We are right!

[Officer of Engineers]

The Afghan War is beyond question was right! Taking out Al Queida HQ was more than a strategic imperative. It was a strategic necessity.

The Iraq War was right. Taking out Saddam was right! We came up with every fucking proof in the world that we are right!. We found bio-chem weapons ... and in quantity. We found the nuclear weapons program!

So, why is the world telling us that we, the decision makers and the decision supporters, are wrong?

One thing I noticed. I am willing to live with my decision while the likes of others are just jumping on the bandwagon when it's convenient.

I said it once for this forum. You have to have convictions of your beliefs.

THERE'S BEEN NONE WHO CAN STAND UP TO MY EVAL OF SADDAM. That includes you, Daivd!

[astralis]

col, i think we've (as in the whole board) have debated the topic over and over again on the Iraq War thread...pretty much since 2002!

[Officer of Engineers]

That's not the point. The point is that the majority of us changed their minds and now are stating the fact they never supported the war (including your own waiver). I have not. It took me long and hard to come to support the war. Both wars, Well, the Afghan War was easy, We needed to kill the AQ HQ.

The point was and is, we all supported those wars when it was popular. Only those of us continue to support those wars because it was right. Everybody else just hop onto the bandwagon.

We needed to kill AQ and there was no other way to do it beside invading Afghanistan.

We needed to deny Saddam a 11 Sept opportunity and there was no other way to do it beside invading Iraq.

I challenge anyone, including D'OR, to counter.

[DOR]

If there was ample evidence that Saddam was planning "a 11 Sept opportunity," then why was it necessary to lie our way into war? Why did the administration repeatedly tell the CIA their assessments weren't damning enough, and continually lie to Congress, the US public and our allies?

If the evidence was there, the most obvious and honorable thing to do -- the smartest thing to do -- would be to use it, rather than lie.

[astralis]

That's not the point. The point is that the majority of us changed their minds and now are stating the fact they never supported the war (including your own waiver). I have not. It took me long and hard to come to support the war. Both wars, Well, the Afghan War was easy, We needed to kill the AQ HQ.

The point was and is, we all supported those wars when it was popular. Only those of us continue to support those wars because it was right.

well, no. i've said quite openly that i supported the war. i wouldn't have if i knew that 1. iraq was NOT a clear and imminent danger, and 2. the aftermath was going to be a catastrophic shambles.

i'm not running away from that...especially because i'm not running for public office. :-)

that's not "jumping on the bandwagon", that's changing my analysis to fit the overall data. and everything we know now certainly suggests that if anything, Kim Jong Il then and Kim Jong Un now had greater capabilities than Iraq ever did. and if the bar is lowered to "preventing xxx from doing a 9-11", well, anyone with a network capable of infiltrating the US or Europe, hijacking a plane and flying it into a building would then qualify.

[Albany Rifles]

I am with Eric on this. My view changed...especially when the aftermath was so fvcked up by the neo-cons. I was a planner...albeit a very small cog in a very big wheel...on the original OIF plan so I didn't have a broad view. But as events unfolded over the years and I learned more my opinions changed. I started to turn when I saw the way Wolfowitz, et al, treated GEN Eric Shinseki, Abu Ghraib and the treatment of Tony Taguba and the abject failure to hold military leadership accountable for screw-ups.

In 2005 SEN Joe Biden recommended that we seriously consider establishing the new Iraq as a confederation of 3 separate semi-autonomous regions (Sunni/Shia/Kurd) with a central govt responsible for defense, foreign affairs and monetary policies. He was laughed off the air by the neo-cons. He sure seems to be having the last laugh now.

[SteveDaPirate]

The Iraq War was right. Taking out Saddam was right! We came up with every fucking proof in the world that we are right!. We found bio-chem weapons ... and in quantity. We found the nuclear weapons program!

Saddam never managed to make a bomb (unlike the NORKs), and his SCUDs weren't exactly a threat to CONUS or any of our allies honestly. A SCUD with bio/chem payload might reach Israel or Turkey with dubious accuracy, but all that would earn Saddam is a nuclear response followed by a Western invasion. He understood that line well enough to restrict their use to Iran or his own people.

I don't think the US invasion was required or advisable. We should have either assigned Saddam to the CIA for removal or at least attempted a Syria style bargain (give up the WMD or else...) after we began massing troops and equipment but prior to rolling tanks across the border. An intact Iraq that was a counterbalance to Iran was preferable to what we are left with after Rumsfeld got his way.

[citanon]

For the record I agree with the colonel for the reasons he mentioned and others I've discussed on the forum.

[Officer of Engineers]

Saddam never managed to make a bomb (unlike the NORKs)

Neither did the NKs but that's another thread.

and his SCUDs weren't exactly a threat to CONUS or any of our allies honestly. A SCUD with bio/chem payload might reach Israel or Turkey with dubious accuracy

A freighter in New York Harbour with pallets of biochems and explosives. If I could think of it out of the blue, then Saddam and his intel people with months to plan and execute could come up with a much better plan.

but all that would earn Saddam is a nuclear response followed by a Western invasion.

