COL Gene COL Gene

WHY Did We Need to Attack Iraq in March 2003?

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.
18,035 views 60 replies
Reply #26 Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Joe, 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.


It is YOUR response that is irrational not my response!!!
Reply #27 Top

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....

Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.

But at this point, Gene's posts are worthless. He spits out several a week and they're all the same. Just rantings of an Internet kook who will ignore any salient points made. So people don't really try to put time and effort into refuting his nonsense anymore. I know I don't.

I wrote about this 3 years ago in fact: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=12574

 

Reply #28 Top
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.


Thanks for the advice, but I'll take my chances. You see, it is unimportant how I am seen by others. What's important is I act acording to my own moral code and belief. If I do that, then all is right in the world of me. It's hard to do, sometimes, I admit. But it's worth a shot.
Reply #29 Top
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Gene, 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....Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.But at this point, Gene's posts are worthless. He spits out several a week and they're all the same. Just rantings of an Internet kook who will ignore any salient points made. So people don't really try to put time and effort into refuting his nonsense anymore. I know I don't.I wrote about this 3 years ago in fact: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=12574


I have sighted many facts that demonstrate what the results of the Bush policies have been over the past 7 years. Every time any fact is posted that would look as if Bush did not resolve an issue are created a new issue that did not look good, the information is attacked or I am subject to personal attack. As have pointed out since most of the facts I present are either from official Federal Government agencies or national experts, the criticism that is directed toward me is in reality directed against the Official agencies or the most respected experts of our time! All that demonstrates is the ignorance of the people that attack me personally or claim the factual data I present is not correct or relevant! I know many who support Bush are just like him in that they NEVER admit when they make a mistake.
Reply #30 Top
Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.


you don't need to go to this much trouble.


i will sum it up for you joe. gene blames bush for the bridge that fell down
Reply #31 Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.you don't need to go to this much trouble. i will sum it up for you joe. gene blames bush for the bridge that fell down



I blame Bush for:

Iraq War
The increase in the deficit
Lack of Energy policy that has worked
Lack of enforcing our laws
Increase in the trade deficit
Lack of an effective solution to Social Security
Making the fiscal situation for Medicare worse due the part D
Over commitment of our ground military
Increased polarization in our country

TELL me which of the above are not the DIRECT consequence of Bush and his policies?
Reply #32 Top
Lack of an effective solution to Social Security


Lack of Energy policy that has worked


The increase in the deficit
Lack of Energy policy that has worked
Lack of enforcing our laws
Increase in the trade deficit
Lack of an effective solution to Social Security
Making the fiscal situation for Medicare worse due the part D


Increased polarization in our country



these are not a direct consequence of any president. congress is involved in all of this.


i won't argue about the war on iraq even tho that took an act of congress too.
Reply #33 Top
Lack of an effective solution to Social SecurityLack of Energy policy that has workedThe increase in the deficitLack of Energy policy that has workedLack of enforcing our lawsIncrease in the trade deficitLack of an effective solution to Social SecurityMaking the fiscal situation for Medicare worse due the part DIncreased polarization in our countrythese are not a direct consequence of any president. congress is involved in all of this. i won't argue about the war on iraq even tho that took an act of congress too.


Congress enacted EVERY ONE of these Bush policies so it is Bush who is responsible. Congress did not propose ANY of these issues but responded to Bush and passed them! You have NOT shown ANY of these that were not the DIRECT result of Bush Policies!
Reply #34 Top
Thanks for the advice, but I'll take my chances. You see, it is unimportant how I am seen by others. What's important is I act acording to my own moral code and belief. If I do that, then all is right in the world of me. It's hard to do, sometimes, I admit. But it's worth a shot.


Which is exactly why I recognize you as a reasonable guy worthy of respect. I did not mean to convict you of guilt by association, only to give you a little perspective on how & why most of us have become completed jaded about Gene & how that jaded view might color our thinking despite our best efforts at objectivity. I must admit, however, that most of us have stopped bothering to be objective when it comes to Gene - it has proven to be an exercise in futility: he refuses to be, so most of us say screw it.
Reply #35 Top
Which is exactly why I recognize you as a reasonable guy worthy of respect. I did not mean to convict you of guilt by association, only to give you a little perspective on how & why most of us have become completed jaded about Gene & how that jaded view might color our thinking despite our best efforts at objectivity. I must admit, however, that most of us have stopped bothering to be objective when it comes to Gene - it has proven to be an exercise in futility: he refuses to be, so most of us say screw it.


