Does the absence of WMD's invalidate the war in Iraq?

Question

Hypothetical situation: A man pulls a gun on a cop. The cop’s partner who the man doesn't see shoots and kills the man. Later it is determined that the man had no bullets in his gun. Does that make the partner a murderer? Of course not, the partner responded appropriately to a legitimate threat. The absence of bullets after the fact does not change the situation.

Does this hypothetical situation parallel the war in Iraq? Saddam said he had weapons of mass destruction, the world believed he did, the Democrats and Republicans believed him and voted to act to remove him. Then after we did we found no WMD's, he had no bullets in his gun so to speak. Does that mean it was wrong to go over there? Should we have just left at that point leaving Iraq in shambles for a new tyrant to take over? Even though many senators and congressman voted to respond to the threat in Iraq, should George W. Bush get all the blame? Should there be any blame, and if so who should share it?

Answer 1

Actually Saddam denied having WMDs. However his actions over the years prevented all parties from verifying that fact. It seemed his intention was to deny their existence, but always leave enough doubt that he did have them. He was playing a dangerous game and it bit him in the ***.

I'm definitely in the "You broke it you bought it" camp. We invaded and created chaos in Iraq, and now it's our job to set it right. This is not an altruistic motive. I firmly believe withdrawing will create much worse consequences down the road, then finishing the job.

Answer 2

I think the administration should just be upfront that WMD was an excuse. I understand that sometimes you need to appeal to Americas base xenophobia and paranoia to get them motivated as we are a pretty slothful country. The need was there but thats said and done and it's time to be straight.

We just were tired that there was a part of the world that had tons of money but was wracked by civil unrest constantly in a way that could easily spill across the world.

We have established bases that we can use to spearhead into other parts of the region like iran or china. We have set up protection for the oil that is the lifeline for this country. We have stopped a mass murderer from being in power.

The whole guerrilla issue was there long before we were around and will be there long after we are gone. the same as bosnia and african unrest. There are unreasoning hatreds in the region that go back generations. If we can get them to stop hating each other and start hating us then we will have achieved our final goal. Sadly they just keep on slaughtering one another.

Answer 3

The lack of WMDs in Iraq merely invalidates the UN. Iraq had chemical weapons at least, and they also had weapons they were barred from having by the UN, that was an indisputable fact. That they were given enough time to hide their chemical weapons in Syria, and were sold the very weapons they weren't allowed to have by Koffi Anan's son, means that the UN should be disbanded as ineffectual and corrupted by the very enemies of democracy.

Answer 4

But they did find WMD's, why dosent anyone know this?? O yea, only Fox News reported it, along with the NYT. MSNBC and CNN ignored that fact, along with the fact that we have done so much to bring Iraq out of being a 3rd world country (which outside of the few major cities it has, it was). They didnt find nukes but they did find some 16 chemical warheads and supplies to make biological warheads, including kilos of bacterial growth media, among other things.

Im not going to go find the article, but its out there. I tracked it down after reading an artical about vials of nerve gas found at a UN office in DC.

Bush presented the facts he was given to congress and they voted to go to war. If you really think Iraq is a lost cause, one you havent paid attention lately, two, congress is just as much to blame as Bush, third, we elminated a tyrant, who killed, raped, and tortured his own people. He was a mini-hitler in his genocide of the kruds, the man needed to be stopped.

Its too bad about ~2% of the people in Iraq arnt happy with what we did, but you cant make everyone happy.

The recent troop surge is working on the insurgants, and even our own military, whom by the way should be the ones making the call on when we can pull out, not our congress as they have no clue, they just want to fullfill their own agendas, say that we can probably start pulling out by next summer, it will be on fox news tonight as they interview the field general.

If any President should be blamed for anything, Bill Clinton should be blamed for not taking out Bin Laden the 4 times he had a chance to when he was president. But he didnt because he didnt want Gore to look like a war-monger when he ran for president. Sept 11th might have never happend if Clinton thought more about what was right rather than the Democrats political agenda.

Answer 5

You put forth a very interesting analogy. However, now that we know there's no WMD's in Iraq and we've given the Iraqis the opportunity to govern themselves, our government needs an exit strategy.

I'm not proposing pulling out immediately. I don't want us to be tied to a definite "time table" which might encourage groups like Al Queda, etc.

Answer 6

There was no Congressional Declaration of War as required by the Constitution of the United States. This is what invalidates the war on Iraq, nothing more, nothing less.

Fit Factory Dude: The UN cannot give the US President a declaration of war. Only the US Congress can.

Answer 7

The absense or the presence of WMD's were the least of the justifications for going into Iraq. The fact that people focus on this tripe just makes it easy for those who do not understand to be manipulated by the liberals press and liberals politicians with an agenda.

Answer 8

NO, NO, NO for one there is no proof that no WMD'S were not found, I was there, documents were found stating that Saddam was financing the Al Queda, that is the main reason behind use kicking the crap out of them. and further more the UN was involved and gave us a Declaration of war AND WAS SIGNED BY THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..... Sh*t or get off the pot., If you ain't been there then don't say sh*t..... Didn't your mother ever tell you... " if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"

Answer 9

Your hypothetical situation doesn't apply here because there were countries (eg: France and Germany) whose intelligence apparatus' stated that they disbelieved Saddam's WMD capability. So in other words, it would be like a 3rd cop telling the 2nd not to shoot, but the 2nd did anyway.

Everyone who supported this debacle should share the blame for it, but in reality Bush is the Commander in Chief (the Decider) and ultimately made the decision to go to war.

Sorry, but that is the way politics works.

Just keep in mind that $700,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars have been approved for this war. And there is no end in sight, and no relief in the costs of the war in sight.

Where are the fiscal conservatives at?

Answer 10

No, it doesn't. The war was wrong even with WMD.
You're comparing a cop acting in his jurisdiction with the invasion of another country. In case you don't know it, the US army doesn't have world wide police jurisdiction. It's an invading army. In fact it's the only invading army since the creation of Israel (not including border disputes).