Before Invading Iraq: Did you think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

[dcentity2000]

I voted "no". Why?

These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. The first line of defense... should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.

I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added [Saddam] "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions—the fact that the sanctions exist—not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Having heard this tune for so many years, I thought it was a tad fishy that suddenly there was "a mountain" of evidence saying that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMDs that could be launched within 45 minutes of a command being given.

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both picked up on this point too and grilled Labour [the ruling party] relentlessly over it. There were multiple resignations.

Like most of the public over here, I just didn't buy it. I'm happy to have been proven right - I'd have hated it if we'd invaded and had biological weapons unleashed on our troops.



Rich::

 

[Saxsoon]

Sounds like someone has a problem with Israel.


I did not believe that Iraq had WMDs. If they had they would have already used them.

See that is the thing though, whoever starts the nuclear war, no one would win. Then again, if they were in a secret remote bunker, then I don't think saddam would care if his people were hit a billion times harder than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh sorry didn't see your post DCentity2000

 

[Charade]

I'm happy to have been proven right - I'd have hated it if we'd invaded and had biological weapons unleashed on our troops.



Rich::

I'm happy there were no WMDs for the same reason too BUT... If you believe the adminstrations (yours and mine) knew that SH didn't have WMDs to use on our troops, then they played it up well by making sure we (the troops) were prepared for an attack they knew would never come. It was all for "show". Even SH had his troops ready for an attack with WMDs. What a game of "chicken" they played on us.

Maybe SH was smarter than we thought.

 

[dcentity2000]

I'm happy there were no WMDs for the same reason too BUT... If you believe the adminstrations (yours and mine) knew that SH didn't have WMDs to use on our troops, then they played it up well by making sure we (the troops) were prepared for an attack they knew would never come. It was all for "show". Even SH had his troops ready for an attack with WMDs. What a game of "chicken" they played on us.

Maybe SH was smarter than we thought.

I'm sure that Hussein is a very intelligent man. Evil, but intelligent.

I reckon that Bush and his allies got caught up in all this following 9/11. They truly believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, based on intelligence. The fact that the evidence was weak and flimsy was known to them, but they opted to believe it anyway and chance it, as so to speak.

I think that they truly believed that there would be WMDs there in Iraq and made the war into some kind of quest. It was a calculated risk and one that failed.

I think that doing so was irresponsible, especially given that war is so drastically horrific. They had a duty to tell the public how things were, that the evidence was dodgy. Maybe they'd have received a lot more support had they done so - I don't know.

What we have to do now is focus on the positives and try to clean up the mess we have made.

I think we must also re-focus on Afghanistan - from what I've heard, things are getting nasty over there again.



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

I read and heard numerous interviews with Scott Ritter, and if anyone would know, he would.

Oh No!!! SCOTT RITTER? The one and the same who was on Saddam's payroll to tell us all that he had no WMDs? Well you should have told me before.

 

[DawnCt1]

Who are "they" and how "way" before 9-11?

The Illuminate' from the Tri Lateral Commission. You know, the guys from Area 51??

 

[GoofyDad869]

Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction - and have USED those weapons. Remember the Iraqi military's Halabja Campaign against the Kurds in 1988?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

The first George Bush's administration was backing Iraq at the time. I think there's some remaining classified dirty pool in the background that's not being made public. Just my opinion.

I think there was a valid theoretical argument for using Iraqi WMD production as A cause for our invasion. It's just my opinion. That, and $2.00 will buy you a cup of coffee. I don't think we (U.S.A.) were in any immediate (or direct) danger of coordinated attack by the Iraqis, though. It's just my opinion.

 

[rayelias]

There should be no arguement to this question.

Yes, he did.

How can I be so sure?

HE USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!

Isn't THAT proof enough? He HAD them... he USED them.

Whether he STILL had them, or continued to make them, can be up for debate. But, at the time, the UN gave him MANY opportunities to prove that he did not have them. He refused every time. What else were we to do? He was in violation of 14 UN security codes.

How many chances should a tyrant with a history of invading neigboring countries, slaughtering thousands of his own people using chemical weapons, attempting to assasinate US presidents, lying to the United Nations, etx, etc... how many chances should he get?

