Retrospective: If Saddam had WMDs, and you were 100 percent sure of it,

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Poll question: Retrospective: If Saddam had WMDs, and you were 100 percent sure of it,

would you have supported the Iraq War? (assuming you're against the war now.)

[lenidog]

1. I am going to have to say yes

I was there for the first Gulf War and everyone in my unit including me wanted to get the job done and get rid of him the first time around.

[Osamasux]

7. Then they should have finished the job the first time.

I agree that they should have if they could have. Desert Storm was a completely different situation. Iraq had invaded Kuwait and had to be driven out. But you can't just claim a 'do over' ten years later and invade their country again.

[bowens43]

23. Iraq would not of invaded Kuwait if the US had not

told them that we would do nothing to defend Kuwait.

[Osamasux]

29. Yes, that was one for the diplomatic blooper reel.

[Osamasux]

2. There is no justification for an unprovoked invasion

of a sovereign nation. Many countries have WMD, especially the US. That was just a convenient cover for something they wanted to do all the time.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

9. What if he had deliberate plans to use those weapons against us?

Would a preemptive strike then be just? Consider the history of this man. Did you support the First Gulf War?

[Osamasux]

20. There was no imminent threat.

Iraq had no means to deliver them. We had inspectors on the ground. He was completely contained. If they wanted to stop the supposed WMD, all they had to do was continue the inspection process.

Yes, I supported Dessert Storm, which was a war to liberate a nation (Kuwait) which was illegally invaded by a foreign power (Iraq). That sounds disturbingly similar to the current fiasco, where a nation (Iraq) was invaded by a foreign power (US).

[mike_c]

22. yes, consider his history....

He discontinued his WMD programs 10 years ago. He allowed the UNSCOM inspectors to destroy or seal his capacity to restore them in secret. He publicly avowed that he had done so, for years, and complied with U.N. demands that he document his disarmament-- recall that the U.S. censored those documents before allowing the rest of the Security Council to review them.

Now consider the history of the U.S. and it's allies during this time. It applied a brutal economic sanctions program that murdered over a million Iraqi civilians, including 500,000 children. It bombed and strafed Iraq almost daily during patrol over-flights. It fabricated evidence of WMD programs and Iraq's military intentions before the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and the world. It ignored all evidence to the contrary-- evidence, such as Scott Ritter's insistance that Iraq had complied with the U.N disarmament mandate-- which has since been show true. Our government lied to obscure and dismiss all evidence of the truth.

Yes indeed, let us carefully consider the history of these events.

[bowens43]

24. The US could have prevented the first gulf war with a few words.

We chose not to. Were you aware that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil? There is no way Iraq would have attacked the US no matter what they had. It's ridiculous to think that they would have. Deterrence works.

[Todd B]

33. Exactly.

My thoughts exactly. I'm against pretty much any type of war, but until the US rids itself of WMD's we have no right to tell any other country what to do. We are nothing more then hypocrites to try and wage war with one country because they have WMD's while we have our own stockpiles all the while.

If a resolution was authorized by the UN Security Council overwhelmingly, then I would support action but that is the only way.

[Warpy]

3. Even if he had warehouses full of the stuff

(which I was certain he didn't, having listened to Blix), he still had no way of launching it against the US. He was not an imminent threat to us. He hand't bothered any of his neighbors since the ill fated Kuwait occupation. Containment was working, and it was only a matter of time before he kicked the bucket.

Invading was stupid on many accounts, and wasteful of our lives, their lives, and our hard earned tax dollars.

[indigobusiness]

4. That was a red herring ruse to propagate an agenda of madness.

Don't buy into that meme.

[no name no slogan]

5. No, I wouldn't. He did not pose a threat

Saddam did not pose a threat to those nearest to him. Saudi and Iran did NOT want the US to invade Iraq. If anybody had reason to invade Iraq, it would be these two nations.

If Iraq posed a threat, then maybe an invasion could have been justified-- but only after ALL diplomatic options had been exhausted.

[vpigrad]

6. If he did, it would be a reason not to!

He might use them if we invaded.

[Downtown Hound]

8. When we have enough WMD to blow up the world several dozen times over

I really don't think we have any right invading other countries for seeking the same thing.

[mike_c]

no-- if he had WMDs then he would already have shown restraint...

...since he didn't use them throughout the period of sanctions and harrassment following the Gulf War. Lots of nations have WMDs, not the least of which is the U.S. Possession of such weapons alone is not sufficient justification for invading and occupying any country unless it is sufficient justification for overthrowing every government that has them.

