Why was the Iraq war started?

[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?