Iraq war-justified war? Bush-justified?

Question

Ok, without profanities or being too anal, let's hear LOGICAL opinions

Answer 1

It was justified when CONGRESS voted for it in 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act. This is what 360 congressman justified it with in 1998:

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.


SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Answer 2

We now know a small cadre of administration folks had wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11.

We know the administration was hoping to explain we needed to invade Iraq because of Saddam's refusal to let the UN inspectors into Iraq.

When Saddam blinked, and the inspectors indeed found nothing, the administration then explained we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam really did have weapons of mass destruction, but was better at hiding them than the UN inspectors were at finding them.

When 9/11 happened, the administration then told us there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. This proved to be as effective as it was untrue.

When our armed forces found no weapons of mass destruction, the administration then explained we needed to invade Iraq to rid the world of a terrible dictator.

When the fiasco of our occupation of Iraq became evident, the administration then explained we were fighting terrorism there so we wouldn’t have to fight it here.

Probably the most reliable explanation for the invasion is that a group of administration neoconservatives argued liberating Iraq would give us a strong, showcase democracy friendly to the US smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. It would also give us bases on either side of Iran who, this group perceptively concluded, was the real problem. Contrary to the left’s tired mantra, it was never simply about oil.

Are any of these reasons justification for what we have done to a people and to our service men and women and their families? That probably depends on your individual set of values. One thing is certain: a fatal combination of towering arrogance and ignorance has caused the administration to utterly botch the job. I’m not at all sure the desire to just walk away from the mess we’ve made is any less irresponsible than the decision that made the mess in the first place. When this is over, we will have lost far, far more than Iraq. We already have.

Answer 3

President Bush was acting on a resolution passed in the 90s and signed by Clinton. It made Saddam's removal a matter of National policy. Considering that the consense of opinion showed saddam was a threat to the peace of the region and a possible threat to the US, it was justified. Oh and the bulk of the intel about Iraq was gathered and repeated by leading Democrats. So this was not all about Bush.

Answer 4

All media, actually. The Plain Dealer, New York Times, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al-Jezzera, Voice of Russia, even Fox News sometime in '04

Answer 5

Yes. The dems voted for the war before they voted against it. Never forget that mantra.

Answer 6

According to the House and Senate including democrats,it was.

Answer 7

they refused to abide by the treaty they signed after desert storm, both parties thought they had womds,both parties wanted the war...............enough?

Answer 8

Lol

Answer 9

Is this logical enough for you - YES!

Answer 10

WE DEMS DO NOT INVEST NOR HAVE ABSOLUTLY NO PERSONAL INTERESTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

WE NEVER INVEST IN OIL EITHER!