In the beginning of war in Iraq......?

Question

we were "sure" that they have nuke or chemical weappons. If so: would comander and cheif send more than 100.000 ground troops straight to their death? Sadam would never hesitate to use those "WMD" against our troops?
I have 2 questions:
1. Did government care about American lives? or
2. The government was sure that there were no WMD in Iraq and government misslead American people for some other reason ( OIL? or PNAC?)

Answer 1

I believe that you have answered your own question. It is #2.

~

Answer 2

The reality of the matter is that Saddam had WMDP (Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs). This fact was verified after the first and second Iraq Wars.

Prior to the first war, Saddam had developed some chemical weapons and used them against his own people. As a result of the first Gulf War, he was forced to disarm and dismantle many of his sites.

For reasons of pride and the need to appear as if he had not lost, he resisted allowing inspectors into all places that they sought to search (though after a show of force, he would back down a little and allow searches of some places). In addition, he did make mostly unsuccessful efforts to gain some materials needed to restart his program. Many of the people in this program (fearing a policy of shooting the messenger) overstated the progress of those programs to Saddam. Thus, on the eve of the second Gulf War, it was accurately believed that Saddam was still pursuing WMD. What was unclear (and some in the Administration intentionally or unintentionally made errors on this issue, as did other analysts with other governments) was the degree to which he had rebuilt these programs and how close to success he was.

Prior to the start of the war, I thought we were a little quick on the draw as the inspections were making progress and should have been given a little more time. What we have learned since the war is that the sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War were more successful than we thought in retarding the attempts to rebuild Iraq's WMDP.

As noted in other answers, the military did take precautions based on a worst case scenario with chemical weapons. We did not think that Saddam had nuclear weapons yet, only that he was likely to get them within the decade (an estimate that was off by at least another ten years if the sanctions had stayed intact).

I think whether we should or should not have gone into Iraq when we did is a matter that can easily be argued from either side. I think what can't be disputed is that we went into Iraq with insufficient attention paid to the question of what would happen once we defeated Saddam. It is that failure that we are suffering from today.

Answer 3

Your question is based on false assumtions.

The fact is that we fully expected Saddam to use those WMD's against us (yes US... ) and trained our asses off to prepare for the chemical attacks and got all kinds of vaccines to prepare for the biological attacks. And then sweat buckets in full MOPP gear every time there was an artillery attack or chemical alarm going off.

We went over there knowing that Saddam could use those WMD's on us... but we faced that danger so that he could NOT use them on anyone else. Even the worst nerve agents have only a small casualty rate when used against a well-trained military unit... but are devistating when used against civiliain populations. That is the kind of things that Soldiers do -- we put our lives in harms way to protect others.

We also had a massive information campaign to let every Iraqi know the level of utter pain and destruction that would come down on anyone even close to a WMD launch... and believe me whenver we found a unit that was even capable of using WMD's we poured a lot of hot metal into it. B52 strikes and MLRS volleys have a serious deterrent effect.

It is also a fact that every major intelligence service in the world (French, Russian, German, UK, China and the US) believed that Saddam had WMD's.

Saddam's own generals believed he had WMD's. They found transcripts of the meeting where Saddam told the generals defending Bagdad that there were no WMD's to use, and the private notes of the attendees and post-war interviews with many of them... THEY believed in the 'red line' and they planned chemical strikes as part of their defense plans.

Now, if you really like these kind of 'what were they thinking' questions ask yourself this one:

Why would Saddam undergo years of sanctions, threats and ultimately a war that destroyed him when all he had to do to comply with the UN resolutions was allow inspectors to see that he had no WMD's? The simple thing for him to do would have been, sometime during any of Clinton's years, to let the inspectors verify that he had no WNDs! Then the sactions would have been lifted and he would still be in power for life, an his sons would be there to take over when he died.

Thats assuming that he really did give up on WMDs.... if he DID keep some WMD's and the ability to make more well then... he would have to boot the inspectors out and dare the world to invade if they wanted to keep him from using them!

Answer 4

it's very strange that half the country or more missed the fact that the US went in to take Saddam down per the request and begging pleas of the Iraqis. And after that was accomplished President Bush congratulated the troops and was ready to bring the military home. President bush never sent those thousands of groops straight to their deaths.
Sure the government (those in power) do care about American lives. If there is ever a sense that the government is misleading it is only because the people cannot be told what's happening behind the scenes because those who try to be heroes and spread the word to other countries about private matters can at the same time be traitors to the US and hurt the US.

