This is for all you anti-war folks!!!?

Question

Without beating around the bush, what would you have done in 2003 about Iraq, not knowing what we now know about the WMD's not being there? And, tell me why that would make any sense.

Answer 1

I would have looked at the source of the WMD info and, seeing that most of it was coming from Chalabi and the INC, I would have asked my advisors why they were trusting this guy with a history of saying and doing anything it takes to get Hussein booted so he and his friends can return in positions of power. And when my advisors told me to trust them, because even if there were no WMDs we still need to spread democracy in the Middle East, I would have fired them. Two years later, when Iran began to accelerate their very real threat, I would have been in better position to counter them, rather than being tied down in quagmire that has allowed Iran to actually widen the scope of its power.

Answer 2

Does being against the "excercise" in Iraq make me anti-war? Why have you specified 2003?
On to your question: Iraq had been under US led UN sanctions for a decade by the time the DoD and pentagon had the go ahead. There were at any given moment no less than 6 Intel. satellites orbiting overhead, and no doubt Iran to. The IAEA and seperate US and UN teams scoured that country for 7 yrs. and never found a single thing worth noting. Those teams included several British and US experts. The populace was being literally starved while the oil for food program made Sadamm richer and fatter, and without a doubt some folks at the UN. There are elements in this country who believe that even under the nose of all the inspection teams, satellites and a massive US Naval and air presence that he was able to amass these weapons and or build the facilities needed to manufacture as opposed to buy them. It is totally illogical to think so. Israel knew of their abilities in the 80's and they bombed the nuclear facility 3 yrs before it was even completed. That was the closest Sadamm ever came. If he had these weapons in 91' why weren't they a concern then? I was part of a unit attached to 3ID in 03' and the weapons I saw repeatedly were all American. We sold that country so many artillery shells that it filled hudreds of wharehouses all over the country. Some of course have/had the capability to be armed w/ chemical or biological materials. But they are well over 25 yrs. old. Too old for artillery, but they make great IED's now. You should ask Rumsfeld how that makes him feel whenever a Soldier or Marine dies or is maimed by an American shell. He was the one selling them to Sadamm! Not to mention we never found anything of value in the chem/bio realm either. The answer: I would not have done anything w/Iraq. They were irrelevant. We new then that Iran was light yrs ahead of Iraq, yet we did not go to Iran. Why? Because they had not suffered sanctions for a decade. Iraq was easy. How many people involved in 9/11 were Iraqi? Answer: NONE. Why do you think the world supported us overthrowing the Taliban, and not Iraq? Why not invade Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria? Thats where the majority of 9/11's worker ants were from.

Answer 3

Based on your logic why haven't we invaded North Korea? Iran?

We are attempting negotiations with NK and Iran, Iraq was complying with UNSCOM but Bush was not satisfied and needed a scapegoat for 9/11, So called terror has been his entire platform yet with Guantanamo full of enemy combatants not one so called terrorist has been tried or sentenced,
Not one Ironclad piece of evidence that there is a war on terror exists. period! We are expected to take the administrations word because there is no evidence being produced.
The UK admitted they were pressured by the Bush Administration to make arrests and lo and behold no liquid explosives!
If he is so worried about terrorism why hasn't he sealed our borders?
It doesn't make sense to invade countries with WMD's without negotiations becuase they will then have no recourse but to use them! Do you want a Nuclear War?

W. is a liar!

Answer 4

Allow the UN to take the lead and try to solve this thing peacefully, instead of ignoring what they were trying to do attacking Iraq. Our fight wasn't with Iraq it was with Afghanistan, we got our revenge, swiftly.
If Iraq had WMD's why then did they not use them in the Gulf War when we defeated them in Kuwait, because they didn't have them then and they didn't have them when we invaded Iraq.

"Rivers of blood can never bring peace!"

Answer 5

Not invaded Iraq, I was against it since the beginning and I have always known that the WMD stuff was utter BS.

Answer 6

The more advanced countries just invent their own terror and then identify it where they want it to be, so they can then attack to achieve their agendas.

You cant fight terror it is an idea "the war on terror" is just buzz words to keep the sheeples happy at home and not thinking too much.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9381

have a read get informed or just go back to the tv...most do anyway.

Answer 7

We did know that there were no WMDs. I know it's hard to believe, but the UN inspections actually worked.

Answer 8

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5004704309041471296&q=Alex+Jones+C-Span
C-Span aired this in late June. You need to watch it, discuss it with others and share this with everyone you can.
I don't want to see any comments until 1,5 hrs from now. If you can't watch the the show, then your post is meaningless. Any negative posts need to be backed up please.
I know the truth is scary but we all need to wake up to it.
Watch the damn show!

Answer 9

Nothing - it would have saved a lot of lives worldwide.

Answer 10

I wouldn't have gone in, it was completely unrelated to Al-Qaeda, there was no reason to go in in the firstplace.