...when Bush and Blair WOULD HAVE LEFT SADDAM IN POWER if he compied with weapons inspectors. Even if you disagree with the war, what possible answers could pro-war people give?
133085
it can't. despite how bush supporters will respond to this question and say "Germany took years" or "Korea didn't happen overnight", these are simply talking points from the GOP and not part of any serious discussion.\n\njust ask yourself one question:  has ANY invasion or war been about philanthropy?  it will take some reading, and you will have to read from centrists and historians who have no bias towards America nor particularly the nationalists or the right, but you can find a plethora of evidence that shows NO COUNTRY GOES TO WAR TO HELP ANOTHER COUNTRY.  it is always about economics.  always always always.  \n\nforget the details, forget what Saddam did or how bad bush hated Saddam or did we know there were WMD. don't get confused by any of these details you'll never understand nor get the straight story on.  just understand the overall picture. the US is as selfish a nation as any,  and everything we do is for selfish economic reasons, period.  have you ever heard "follow the money"  gee, why does that formula work?  because everything is about money! duh. \n\nit may be about oil and Halliburton, it may be because AIPAC bought off our government to protect Israel, it may be about stocks, it may be about any of these things, but one thing is for damn sure: it was not to free ANYONE.
246847
Good question. I say all of the above. 1) George Bush didn't go to Iraq, Tony Blair did, (sissy) 2) Flip-flopper and liar are constant with G Dumbya.
19878
Tony Blair has caught a lot of criticism from his fellow countrymen, much like that other leader . . . George W. Bush.  The majority of his critics, like in President Bush's case, is from the opposition party to that which is in power.  Although I am not British, I have kept up with their news, and it appears that Prime Minister Blair is doing well.  The media, (remember it's the liberal media, while Bush & Blair are respecitvely conservatives), has been attacking both of the leaders for about the last three years.  Gee, I guess that's why the U.N. military commander in Bosnia is the "FORMER".  I haven't read any positive news concerning Bosnia and the U.N. involvement.  So, putting two & two together, the proverbial statement holds true, "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones."  Or to reference the Word, "He who is without sin, may cast the first stone."  If anyone would like to forward this to that FORMER U.N. military commander in Bosnia, you have my full permission . . . . if President Bush or Prime Minister Blair are doing so poorly, then I'd like to see you do better!  Come on, you've got my vote.  I'm sure your response is something like the following:  "No, I don't want that job!"  Good, then sit back, shut up, fasten your seatbelt, enjoy the ride and just use sunscreen!  Sorry, I'm a history major and love to argue politics.  Although evidently biased, maybe it shed some light on your question.
73679
As far as I am concerned, this war could have avoided. There was no need for it. He should get his a** kicked out the door for good. I seen on a web site a few years back, address unknown at this time, that this war is costing $100,000 US per minute. Better things could have been done with this money, such as building new schools.
662958
Regardless of whether there are or were weapons of mass destruction - what was going on in Iraq was wrong and unacceptable.  The killing of thousands of innocent people and the ruling of a tyrant - horrible.  There are so many places they could hide the weapons - or by now maybe they were smuggled out of the country - who knows, but it's not a long shot to say they were there at one time.
590134
Yeah, Saddam used WMDs IN THE 80'S. Fair enough. Bad guy. But did he actually have WMDs that he could actually use in 2003? No way. They were, even by Santorum's account degraded at that time.
96299
For all those who still stand by the WMD claim of justification for going to war, it's finally been shown that the decision to go to war was made irrespective of the existence or nonexistence of WMD in Iraq.  This story about Bush and Blair agreeing to go to war regardless of intelligence or UN approval broke in the mainstream U.S. media yesterday.  It broke in Europe much earlier (as most news that looks bad for the U.S. government does).  I suppose it could be denied no longer.\n\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin\n\nKey quote from the article:\n"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."\n\nHere's an interview with the British international law professor who originally broke the story (Philippe Sands).\nhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/07/1442243\n\nAlso notable, that question by Helen Thomas was her first for the President in three years---and not for wont of trying.  It was the first time he had called on her in all that time.
