A Problem With The Iraq Debate

[JackD76]

Every time I argue with a pug about the Iraq war, the only point they can bring up, when you accuse bush of lying, is they say that the French, Russians, etc. had intelligence that said that Saddam had WMDs. Is there any counter to that, besides saying that they didn't go into Iraq? Is there any way to say that isn't true or that point is distorted or the evidence was real old. If not, it gets tough to convince them.

[seabeyond]

1. we didnt go because of wmd, we went because of moblile chem

labs, nuclear, drone planes. administration knew they couldnt go to war for wmd's. that wasnt a big enough deal to the people. they had to really pump up the nuclear. all the countries knew he didnt have that

both rice and powell said in 2001 iraq is not a problem. they are contained. the stuff they have would be expired no sign of them actively making more

people werent way afriad of what saddam may have had in 1991 during first gulf war that the u.s. supplied to saddam, that the world figured he probably did still have it

all that other information was manipulateds and created by cheney and his little govt he created.

[Terran1212]

2. It's obvious that there was no proof of WMD

I mean, the UN inspectors themselves found nothing and were forced to leave only by Bush's threats of violence.

[seabeyond]

11. people all over was assuming he had hid them, was keeping

them away from the inspectors and that included the inspectors. saddam was not being cooperative. he didnt want it to be known he didnt have them, for fear of his neighbors and even his own people. or maybe he didnt know. it has been said his own people were lying to saddam. regardless. no one thought whatever may be there was worth going to war for. that is not what convinced anyone to go to war. it was the nuclear threat, that actually made those in the u.s. fearful.

people assumed that there were weapons left form the ones u.s. gave saddam in the late 80's. they even said how the chemical would have expired.

the wmd's were a false story as much as going in their to save the iraqi people.

we have to remember this correctly. we did not allow the going in because of wmd's, so even if they did find them, so, it was always so. we went in there because they were saying in no time they were going to have nuclear and they had proof of it, was inevitable, we were in emanate danger

the people here in the u.s. would nto let bush go in for wmd's, or for the iraqi people...............

[bridgit]

3. you're not going to convince them...

their minds are closed. always have been. bush has had a lifetime of apologists making his case in advance. for crying out loud, i could be the president with support like that. you can find certain & specific points to make here:

http://www.awakeninthedream.com/html

though, with their minds so closed as they are; they will be ones they are not likely to cope to. still, you make the offer of enlightenment nonetheless.

the onus is already on they who have complied with a plan sight-unseen. the greater failure to date has been our so called free press imo.

otherwise its all like, "sure he had wmd. reagan & bush's dad sold them to him at one point."

[mike_c]

4. well, for one thing the U.S. actively manipulated the evidence....

For example, the U.S. censored the Iraqi report on the status of its sanctioned weapons program. I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of information that most other intel agencies had was supplied by the U.S.

[JackD76]

5. One Thing That I Heard Sounded Intresting

One person, who didn't buy the WMD bush shit but supports the war, said that he supported it because the U.S. caused a lot of the problems in Iraq and it was our job to go fix it. What do you think?

[K-W]

7. Thats like expecting the bull to piece back together the china.

Our government is about as capable of fixing Iraq as I am of sprouting wings and taking off from my roof.

[JackD76]

8. Here is a Hypothetical

Lets say that Bush and his crew were never completely incompetent and two years ago they said "We need to go into Iraq because we have sponsored a dictatorship there that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and we want to set things right." Would that have been a better reason, in your mind?



Please keep in mind i am no republican and no war supporter, I am just thinking.

[K-W]

9. It isnt that the bull is incompetent, bulls just cant fix china.

Take away the Bush administration entirely.

We simply do not have the capability of fixing a country. It is a horrid mistake to think that because our weapons give us the power to destroy things, we must have the skill and knowledge to fix them.

The Iraqi people are the only ones who can fix it, and the international community should support them. There is no role for the US unilaterally in fixing anything.

US politicians are concerned about one thing, winning elections here. Until the Iraqi's can vote for our congressmen and president, we have no authority on thier soil.

[K-W]

6. Because it isnt true...

Im not sure what your quandry is. The US and Britan were the ONLY countries in the world who thought Saddam had weapons. The rest of the world supported a full inspection process to ensure that they didnt but did not see any proof that they did.

The Bush administration had no intelligence. They had cherry-picked unreliable and discredited intelligence that they pretended was actual intelligence. Other countries had it, but treated it honestly. For instance German intelligence recieved itel from informants the US relied on to prove that Saddam had weapons, Germany voted against military intervention.

[pretzel4gore]

12. because bush was actually conquering the USA!

tell them that! everything that has happened since junior came on national scene has been to further the bush family control of the US economy, media and people...they will recklessly use something they've shown they despise (see the 'L' word...the US was a 'liberal' democracy ferchrissakes!)...the bush admin blatantly tried to blackmail the UN and US congress into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq by sending troops before UN voted, but only congress gave into it (and bush never gave a damn about iraq anyway; the entire charade was intended to fill up mediatime and to make opposing the bushes 'unpatriotic')...tell the fundies that those who HATE the US (even if only because of its greed, racism and ignorance!) perceive that bush has probably spelled the end of the US as exploiter of the human race and its resources- bush has united EVERYBODY against the US! The worst thing a true 'conservative' could do was support a radical weirdo like bush....and in their hearts they know it...

[BuyingThyme]

10. Here's a secret for you:

The most accurate, most up to date, most reliable intelligence came from the UN weapons inspectors.

The Chimp House has convinced America that intelligence gathering is always a top-secret undertaking. When discussing the intelligence on Iraq, they ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS exclude the best intelligence -- the intelligence which was gathered courtesy of the UN weapons inspectors.

[aaronnyc]

13. From my understanding...

The U.S. (under Bush and Clinton), French, and Russian intelligence all suggested that Saddam probably had WMDs.

However, in the months before we invaded Iraq, info. from both the U.N. and the CIA began to come in, which raised serious doubts about whether Saddam really had these WMDs. Basically, Bush and co. suppressed this information.
The Bush administration sold the WMD story similar to the way a lawyer sells a story to a jury: twisting truths and leaving out key pieces of evidence which would have countered their argument.

IMO Bush didn't know whether or not Saddam had the WMDs, and he didn't care. I believe that there are a lot of reasons we went into Iraq, and WMDs have nothing to do with any of them.