Most liberals use the argument that Iraq never attacked us, so why are we at war there?

Question

Aside from Saddam breaking 17 UN resolutions and trying desparately to flex to the world his WMD programs, I found this article which makes 3 good points...

What do you think?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/singer200407070856.asp

This is a paragraph that I feel answers the question the best...

There can be no doubt that Saddam's Iraq was, with Iran and Saudi Arabia, the most important Middle East government providing political support for terrorism. Irrespective of whether Saddam's regime had meaningful links to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attackers, there is no argument that Saddam harbored the likes of Abu Nidal, funded Palestinian suicide bombers, and helped train and support other international terrorists. The exact extent of this activity is unknown, but clearly it's no longer happening, and this must count as a success in the war on terrorism.

Remember, this is a "War on Terror"... not a war on soley Bin Laden.

October... If the paper says so IT MUST BE TRUE... Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp the fact that a dictator like Saddam, who thrived on terror himself, would harbor and train terrorsts? Why is it so easy for you to defend a dictator rather than America?

Russ... you didn't even read the article did you? Come on be honest... I know you didn't read it... and where is it you got your "FACTS"? You spend all sorts of time in Iraq with Saddam? Are you an expert on Iraq? Apply a little common sense with the last detail I wrote.

Kelly & TJefferson.... What is the point of a UN Resolution? And who was it in the UN that denied supporting the War on Terror and going into Iraq?... mainly FRANCE... why is that I wonder?... OH, they were in bed with Saddam and the Oil for Food scandal... And YES the UN Resolution did give us the right to go to war with Iraq... and when Saddam bombed the Kurds with Mustard Gas... is that not a WMD? Sure it only killed a few hundred thousand... at what point is it classified as a WMD? Keep defending the Dictator though, I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I do...

Joey's.... how many countries would you like us to go into all at once? It is sooo smart to spread our military ALL over the middle east.... good strategy. And I do believe we will end up going to war with Iran.... is that OK with the libs for now?

Ted... look at the big picture here... if democracy is a success in an Islamist nation once ruled by a dictator that will spark thought and hope in the people of other Islamist Nations ruled under a dictatorship.

And we are part of the UN... if you will remember... Australia, Poland, Spain and Britain gave the war their support.

hey Mike... do you even know how left wing the gaurdian is?

Answer 1

There is plenty of evidence Iraq HAD WMD, they just move them to Syria before the invasion, since they knew they could not stop us and didn't want to get cough red handed...


some of these evidence is on leftist newspapers:

WMD are in Syria:

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014835.php

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

, ...since the Baaathist in Syria and Saddam were pals, remember BAATH party is originally from Syria...!

as for Bush exposing this, it won't happen! because then he would have to invade Syria and our Army is stuck in Iraq, and it is not going anywhere else for a long while...guaranteed!

the Army is almost broken, stretched to the limit! so no other invasions for a while!

Answer 2

An editorial from the National Review counts as proof? Well if someone from the non-biased National Review said it, it must be true! (Sarcasm, it is a very right-wing publication).

If this is a "War on Terror", then why are we not fighting terrorists? (Bin Laden!)

Saddam didn't have any ties to Al-Qaeda or any international terrorist organization. Also on Abu Nidal, Saddam didn't harbor him, he entered the country illegally in 1999. Saddam didn't like him, in fact there were rumors that Saddam had Nidal killed in 2002.

-The exact extent of this activity is unknown (So there could have been none.), but clearly it's no longer happening
Because Nidal died in 2002, before we invaded.

There was no tangible reason to invade Iraq. There were no WMDs, nor was he trying to start a WMD program. (And saying "Oh, what if they were moved..." is a cop-out), no connections to Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda, no plans to attack the U.S., and no Saddam-9/11 connection. Yes, he was a brutal dictator but so what? How many evil dictators do we have around the world that we ignore?

Oh, and for those who talk about Pearl Harbor, know this: Germany did declare war on us, they did it right after we declared war on Japan.

And no, I am not defending a dictator. I am merely stating the facts.

Answer 3

All the evidence suggests that Saddam was not liked by Al Qaeda because he , unlike them, was not a fundamentalist. But they are there now in their thousands.
No question he aided Palestinians, as all Arab countries tend to do, but do you think that was worth all the lives you have wasted? They are still attacking Israel so are you going to attack all Islamic countries?
If a country breaks U.N. resolutions why not leave it to them to sort out or didn't you like the way they were going about it?
You are correct in saying that the activities of Saddam and his regime have ceased but they are still going on, so where is the success?

Mr.Perfect. We already have examples of democracy in the Islamic world. Turkey and Egypt but they are always under pressure from fundamentalists. In Egypt they love blowing up tourists which does wonders for the economy and in Turkey it is an ongoing battle to keep out the fundamentalists.
Australia's support of the war in Iraq is not popular with most of the people and is more the result of us having a Prime Minister who is always sucking up to Bush.

