[rawcatslyentist]

BS!

We shoulda nuked it from orbit! SA & Iran too!

[Proud2BeRight]

I always thought it was the right decision until Obama turned it over to the terrorists.

[ETL]

Pre-war quotes from "lying" House and Senate democrats...

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the 4 years since the inspectors, 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-Qaida 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 wiill continue to increase his capability 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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

"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
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:

Why?

Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?

Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all

“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

"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."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"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
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"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
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all

"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
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"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
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman

[robowombat]

It seems that no one ever points out that the US could not keep 1/4 of its tac air tied up enforcing the UN embargo of Iraq with the Global War on Terror in progress and that a first year ROTC student could point out the error of leaving a powerful foe placed on ones flank in SW Asia. The withdrawal of most US air assets would have led to the collapse of the embargo of Iraq in a year or so and Saddam could have strutted around proclaiming , again, ‘Brave Iraqis you have won (because my regime outlasted them).’ All of this is so elemental, but none of the Bush people will ever just say it.

[DesertRhino]

Essentially, after 2003 the price of oil went very high, and this guy guesses Saddam would have bought a lot of cool weapons and become a menace, so we should crush him when he was broke.

And the other argument he makes is that the WMD evidence was probably faked, but that nobody could say he didn’t have them, so we should have attacked.

NO matter where you stand on the war, these were very VERY lame arguments.

[TBP]

But we executed it horribly. Go in to win or don’t go in.

[Greysard]

But fast forward five or ten years. If we had not overthrown his regime, sooner or later Saddam would have wiggled out from under the sanctions regime.

It's nice to read an article that is written by a prophet :-) In reality, Saddam could be dead by now by any one of 100 very good reasons. Most likely, by poison, or by a bullet fired by his most trusted lieutenant.

Saddam was also serving in an important role of a ruthless - but necessary - manager of lands that are collectively called Iraq. Right now such a manager is missing. Fall of Saddam also removed the threat of Iraq from consideration of Mullahs in Iran. This allowed them to spend their money elsewhere, which they do.

All in all, HWB was more correct when he left Saddam defeated, kicked out of Kuwait, but in power. Someone had to be a ruler of Iraq anyway. A defeated, broken dictator who is fully controlled by no-fly zones is good for that purpose. "Wiggled out?" I'd like to know how. Unless, of course, the new US President allows him to. Hmm.

We did bring them a chance to remake Iraq into a modern democratic state.

I wonder how would Mark Nuckols feel if Martians invade the USA tomorrow and force us all to adopt Communism? Should we be grateful to them for giving us the chance? Or, perhaps, we'd rather live like we want to live? Perhaps we'd find a way to let Martians know that they are not welcome?

Iraq is in ruins now and under siege by ISIS for one simple reason: democracies are weak, and the new Iraqi democracy is weaker still. Could Saddam, a dictator, fight ISIS? He did fight Iran, after all. Chances are that he would be successful. The modern Iraqi army runs away from the enemy because it's OK. They believe in nothing, and they protect nothing, and they are not afraid of their own side. Well, if they have no desire to fight, then by all means run - it's the most logical choice. Under Saddam that wouldn't work - deserters would be shot, and the reinforcements would have made it into the city.

[Jim Noble]

The enemy center of gravity is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Iraq was, at best, a distraction and at worst a cowardly avoidance of the real enemy.

After 14 years, the enemy still sleeps soundly in their beds in Riyadh and Islamabad, while we still fear them.

This is what defeat looks like.

[Hot Tabasco]

We Made the Right Decision to Invade Iraq

Of course we did. Unfortunately the MSM at the urging of the DNC did to Bush for his entire eight years of service as they did to Reagan during the bogus Iran/Contra hearings.........

The sole purpose of both campaigns was to discredit both presidents in order to lay the groundwork for the election of a Democrat president.........Fortunately for Reagan, it didn't work.

By virtue of the fact that Bush was re-elected in 2004 is a testimony to the support he had from the level headed Americans who also supported our war in Iraq.........

[Don Corleone]

Pretty soon one of those left wing reporters is going to ask,”Knowing what we know today was it a good idea to fire back at the British’?

[x]

But fast forward five or ten years. If we had not overthrown his regime, sooner or later Saddam would have wiggled out from under the sanctions regime.

So kill him.

And with his coffers flush with record high oil revenues, does anyone doubt that the French and the Russians would have been more than eager to sell Saddam every kind of military hardware his heart desired?