No one wants or likes war. It's a bad, ugly, good people get killed, it rarely goes the way you plan. But, sometimes, unfortunately, it's necessary to save lives, and protect the general peace.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I have read a LOT on this subject. What it really seems like is that Saddam WANTED the world to think he had them. Even his generals believed that he had them up until the war actually started. He had to tell THEM that he didn't have them because they wanted to be able to use them if it came to that.

Bad move on Saddam's part.

Take this statement here, Saddam wanting the world to think he had WMD's and the following statements below and ask yourself this question; Did President Bush lie to the American People, or was he misled by faulty intelligence?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

eta: I understant that President Bush is ultimately responsible for leading us into war, I'm just curious to know if people still thinks he lied after hearing what we've been hearing. And what I mean is the recent video and book detailing the supposed WMD program.

 

[C.Ann]

Yes, I did.. I have always tried to believe that our President (regardless of who is in office or what their party affiliation is) would be honest and forthright with the people of this country.. Time and time again President Bush has proven himself to be less than honest and sadly I no longer have any respect for him nor do I believe one word that comes out of his mouth..

If I had known the invasion of Iraq was a sham right from the start, I never would have supported it.. Now I just wish they would bring the troops home before more lives are lost in a "war" that never should have been..

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Yes, I did.. I have always tried to believe that our President (regardless of who is in office or what their party affiliation is) would be honest and forthright with the people of this country.. Time and time again President Bush has proven himself to be less than honest and sadly I no longer have any respect for him nor do I believe one word that comes out of his mouth..

If I had known the invasion of Iraq was a sham right from the start, I never would have supported it.. Now I just wish they would bring the troops home before more lives are lost in a "war" that never should have been..

And meanwhile, because we took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, Bin Laden continues to roam free, and the government that we installed, and continue to prop up, comtemplates putting Christian converts to death...very sad all the way around.

 

[Disney-Kim]

NO.
I think he may have had them. But Iraq was not a threat to us at the time and valuable resources/lives are being used there that should be used to track down Osama and fight terrorism. I do NOT believe Iran was a bed of terrorism.
I worry that another attack on American's may happen and that may not even get us out of Iraq.

 

[fanofdisney]

If nothing else, Sadam proved that HE was a weapon of mass destruction with all of the death and destruction he caused!

I agree...such a tyrant!

 

[dcentity2000]

What else were we to do? He was in violation of 14 UN security codes.

Meh, Israel wins.



Rich::

 

[MomBoyd]

QUOTE=Tiziminchac
I thought they had them. And I still think they had them. I do think they had less than we assumed they had and what they did have was either smuggled out of the country or buried. I've never seen any evidence of their destruction other than the Iraqis saying they were destroyed. Where's the proof they were destroyed? It's a fact that they did indeed have them at one time (they used them). So what happened to them?

You said it!

 

[Freyja]

No, I never believed they had WOMD

 

[What the Heck]

So, for those who didn't believe he didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction before the invasion, were you also calling for the impeachment of Clinton for attacking Iraq since that was his reasoning as well? Oh yea, that was just the official reason, not the actual one (the true version of "Wag the Dog").

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

So, for those who didn't believe he didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction before the invasion, were you also calling for the impeachment of Clinton for attacking Iraq since that was his reasoning as well? Oh yea, that was just the official reason, not the actual one (the true version of "Wag the Dog").

So now President Clinton is the gold standard to which all US Presidents are compared? I liked President Clinton, and all, but he's hardly one to choose as the highest common denominator...and is it possible to dislike the actions of both men in your world? Just wondering...'cause as a Dem, I didn't knee-jerkingly agree with everything he did either.

 

[What the Heck]

So now President Clinton is the gold standard to which all US Presidents are compared? I liked President Clinton, and all, but he's hardly one to choose as the highest common denominator...and is it possible to dislike the actions of both men in your world? Just wondering...'cause as a Dem, I didn't knee-jerkingly agree with everything he did either.

No, he isn't the gold standard (more like brass). I just asked a question, because it seems to me that the people who are showing as no were the same ones to back Clinton in his strikes. Yes, it is possible to dislike the actions of both men in my world. I don't like a lot of things that Bush has done, however the war in Iraq is not one of them.

The silence that was coming out of Iraq before the war to me was very telling. I'm just curious as to how this poll would have ran in February of 2003.

 

[lw49033]

Who are "they" and how "way" before 9-11?

Who: Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis ***uyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick

When: January 26, 1998

Document: Letter to President Clinton on Iraq