You refuse to accept the truth about Bush and what he has done to our country!
Reply #36 Top
See Gene, that is your problem. You hold the President responsible for things that the Constitution gives no authority. Apparently to you Congress has no responsibility at all. Your myopic world is a joke... a sad, sad joke.
Reply #37 Top
TELL me which of the above are not the DIRECT consequence of Bush and his policies?


Most of them.


I have sighted many facts that demonstrate what the results of the Bush policies have been over the past 7 years.


For the last time gene....it's CITED!

The problem is gene, your "facts" have been debunked and you have been shown countless times how you exaggerate the facts and made things up to support  your nonsense.  You are the one who refuses to see any truth.



Reply #38 Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 26, 2007See Gene, that is your problem. You hold the President responsible for things that the Constitution gives no authority. Apparently to you Congress has no responsibility at all. Your myopic world is a joke... a sad, sad joke.



Every one of these were Bush policies that the GOP controlled Congress approved:



Iraq War
The increase in the deficit
Lack of Energy policy that has worked
Lack of enforcing our laws
Increase in the trade deficit
Lack of an effective solution to Social Security
Making the fiscal situation for Medicare worse due the part D
Over commitment of our ground military
Increased polarization in our country

Reply #39 Top
and everyone of those policies have been upheld and supported by the Pelosi/Reid Congress... so what is your point?
Reply #40 Top
Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Monday, November 26, 2007and everyone of those policies have been upheld and supported by the Pelosi/Reid Congress... so what is your point?


What planet are you on? The democrats are on the opposite side from Bush and the GOP on every one of these policies.

Reply #41 Top
What planet are you on? The democrats are on the opposite side from Bush and the GOP on every one of these policies.


are they or are they just saying they are.
Reply #42 Top
The democrats are on the opposite side from Bush and the GOP on every one of these policies.


More DNC talk.

Democrats are mostly responsible for the "polarization".

Democrats are encouraging illegal immigration.

Democrats will really ruin the economy with their endless social programs they are proposing for '08.

The list can go on and on, but you still obsess over Bush.  Get over it and move of with your life.


Reply #43 Top
Hmmm, name one program that has been ended since the Democrats took control of congress. Go ahead... so far all I've seen is Pelosi and Reid whining about "Bush's" programs, yet they haven't put a stop to any of them. Not only haven't they stopped any of them, they have voted to continue many of them.

Sorry Gene, but the current Congress has supported pretty much everything the GOP held Congress put in place... And you can't honestly say that they haven't had chances... of course, you and honesty have never met, so I understand why you can't see what I'm talking about.
Reply #44 Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Monday, November 26, 2007What planet are you on? The democrats are on the opposite side from Bush and the GOP on every one of these policies.are they or are they just saying they are.


Just wait until Jan 20, 2009 and you will see!
Reply #45 Top
Reply By: Island DogPosted: Monday, November 26, 2007The democrats are on the opposite side from Bush and the GOP on every one of these policies.More DNC talk.Democrats are mostly responsible for the "polarization".


THAT IS A LIE. Bush is the one that is the source of this problem-- It is HIS WAY or THE HIGHWAY! He has crated bad feelings both within the U.S. and with the people in MOST countries!
Reply #46 Top
So, Gene, what you are basically saying is that the Pelosi/Reid Congress is accepting paychecks and perks while waiting for 2009 to actually do their job? And this is what you defend?
Reply #47 Top
Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007So, Gene, what you are basically saying is that the Pelosi/Reid Congress is accepting paychecks and perks while waiting for 2009 to actually do their job? And this is what you defend?


No- the democrats are trying to pass legislation that reflect what the vast majority of voters want and voted for in 2006. The problem is Bush and the GOP members in Congress are preventing the changes from taking place. Thus the waist of time and tax payer money paying a Congress that is not making the changes people want is the fault of the Republicans and that is what the voters must remember in November 2008! If we were to elect ANY of the leading GOP Presidential Candidates, the same stalemate that exists today would continue after January 20, 2009!
Reply #48 Top
No- the democrats are trying to pass legislation that reflect what the vast majority of voters want and voted for in 2006.




no the democrats are trying to win political clout by passing things that niether the president will sign or the majority of americans want.

we do not want universal health care.

we do not want to pull out of iraq with the job half done.

we do not want to give everyone in the country a house. we want them to earn them.
Reply #49 Top
no the democrats are trying to win political clout by passing things that niether the president will sign or the majority of americans want.


The problem is Bush refuses to allow what the majority want and voted for in 2006 to be enacted into law. It will take 2008 to make most of the changes because Bush is stubborn and refused to change his positions even though they have not worked and are not what the majority want!
Reply #50 Top

The problem is Bush refuses to allow what the majority want and voted for in 2006 to be enacted into law.


you mean that majority that made the senate 50/50