As I recall, the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to enforce compliance with UN inspections for "weapons of mass destruction." Turns out there weren't any, or at least, none of any significance--I do remember the reports that some yellowcake uranium was found, as were a couple of minor leftovers that had not been destroyed after the first Gulf War.
Right now, the justification--the purpose--for the ongoing conflict in Iraq. I, for one, can not continue to support an armed conflict whose purpose keeps changing after the fact or whose purpose is vague and ill-defined.
That said, I do believe that the conflict in Afghanistan was unquestionably legitimate but terribly mismanaged.
Why dont you try reading the Congressional Authorization for Military Force in Iraq. It lists many more reasons then just UN sanctions or WMD.
Sorry about your guy Saddam not getting to stay in power are you?
It's not quite that simple. Altogether, the Iraq War Resolution cited 23 separate reasons for military action against Iraq. The U.N. resolutions were only one of them.
The Iraq invasion is the most popular thing here at FR that Bush did(talk radio too) that is at the same time most hated and a joke across America and voters. WMDs is Bush's “I didn't have sex with that woman”
Try this, If invading Iraq was so brilliant why isn't the Republican platform to invade and rebuild Iran based on their Nuke program???
“As I recall, the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to enforce compliance with UN inspections for “weapons of mass destruction.” Turns out there weren’t any, or at least, none of any significance—I do remember the reports that some yellowcake uranium was found, as were a couple of minor leftovers that had not been destroyed after the first Gulf War.”
I’ve always thought people with 20/20 hindsight are folks who jump on the loudest bandwagon, DIABLO’s if you will.
That said, I do believe that the conflict in Afghanistan was unquestionably legitimate but terribly mismanaged.
Just like every Democrat I've known for the past six years.
You're not fooling anybody rabscuttle.
Yes, the Iraq war did start out under those terms, but I wasn’t kidding myself when we went in. Hussein had been popping off his mouth about hating the U.S. and wanting to do anything he could to take it down.
He didn’t honor the no-fly zones. He was forever trying to target our aircraft. He moved his armed forces up to the no-go zones and if I remember correctly even entered them several times.
He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25k.
He had attacked four different neighbor nations, occupying one and was responsible for over a million deaths.
The U.N. chief inspector thought he had WMDs. The European leaders thought he had WMDs. Our Democrats in Congress thought he had WMDs.
After 09/11, Bush got a consensus to go in. We took out the military opposition and the government. Hussein had nobody to blame, but himself.
Once the strong leadership which had been abusing the Iraqi people at will was gone, then what? Should we have just left the place in total anarchy? Should we have allowed Hussein to return to power?
I think the region is much better off. I think we’re better off.
Once you commit to an operation like this, you can’t just cut and run because your original premise, shared by most people, was not correct. You have to leave something behind that is reasonably believed not to be a threat to the world.
I think we’re accomplishing that. I will remain supportive.