Plausible deniability. He already got a stooge to take the blame. Osama Bin Laden.

He understood that line well enough to restrict their use to Iran or his own people.

Explain Bush Sr assassination attempt. The only thing that restricted Saddam was his thinking with if he can get away with it. And times, when he did thought he could get away with it, he did try, including kicking UN Inspectors out.

I don't think the US invasion was required or advisable. We should have either assigned Saddam to the CIA for removal or at least attempted a Syria style bargain (give up the WMD or else...) after we began massing troops and equipment but prior to rolling tanks across the border. An intact Iraq that was a counterbalance to Iran was preferable to what we are left with after Rumsfeld got his way.

As others have said, the invasion guaranteed the Iraqi weapons program died. We did find Iraqi nuclear weapons research. They were buried. Not destroyed as per UNSC Resolutions.

And biochems? Iraq was still making pesticides.

The occupation sucked but you've got an enemy willing and able to inflict harm onto the US. What's more, he demonstrated on more than one occasion that he wanted to. The only thing stopping him was that he never thought he could get away with it. Well, 11 Sept showed him and also gave him an extremely convenient scapegoat.

[YellowFever]

I never wavered in my defense for going to war in Iraq and yes, we really screwed the pooch in our prosecution of the war....or rather our prosecution of the "peace" afterwards.

Is Iraq a worse place now in 2016 than it was when Saddam was incharge in the year 2000?

I'm sure it is but I don't blame Bush, Rumsfeld or even Obama.

We paid for their opportunity at a better country with our treasured blood .

It was them that pissed it away.

[Officer of Engineers]

I also want to state something right off the bat. A gun type nuke was well within Iraq's capabilities. Saddam couldn't have fit that onto a missile but to say that he couldn't get the bomb ignores what he was already capable of.

[citanon]

I also want to state something right off the bat. A gun type nuke was well within Iraq's capabilities. Saddam couldn't have fit that onto a missile but to say that he couldn't get the bomb ignores what he was already capable of.

This is the reason why academics can't run countries. Academics always want evidence that something is happening. If countries were run this way we'd perpetually be reacting to things, and losing.

Reality is that sometimes you have to make a guess and preempt. Some times you get it right. Some times you get it wrong. Some times you can't ever figure out if the hypothetical alternative would have happened or not, but all that is some times less important than seizing the initiative. If you are wrong, change course.

OODA again. Just a different scale.

[zara]

The Iraq War was right. Taking out Saddam was right! We came up with every fucking proof in the world that we are right!. We found bio-chem weapons ... and in quantity. We found the nuclear weapons program!

We did?? That's news to me...

I went to northern Iraq in 2010. I met quite a lot of (mainly Kurds obviously) who supported the war. But equally I met a lot of Iraqis who didn't. I came away thinking that if the Iraqis themselves can't agree if the war was right or wrong then what hope do we as outsiders have of judgeing it.

[Officer of Engineers]

We did?? That's news to me...

It has been off the media in all but the most dedicated journalists. No one wants people digging up biochems that would take months of dedicated work to get rid of but it has been found and properly disposed of.

The nuclear weapons program has been found and reported to the US Congress. People and the News Media ignored it.

In both cases, these proofs didn't jive with people's per-conceived notions that nothing was found.

I went to northern Iraq in 2010. I met quite a lot of (mainly Kurds obviously) who supported the war. But equally I met a lot of Iraqis who didn't. I came away thinking that if the Iraqis themselves can't agree if the war was right or wrong then what hope do we as outsiders have of judgeing it.

Our decision, my decision, has nothing to do with the Iraqis but to kill a man who was able, willing, and had the intent to do us harm.

[SteveDaPirate]

Our decision, my decision, has nothing to do with the Iraqis but to kill a man who was able, willing, and had the intent to do us harm.

This is the part I have trouble grasping. Saddam was undoubtedly a scumbag that ruled with an iron fist, caused trouble with his neighbors, and slaughtered Iraqi separatists. If you wanted him removed on those accounts based on humanitarian concerned or interference with American interests I would understand it.

What I don't see is how he posed a credible threat to CONUS. His biological and chemical programs are hardly unique, and our hit list would be long indeed if that was our criteria for invasion. The Israelis nipped his nuclear program in the bud, and while he maintained people with some technical knowledge, he never even managed to test a bomb that I'm aware of, and he had no ICBMs with which to deliver a warhead anyway.

I'm not really seeing the will and intent either. He was aggressive towards Iran after the Islamic revolution threatened his secular regime, and Kuwait after they undermined his plan to boost oil prices via OPEC. As far as I can tell, his interest in procuring WMD post Gulf War 1 was an attempt bolster his defenses to avoid a repeat, Saddam's ability to project any power to actually threaten the West was laughable.

The guy was a genocidal ass, and I would have lost zero sleep over having him "removed" from power by more surgical means. His ability and intent to harm the US is exactly what I continue to doubt however.