WHY Did We Need to Attack Iraq in March 2003?


This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.

In late 2002 the Pentagon said that Saddam had no offensive military capability.

We had the UN Sanctions in place as well as the No Fly Zones in March 2003.

The UN Weapons inspectors were back in Iraq and David Kay had learned six weeks BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq that the BIO WMD story was not true. He would have also learned there was NO WMD, including nuclear, except for about 500 old Artillery Shells that had been filled with gas in the early 1980’s.

Saddam was not threatening his neighbors nor preparing for military action.

The facts are that there were no military or tactical reasons to initiate an invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In fact had we allowed David Kay to spend another six months with his inspections, the world would have learned what we know today—Saddam did not have WMD. Knowledge that Saddam did not have WMD would have severely weakened his grip on power within Iraq. He used the illusion of WMD to prevent countries like Iran from acting against him as well as to control the internal factions that opposed his rule.

Today it is speculation as to what might have happened in Iraq if Bush had not rushed into a war in March 2003. What is NOT speculation is that in March 2003 there were no reasons to invade Iraq. If the UN inspections were prevented from conducting their inspections or a break down of the UN Sanctions had taken place in late 2003 or 2004, we could have used the military option just as effectively in March 2004 as in March 2003. In fact had Bush taken the time to expand the size of our ground military force, had an invasion been deemed appropriate we would have had the necessary troops to properly secure Iraq after Saddam fell. That would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured American Troops we have suffered.

We need to know WHY it was so urgent to invade Iraq in March 2003. My bet is there is no such rational other then that is what Bush wanted to do. It could be that Bush was afraid to wait for fear that the truth about WMD and the so called danger Saddam posed to the United States and the world was shown to be an illusion.
18,034 views 60 replies
Reply #1 Top

This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.

The summer was too hot. The attack had to happen in March or not for another six months. Saddam knew this, was stalling.

Also note that nobody KNEW that Saddam did not have biological weapons. We only knew that he had failed to prove that he did not have them and that the inspectors hadn't found anything yet. Don't make not knowing X into knowing that not X. It's bad logic.


 

Reply #2 Top
Reply By: LeaukiPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.The summer was too hot. The attack had to happen in March or not for another six months. Saddam knew this, was stalling.


I understand March. The question is WHY 2003? Saddam stalling did not pose a hazzard!

Also note that nobody KNEW that Saddam did not have biological weapons. We only knew that he had failed to prove that he did not have them and that the inspectors hadn't found anything yet. Don't make not knowing X into knowing that not X. It's bad logic.



That is why since David Kay was back in Iraq he should have been given the time to determine the facts. He learned on February 8, 2003 the BIO Lab Story (Curveball) was a lie. By April 2003 the CIA acknowledged there was no BIO threat and before the end of 2003 Kay knew there was no WMD in Iraq except for the old Artillery Shells that proved to be non lethal.

Reply #3 Top
I understand March. The question is WHY 2003? Saddam stalling did not pose a hazzard!


I think it is almost not practical to keep the forces on a stand-by status for very long. They were in-place and ready to start since Jan or Feb. You cant keep that Armada sitting idle for very long. It is like a Boxer, how long can you keep him standing outside the Ring?
Reply #4 Top
Reply By: ThinkAloudPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007I understand March. The question is WHY 2003? Saddam stalling did not pose a hazzard!I think it is almost not practical to keep the forces on a stand-by status for very long. They were in-place and ready to start since Jan or Feb. You cant keep that Armada sitting idle for very long. It is like a Boxer, how long can you keep him standing outside the Ring?


There was no need to put our military on stand-by in 2003 since there was no immediate danger from Iraq in 2003. We also have the process from January 1942 to June 1944 getting ready to invade Europe. Thus holding off a year to March 2004 would not have been a problem and by 2004 we would have known there was no reason to invade Iraq.
Reply #5 Top
Well, I participated mostly because I was bored, and tired of being stationed in Korea. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Reply #6 Top
You're such a simplistic twit, Gene. You're a disgrace to all Monday-morning quarterbacks, bad as they are.
Reply #7 Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007You're such a simplistic twit, Gene. You're a disgrace to all Monday-morning quarterbacks, bad as they are.


