*Let's keep this discussion respectable. This is the Intellectual section, after all. And if respected, this will be a great debate and discussion. I'm a Republican. I supported the war, and still do. And here are my thoughts on the complex issue and why I personally think the other side is wrong. But they're entitled to their opinion, hence this will be a great discussion!
I'll split my points up by section because it's easier to read rather than looking at multiple paragraphs (all points connect though, so the sections follow an organized order:
9/11 Example + WMD Debate:
Our intel at the time, spanning from 1998 to 2002, showed Saddam had WMD. We now know Saddam lied about that in order to protect himself from Iran attacking him. And he didn't believe the US would take action, so he kept lying. Now, this isn't about whether he had or didnt have them, that doesnt matter right now. But just keep in your mind there was strong intel showing he had them.
Couple that strong intell with the lesson of 9/11, and you get the seriousness of the action.
9/11 showed us that we can no longer wait for the threat to materialize. Prior to 9/11, the US would only really get involved if directly attacked.
If you recall, though, right after 9/11 everyone -- both political parties -- couldnt under stand why Clinton, Bush, FBI, CIA etc didnt connect the dots. What's more, Clinton had several clear chances to OBL in 1998 but didnt want to risk 'collateral damage". Killing OBL now isnt too important, but back in 1998 it was and would most likely have prevented 9/11. What's more, we knew about the terrorist camps if Afghanistan then, but didnt do anything because they hadnt attacked us...
...but they did. 1993 TWC bombin, 1998 US Embassies in Africa, 2000 USS Cole, all attacks by Alqaeda. And all responded by on an individual basis: Clinton sending cruise missiles in response, for example. But, as we saw, that wasn't enough.
So when our intel pointed to Saddam having WMD. And possible links to terrorists, we had to do something. Either he was going to directly attack us, or sell those weapons to terrorists who would use them against us.
Hypothetically, if Saddam did attack us with WMD, Bush - or whoever the President at the time -- would be blamed for not acting on the intel and for not either bombing the facilities or removing Saddam himself
What I'm getting at, is that you can't have it both ways.....
Bush lied/misled
This argument really annoys me for many reasons. While it appears he was wrong with WMD excuse, and while he may have been too unsure himself and thus shouldnt technically have attacked on that bassis, he did not mislead or lie at all
1.) Bill Clinton in 1993 and 1994 kept talking about Saddam and his WMD
2.) Bill Clinton in 1998 flat out said Saddam had WMD and was dangerous (youtube for evidence). And Clinton himself attacked Iraq on this basis by sending cruise missiles into Iraq.
So why is it that Bush lied, but Clinton didnt? In fact, despite Bush's failings, this shows that Bush was a stronger president than Clinton. Clinton sent cruise missiles, while - based on the same intelligence -- Bush went all out and made the effort to make sure Saddam and his threat was removed.
3.) There were other reasons to go into Iraq.
WMD was the selling point to the public. Public would support it if they saw their security was in risk, but not necessarily based on the other reasons
Reasons other than WMD
Ok, yes, I'm sure oil played some part. But was not a reason whatsoever. Rather, just a positive by product. Look how high gas prices are, that in and of itself shows we did not benefit from the oil
Rather, Saddam needed to be removed. He essentially committed genocide, and we found mass graves. He gassed and killed his own people. He was a brutal dictator - on the level of Hitler.
Now, the argument to that is: It's not our war to fight, let the Iraqi's handle it. -- Ok, true to an extent but:
Iraqi's couldnt uprise. Saddam had clones (look a likes) of himself, and he would hide in under ground bunkers. And he had no qualms about killing his own citizens...coupled with the belief that he had WMD, Iraqi's were too weak to uprise.
Darfur
Which brings me to this example. Democrats are against Saddam, but are for going into Darfur -- as basically everyone is -- not a partisan issue.
But I find it ironic. It's basically the same principle. How can you say it's not our place to help the oppressed Iraqi's, but it is our place to get involved in Darfur?
Yes, Darfur is more serious, but the same principles apply. As mentioned above, Saddam committed genocide too
And the events in Darfur don't even threaten us. In 2002 we believed our security was threatened by Saddam.
I agree. Going the IDEA of going to Darfur is great. Just as great as toppling Saddam. And I advocate toppling every brutal dictator around the world -- shame its not possible. So I'm consistent in my views. But the democrats arn't. You can't say military action is ok in one country but wrong in another when there are similarities!
Diplomacy
Diplomacy should always be tried first. And in the case with Saddam it was. Clinton tried through out the 90s. And Bush tried a bit too. But 8 years of diplomacy not trying under Clinton, means that Bush shouldn't waste a large amount of time either.
Once Saddam refused weapons inspectors, that was the last straw. Looks suspicious too, must have been hiding something?
Bush even gave Saddam an ultimatum. It was 30-something (cant remember what, but know it the number 30 was involved). It was either 30 days, or 30 hours....doesn't really matter. Fact is, Saddam had a choice all the way. The war was in Saddams hand. Ultimatum if I remember correctly, stated that there would be NO war if Saddam did any one of the following:
1.) Resume weapons inspectors
2.) Hand himself in
3.) Hand over his weapons
Saddam obviously chose to ignore the ultimatum. No surprise. He's a megalomaniac, he would never comply. But his destiny was in his own hands.
Volunteer Army
My opinion would be completely reversed if there was a draft (and NOT because I would be forced to fight)
The US has a volunteer army. Thus, if you sign up to be in the army, you understand there's a risk of going to war over anything at any time.
Most of the troops are proud to be over there. In fact, a few years ago re-enlistment rates were the highest ever.
While I don't like seeing our troops get killed, they did realize the risk when they signed up.
However, a draft would change everything. Forcing people to fight who not only disagree with the war, but disagree with fighting to begin with. Forcing young men and women to fight for the government would be authoritarianism in nature.
Mistakes
To me, the mistake wasn't entering the war. Even knowing now that Saddam had no WMD, I would still advocate going to war in Iraq. A world without Saddam is vital.
But Bush and his administration has made mistake after mistake waging this war. Rumsfel the main culprit. They failed to listen to the generals.
I read a report years ago outlining what the US feared would be the big consequences. And in their defense, they prevented all the worst case scenarios. But comcpltely overlooked the insurgents, and what to do when Saddam was overthrown.
With that said, the surge now is currently working. I wouldnt change us going into war with Iraq, but rather how the war was waged.
I truly believe this:
**If, when Saddam was toppled, we had no problems setting up a government and the war was over within 3 years, everyone would hail the war and Bush as a success -- EVEN KNOWING THAT WMD DIDNT EXIST. This shows that the problem arnt the reasons we went to war, but rather people are frustrated with how it the war has been waged**
Prespective
Let's put this in perspective. While every year of violence is a year too long, 4 -5 years is nothing. The American revolution took 11 years to set up a government and a constitution, and 13 years for the violence to stop.
And look at America now. I think we all would say those 13 years of violence was worth it.
The surge is now working in Iraq. Don't know if it will continue to work, don't know if it will bring an end to it all. Could take 1 year, could take 5. But we'll get there.
My guess is, we'll Iraq will end up eventually like the situation in Korea with the DMZ line. Once government and stability is brought to Iraq, US forces may need to stay there in order to make sure no violence break us.
-------------
This is too long, I'm going to continue it with another thread about pulling out of Iraq since that's the debate that matters now and thus warrants its on topic.
622 users online 
179049 members 
You have 1 new message.
Ad Free
So when our intel pointed to Saddam having WMD. And possible links to terrorists, we had to do something. Either he was going to directly attack us, or sell those weapons to terrorists who would use them against us. 
