Was Attacking Iraq a War of Choice? Or Were We Under Threat of Imminent Danger and Invasion Like in WWII?

Question

I hear people compare Iraq to the threat of the Wehrmacht and Imperial Japanese Army in WWII. REAL threats.Axis powers who were well on their way to conquering the world.

Did Iraq even bomb us on 9/11? Had they conquered Western Europe and had their sights on us next? What gives with the Hitler/Islamofascist comparisons? On a threat scale it's about Hitler 100, Islamo-nuts 5. They are fleas.

Why did we even start this Iraq war?

What was the reason?

C = JD - You just make me laugh

"JAPAN" did attack us at Pearl Harbor and Germany had attacked and/or occupied our closest allies. England & France and were heading our way. Must you cons always be given a history lesson? I just can't believe you are all that out of it! I hope you don't vote.

Answer 1

Their main justification was that it was a future threat. But I think there are more real current threats like Iran and N. Korea. It sure would be nice to have our military waiting in case they try to get cute.

Answer 2

Its Good your at least asking Questions trying to understand.

1st there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Saddam and his 2 sons were near the top. Neutralized. 2nd No one talks about the Gas Sarina can't spell it but it was in Jordon and came from Iraq...

What Many forget is that if we don't keep some of these kinds in check shortly when they have Nuclear Bombs and more Chemical weapons It surely wouldn't take them long or there agents to Wipe out a City with something.

The Terrorist of today are probably far more of a Threat than Hitler and comparable to those in Japan. They will die trying to kill Infidels.

Answer 3

War for oil and getting rid of Russian and Chinese Influence From Iraq,The final Trophy would have been Iran if every thing went Smoothly.So yo can call it War Of No choice because he did not have any other choice.But all of this is coming to a very sad conclusion.AND IT IS SAD THING TO SAY.

Answer 4

Japan was never really an invasion threat. Just major destruction. Californians would kick fanny for sure.
Get your facts straight. The war is with individual or small groups who are supported and financed By the governments LIKE iraq iran and syria or groups hamas, hezbollah, taliban and others and stupid american muslims supporting the same.
You reason:
Exactly what is happening there now, and in lebanon and gaza. muslims killing muslims, in what seem to be sport, and they might try again to get US.

Answer 5

It was a war of choice based on faulty intelligence. We had sadaam contained (per Condi Rice) and he was not an imminent and gathering threat as we were told.

There were smarter ways of getting him out of power and we took the obvious "kill a fly with a hammer" approach rather than the smart one. Few there liked Sadaam and I'm sure we could have helped those people overthrow Sadaam just like we helped the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Help them fight their own war of freedom instead of comitting billions of our own dollars and thousands of our people's lives.

Answer 6

Libs ignore the fact that Germany never invaded us, never attacked us.

Italy never invaded or attacked us.

In WWI, none of the countries whom we fought against invaded or attacked us.

But for some reason, libs have decided by fiat that until someone murders your citizens, you cannot condemn, much less attack, another country. Rather it's better to wait like a sitting duck.

___

No, I don't need a history lesson. I'm just taking apart the moronic logic that country X must directly attack country Y before Y can defend itself, and history shows that the opposite has often been true.

Not that hard.

Answer 7

Iraq was certainly a war of choice and that choice was as we obviously can see, the wrong one.

Answer 8

It was a personal vendetta. Bush ran for president with the intent of deposing Saddam. 9/11 just gave him a convienient (although not very well thought out) excuse.

Answer 9

I must have been sleeping the day that we learned that Germany attached us when was that again. Please enlighten me.

Answer 10

Iraq had no military to speak of, there were no wmd's, what was the imminent threat. this was a war of choice, that is why we had no real coalition to go in with us.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." � President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." � President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." � Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." � CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." � President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." � President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." � President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." � Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks � if they existed � were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." � Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." � President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts � including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week � have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.