Since Iraq was no immanent threat to any nation when we invaded, does this mean...?

Question

does this mean the Bush Administration would have been just fine about invading any other middle eastern dictatorships with a ruthless dictator? There are plenty of nations to choose from. How about Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Omar, or Dubai?
After all, Bush said that if he knew what he knew now, he still would have invaded Iraq.
But no, instead he disregarded the Intelligence reports that came right before we invaded in March of 2003 which stated there is no hard evidence to confirm Saddam has a nuclear arms development program.
Don't you agree that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should admit there was no good reason to invade Iraq? Because if we are going to invade Iraq, we might as well invade nearly every other middle eastern nation and regime.

Please don't insult my intelligence by telling me democrats believed we should invade Iraq too. I know this. But before we invaded Iraq, reports came out which disputed the previous Intelligence. Sorry if you are too uninformed to realize this...

Answer 1

a very good point which only an intelligent person can see ......... why are repug so blind they cannot see this point? this war is about nothing .......... no wmd ........ no relation to al qaeda ......... not related to 911 .......... all admitted by the moronic bush regime. what is this war about? 2812 American soldiers ......... 100000 civilians died for nothing ............ how could anyone still defend that stupid moron?

Answer 2

The mistake by the Bush administration as that the believed so deeply that Iraq was armed to the teeth with WMD's that they refused to believe any evidence to the contrary. Bush was hell bent on ridding the world of Hussein WMD's or No WMD's!

Let's not forget that Iraq had WMD's and used them against the Iranians and Kurds during the 1980's. Sadam Hussein also did HAVE a nuclear weapons program right up to the end first Gulf war.

The next failure was the maistaken belief that the Iraqis would welcome a US invasion and overthrow of Hussein and that US troops would be greeted as liberators. To be sure the repressed elements of Iraq are happy Hussein is gone but their agenda is not neccessarily in tune with the USA's and the newly freed people could (and have in some cases) become an enemy.

Now to your main point does President Bush feel jusitified to invade any other Middle--eastern tyrannt? My only response is even if it was the case he has his hands full in iraq and lacks the resources or popular will to pull off another invasion.
What is a more likely scenario is a cruise missile or air attack on an Iranian nuclear plant.

What I would like to see:
A non-partisan trial of the administration as to the reasons for going to war and whether or not they deliberately lied about intell just to go to war.
What interests or goals were behind the invasion?
However, I think any of this is unlikely.

Answer 3

Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, under Bill Clinton, authorizing regime change in Iraq, through force if necessary, and Clinton signed this into law. Something akin to his act, replacing Iraq with the word Iran, was just passed by Congress and the President this week.

Who are you to dictate or surmise whether Iraq represented an imminent threat to any nation? Was Sudan or Afghanistan or Yemen representative of any threat to the US or any other nation before 1998? Well, you probably would say no, except that's where all the plotting and financing happened for the bombings on US Embassies, USS Cole and 9/11. So, it isn't so much a state that's a threat, but the way that state is governed, or not governed, as it relates to nuclear weapons and material proliferation and the aiding and abetting of terrorism.

Lebanon has been dealt with, and if the UNIFIL doesn't get Hezbollah out, Israel will re-enter. Syria talks a big game, but last I checked, they left Lebanon w/ their tail between their legs after they saw how quickly Qaddafi became a US ally and abandoned nuclear technology development. Rather than invading Yemen, we targeted known terrorist/financiers and killed them w/ drones; when terrorists were captured in that country by the Yemenese government, they promptly escaped, and so though they may 'mean no harm' to other nations, they run their countries piss-poorly and that threatens stability and warrants action under the 'pre-emptive' doctrine Bush is following. Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE are clamoring for US tourists and investment dollars and though they are mini-dictatorships, they run their countries and their internal law enforcement mostly in-line with US interests. Omar I cannot comment about. Saudi Arabia I can, it is truly a terrorist-supporting dictatorship that the Bush family cannot bring itself to address. Perhaps personal wealth is more important than national wealth in that case. But if you're looking for hard evidence in Iraq, as it relates to WMD, you should interview the Kurd population who suffered nerve gas attacks under Saddam, or the Iranian military survivors of bio/chem weapons used against them in the Iraq-Iran War. People change sides, Saddam did in 1990, and his weapons program was not being managed or controlled to our liking. We enforced scores of UN resolutions, not our own whim and fancy.