Answer 4

So you agree that the United States should solely enforce UN resolutions with American blood and money? If so then you belong more to the UN then the USA.

And if the USA should punish countries that harbor and support terrorism then shouldn't the USA itself be invaded by multi-national forces since it supports and harbored Saddam's regime? If so then shouldn't an array of American politicians and pundits be convicted for supporting terrorism?

Answer 5

Mission Accomplished!

Answer 6

Cripe, what a load of rubbish!
.
Bush and Company lied about Iraq.
They fooled you, they did not fool some liberals.
The Bushies are still trying to fool America.
This makes Liberals smarter then the idiots who go along with this rubbish.
.
Now that the facts are no longer lining up the way the Republican said they would, the Republicans are rearranging the facts to define another dumb idea.
.
Abu Nidal has already been discredited, he was a bit player.
.
"irrespective" means, we don't care if the facts don't back us up!
The "exact extent is unknown",,, this says it all, from day one, "inexact" has been the watch word at the white house!
"not a war on Bin Laden" reminds me of the Russian comment after we put a man on the moon and the Russians said they were never racing us. LOL
.
But don't worry, folks that tin foil hat Bush is wearing does seem to keep terrorists out of our hair!
Now drink your Kool-Aid!

Answer 7

While it is true that Saddam was not (as far as we know) directly involved in the 9/11/01 attacks, we know beyond all doubt that he supported terrorists. Just by the law of averages, he was probably involved in some attacks against Americans.
I think the best response is "Germany didn't attack us on 12/7/41". We are at war against Islamofascism today just as we were at war against fascism/nazism in the 1940's. You have to destroy ALL your enemies to win a war.

Answer 8

It's not about Iraq. It was necessary. The guy massacred his own people. What if we took the same pansie-a**ed (sorry!) bummed attitude about Hitler? What about the Pol Pots of the world? What about Kim Jong Il? Hmm??? Why is it "Okay" to let a sadistic, evil dictator muder, plunder, starve his people, rape women, etc. etc. etc.? Can ANYONE honestly tell me that the world is not a safer place without Saddam Insane and his spawn??? I sleep a little better at night.

But yeah...Glen Beck (PBUH) says over and over that it's not about Iraq. It's about Iran. After all, it's Iran that's lead by President Psycho-pants-I-deny-the-Jewish-Holocaust. It's President Crazy-guy-death-to-American-the-infidel. And oh my goodness...are those deployed RPG's Iranian make? They ARE? Oh, they COULDN'T be.

WAKE UP, AMERICA! These people want you DEAD!!!!!

Answer 9

1. There was no terror from Iraq before or after 9/11.
2. The war in Iraq is making billions for Bush's Dad who is part of the Carlysle group and they deal in military contracts with the government.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtmlhttp://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/CarlyleGroup.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair05222004.html
3. This war is about oil as well as war profiteering. They are dividing Iraq's oil into 80% privatizing for American oil corporations and 20% Iraq nationalized.
4. If you have links that actually prove Saddamns harboring of Nidal and fudning Palestinian suicide bombers, than show them. And, I don't mean something from political sided links, I mean actual documentation released by the CIA and Gov't that might be on line through gov't docs.
5. The extent is unclear because it is rumor.
6. Israel has broken more UN resolutions than Saddam. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Are we going to invade Israel next? http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html

Fotomamma..... North Korea kills it's own people, Saudi Arabia kills it's own people just for presumed adultry, Sudan, Nigeria, and Columbia are killing their own people as well with death squads. Why aren't we going in there? Oh yes, we are, we are supporting Nigeria's and Columbia's government sponsored death squads because they have oil and natural resources we want. And, we won't touch the Sudan because China is doing alot of business in the Sudan for their oil. And, if we start something in the Sudan, it might mean starting something with china. So you see, you actually need to read something about politics and what is going on in real geo-political terms, not what FOX tells you to think.

yupchagee... first of all Germany declared war on us way before we joined the allies to fight them. Second of all you do not start a pre-emptive war on speculation that Saddam MIGHT HAVE attacked some Americans some where along the way. Give proof of that. He didn't attack any American. However, Libya did in the Pan Am flight over Lockerby Scotland. But we only bombed his little girl to death, not his entire country. Get your facts straight. You don't bomb people on a presumption. No government in their right mind does that even this one. They do it because they can lie about it and get away with it by creating fear in the hearts and minds of the American people.

Krytox1a.... No one thinks Iraq sent WMD's to Syria, not even the Pentagon. And, none of your links worked at all. The first 3 links didn't even take you to an article to prove your point.

Answer 10

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, why did FDR declare war on Germany?

Even though Saddam undoubtedly had WMDs (he used them on the Kurds) and was building more, *and* had links to al-Qaeda, you'll never convince the libs!