You just can not come up with a valid excuse for the choices Bush made. Why do you feel compelled to defend that I diot?
Reply #8 Top
And your arguments are the intellectual equivalent of "Your mother wears Army boots." I can't help the terminally deranged.
Reply #9 Top
Oh, and have a very happy Thanksgiving Holiday!
Reply #10 Top
You're such a simplistic twit, Gene. You're a disgrace to all Monday-morning quarterbacks, bad as they are.


Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.

Gene, I'm not understanding why people write so vehemently Bush is right on this. I wish someone would just give me their thoughts, backed up with facts. Here's why I like Bush: 1, 2, 3....
M
Reply #11 Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007And your arguments are the intellectual equivalent of "Your mother wears Army boots." I can't help the terminally deranged.


YOU ARE PATHETIC!
Reply #12 Top
Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.


These threads long ago ceased being about Bush for most of us, Joe, and there is some history here you may not be aware of or appreciate. We've been over this ground so many times in so many threads, with Gene constantly throwing up straw man arguments and constantly avoiding answering any criticism en pointe, simply throwing as much wet garbage at the wall as he can, hoping something will stick. If nothing sticks, he starts a new thread on some new tangent & uses it as a vehicle for throwing all the same old garbage at the wall all over again. He's been far nastier and called me and others here far worse than nitwit. Simply disagree with him & he calls you an idiot. Telling him "Here's why I like Bush: 1,2,3..." is like telling the Pope why you like the devil - doesn't move him much. Not only that, but like it or not Bush is history now.

Which is by way of explaining that I did not "write so vehemently Bush is right..." Any vehemence is directed at Gene's thick skull, not in support of Bush.
Reply #13 Top
YOU ARE PATHETIC!


I rest my case.
Reply #14 Top
Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.


I don't think you have been around Col long enough to know what is really nasty and what isn't. It could be considered harsh, but the fact that it's directed to Col, and the history that he has on this site, nitwit is probably one of the nicest things ever said to him.

Gene, I'm not understanding why people write so vehemently Bush is right on this. I wish someone would just give me their thoughts, backed up with facts. Here's why I like Bush: 1, 2, 3....


I think you are asking for too much considering that has been done time and time again on several threads for years now. Besides what would be the point in giving "I like Bush: 1, 2, 3...." arguments when they are dismissed right off the back because people like Col, and possibly you, have their minds set and no amount of facts, proof or intelligence will be accepted, it will be dismissed as misinformed, ignorant, one-sided, BS, etc.
Reply #15 Top
Topic #5 for ColGene... out of what, 6?

Let's see here there's:

1: Bush sucks because he stole 2 elections.
2: Bush sucks because of his National Guard record.
3: Bush sucks because of the economy.
4: Bush sucks because of the deficit
5: Bush sucks because of the war in Iraq.
6: Bush sucks because he doesn't bow to the almighty UN.

Did I miss any? Somehow I doubt. 446 articles saying the same thing. It's like a broken record.

Gene, is there anything new you have to say on anything, or are you just going to continue rehashing the same 6 or so articles over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?
Reply #16 Top
you forgot

7 bush sucks because he won't the congress to do illegal searches for illegal stuff he might have done, sometime in the last 8 years maybe.
Reply #17 Top
Which is by way of explaining that I did not "write so vehemently Bush is right..." Any vehemence is directed at Gene's thick skull, not in support of Bush



don't think if you used a sledge hammer it would make a dent
Reply #18 Top
Why do you feel compelled to defend that I diot?


Why do you center your life around attacking him and nothing else? Hitler doesn't deserve the attention you lavish on G.W. I don't know that I've ever seen you say a single new thing, just variations on the same old theme for the past several years. Sure plenty of people disagree with you, but what are you going to do, argue them into submission? When you turn up the crazy, (and no matter how logical or illogical the argument, the extreme fanatacism is crazy)they tune out.