However, the more important point is that Iraq did not have WMDs since at least the mid-nineties. Hussein told the truth about that, but successive U.S. governments worked overtime to obscure that truth for their own purposes. Well over a million innocent Iraqis died to maintain that fiction during the decade of brutal sanctions and the subsequent invasion and occupation.

[Harksaw]

10. and he wasn't presently allowing the weapons inspectors in

If we knew 100% he had them, and he wasn't presently allowing the weapons inspectors in to get rid of them, yes, I would support invasion.

[mike_c]

15. but our government said that it did know 100 percent that Iraq...

...had WMDs and it lied. No such knowledge can ever really be trusted unless Iraq had demonstrated not only that it possessed such weapons but that it would actually use them-- and events of nearly 20 years previous were no longer relevant, as history has revealed.

[Harksaw]

21. I know. Its a hypothetical question. n/t

[bowens43]

26. Why?

Do you support invading Russia? China? Israel? Great Britain? Pakistan? India? We are certain that they have WMD. They have just as much reason to use them against us as saddam had.

[no name no slogan]

27. Yes he was-- UNMOVIC was on the ground right before the invasion

The US and UNSCOM originally withdrew the inspectors in 1998, right before a joint US/UK air attack.

Saddam had blocked the UNSCOM team from certain areas because he suspected that certain members of the team were CIA spies-- a fact later verified by the US-- which was a violation of the Gulf War truce.

Hans Blix and his inspection team were in Iraq, continuing the weapons inspections that the US ended in 1998. It was Gee Dubya and his allies in congress who forced them to withdraw before the invasion.

[mike_c]

34. some review of recent history....

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.un/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2322151.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/13/iraqun021113

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1742934

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/23/1050777306319.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html

[KeepItReal]

11. Only if he had a NUKE, Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to put it in

...and actually SAID HE WAS GONNA USE IT ON US.

*That* is a reason to go to war.

[RafterMan]

12. NO!

Thank you for asking the fundamental question.

General Zinni led the containment operation against Iraq as head of CENTCOM believed there were WMDs and thought the invasion was foolish. A wise position.

More importantly, some day we are going to be sure that somebody has WMDs, and invading them will likely be just as foolish. Let's start winning that argument now.

[many a good man]

13. Imagine the clusterfuck it would be if ...

...the insurgents had WMD in addition to the small arms and high explosives they have now!

We have to stop being such a war-like people and start behaving like adults...Too many innocent people get killed and that's bad for our image.

[Bouncy Ball]

14. No.

Not at all. I do not support pre-emptive attacks on other countries.

The only way that would change for me is if they found an ACTUAL document of Husseins that had a CONCRETE plan to USE the WMDs on the US on a specific date. Details and everything.

But then, being bush et al, I'd have to wonder if it were real or forged (yellow cake, anyone?).

See what happens when you lie, bush? No one can trust you. You're the boy who cried wolf.

[NMDemDist2]

16. define "WMD"

are you including nukes? and if a military dictatorship with nukes is reason enough for an invasion, wouldn't N Korea and Pakistan be higher on the list?

[Hosnon]

39. According to "Official U.S. Documents" :

"nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons"

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

[mattclearing]

17. Not as it was instigated, no.

But I would have had a position not unlike Kerry's. I would want Saddam back on full-time unfettered weapons inspections.

[mike_c]

32. he agreed to full and unconditional inspections in Sept. 2002...

...six months before the invasion. The inspectors fled Iraq in late April 2003 just in advance of the U.S. invasion. Surely you haven't forgotten that? Indeed, it's quite likely that the timing of the invasion was specifically to preempt the possibility of Blix's team certifying that Hussein was in compliance with U.N. disarmament mandates and consequent lifting of sanctions. Certainly that played at least some role in U.S. censorship of Iraq's disclosure documents (along with concealing the U.S. role in arming Iraq in the first place).

[mattclearing]

37. No. I didn't mean to imply that he didn't.

I'm saying I would have operated under the assumption that he might comply and waited for evidence of wrongdoing.

[mike_c]

40. thanks for clarifying-- my apologies for misunderstanding....

eom

[saltpoint]

18. Voted 'No.'

Having WsMD alone isn't provocation enough to launch an assault on a sovereign nation, no matter how "evil" Saddam Hussein was.

Mugabe is as bad or worse. Why not invade Zimbabwe?

