Why was the Iraq war started?

[AGDee]

The first Iraqi war was obvious: They had invaded another country and intended to continue invading other countries in a manner similar to Hitler and someone had to stop them. We got them out of that country, put some rules down on them and the UN was inspecting regularly for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by AGDee

UN was inspecting regularly for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I was only 7 years old then, but as I can remember none were found.

[AGDee]

There was evidence that Iraq was developing the capability to produce them prior to invading Kuwait. There were times that Iraq told the UN "No way, you can't come and inspect" or kept them away from certain areas. We bombed them a few times on isolated type missions as "punishment" for that when Clinton was in office.

A lot of people were critical that we hadn't taken Saddam out of power during the first Gulf War. We really just pushed him back out of Kuwait and then imposed these inspections and rules. Many thought he should have been assassinated then, but GHWB didn't agree. It was clear when Dubya took office that he was looking for a reason to go into Iraq. He took advantage of the post 9/11 situation to go into Iraq. To this day, I meet people who think we went to Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11. I'm incredulous about that.

[cheerfulgreek]

o.k. that's true. I do remember the 1st part of your post. But "Dumbya" took Saddam out of power, which has now made terror much more active in that country than it's ever been.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I was only 7 years old then, but as I can remember none were found.

You remember incorrectly.

In fact, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the largest use of biological or chemical weapons in the history of the world - there is absolutely no doubt that, as of the first Iraq war, Iraq had biological and chemical weapons capability.

Whether or not this is true for the second Iraq war is certainly up for debate, and the ethics of relying on certain intelligence to justify the war is an interesting topic, but I don't really think it's all that important - WMDs were a convenient rationale, but the reason was likely entirely geopolitical.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You remember incorrectly.

In fact, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the largest use of biological or chemical weapons in the history of the world - there is absolutely no doubt that, as of the first Iraq war, Iraq had biological and chemical weapons capability.

Whether or not this is true for the second Iraq war is certainly up for debate, and the ethics of relying on certain intelligence to justify the war is an interesting topic, but I don't really think it's all that important - WMDs were a convenient rationale, but the reason was likely entirely geopolitical.

This response is pretty much just about the WMD stuff.

I think it's interesting that a lot of people want to hang the whole thing on being mislead by Bush when it's pretty clear if you examine the rhetoric globally before the 2nd Iraq war, there were very few, in any, people on record doubting Iraq's WMD capabilities. The only disagreement that I remember really, and I'm probably really simplifying no doubt, was between people who felt that UN inspections could be delayed or limited further and people who felt that action was justified sooner.

I think we make a dangerous mistake allowing politicians in the US to get away with kind of a "we were mislead deliberately by the Bush administration" defense. If the intelligence was THAT bad that people with the highest level of clearance and access to the highest level of meeting couldn't discern manipulation from reality, we have a huge governmental issue to address. And blaming it on Bush/Cheney does nothing to prevent similar problems in the future.

If the causes were actually geo-politically motivated, that should have been as evident to congress as it is to everyone in this thread, and if they recognize that but were just going along with Bush for the national security ride, they don't deserve a pass for that (or they deserve to be celebrated for it, depending on your take). If they authentically believed the intelligence, which they had access to, warranted action, then they don't deserve to pass the blame all to Bush when the intelligence turned out to be flawed. The weasle-like reactions today of people who voted for the war then really drive me nuts. If you feel that you made a mistake, take responsibility for that mistake. (but I know that's not the congressional way.)

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You remember incorrectly.

In fact, Saddam Hussein orchestrated the largest use of biological or chemical weapons in the history of the world - there is absolutely no doubt that, as of the first Iraq war, Iraq had biological and chemical weapons capability.

Whether or not this is true for the second Iraq war is certainly up for debate, and the ethics of relying on certain intelligence to justify the war is an interesting topic, but I don't really think it's all that important - WMDs were a convenient rationale, but the reason was likely entirely geopolitical.

o.k. but what do you mean by geopolitical?