Iraq invasion. How would you have voted?

Question

Weapons inspection teams were set up in Iraq in1991. Saddam had built up a chemical arsenal leading up to the Gulf war - and had used them to kill an estimated 20,000 people in the Iraq / Iran war, including 5000 Iraqi Kurds. After playing Saddam's game of telling the inspectors where they were allowed to look and ousting them on several occations - when they left in 1999, because Saddam rejected yet another resolution (Res 1284), they had, prior to their departure, destroyed 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional warheads, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 Tons of chemical agents. With no further reliable monitoring of Saddam's CBR activities, there was no way to know whether Saddam had or didn't have any more WMD arsenals.
This is the scenerio when the vote to invade Iraq was taken - again - with this history of non compliance and the weapons that had already been destroyed - How would you have voted?
(None of the above relates to the "bush lied" rhetoric.)

Added note: Iraq's history above is a fact and was common knowledge - Bush's intelligence was based on this history along with satilite photos, in country surveilance and other intel from around the world. Remember, at the time, even Saddam's own troops believed he had WMDs. I believe anyone one who voted for this war, from either side of the isle, dosen't owe anyone an apology. I wonder, however, about those who chose to ignore all of these indicators. Anti-war is one thing, disregarding America's security for an ideal is quite another.

G - I respect your views, but without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and with all of the indicators I have detailed known at the time of the vote, a "maybe Saddam doesn't have WMDs" wouldn't have over ridden the evidence that was available - and given Saddam;s history, our immediate security interests far out weighed any "maybes." Consider the consequences if we had been right and failed to respond? Do you think Saddam would have hesitated in giving the Islamic jihad a little boost with some of his arsenals?

Dolen - I think you meant Scott Ritter. Even after 7 years as a chief weapons inspector, Scott admitted that he could not be sure that Saddam didn't have any more chemical arsenals, including VX nerve gas. He believed that they had destroyed MOST of Saddam's laboratories and production equipment - but stopped short of confirming this. It became another one of those, "maybes."

Answer 1

Given the facts you present above, and only those facts, I would have voted for the war.

However, other facts were presented by the administration which were somewhat in doubt, and primary among them was Iraq's reported attempt to buy yellowcake from Africa, and aluminum centrifuge tubes for UF6 processing. These were given as the reason we had to invade right now.

I was aware of these issues at the time and owing to that doubt, i would have voted not to get involved in a ground war at that point.

Once the buildup began, I knew we were committed to war. There was no turning back. My personal opinion is that when the forces were fully in place, Saddam would have at least tried to negotiate his way out of the situation. After all, he was apperently telling the truth when he said he had destroyed his WMDs. So he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by letting inspectors back in.

In many cultures, including the Arab cultures, bargaining and "face" are key components. I wouldI\ hope skilled negotiators would have played off of that. I think better diplomacy might have made a difference. War is always a failure of deplomacy.

Answer 2

I would have voted yes... Colin Powell gave quite a convincing argument detailing the intelligence as he presented it to the UN.

Saddam's history is he had WMD , AND used WMD both against Iran and his own people. If he was left in power he could certainly recreate WMD and provide a safe haven. Just look at how Korea under everyones watchful eye is developing WMD not to mention Iran as well.

HOWEVER ... I remember quite alot of discussion on what our exit strategy would be and NOT getting any satisfactory answers.. Other than the Iraqi people will be glad to get rid of Saddam and we'll set up a democractic state... yada yada yada

The rest as they say is history....

Answer 3

My problem, both in 2003 and now, is that there was no absolute proof that Saddam had any WMD's. There was only speculation. The UN Security Council voted no for the resolution to declare war, and Bush went ahead anyway.

For me, if you're going to start a war, it better be for absolute 100% proof. It would also be much better if you were backed by the UN.

I said at the time that if Bush declared war in Iraq it was going to be a major f*ck up and that it wasn't going to be the cakewalk Rumsfeld and others thought.

I would have voted a resounding NO.

Answer 4

a lot death and destruction substitute into an effect of the Iraq conflict, little question approximately it, yet freedom has a value, and that fee is severe, yet a value this is quite good worth it. many of the freedom human beings take exhilaration in and take with out any interest fee dearly, human beings in some circumstances ignore that indoors the ease of their homes. to look suitable now state of Iraq and use that as a measuring Rod as to the fulfillment of the conflict is disingenuous to assert the least. We uprooted a evil dictatorship and put in it quite is place a loose democracy have been human beings rule themselves. setting up a sparkling Democracy takes time, through fact it did in our very own international locations case right here in u . s . a .. themes do no longer paintings themselves out over evening. God bess

Answer 5

Hell yes!

I don't know what all of these libs are saying the "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11" Of course they didn't except it is well known they allowed the Al-Qaeda train in northern Iraq. Libs just can't seem to get over the fact that we don't give a crap about what they think. They are always trying to make things up and pin it on the cons but it usually backfires. Libs are not the sharpest tool in the shed. They may be book smart to a degree but when it comes to reality, they're lost.

Answer 6

you say there was no way to know... but Bush said that they had them? how does that not relate? you conveniently leave that out as A HUGE PART OF THE SCENARIO... were you just ignoring him?

Bush said he had them, knew where some of them were and Cheney said it would pay for its self and be over quickly, on meet the press right before the war started...

based on what they said, I may have voted for it... but those things don't seem to have been true in hindsight...

if I was voting... I would have been very aware of what they said... and my vote would be heavily based on what they said...

maybe you ignore the president completely, but most people don't, especially those that would be voting on this issue...

EDIT: the thing is... I don't think I ever heard Bush say.. "they might not be there"... maybe I missed it? If it's maybe, say maybe...

Answer 7

No. Despite all of the tired points you have listed, you have left out the fact that just years before we were friendly with Iraq. You also conveniently left out that IRAQ HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. There are numerous UN resolutions that are not complied with. 100's violated by Israel as we speak. Should we go over and start killing babies in Israel now? Why does it seem that people like yourself love war and death so much?

Answer 8

i would have voted no.

iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or the larger war on terror.

Answer 9

I would have voted against invasion of Iraq.

Answer 10

I would voted no. There were just as many people saying that it was all bs.