If Bush said the USA was invading Iraq because it did not comply with an UN resolution?

Question

Why do republican think American troops are dying in Iraq to defeat terrorism.
Bin Laden offered the Saudis an army against Saddam. Saddam is secular Muslim, the enemy of jihadist terrorism.
Is it possible that Bush confused Bin Laden and Saddam

I don’t take offence but your wrong on a number of accounts
Firstly the issue isn’t that the UN passed the resolution, my point isn’t that the American war is illegal and a UN sanctioned action and in violation of America's membership of the UN. The American troops were not authorised by the UN to enter Iraq , nor is it an UN force, nor did the resolution authorise the USA to fight on behalf of the UN. So the USA invasion is an illegal and immoral war. However this is irrelevant. Yes in 1995 the scientists either lied or told the truth as it was in 1995. Saddam said and as it has been proved by the American forces, this capability was destroyed soon after this.

The American intelligence reports as presented to the American senate show that considerable vetting was used to archive the desired political answer, there was considerable disagreement with the US intelligence community and every credible intelligence force that this capability existed. In short the Bush regime cherry picked what suited them.

Saddam’s Batthist party is secular as is the United States is, both Bush and Saddam have strong religious views, and have no hesitation in using their religious afflations for political advantage, however both the USA and the Baath party technically and other wise remain secular entities

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. To the British the American tactics in the American rebellion would be claimed terrorist tactics. However the USA did support indirectly Bin Laden through its support of terrorist/freedom fighter camps , weaponry and funds in Afghanistan, when the terrorists / freedom fighters opposed an enemy of the United States. The USA has trained many thousands of right wing terrorists for operations in South America, running a large government funded , army staffed camp in Georgia, whose training included torture techniques. Which either means the USA government is a terrorist regime or it is a legitimate tool of legitimate governments, you cant have it both ways

The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American security personnel in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. SOA graduates are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians.

Well polotics makes strange bed fellows, the USA had a great ally who it supported in Stalin. I am not sure Iran is its ally, they have mutual enemies, but trusted friends , no. As you have noted the Baath party is secular and Iran is a theocracy. The are natural enemies , who if not for short term strategic reasons would destroy each other
The Hezbollah is a tool for its domination of its former client state Lebanon, and is not relvant for this reason.
Secualr Muslim is an accepted term, meaning not supporting jihad or or a theocracy

Answer 1

BushCo has successfully confused everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie What the Bush people are doing has been very effective having everyone talk about what possible plan he has, and will it work. Actually, they are in progress on Dominion, or bullying the region, plundering Iraq, including $30 million/day is missing oil, the US Treasury for private contractors like Halliburton, and the record profits of arms manufacturers and oil companies. He will "stay this course" til his term ends, and either refuses to give up office in a "crisis" or hands it over to Bush III (McCain).

Answer 2

Don't take offense to what I'm about to say, but your knowledge on the reasons leading into the war in Iraq appear to be quite lacking. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, that condemned Saddam's regime if he failed to comply, listed twenty four (24) reasons to go to war with Iraq, two of which were possession of illegal wmd weaponry (which we did find in his possession) and possible ties to known terrorists organization's and figures (which was vindicated). The only aspect of intelligence that the CIA, as well as about every other credible intelligence agency around the world was wrong on, were that they thought he still had his existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Saddam's own chemists admitted to U.N. representatives in 1995 that they had weapons barred by the U.N., including chemical and biological stockpiles. Ever find it funny that today nobody has found the weapons that Iraq admitted to having? I do.

Secondly, your assertion that Saddam's regime was secular is also not entirely true. Saddam's Batthist party is officially a Secular Arab Socialists political party. However, the U.S. government and the international community must deal with the practical reality of Iraq's regime. After the Iran Iraq war Saddam draped himself in Jihad. Every radio and television broadcast out of Baghdad was all about Jihad, Saddam would not be referred to in anyway other than clerical regards, he built the largest mosque in the region with the Quaron written in his own blood (he says), boasted about personally providing $25,000 to each family of suicide bombers in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to attack assets of the PLO, because they were too secular, he openly praised the same terrorists who you are claiming he opposed, and after 9/11 allowed his country to be used as safe haven for very well known terrorists including Zarhawi. Before 9/11 he sheltered the planner of the WTC attack of 1993 in Baghdad, and the terror group anser-al Islam was not only sponsored by Saddam Hussein, but was also allowed to act as an unofficial arm of the central government.

Look at Syria, a baathist government, yet who are its two greatest allies? The Mullahs who control Iran, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. By the way, you contradict yourself by saying that Saddam was a secular Muslim; he is either secular, or he is Muslim.

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

acctually bush said the USA was invading Iraq because they had WMD. the UN didnt really support us and they still dont in this conflict. iono i think bush is a dumbass. we had bin laden cornered n then we went to iraq so he got away.... if we really wanted to we could probably go ahead and send lots and lots of troops to where Intel is telling us where he is n then find him in 2 months

Answer 4

It was just a lame excuse. Operation Iraq was in the planning for a looooong time. Bush is not confused, he just confuses.

Answer 5

who really knows the answer to why we went in there i have a gut feeling that we will find out after his term