should anyone go on trial here for starting the Iraq war over a mistake?

Question

I was told we went to war in Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. They were a big threat to us. Now we find out they had no WMD's and were not a threat.
should anyone here stand trial for the killing of 3000 american troops for a bogus war?

Whew! I sure opened a can of worms. I am glad so many are so passionate. I am not a liberal by the way. I am American, Pro-American and I love this country. I live in New York, actually about two miles from the world trade center (in Astoria). I could see the towers burning; I could smell the chemical acid smoke for days after the towers fell. I walked around with tape in my pocket and taped all the flyers of the missing people that had come loose. They were taped to mail boxes, stop lights and everything else. I am tired of paying 7,000 a year just in state taxes to support freeloaders; I have worked hard all my life and supported my country. I get very angry if even one America life is lost and it seems we have wasted lots of kids on a country that held no threat. How come we never went heavy into Afghanistan? We know that country held the people that attacked our country? There are no WMD;s there, we would have found them by now.

Answer 1

Yes is the simple answer.

As to who... that's simple too -

The hidden manadarins yanking George W Bushs' strings and "advising" him.

Everyone blames George W Bush, and to a certain extent he, as Leader SHOULD takae the blame, BUT, his advisors whould also be in the dock along side him - same for Tony Bliar and his advisors.

I mention Tony Bliar because, as I understood the original mandate for involving UK troops, (and I'm paraphrasing here..) George W Bush asked his mate Tony Bliar for UK troops to help US troops in AFGHANISTAN ONLY to deal with the aftermath of the 9/11 attrocities when George W Bush and Tony Bliar were advised that the alleged terrorists responsible for training and hiding thier "martyrs" were to be found in AFGHANISTAN NOT Iraq !!

The media are drowning us in Iraq and taking our eyes off the REAL reason of this conflict - namely AFGHANISTAN... I wonder why this is?

Once George W Bush had secured the help of UK troops to help US troops in AFGHANISTAN, he promptly withdrew 77% of US troops leaving UK (the MAJORITY of "war fighting" soldiers making up NATO military aid to this conflict because many NATO countries are too politically sensitive and are fearful about becomming targets for these terrorists allegedly hiding and training in AFGHANISTAN...) leaving UK troops grossly under-manned and under-resourced to clear up the mess left behind afteer 77% of US troops withdrew from the source of this conflict, and the reason for UK troops being involved in a USA instigated conflict !

Answer 2

considering that the list of the Intel that supported the assessment was leaked, it's easy enough to tell now. There were only a few reports, and the only one that mentioned it more then in passing was a report from somebody code named 'screwball' he was an informant that was not considered reliable at all, and most of his stuff had not only not checked out, but had proved to be completely wrong. All of this was known. Yet on the basis of only a few reports, Bush justified going to war.

A criminal investigation needs to be held for Bush and Cheney. Then if they can get enough data, a trial. But the investigation needs to come first.


And to answers above that thing they did have weapons? Don't mind the facts. They have a liberal bias.

We've looked for weapons since day one. So far we have found 2, both of which were gas canisters dating from the 80's. Those things go bad in 2-3 years. No weapons have been found. No evidence that they moved them has been found, and not for a lack of trying.

Answer 3

OK, to start off with, there are still people in Afghanistan, second the majority of what is going on in Iraq are not Iraqis. They are from countries around Iraq. So get it strait. Third we DID find Weapons of Mas Destruction. Forth we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq, we are trying to give them the same freedoms and right that so many people in the U.S. take advantage of.

Answer 4

Let's ask a liberal democrate if we should have invaded Iraq:

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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

Answer 5

Are you just throwing a liberal tantrum or are trying to start an intelligent discussion armed with facts and sources to back what you say up? And while I'm here have you done anything positive to help the situation except rant and rave and protest which nobody pays any attention to?

Answer 6

I think not, unless someone can prove that there were a group of people who definitely knew that there was no WMDs. However, there were WMDs and there are still places that they can be hidden. Of course, there won't be any nuclear ICBMs, but there are weapons that could take out 1/2 mil people if they got into the wrong hands.

Answer 7

LOL.

Prove Saddam did not have WMDS. Serin/Mustard Gas are WMDs!!! He had those troops found them.

Geez, Nuclear ICBM's are not the only type of WMD. What? you think we were to find a huge glaring ICBM under Saddams Palace.

http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/wmd_files/

Answer 8

The war was started to show america was a super nation and i as a brit i believe it was done in retalitaion for sept 11th .There were no wmd never were and the people who ordered the war are losing tony blair will be out as we no longer want him and they will never be held accountable as they are corrupt and will hide behing their politics with their hands covered in innocent blood

Answer 9

WRONG they HAD wmd's they sent them to saudi and Iran, and evidence shows they dumped chemicals into rivers, they hid them and got rid of them, all while france was taking money from saddam to slow us down through the UN thats we we finnaly went without the UN. should have gone there in the first place

anyone who thinks we should leave because we cant win or it is to costly id VERY weak willed and needs a SPINE!

Answer 10

First things first.

What needs to happen is a thorough investigation into all of the events leading up to the war and througout it's prosecution.

If any wrongdoing is in fact discovered - then it should be pursued.

But it's wrong to assume that anything should happen BEFORE a complete investigation.