176118
I promise to not call you any names. Nor will I rant against Bush.\nHere are some of the problems:\n1. Waging a pre-emptive war on a sovereign nation is against international law and against the world's self-interests. I hope you don't want any country to be able to justify attacking another because the other country might be a threat in the future.\n\n2. Too much evidence suggest that the administration created  the WMD threat to justify their decision. Shouldn't going to war be based on an honest consideration of facts???? Shouldn't the administration be open about its reasons?\n\n3. Yes Saddam was a bad guy, but are you seriously suggesting that we take out anyone we think is a bad guy??? And talk about destabilizing--by what criterion could you possibly judge Iraq to be more stable now than before?\n\n4. Who's talking about returning Saddam to power???\n\n5. WMDs is not an obsession--just one of many reasons to question the honesty and the competence of the administration.
564742
Typical partisan bulls***. There have been reports of chemical and biological weapons being found since the war started. All have been determined to be either pre-1991 or post-2003 invasion. \n\nWhere are the nuclear weapons we were talking about with a "mushroom cloud"? Saddam lied? Who would have though that a politician could be dishonest? The point is that we have NO evidence he was pursuing chemical or biological weapons while he was prohibited from doing so, and only doctored and falsified evidence he was pursuing nuclear weapons. All we have is a bunch of old, degraded munitions.\n\n"Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out," \nI cannot rule out that North Korea has the capacity to launch nuclear missiles at the US, either. Should we attack them next? Israel and India have nuclear and biological weapons and the capacity to strike the US. Are they next?\n\nWhere do we draw the line?\n\nWould we have found these weapons without the loss of 2500+ American lives and 100,000+ Iraqi lives? I guess we'll never know, will we?
119909
I wonder who really believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Supposedly, the americans went to war to prevent Saddam from giving WMD to terrorists.  No WMD has been found, meaning either the iraqis never had WMD or somehow, the terrorists got the weapons. The american population was misled, not the government.  The government always had the reports saying Iraq had no WMD.  At the same time, there was a conflict about nuclear programs with North Korea.  Here they do have nuclear weapons.  Weird I don't see american troops in N. Korea.  So, was it for oil?  Definitely YES.\n\nIs it worth it?  Oil price has never been so high because constant supply from Iraq is not available.  Ask the families of the soldiers who died in that war, if it is worth it?  Ask the families of everyone else (workers or diplomats) who has died or been kidnapped if it is worth it?  Ask the American people who pay billions as tax money to support the military, if it is worth it?  \n\nThis war has been a complete failure.  There is only one reason:  The war was not necessary.
265212
USA is sometimes too stubborn on foreign issues.  She does not want to listen to other nation's rejecting comments.  In the past, we should spend more time to inspect Iraq to see if it has WMD.  It is reasonably for Iraq to block UN's inspection because none, including USA wants someone to inspect its technology.  We need more proof and evidence before we make go to war on a whim.  And afterward we blame UK, our best ally, on the whole issue.  Think of how much UK hates us now.  Are we all alone in this world?
631802
I don't think the war should have happened to begin with. Yeah getting Saddam was a plus but so far it's been the only positive of going there. Now here we are a couple years later and we're still fighting. Saddam was a bad guy I'm not going to deny that but we didn't go over there to remove him from power. We were supposed to find WMD's and regardless of what you hear, no WMD's were found. Yes there was some mustard gas found but it was over 15 years old and it wouldn't have done anything. Now we're stuck in a terrible situation. We totally destroyed a country and now we're going to be there for a long time trying to rebuild what we tore down. We need to get out of there.