Lastly, if you're tired of war in the Middle East...ride a bicycle or a skateboard to work or school. So long as you use petroleum based products (oil, gas, plastics), you contribute to terrorism in some meaningful way (as do I). Starving the region of oil money will turn the Middle East into what Africa is now, a humanitarian wasteland. Maybe that's the price that must be paid by us to dry up oil money, and maybe that's the price that other nations not aligned with democracy, liberty and capitalism should pay for playing 'spoiler' to the US. This is not a game, this is the future of human existence and progress and no one is jeopardizing that more than the would-be powers of the Middle East, funded by Western need for fossil fuels.

If you want an end to the Middle East wars, you have to sacrifice all your oil consumption. ALL of it. No one's willing to do that, hence the moderately more effective route to exerting American will and interest in an unruly and regressive part of the world: WAR.

(I may sound a bit harsh on nations where Islam is practiced solely, because these nations, both leaders and the citizens on the street, have not, to date, shown any willingness to co-exist with non-Muslim people. They blame Israel, the US, the UN, everyone but themselves for the 'predicament', as yet undefined, that they're in. Education and societal transparency leads nations out of the 3rd world and into the 1st, when they're ready for it, we will be too, with open arms).

Answer 4

The decision to go to Iraq was made before 9/11,Gen Powell would not go along with the Iraq thing unless they went to Afghanistan first.

Answer 5

the only reason to invade iraq was oil coz bush and company had very big stakes in oil.so sending a danger signal to american ppl they just inavded iraq and made millions of dollar worth on the deadbodies of young american soldiers.life of one person is more valuable then the whole reserves of world oil.the u.s has acheived nothing at all except a bad name among most of world communities.conquering a nation is just for a limited period of time as history tells us but winning a nations heart is everlasting and more peacful.

Answer 6

I cannot agree with you. There were many good reasons to invade Iraq. And to insult someones intelligence it must be assumed they have it to insult.

Answer 7

Iraq was no imminent threat, you say? Do yourself a favor: Don't believe the bilge water the mainstream liberal media is trying to pour down your throat. I have numerous friends and colleagues who have done tours of 120 days or more in Iraq and have seen the stockpiles of WMDs and the captured/killed al-Qaeda operatives with their own eyes.

Yes, the chances of Iraq attacking the U.S. on U.S. soil were remote, but Hussein was harboring and assisting the terrorists whose mission in life is to kill innocent Americans. You also can't argue the fact that he was thumbing his nose at the U.N. And who is to say that he wouldn't start lobbing chemical or biological weapons at our troops in Turkey and Kuwait?

BOTTOM LINE: Saddam was going to do what he was going to do and NO ONE was going to tell him any differently. You can't reason with a person like that, you can't buy him, you can't bribe him, you can't blackmail him, you can't plead with him, you can't convince him with charismatic overtures or sweeping speeches...get the picture? There's only one way to deal with a leader like that -- remove him from power and NEVER let him ascend to power again.

Answer 8

My dear,
Politic = interests
If you agree that :
Power = right - interest
then accept:
interests + power = right

Answer 9

He's not finished yet. Jesus is still running his stinkin' agenda (that's what he says).

Answer 10

*Sigh* Here we go again.....LOTS of people thought Hussein had WMDs. Not just our intelligence agencies, who were thinned out during the Clinton years to the point of barely being able to function, but international intelligence said the same thing.

Some quotes regarding Iraq from top Democrats:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"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.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, 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.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.