Since the left believes that the war is unwinnable, does it not follow that they believe our forces are unable

Question

to defeat these bands of terrorists and insurgents? Does it therefor follow that the Iraqis could have been smart enough to secret away the WMDs before the invasion. They certainly had enough time.. Is it possible that Saddam was smart enough to hide WMD from the inspection teams which were thwarted at every turn and thrown out of the country?

Answer 1

No. First of all-about 23% of the American people support the war, so don't blame it all on the "left." Conservatives have also turned their back on the President. I think the American people believe we can best defeat the terrorists and insurgents by securing our own borders and protecting our nation at home. Sure, Saddam could have hidden weapons, but Iran and Iraq are enemies, so if he hid them in another country, like Syria, Syria will keep them. The question is how long will it take to defeat the insurgents and terrorists and is such a defeat permanent? What about the terrorists who are not in Iraq? 40% of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. arrive by plane or bus. Others get a day pass and cross at San Diego, Calexico, Yuma, El Paso etc. and don't go back at the end of the day. I drove to Mexico in May '06. I crossed at Yuma. One American border guard was on duty and I had clothes hanging in the window of my car and he could not see in my vehicle. He waved me through without a question and without getting out of his chair. There's the problem we're ignoring that will not be fixed by a border fence.

Answer 2

WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.

For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.

Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately "a cover for a much deeper game". The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas.

This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) - the core of al-Qa'ida.

When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.

The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for "bailing the Americans out", financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida ("the Base" in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves - attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad - were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.

This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the "Islamic street" to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that "war was now optional", that no power existed that could force it into war.

Answer 3

There was a website claiming to present proof that Saddam had sent his weapons to Syria right before the war. Statistics were cited about how many trucks were in the convoy, and our satellites supposedly tracked their movements. From what I read, this is indisputable. There WAS a huge truck convoy from Baghdad to Syria, and I doubt it carried figs and dates.

Regrettably, the website has been removed. However, I hope to find this same information elsewhere.

I am certain Saddam did this. Too many Iraqis supported this story for it to be a hoax, and it fits Saddam's behavior very well. As a coward at heart, he couldn't bear to part with these weapons. Knowing that he had bought off France and Russia with his bribes via the Oil For Food scandal, he figured that he could just bring the weapons back when we weren't paying attention, and inflict huge casualties.

Smart guy. Glad he's dead.

Answer 4

This is a civil sectarian war. The government is in league wit the terrorists. The country is divided on religious and tribal lines. We do not understand these people. the common citizens are scared witless, 'cause whatever they do, they could be blown up at any instant by a bomb. Irag is shipping IEDs and penetrators into the country. Syria is sending insurgent terrorists into the country.

Why on earth would anybody think this is a winnable situation? What constitutes a win?

Answer 5

Yes - it is obvious that Saddam hid the WMDs - I believe that they were sent to Syria. But if this is not a fact - then not only is Bush a liar - but so is Kerry and Clinton - as they both stated publicly that Iraq had WMD's - too bad the dems suffer such memory issues when they are picking on Bush.

Answer 6

No force can accomplish an ever-changing mission. This war was initiated to disarm saddam. There were no weapons of mass destruction and saddam has been executed.

While we debate the issues, defense contractors are making money hand over fist. The biggest defense contractor in Iraq has the vice president working for them in the White House.

Answer 7

Still fantasizing about those non-existent WMDs, I see.

Here's the thing, Skippy. There were no WMDs. Even Bush has been forced to admit there were no WMDs. No facilities for making them, no chemical precursers, no evidence they ever existed after Clinton made Saddam disarm back in the 90s.

Now here's a question for your little mind to ponder: If Saddam had WMD and was willing to use them just for fun as Bush claimed, why didn't he use them to save his own life? See how silly and illogical your little story is?

Answer 8

Isn't it also possible that Bush should have updated the intel since Clinton's administration? I mean, since cons keep bringing up Clinton's 1998 quote about the WMDs in Iraq, I have to assume that Bush invaded in 2003 based on information from Clinton's administration back in 1998. Right? Isn't that the only logical reason why a con would defend the invasion in 2003 with a quote from 1998?

Sure, Saddam could have moved them. Obviously he did. They aren't there, right? My question is, though, why didn't Bush check it out before making a fool of all of us?

Answer 9

There is no such thing as a "WMD". Even if they had missles, they lack the range required to hit a target, so were in effect, useless.

The main reason for Dubya wanting this war is that daddy started it in '91 and didn't finnish the job.

Answer 10

Saddam was put in power by us. The USA supplied saddam with the wmd.