110262
I don’t understand.  In the 90s, CNN reported that weapons inspectors were being locked out of compounds for hours, then trucks would leave the back exit.  They were also being denied paperwork that they wanted to see.  They were getting frustrated and throwing their hands up.  Meantime, nobody followed any of the trucks, found out where they were going, or what was on them.  Then, like magic, the WMDs vanished like a fart in the wind.  Now, Bush is being called a bad guy, and the war is being called illegal, even though the UN resolved that action should be taken if Saddam did not cooperate.  When it came to the time to do something, China, Germany, France, and North Korea (was anybody actually surprised here) used their muscle against U.S. taking action.  Meantime, what were all those planes doing violating the U.N. no-fly zone, where were they going, and what was on them?\n\nGore testified in 2004 to the 9/11 Commission that the Clinton administration attack on Sudan al Shifa plant in 1998 was a valid attack based on a verified US threat.  Saddam Hussein had his chemical weapons chief help Shifa in its VX nerve gas research based on Saddam’s own unique brand of VX nerve agent, that contained the chemical EMPTA, unlike any other VS elsewhere.  Bin Laden had funded the al Shifa plant and EMPTA was found on its soil.  Obviously there was a WMD alliance between al Qaida and Saddam, or at least according to Gore.\n\nNow, the real story: If a democratic president was waging the war, democrats would be all for the war, and republicans would be calling it an illegal war.  That Moore guy would be doing “documentaries” (haha) about how bad Saddam was instead of how bad Bush is.  Meanwhile, these message boards are full of partisan hate, most of which has nothing to do with mainstream American feelings, which is usually guided by the press (sadly enough).\n\nOne more thing—with the mass graves, electrocution chambers in police stations, children being executed in front of parents who did not cooperate with the regime, dumping nerve gas on civilian populations, a population at large too frightened to speak out against the government, etc, etc, etc, I don’t understand why anybody thinks Saddam should have been just left in power.  Oh, negotiations????  Saddam jerked around the U.N. for 10 years after signing agreements.  If you say the WMD thing was a big bluff, then we can assume it was another Saddam game, he wanted war, and he thought he could win.
469074
The is no need for evidence as to whether Saddam had WMD's, of course he HAD them. The U.S. sold them to him when he was an ally in the 1980's.As to where they are now, he used quite a few during his years in power before Desert Storm, probably used a few more since then. As to where they are now, if Bush and his boys weren't able to find them, is there a possibility that they are truly gone and Saddam told the truth, or is that not liberal enough a question?
629671
From a Liberal.\nI don't believe the best about Saddam, where did you get that? He has a heinous track record.\nYes he lies.\nYes he might have moved those bombs to Syria. Might.\n\nNow, will you stop lumping us all in one category? Sheesh, what are you after?\nI hate and mistrust Saddam. Simple answer. Period.\n\nHappy?\nA simple answer is all that I require from you.
578923
What were we supposed to do, deploy a military we had all but dismantled.\n\nHell, we didn't leave Georgie boy enough spare parts to fix a flat and he took all the blame (another slick move, don't you think?)
593846
the previous answerer is giving you the liberal spin.  Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.  They believed it because he was no longer allowing UN inspectors into Iraq to make sure they were all gone.  His not allowing UN inspectors was a violation of the peace agreement that ended the fighting from Gulf War I, giving the US every right to resume military action.  Saddam definitly had WMDs (weapons of Mass Destruction) at a previous time because satalite intel picked up their use against Iran in the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s and against Kurds in the North of Iraq.  What he did with the WMDs is unknown.  Did he run out, did he ship them out before the invasion (we gave him plenty of time), did he bury them?  We don't know.  It is on record that Bill Clinton bombed Bagdad stating that Saddam had weapons or was developing weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam, himself, is an insane meglomaniac, and was a brutal leader.  His goal in life was to be seen as a great Arab leader and his choice of fame was to destroy Israel.  I would not say he had any chance of accomplishing that, but any attempt would have created a conflict that dwarves what is happening now.  Saddam was a time bomb that needed defusing, WMDs or no.\n\nIf you don't believe this guy was crazy, know that he starred in a TV piece instructing Iraqis on how to vacuum their carpets.