information or not isn't going to change the present situation. Everyone knew that it was going to be long and ugly: That was exactly Bush's words.

Below are a few links for those who are interested. This is a complex issue, and we, the general public, don't have most of the information on what was really going on -- both in the conspiracies and in the "other side", which was the raw data and information the CIA and other intelligence agencies were feeding the USA. Much is still classified and will be for many years. Before anyone jumps to conclusions based on public opinions and assumptions, they should do more than jump into one camp or the other. The tendency is for people to quickly polarize on this issue, depending on which sources they choose to listen to and/or believe.

And remember, hindsight is always 20/20.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weapons%20of%20mass%20des truction

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html

http://cshink.com/wmd_in_lebanon.htm

http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/1997/b041597_bt177-97.html

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Teasers/ChemIraq.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings. pdf

http://www.worldthreats.com/

Rock

[Jesuslove]

I keep hearing that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction. He certainly did, because he used some of them on his own people.

One of the most valid reasons for going in after Saddam is what I've been saying all along: He was a PROVEN threat to the stability of the Middle East, a PROVEN threat to Israel, and was practicing his own genocide war in Iraq. The leadership in the USA (both Republicans and Democrats) understood that it was not possible to keep up inspections (which were being disallowed), and that left to himself, Saddam would continue to grow in power and rival Iran. Saddam's goal was to unite Sunnis and gain enough power to become a more permanent threat to Israel and the West.
If he was such a threat to the region, why did the US support him for so many years? President Reagan provided Saddam with weapons.

This is not a topic that is easily dismissed. Myths abound, and political strings are being pulled every which direction. Whether or not the USA "made a mistake" in entering this battle is not going to fix our current problem. The blame game will only make things worse (for our situation and troops), as it did for the Vietnam War. Whether or not we went to war on correct information or not isn't going to change the present situation. Everyone knew that it was going to be long and ugly: That was exactly Bush's words.
Myths abound, BUT facts are facts and will always remain facts. We invaded a sovereign nation with very little support from other countries around the world.

[rossid]

Myths abound, BUT facts are facts and will always remain facts. We invaded a sovereign nation with very little support from other countries around the world.

And they had a sovereign leader that had all the rights in the world to do whatever he wanted to his own people. Wait, he also had all the rights in the world to invade neighboring lands too, but that is an earlier story.

[Jesuslove]

And they had a sovereign leader that had all the rights in the world to do whatever he wanted to his own people. Wait, he also had all the rights in the world to invade neighboring lands too, but that is an earlier story.

If he was that evil, why was the US funding him for so long. Why was the US giving his government weapons is he was so evil? I don't understand.

[Howlin' Wolf]

If he was that evil, why was the US funding him for so long. Why was the US giving his government weapons is he was so evil? I don't understand.

why? because at the time, Iraq was fighting against Iran and the start of fundamentalist Islam was taking its root in the Iranian government. Saddam, on the other hand, led a secular government. Iran was a bigger threat to Israel. Hence, the support of Iraq in the war.

During the Gulf War, Saddam fired scud missles at Israel, in hopes they would fight back and unify the muslim world with Iraq. The Israeli's stood pat, but Saddam had become public enemy no. 1 in Tel Aviv.

We will fight whomever Israel wants us to fight. Dont believe me? Notice we have done nothing with Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez. If Iran is next, its because Ahmenidijad is an enemy of Israel.

[Evanescence]

Tulip hit the nail on the head...and Israel is NOT as innocent as some would think...IMO...

I think there's a serious connection with Israel and 911....somehwere, somehow.

Israel is run by Zionists NOT jews...there is a difference...

[Pouye]

why? because at the time, Iraq was fighting against Iran and the start of fundamentalist Islam was taking its root in the Iranian government. Saddam, on the other hand, led a secular government. Iran was a bigger threat to Israel. Hence, the support of Iraq in the war.

During the Gulf War, Saddam fired scud missles at Israel, in hopes they would fight back and unify the muslim world with Iraq. The Israeli's stood pat, but Saddam had become public enemy no. 1 in Tel Aviv.


I agree completely with this.


We will fight whomever Israel wants us to fight. Dont believe me? Notice we have done nothing with Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez. If Iran is next, its because Ahmenidijad is an enemy of Israel.

I don't agree with this. I don't buy the Zionist idea that Israel tells the USA what to do. However, they are an ally, and there are many reasons to support them. Opinions of course abound about how much the USA should support them. The Arab world would like nothing more than for the USA and Europe to cut their military ties with and support for Israel. Many of the 22 Arab countries that surround Israel do not even acknowledge the country's existence, and they do NOT simply want to live peacefully along side them, that's for sure. Israel is like a fly in their Middle-East ointment. They want rid of Israel, plain and simple.
On the map below, green represents majority Muslim populations.

Rock

[Jesuslove]

I agree completely with this.



I don't agree with this. I don't buy the Zionist idea that Israel tells the USA what to do. However, they are an ally, and there are many reasons to support them. Opinions of course abound about how much the USA should support them. The Arab world would like nothing more than for the USA and Europe to cut their military ties with and support for Israel. Many of the 22 Arab countries that surround Israel do not even acknowledge the country's existence, and they do NOT simply want to live peacefully along side them, that's for sure. Israel is like a fly in their Middle-East ointment. They want rid of Israel, plain and simple.
On the map below, green represents majority Muslim populations.

Rock
Supporting Israel hurts America's reputation in the Middle East. Last week, one of the Israeli cabinent members made a direct threat against Iran. Could you imagine if Iran made a direct threat against Israel? Fair is Fair and Israel acts like a bully in the region.