Was the Pre-Emptive Strike Necessary?

[knuckleboner]

ok, so it's becoming possible that iraq didn't actually have WMD at the start of the iraq war. (and yes, kay faults the intelligence community, NOT the bush administration).

however, my question is: if iraq did not have WMD what does that do for our decision to go to war?

we declared a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation. (yes, saddam was a horrible leader and the iraqi people are better off without him.) still, we didn't go to war for the purpose of liberating the iraqis. we went to war for our national security, which, in and of itself is a valid reason.

but, how much was our national security actually at risk?

honestly, if we had said, prior to war, that saddam didn't have the current ability to attack us, and that he has not made any direct threats against us, however, he has the capability to produce WMD in the near future and he's a thug to his own people, is that a valid reason for war?

personally, i'm extremely wary of pre-emptive wars. but, i believe the only proper rationale for pre-emptive strikes is imminence.

i'm not looking to call bush a liar, criminal, evil man, etc. but i do think that i have yet to see evidence that decision to go to war was absolutely necessary at that point in time.

[Dr. Love]

I think the war wasn't necessary, but it was the "right thing" to do.

But if you want to go with the initial set of justifications ... I say no. However, I do believe that it may have eventually been a necessity. However, I don't think he was a threat to the point that he posed a serious risk to us when we went to war.

Perhaps later in the future, but not right now. Not enough to justify taking the Terror War to Iraq at that stage. There are other places and other groups that need to be dealt with first (Al-Qaeda still needs to be defeated.)

[John Ashcroft]

Terrorism dude. Simple as that. Saddam supported terrorists, and we're at war with terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

[knuckleboner]

that's great. but that's not why we said we went to war.

the initial P.R. spin we put on it has the potential in the long run to undermine our future endeavors.

we said we have to go to war right now because the threat is imminent.

how much support will we get if we ever decide that since iran supports terrorism, it's next?

[John Ashcroft]

Yes it is why we went to war. WMDs were only one in a long list of reasons provided by the President to both the U.N. and the American public. The only reason we hear WMDs and nothing else is because of the press' hatred for the President.

[Dr. Love]

I heard the most LOLarious (and I LOLed) thing in class today.

It's some BS British Lit class, and we're reading Beowulf, and she's talking about how he was all armored up and looked at home in battle gear and then suddenly she's like, "unlike more modern leaders, who land on aircraft carriers in a uniform they don't deserve to be wearing because their rich daddy made a few calls to Washington."

Wow!

I burst out laughing.

Anyway, it's all good and fine that it was part of the Terror War. I acknowledge that. I just think there were other things we should have taken care of BEFORE going to Iraq when we did.

That, of course, being Al-Qaeda.

I just think it's prudent to finish one phase of a war before moving to the next. How many wars do you think we can fight at once and have a good reserve to defend ourselves?

[John Ashcroft]

We were suppossed to maintain a fighting force sufficient to win two simultaneous major wars. That was our nations security doctrine since WWII. Clinton thought it was an unreasonable burden after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another fine example of reasonable forsight from the Clinton administration (all while major terrorist strikes were being carried out against U.S. property, mind you).

Hopefully Dubya will correct this situation before funding for fuckin' prescription drug benefits and this ridiculous proposal for increases in the National Endowment of the Arts or whatever the fuck!

[knuckleboner]

i know it was part of the war on terror. that's cool.

i'm just saying that we, bush administration included, focused primarily on the imminent threat that iraq posed to america due to it's WMD program as the primary reason why we needed to go to war.

the doc very well may be right about the war nonetheless being the "right thing to do."

but i'd at least like our primary reason for war to remain constant. but i think in reality, it was spin. spin the WMD and liberation intitally, as well as the broken UN resolutions; now spin the terrorist angle and saddam's brutality - mass graves, etc.

to be honest, while i didn't agree with the decision to go to war at that point in time, i think disagree more with the way we've continuously spun the story.

(P.S.: for the record, o'neill's an idiot. i'd fault bush if there WEREN'T initial plans for attacking iraq at that time. while they may or may not've been an imminent threat, they were certainly a potential threat, and we sure as hell shouldn't have been caught with our pants down (insert clinton joke here) if they did something, or didn't allow inspectors, and we needed to attack.)

[Dr. Love]

Well, it's all well-and-fine that we were supposed to be able to fight two wars at once.

But it seems to me like things are spread thin with us doing it, so why are we? Why not fix the problems before committing us to two places?

I say this because if any more spots flare up, it will get very hard to cover all the bases.

And THAT, to me, is a BIG lack of foresight.

[Dr. Love]

btw, kb... gimme back my crown, you dick.

[John Ashcroft]

Guys, are you equally offended by the "moving target" attacks the Dems have had against Bush since the beginning of his administration? I mean, remember the cries of quagmire in Afghanistan on WEEK FUCKING THREE??? And how's about a personal favorite of mine... "We have no concrete plan to take Baghdad". What was it, two days later our FUCKING AWESOME MILITARY MEN rolled into Baghdad like cruising the strip??? (Oh, but then it became "The Iraqis really didn't put up much of a fight because of blah blah blah...)

So the Dubya admin is reminding the public of the other reasons we went to war now that WMDs have proven ellusive. Big fucking deal. Why isn't the press concerned over the opposition's faux-paus in regards to every fucking step in the war on terror??? Could it be that they're part of the "opposition"??? Just what are they opposed to? (Ford need not answer) American security?

[Dr. Love]

I wasn't offended, but I found it rather silly (the quagmire claims)

Anyway, I still think the Iraq war was necessary but badly timed.

[Dave's PA Rental]

I will go to my grave SCREAMING this: the burden of proof was ON SADDAM!!! The UN Security Council passed a resolution claiming that he was guilty until proven innocent!!! SADDAM had to account for what he did with the WMD!!!! He didnt!!! He dicked around the inspectors with his WMD shell game, knowing that the pacifists of the world would prevent a pre-emptive strike against a soverign nation.

We did the right thing, and we should have done it sooner.

Quit playing "antics with semantics", it was just the right thing to do, I dont care what they said the reasons were.

[FORD]

Senator Palpat... er Lieberman?? Is that you? :confused:

Seriously... proving a negative is impossible, and the BCE knew that.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

There's no "correct" answer.

[John Ashcroft]

I already told you... I haven't.

And Ford, that argument is really silly. Dictatorships always keep detailed records on all programs they sponsor. It's part of the paranoia dictators always have. All Saddam had to do is show when and where the WMDs (that everyone knows he had) were destroyed. Even if there weren't detailed records or empty casings, he could've said "they were destroyed over there..." We've got equipment to verify the authenticity of the claim. Instead Saddam decided to thumb his nose at the U.N. to his own demise. And you still think it's a shame, don't you.