Do you have any life at all outside of Bush bashing? I'm sure even frickin' Hinkley had a hobby. I'm in the war for chrissake, and I do tons of other stuff, rather than obsess about politics and the war all the time. Take a break, or start taking Zoloft.
Reply #19 Top
(Citizen)Spc Nobody Special


give him a break. he is after all a national guard col. whom somebody felt sorry for and promoted him to col anyways.

and he only has one thing in the whole world to do and that is to attack and attack and attack bush. facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter.


Reply #20 Top
Reply By: Spc Nobody SpecialPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Why do you feel compelled to defend that I diot? Why do you center your life around attacking him and nothing else? Hitler doesn't deserve the attention you lavish on G.W. I don't know that I've ever seen you say a single new thing, just variations on the same old theme for the past several years. Sure plenty of people disagree with you, but what are you going to do, argue them into submission? When you turn up the crazy, (and no matter how logical or illogical the argument, the extreme fanatacism is crazy)they tune out.



Everything I have said about Bush is true. The problem is that the idiots that support him do not want the truth about what he has done to this country to be known. It makes their support for him look lame and they never want to admit they were wrong. Killing almost 4,000 American Troops and injuring over 28,000 more in an unjust war, $4 trillion of Debt, failure to secure our borders after 9/11. Those are BIG failures and are all because of Bush and his inept leadership!

NO one has shown WHY we had to invade Iraq in March 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #21 Top
NO one has shown WHY we had to invade Iraq in March 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


this is probable the question saddam was asking when he was hiding in his rat hole.
Reply #22 Top
I think you are asking for too much considering that has been done time and time again on several threads for years now. Besides what would be the point in giving "I like Bush: 1, 2, 3...." arguments when they are dismissed right off the back because people like Col, and possibly you, have their minds set and no amount of facts, proof or intelligence will be accepted, it will be dismissed as misinformed, ignorant, one-sided, BS, etc.


Perhaps, but I still haven't seen an I like Bush, here's why: 1, 2, 3....

As for me, I'll let my postings (read them) speak for themselves. I think one of Bush's major faults is surrounding himself with yes men. I, personally, would be ashamed if I made the same mistake. It's important to try to look at things the way others see them. I'm amazed, given a set of facts, at how those facts can be interpreted. You can't afford to take anything at face value. Who, what, where and why should always be asked. One of my major reasons for being on this blog is to try to understand things. What good would it do to only listen to myself?
Reply #23 Top
Who, what, where and why should always be asked.


these questions may have been answered.


your also assume that what these men do in public is the same thing they do behind closed doors.


you have a boss(even if that boss is your wife.). when you two decide a course of action in private, do you then argue about it in public.
Reply #24 Top
Joe, you seem to be a reasonable guy. You will get reasonable responses to your posts and be able to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas, some of which might or might not change the views of the participants (that learning thing you mentioned).

That's not possible with Gene. And coming to Gene's defense will tend to identify you with his way of thinking, rightly or wrongly, human nature being what it is. Gene is simply toxic to healthy discussion. Posting on his threads has become more of an entertaining hobby than an intellectual exercise. Kind of like slowing down to look at the wreck at the side of the freeway, we can't help ourselves.
Reply #25 Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007NO one has shown WHY we had to invade Iraq in March 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is probable the question saddam was asking when he was hiding in his rat hole.


That does not show WHY Bush had to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Who, what, where and why should always be asked.these questions may have been answered.your also assume that what these men do in public is the same thing they do behind closed doors. you have a boss(even if that boss is your wife.). when you two decide a course of action in private, do you then argue about it in public.



Good leaders make major decisions predicated on sound rational and reasons. The situation in March 2003 was such that there WERE NO SOUND reasons to invade Iraq and in fact there were many good reasons to allow David Kay to complete his inspections and to build a U.S. Ground Force of a sufficient size to accomplish the mission of invading Iraq!