2007-11-22 00:03:00 · 16 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No
2007-11-22 00:05:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
There were plenty of reasons to go besides WMD.
If 13 (THIRTEEN) resolutions from the UN were not enough, it was time to close them down.
The Bush administration made their mistake by highlighting WMD for it's shock value. WMD is a more simple concept for the press and the American people to grasp. I guess they figured by selling the WMD scare, they wouldn't have to try and detail all the other complex implications of a Saddam controlled Iraq.
"Mission Accomplished" Is a good example.
A silly sign draped over the bridge of an aircraft carrier by a bunch of sailors who felt privileged to have been chosen by the commander in chief for a visit. The fact is, that carrier's mission was indeed accomplished.
BUT, the liberal press, the Democratic party and the left wing have latched on to a completely different symbolism and refuse to let it go.
George Bush should have done the hard work of laying out all the strategic, economic, humanitarian and moral repercussions of not dealing with Saddam Hussein harshly beyond the WMD he had, pretended to have or intended to get.
We all pay a price for being lazy and the president is certainly not exempt.
2007-11-22 09:04:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
How can anyone intelligently say that Saddam didn't have WMD when it is a fact that he used them on the Kurds and other enemies? Is someone going to argue that he used up up the very last drop of this stuff on the Kurds? If so why did he kick out the weapons inspectors in the late 1990s? Were they getting close? And what source of intelligence did President Clinton use when he made his speech during his second term and stated pretty much the same information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that Colin Powell and President Bush did prior to the invasion? At the time Clinton made his speech he couldn't have been influenced by the faulty intelligence from the Bush administration . George was Governor of Texas at the time. So isn't it possible that in the two or three months leading up to the war that Saddam might have moved the stores of WMD out of Iraq?
2007-11-22 08:42:30 · answer #3 · answered by hdean45 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
No. He had a responsibility when he surrendered to America in the 1st Gulf War, to keep the UN inspectors informed of every move he made. He agreed to these terms to be allowed to keep power as a leader in his country. He didn't live up to his bargain, so he got what he deserved, as our last resort. How much more patience did he expect? Bush 1, and Clinton (not that he cared) were patient enough for Saddam to tell the truth (I don't know what Clinton was waiting for, unless he just didn't understand what the truth is....oh, yeah, that's right, he doesn't! He didn't have sex with Monica), but Bush wasn't going to take a 3rd world idiot lying to the rest of the world. His main priority was to protect America from WMD controlled by a murdering tyrant. Bush did that. Thank you Mr. Bush, and Happy Thanksgiving!
2007-11-22 08:50:21 · answer #4 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
No.
Whether he had WMDs or, not Saddam wanted the world to think he did and did everything possible to spread that 'rumor.'
He felt he would be safer if it was believed that he did and well, now, I guess he has his answer.
...sad tale of a sad man.
2007-11-22 13:49:18 · answer #5 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes - Bush had decided to go to war from the get-go. WMDs were just a pretext. No "proof" would have been acceptable. Besides, it is a well-known logical fallacy that you can not demand the proof of the non-existence of something, because technically speaking, you can not prove something does not exist.
2007-11-22 08:18:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Maybe not, but I thank God Almighty that we did go. 10 or
20 years from now the historians will praise Bush for going in.
I Cr 13;8a
Ps 122;6
2007-11-22 21:27:10 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, he was even letting in UN inspectors before the invasion. the rest of the world and the UN demanded that the US provide proof to the security counsel that Saddam had WMDs, but they didn't.
PS all this talk about Iraq moving its weapons out of the country is just silly, would you move all the US nukes to Mexico of the country if the us was being invaded? no, because you are a sovereign state and there is allot of bad blood between most neighboring countries.
2007-11-22 08:07:38 · answer #8 · answered by Gengi 5 · 4⤊ 8⤋
No.... an if, in fact, he actually had none and hadn't shipped them all to Syria just before the invasion... he would have done exactly that... if for no other reason than to poke a stick in the US eye. He may have been planing to do that, but we invaded too soon (for him)
2007-11-22 09:33:02 · answer #9 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
In response to Al-Maghr, Your answer is about what one would expect from an Idiot. Saddam did not comply with the U.N. resolutions, that's why we went there. Oh Yea, Why do you treat Women so badly, 200 Lashes, maybe you prefer Camels?
2007-11-22 08:26:40 · answer #10 · answered by Johnny Reb 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
of course we would! WMD was just a pretext for an invasion that the neocons were demanding back while clinton was still president...it was item #1 on dubya's agenda
2007-11-22 08:20:45 · answer #11 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