If Iraq had no oil, my guess is we wouldn't be there.

The dozen-plus military bases the U.S. has set up in Iraq -- they don't have a "temporary until Iraq can manage its own affairs" feel to them at all.

Karzai in Afghanistan is a former Big Oil executive and our bases there appear to run "coincidentally" along the proposed oil pipeline.

The war was unethical from the start, especially since the Bush administration failed to exhaust all diplomatic options. They never intended to discuss it in the first place, and when challenged, lied through their teeth to allies, the U.N., and the citizenry.

The world judges us by such actions and it disheartens me that red state voters returned this man to the White House. Shame on them.

[PassingFair]

19. This is one of those "What if Spartacus had had a Piper Cub?Questions...

He didn't. And we don't.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Possibly, if they existed in types and quantities

that represented a real threat, and all diplomatic options had genuinly been tried and had failed. In this case, only because they were forbidden to have those types of weapons by the terms of the ceasefire agreement. I would not be in favor of, say, invading Syria for having WMDs.

[Blower]

28. Here is the BIGGEST question--

IF we were sure Iraq had oodles of WMD, such as 500 tons of Anthrax, WHERE is the discussion (in Congress, etc) of what the risks of BOMBING and ATTACKING unknown WMD caches were?

If I recall correctly, in 1991 they hit only ONE real WMD factory, and the stuff leaked out over hundreds of miles!

So how is it the record doesn't show any discussion of the appropriateness of a bombing strategy in this case...or is their some records concerning this that aren't public?

Congress discussed this for only two days!!!

Seems to me, there was no real discussion because there were no WMD and they knew it. Correct me if I am wrong!

[Geek_Girl]

31. I think your right

France, Germany and most of the world was skeptical of our intelligence. Why the hell weren't we?

[steve2470]

30. ONLY if the UN Security Council voted unanimously to invade

Iraq. Otherwise, we are better off improving our national defense, which frankly sucks right now.

[mike_c]

35. it is 100 percent certain that the U.S. possesses WMDs....

Is it therefore appropriate for another nation to invade and occupy the U.S.? OK to kill over a million civilians before and during the occupation? OK to install a puppet government? I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

[NoPasaran]

36. No---and I felt that way back in March of 2003

First, if Saddam actually had WMDs, I would have expected him to have used them in case of an invasion. And that certainly would have been unpleasant.

Second, I reasoned that invading Iraq would shatter it and dangerously destabilize the whole region. The cost and difficulty of creating a new stability would probably not be worth the benefits of removing Saddam's regime.

Finally, I could never understand why I was supposed to be so frightened of Saddam Hussein. I grew up during the Cold War, when we were all encouraged to believe that the Russkies had a missile aimed at each and everyone of us. And even if the Soviet Union seemed less and less scary as the 1960s wore on, the new nuclear enemy on the block was Red Freakin' China. Saddam---pffft. A mere pussycat compared to Chairman Mao.

[leesa]

38. Nope. Many countries have WMDs. They had done nothing to anyone

for over twelve years.

The issue is that it was extremely unlikely they had anything and our government knew it.

[AwakeAtLast]

41. WE have WMDs. Are we also going to attack ourselves?

The whole premise of attacking because of WMDs is absurd from the beginning. We could have thrown a dart at the globe and formed our attack plans from that. What ticks me off is that the majority of the American people actually think Iraq is the only country that had them, mostly because they don't even know what WMDs really are!

[Placebo]

42. That's the reason I never supported it in the first place...

I didn't want to see Saddam launching chemical attacks on thousands of our troops, or the surrounding nations, like some cornered wild animal with nothing left to lose, just lashing out with all its got.

[sandnsea]

43. Imminent threat

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

That's what I thought then, that's what I think now.

[JohnLocke]

44. Green Berets. Paratroopers. Assassin. Need I say more?

[durutti]

45. Definitely not . Iraq still would've been no threat.

First of all, it's worth pointing out that "weapons of mass destruction" as it's used by the administration is a term of propaganda. Biological and chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. They aren't effective for killing large numbers of people. They're used because they're intimidating. But they really couldn't have been used effectively in military operations against the U.S.

Now, nuclear weapons certainly do qualify as weapons of mass destruction. But as long as Israel, India, and Pakistan have these weapons, the nuclear aspirations of any country in the region must be viewed as perfectly rational.

The best approach would have been to seek the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the region, thus eliminating the incentive for Iraq and neighboring countries to acquire them.