Do you believe Iraq was a threat to the United States before Bush invaded?

Question

If so, can you please explain why you think so? Thanks.

Answer 1

No, I did not. I marched, protested, wrote letters, all in a futile attempt to get my fellow citizens to see what a mistake we were making.

Answer 2

Some day, once the information is declassified, we're going to find out (gasp! .... oh, the surprise!!!) that Saddam moved his weapons to Syria right before the war.

Below are some very convincing pieces of evidence. There was another website that even showed satellite tracking data, but it mysteriously has been removed from the Internet (maybe it showed information that was too sensitive.)

Yes, I absolutely believe Iraq was a threat to the U.S., because Iraq could have started another war. He had already bribed the UN Security Council Representatives of France, Germany, and Russia to keep voting "no" on military intervention (even though the resolutions they signed called for it). Therefore, at some point we would have gotten distracted from Iraq, as we always do. We forgot about Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, North Korea, etc. Once the military conflict ends, it is as if no one even recalls the situation, and no one follows up.

One thing almost no one disputes is that Saddam kept everything in place so that he could reconstitute his weapons program at a moment's notice.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Here are captured documents:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news

Answer 3

Not a single country on earth is a threat to United State Of America !! But yes media rules...........they can make a street walker to be a threat for the Whole US who is capable of destroying the American single handed !!! they can project anyone as a villain!

How on earth could Iraq be a threat to US? what actualy they could do to US ? and why on earth they would target 'only' US and ignoring rest of all the countries in whole world?? Doesn't make any sense !! so I believe that Iraq was never a threat to America ! America is safe and sound ! but i don't know why their governament is projecting their public that they are unprotected and for that they need to invade the countries( or may be i know) !! What i think is that if they are not safe they could protect their country more strongly by keeping their army in their country instead of sending it to other parts ! No???

Answer 4

As a veteran of the first Gulf war, I can say that Iraq was of absolutely no threat to the Continental United States since they lacked the weaponry to deliver anything very far from their own borders. As far as terrorism was concerned, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Egypt, and Pakistan all have more terrorist activity than Iraq ever did.
The Bush administrations reason for taking on Iraq had everything to do with regional interests in the political arena. Saddam Hussein simply represented the thumb in the nose attitude of the Arab Governments towards the US and it's military machine.
I compare it to the Lone Chinese woman against the tank in Tienanmen Square. He knew he could not win, but he was not going to give up or change his ways.
Of course since we were sending mixed signals for the past fourty years, why would he. First we supported him, then we ran him out of Kuwait and let him go, then we decided he was the worst thing in the world.

Answer 5

Of course. The creeps who flew planes into the Twin Towers were trained and financed by Iraq. Saddam had the money, the ambition, the followers to do as much damage to America as was possible.
I'm sure that you noticed that there were no more bombings here in America since the war was taken over there.
Without a very strong response to the attack, we surely would have had many more buildings destroyed, with many thousands of people killed.
When any country finances and trains people to murder thousands of citizens and do billions of dollars worth of damage to another country, the damaged country must make a response. It could clobber the offending country, as America did, or it could surrender to the demands as Spain did. I am very proud of the American response.
If I happened to be a citizen of Spain, France, or Italy, I would feel anything but pride.

Answer 6

Yes Iraq was a threat here is a link from a ABC news story in which Saddam,and his cabinet members talk about making America,and Britain pay once the U.N. weapons inspectors pull out http://www.intelligencesummit.org/news/ABC/AB021506.php also the plan that we used for the initial invasion was a plan that was put into place by former President Clinton.

Answer 7

They were not a threat. I never bought into that lie. Iraq was no more a threat than Canada. Perhaps we should launch an unrpovoked war against Canada, to secure our northern border against possible terrorist threats from our beer swilling neighbors.

We demonstrated what our response would be during the 1991 Gulf War. Does anyone recall that? Saddam had not even tried to rebuild his army to its previous state.

Of course he wanted nuclear weapons--now every two bit nation realizes they need them to protect themselves against american aggression. We are now the number one promoters of nuclear proliferation. But hey, wherever there is money to be made! We enjoyed enormous profits selling weapons to both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. And look how joyously american corporations are rolling in the cash cow now! SAIC raked in $8 billion last year. No bid, cost plus contracts are passed out like jelly beans. We shipped shrink wrapped pallets of cash into a war zone.

In WWII there was congressional oversight to ensure no US companies engaged in war profiteering. There has been no such oversight in this war. Ask yourself why. This war has nothing to do with WMDs, terrorism, or democracy. It is about profit. Pure and simple. The other things are patriotic fluff and decoration to help sell the idea of perpetual war for profit.

If we can make a few bucks burning Iraqi ragheads, why then God Bless America!

Answer 8

It obviously was not. There were no WMD because the sanctions were working. The 911 Commission showed that there were no ties to AlQuaeda. Iraq is more of a threat to us today than it was four years ago. We should have let the UN handle things with inspections and sanctions. Most of Iraq is worse off today, than it was under Saddam Hussein. They still do not have electricity and running water on a regular basis in many places. I think if we'd have let the UN and the sanctions take their course Saddam would have gone under from the weight of his own corruption.

Answer 9

Yes. The fact that he broke every stipulation of the treaty that ended the Gulf War and continued his research into WMD as well as offered safe haven to terrorists and supported the Palestinian terrorists was proof that his intentions to the US were bad.

It's not just the US, either. He was a threat to the entire region. His invasion into Kuwait and proposed invasion of Saudi Arabia was a threat. His war with Iran also proves his hostile intent in the region.

Any one of these is a danger to the US in one way or another.

This thing is about more than WMD's and a direct invasion of the US. There are other dangers in the world other than invasion.

Answer 10

It was never a threat to the people of the United States, but a threat to the corporations and government trade. Ronald McDonald Reagan would agree.

Answer 11

No. the only connection between Hussein and Al Queda was a couple of visits by Bin Laden looking for money but Saddam was too greedy to help. The most he offered was cheering the effort on. The countries that were the threat are untouchable because of the business relationships between them and our president but that's another story.
As for the validity of going there to spread democracy and disposing a tyrant, those are all positive things but that wasn't the agenda we were told, If we had been maybe we would have supported it but we were never given the chance to make that choice.