Posted on 06/09/2003 3:30:39 AM PDT by joesbucks
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address October 5, 2002
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation March 17, 2003
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
You are inferring what I did not imply. I'll be the first to admit that there were many other reasons, but the one trumpted most loudly and most often was WMD's. He has them, will he use them when we go in against him, has 45 minutes to launch a strike. Clearly, without the WMD's, Saddam's threat is mild.
Make no mistake. He's was a brutal and sinister ruler. Removal would have been proper. But invasion may have not been proper or necessary.
No, I am inferring that you implied that WMDs were the only legitmate reason for going to war. Why else even have this discussion? You essentially say that here:
Make no mistake. He's was a brutal and sinister ruler. Removal would have been proper. But invasion may have not been proper or necessary.
Clearly, without the WMD's, Saddam's threat is mild.
That is a silly assertion. In order to make it you have to be willing to say that not only did Hussein destroy all of the WMDs he did posess, but that he would not attempt to restart production at a later date.
The shame is, I really like the guy.
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
Other than Saddam's direct ability to inflict a strike (as was claimed here) what other reason did we have to invade? There are several other countries that have developed further than any Iraqi threat and others who pose an equal threat. So why Saddam?
As I said, he was a tyrincal and brutal ruler. BUT there are other rulers just as horrible or worse than Saddam. So why Saddam. He posed a potential threat to Isreal. So do other rulers and countries in the area. So why Saddam?
To emphasize the urgency of cleaning up the Saddam problem, we said he had offensive weapons at the ready. Not just weapons he could lob across the border and inflict damage, but inflict large area damage and even destruction. Where is that ability?
And removal doesn't always mean invasion. We didn't invade the Soviet Union, yet they had a regime change when communism collasped. There have been many other countries that regimes have changed through our covert activities.
I'm reposting this answer from another thread:
To prevent Hussein from producing, distrubuting and using WMDs. There can be no doubt he was trying to gain a nuclear capability, and the administration was not going to give him any more time.
To eliminate a regieme that consistently threatens its neighbors, who just so happen to produce a large amount of the worlds oil supply.
To prevent further support of terrorism from Hussein and his cronies.
To free the people of Iraq, thereby destablizing the other autocratic regeimes in the area.
Finally, because Hussein was in material breach of the CEASE FIRE he signed with the US at the end of the Gulf War. This fact alone was justification enough for his removal.
That isn't a complete list, of course. Just enough to show the lie that this was all about current stocks of WMDs present in the country at the time of attack.
Now of course none of these reasons will be good enough for you, but then again, they aren't meant to be. These reasons were put forth by the administration prior to the war. And since the polls show a vast majority of the people would still support the invasion even if WMDs aren't found, it would seem the President did a good enough job getting it out to most people.
To eliminate a regieme that consistently threatens its neighbors, who just so happen to produce a large amount of the worlds oil supply.Who has he seriously threatened since Kuwait? Isreal I will say yes to. But I don't much oil production from them
To prevent further support of terrorism from Hussein and his cronies.There has been no definitive link between Saddam, Iraq and terrorism. Sure some of the people involved in terrorism live in Iraq. They also live in Egypt, Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 crew was from), Iran and for that matter in just about every country in the world. It does appear that Saddam did reach out to Osama, but we don't know for what reason nor does it appear that anything grew from it.
To free the people of Iraq, thereby destablizing the other autocratic regeimes in the area.Now that's a worthy goal. But we don't know that's what is going to happen. Instead of one known nutcase, we may have many. Many but not all in Iraq wanted freedom from Saddam. Few want Westernization. They will have to understand our values and want them in order for their attitudes to change about us. This may take years. It may never be realized.
Finally, because Hussein was in material breach of the CEASE FIRE he signed with the US at the end of the Gulf War. This fact alone was justification enough for his removal.I'll give you this one too. He was in violation. But the material breach was not often talked about and highlighted when making the point that an invasion was necessary.An active WMD program was. The WMD issue was emotional so it was heavily used. And Saddam was the perfect villan from an American perspective. It's why there's been so little reaction from the public when WMD's are discussed. Saddam was bad so he got what was coming is how most people view this. Not whether what was said to the citizens and the world was factual or correct. I seem to remember that most on this site favored going after Slick when public opinion indicated otherwise. It was a matter of principal. Same standard should be held to here for Bush. IF.....and I'm saying IF this (WMD issue) was manipulated on purpose, then it needs investigated.
Isn't it sometimes hard to prove a negative?
For what it's worth, I've heard the same thing. One of our problems is that the people who know best are also the same lying psycopaths who used to run things in Iraq.
For what it's worth, I've heard the same thing. One of our problems is that the people who know best are also the same lying psycopaths who used to run things in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.