Answer 5

Yep you have hit on the biggest hole in the argument.
We know he has WMD and we know he will use them.
If that was the case then obviously we would not camp our troops on his borders while arguing over the wording of a resolution that we knew would not pass.
In the past (including the very very recent past with Nth Korea) we have reacted to new powers acquiring nuclear weapons with every means other than force.
But don't tell the neo-cons you are on to them. It is more fun to hear then constantly rant about how dangerous Saddam was.

Answer 6

You know, in WW2, Churchill was panicked that the Nazi's had developed the A-Bomb and were going to pack it into the nose cone of a V2 rocket and slam it into London.

This was a real fear. Of course, only after the Allies marched into Germany did they find out the Germans were years away from developing such a weapon.

The same principle applies to Iraq. Both Clinton and Bush administrations thought he was very close to developing nuclear WMD's. But only after marching through Bagdad, did we realize he didn't have any (unless he buried them, moved them to Iran like he did his airforce during the first Gulf War, etc...).

Bottom line: You don't know until you go in.

Answer 7

I was pretty sure there were no WMD because the stories we heard about WMD were not even consistant. But I trusted Colin Powell, and when he made the speech in front of the UN I thought I might really have been wrong.

Then within 24 hrs British and French newspapers (online) showed how all the evidence Powell had shown the UN had been faked. Powell himself admitted it, but not until he had left the Bush administration.

Remember also the Bush admin. was insisting Saddam had cooperated with Al Quaeda and supplied them arms and WMD, and even had plans to attack the US with unmanned airplanes.

In retrospect we can see why Bush got us into this war, and why he keeps us in it even after all the justifications turned out to be false. It allows him as 'war president' to ignore laws, both US and international laws, to torture people, to arrest people and hold them indefinitely without charges, and to shovel govt. money to his friends and campaign contributors with no accountability at all. And is there any possibility Bush could have gotten a second term without a war in progress?

And yes it's about oil. But -we- don't need that oil, we just want to control the supply of the rest of the world. No wonder most of our allies didn't want to participate!

Answer 8

I had the same questions when I heard of the invasion.

1. No. When did GWB ever attend a funeral for a soldier?
2. Yes. Can you tell me that the intelligence was not manipulated or even fabricated?

The ongoing occupation of Iraq supports your OIL claim.

In response to Aztec276: Both major parties support the establishment occupation of the Middle East. The hyped conflict between parties is just that. The parties are complicit when it comes to the Middle East and Clinton did have plans to invade.

Answer 9

Iraq was known to have WMD -- it used them. ("Chemical Ali" was just condemned to death for doing so.) Iraq was required to dispose of them in an accounable manner -- and didn't. After 9/11, the possibility that such weapons might be used by unfriendlies became too great to tolerate, so the invasion happened. But by that time, Saddam had secretly moved all of the WMD materials (several thousand tons of stuff) to Syria, where they presumably still are. One may suppose that he hoped to regain power and recover them.

Answer 10

Okay, if we went over there for oil, WHY ARE GAS PRICES SO HIGH? High gas prices are one of the main reasons people criticize Bush's entire presidency. People say things like, "Everything was great when Clinton was in office. We only paid $1.50 for gas!" (As if a presidency can defined by how much you pay for gas.) Bush could get a lot of people off his back, and increase his approval rating if he was able to control gas prices and lower them! But he doesn't, so you have to wonder: MAYBE IT'S NOT UP TO HIM! HE DOESN'T SET/CONTROL GAS PRICES! This is a capitalist economy, which means prices (of anything) are set based on the economic laws of supply and demand.

If we went over there for oil, shouldn't we be swimming in it by now?

And if I remember correctly, the Iraqi people wanted someone to rescue them from an insane dictator who tortured and killed them! Sadaam was a modern-day Hitler. However, when Hitler first took power, he wasn't viewed as the murderous dictator that we see him as now. The American gov't regretted not stepping in when Hitler took power. They waited, and after 6 million+ Jews (and others) were killed, they finally came in and helped. Should we not learn something from history? Are you saying that we have no business stepping in and stopping this kind of evil? "Let's not INTRUDE in another country's business, even if its business is to torture and kill their own people." That's interesting logic. With that logic, are you saying we shouldn't have done anything about Hitler and allowed him to expand his "3rd Reich"?

Think about it! How simple-minded can you be, that you can just boil it down to: "Oh, we're gonna go to another country and send thousands to their deaths and spend billions just to get some oil." Please...There are easier ways to get oil, like drilling in Anwar.

Answer 11

Okay, so why did Bill Clinton and all the Congressional Democrats in the decade or so leading up to our entry claim Saddam had WMDs and was seeking nuclear weapons?

Your little conspiracy "theory" must include two diametrically opposed political parties working in conjunction.

In other words: FAT CHANCE.

-Aztec276