So sic the Iranians on him.

We would have been facing not a pathetically weak tin-horn dictator, but a well-armed menace to the security of the Gulf, but by extension to our security. I believe that if you face a nasty and vicious adversary who can someday potentially harm you, better to stomp him into the ground when he’s weak and helpless, rather than being nice and giving him a chance to arm himself.

So when are we stomping Kim into the dust?

I get the idea this guy is making this all up to rationalize and justify the decision afterhand, rather than considering if it actually was the best choice to make at the time.

...

In fact, those miserable people should be grateful to us. We did bring them a chance to remake Iraq into a modern democratic state.

Isn't there some quote somewhere about not expecting gratitude between nations?

[TigersEye]

Putting aside the question of whether it was right or wrong, there were a lot of reasons to invade other than WMDs which seems to be the popular opinion now.

Here is the context of that time. We were in a state of war with Iraq, under a cease fire.

• 1. Iraqi provocation of American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. "More than 42,000 sorties were flown during that time. Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems targeted ONW aircrews on nearly every flight." (That sounds like 42,000 reasons to me but I'll only count it as one.)
• 2. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions that were a result of his losing the war. (again, that should count as 17 reasons but I'll count it as one.)
• 3. Saddam tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.
• 4. Saddam was killing the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq that we had promised protection.
• 5. Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• 6. Iraq's biological weapons program.
• 7. Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• 8. Saddam's extensive cooperation with terrorists.

I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, after all, who cares about those filthy little brown people. Right? /s

[Theoria]

'We did bring them a chance to remake Iraq into a modern democratic state. Maybe we were foolish to think such a project would succeed, and I for one would not have sacrificed one American life trying to do so.'

Then why write this, non-defense defense?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Re WMDs. No one has yet explained what those truck convoys from Iraq’s weapons storage areas to Syria contained. The liberals don’t even want to acknowledge that those convoys took place, and our Intel people are either afraid to tell us, or were caught off guard and ashamed to admit it.

Heard that the Russians were involved in scooting the weapons out at night and we were afraid to hit them.

Cyanid poison was found in some chemical/ammo depots. My son’s unit captured Green Soviet Bloc CBW suits east of Hindaya. Those found precursor components to gas warfare weapons, esp. Sarin gases (i.e. artillery shells).

Forgotten in this whole debate is the fact that Saddam’s Iraq was one leg of a tripartite potentially nuclear tripod of Iran, Iraq and Syria (the Israelis took out much of Syria’s secret nuclear weapons facilities, quietly and effectively).

Imagine today if Saddam were still in power. He would probably have gotten a crude nuclear bomb, as would Iran (with help from No. Korea, Pakistan and Russia), plus Syria would be right behind them, depending on who from the outside was helping them.

Three secretly nuclear rogue states in the Middle East at one time. Welcome to Armaggedon.

Screw Obama. Pres. Bush took out one of those tripod stool’s legs when he deposed Saddam. That is something to keep in mind when discussing the war.

[Intolerant in NJ]

But fast forward five or ten years. If we had not overthrown his regime, sooner or later Saddam would have wiggled out from under the sanctions regime...yeah, maybe if he were still around - but I think he would have been long gone - we still might have had ISIS, the exiled remnants of his brutal army and corps of thugs, but Iraq would have been gobbled up by Iran - Saddam presided over a shaky minority-Sunni regime in a majority-Shiite country, maintaining power only through a reign of terror that saw tens of thousands of his countrymen murdered every year. He had managed to win one war with next-door Shiite Iran with our help, but after Kuwait and especially his defiance of the cease-fire conditions, we were not about to help him again - after the way his army collapsed when we invaded, and particularly the way they folded in three days in Kuwait, when some of them were surrendering to news organizations, it was clear they had no great dedication to fighting for Saddam's cause - eventually probably sooner than later Iran would have struck again to "liberate" their Shiite neighbor, and Saddam would have gone - Bush's move was not some gratuitous exercise in nation building, but a strategic gamble to try to forestall the inevitable by establishing a buffer state Iraq where both Sunni and Shiite had the ability and the allegiance to maintain their independence from Iran - it was working too, with an elected Shiite leader whose impulse to expel Sunni from the government was thwarted by our presence and the protection of our military - until Obama pulled us out and the program collapsed - ISIS came roaring back from Syria where they had been driven by the Iraq army assisted by our troops, and we are where we are today - another hypothetical to ponder.....