The "Why We're In Iraq" Checklist

Following this will be enumerated the various reasons for the American-led multinational intervention in Iraq, along with further analysis concerning the legitimacy of those reasons and the current stances both sides of the debate have taken in regards to those reasons.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction

Popularly regarded as the single largest reason the Bush Administration committed American forces to Iraq. Colin Powell summarized the Bush Administration's claims on WMDs in Iraq in a February 2003 speech, stating that "the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction." These facts have undergone heavy scrutiny - the revelation of the Downing Street Memo, which stated that American politicians were manipulating intelligence to justify a war, is in glaring contrast to the findings of two non-partisan Congressional committees which have declared that there was no political pressure put on intelligence analysts to provide certain results. While active WMDs were not found in Iraq, degraded chemical weapons from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s were discovered, as well as significant amounts of evidence that Iraq was fully capable of the production of WMD - admittedly all circumstantial evidence.

The left points to the lack of actual WMDs in Iraq and says that the Bush Administration "lied" about whether or not Iraq had WMDs. They point to the Downing Street Memo as evidence that this was so. They point to the lack of stockpiles of actual WMDs as evidence as well that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was false.

The right points to the large amounts of evidence that Iraq was capable of producing WMDs and the opinion of the head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, that Iraq probably had chemical and biological weapons but that they were moved to Syria prior to the 2003 invasion.

2. Links to Terrorist Organizations

The other large justification for the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein maintained links with al Qaeda, and that an invasion of Iraq would be a part of the broader War on Terror. Members of the Bush Administration centered this argument around the purported fact that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an alleged bin Laden supporter. While evidence of al-Zarqawi's links to al Qaeda are quite prevalent, proving a link beteween al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein has proven difficult. The American intelligence community has universally concluded that there was no such link.

The left points to the fact that the entire intelligence community has disavowed that Saddam Hussein had any connection to al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda. They say that connecting the War on Terror to the War in Iraq isn't just because the War in Iraq, the stated goal of which was to remove Saddam Hussein from power, was not initially fighting terrorist forces.

The right points to the fact that terrorists such as al-Zarqawi were able to move about fairly freely in Iraq, irregardless of whether or not they were in bed with Saddam Hussein. They say that the Iraq War was a justifiable extension of the War on Terror as it was targeted at improving Iraq's ability to combat it's own terrorist population - which both sides acknowledge did exist prior to the 2003 invasion.

3. Human Rights Violations

During his more than twenty-year rule, Hussein killed and tortured thousands of Iraqi citizens, including gassing and killing thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq during the mid 1980s, brutally repressing Shia and Kurdish uprisings following the 1991 Gulf War, and a fifteen year campaign of repression and displacement of the Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq. Neither side disputes these facts.

The left points to the fact that there was little discussion of human rights violations preceding the invasion as evidence that it wasn't really a motivating factor in entrance into Iraq. They also give voice to the opinions of international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, which have concluded that the violence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion was not of a level justifiable for an armed invasion.

The right points to the fact that Saddam Hussein has proven to be one of the most brutal dictators of the late twentieth century, on par in ruthlessness with such leaders as Idi Amin and Pol Pot. They say that any human rights violation, especially on the scale of those committed by Saddam Hussein and his government, are worthy of an intervention.

4. Oil

Many left pundits have claimed that the Iraq War wasn't about any of the above, but was instead over oil, using comments made by Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz to back up this claim. They cite the changeover from dollars to Euros is standard oil dealings in Iraq as being a direct cause of the war (the changeover hurt the dollar), and that America's quick change back to "petrodollars" during the interim American rule directly following the invasion is evidence that oil was a motivating factor in the invasion.

The left points to the above facts as circumstantial evidence that one of the reasons the Bush Administration took the USA to Iraq was oil.

The right denies these claims, stating that control of Iraq's oil resources was an affect of the war, not a cause - that, for example, it was natural for America to assume control over Iraq's oil exports during the interim period, because America was running Iraq - and was attempting to do so as efficiently as possible. To not do so would have a been a dereliction of Iraq's single greatest resource - a loss of efficiency and profits in which would have hurt all the Iraqi citizens who were employed by the oil industry.

In addition to these main reasons, there are several smaller reasons used only occasionally by the Bush Administration to justify the war. These include spreading democracy to the Middle East, establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (cited by General Jay Gardner), encouraging other Middle Eastern countries (namely Libya) to abandon WMD programs, preemption of further terrorist ties, preemption of Iranian ambitions on Iraq should Saddam Hussein die or be deposed by anyone other than the USA, and the application of political pressure on Saudi Arabia. None of these has ever been claimed by a member of the Bush Administration to be a major cause of the war.

So, in conclusion...do you think we ought to have gone to Iraq?

 

But its fine for America to ignore the Geneva Convention and Human Rights laws and build Guantanamo bay. And its OK for the CIA to torture people. It was never a reason, and if it had been a true reason, the hypocrisy would have been unbelievable.

 

What we do know is that the Bush administration actively sought out sources which it knew were unreliable at best but would tell them what they wanted to hear.....for a price. Ahmed Chalabi, for example, was paid more per month than the Vice President of the United States makes in an entire year and was placed in a cushy government position for services rendered. (Isn't interesting that he was accused of being an Iranian spy and ousted from power after pressure started mounting regarding the faulty intelligence?) Then we have "Curveball"; a source which the German government repeatedly told the CIA was "crazy", a "drunk", a "fabricator", and that nothing he said could be verified, yet Colin Powell's entire address to the UN was based on information from him and the Administration presented everything he had to say as undeniable fact.

Which, of course, is a complete distortion of what the report actually says:


"Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

What the right always manages to omit is that Zarqawi was operating within Kurdish territory, outside of Saddam's scope of control, and that he was wanted by Saddam's regime for a bombing in Baghdad.

Actually, our intelligence agencies have been waffling back and forth, between Iran and Iraq, for decades regarding who gassed the Kurds. Generally, the finger of blame is pointed at whoever the United States hates the most at the time. No one really knows who did it. The interesting thing about Saddam's trial was that none of the witnesses or documents produced by the prosecution pointed a finger at Saddam. In fact, many of them demonstrated that his henchmen had disobeyed direct orders from him when committing those crimes and, in some cases, were punished for it.

So, it's fine to ignore genocide in the present to punish someone for allegedly committing genocide 20 + years ago? If they really cared about human rights violations then they wouldn't have turned a blind eye to what was/is going on in Dafur.

I didn't then and I don't now.

 

The entire runup to our invasion was surreal. Bush would go on television, read a script stating the Saddam hasn't done this, Saddam would comply and Bush's next appearance would move the ball. Again Saddam would comply and Bush would declare that he hadn't even though all observers would say he had. Then Bush would throw out another marker and so on and so forth. Many of us sunk in our hearts as we knew no matter what, many people were about to be slaughtered. Bush had made up his mind and REAL evidence points that he was planning this from the first month he captured the office of the Presidency. What we allowed him to do as a nation was wrong. As wrong as anything any other historical event that have committed. We are the bad guys in this scenario. I don't believe we can ever rectify what we have done.

 

Irrelevant even if true. It doesnt make Saddam LESS guilty either way.

The basic fact is that without Saddam's interferrence with weapons inspectors, we would have had no excuse to invade. He could have prevented the invasion by simply cooperating.

 

Did you ever find the weapons though?

 

Bush sent our military into Iraq to secure oil for U.S. and British oil corporations and garner control. It also gives us a forward base in the oil producing region. All the other reasons, if you remember, were bantered about until one - bringing democracy - resonated with the U.S. public. But that's a crock of pigeon droppings and not the truth.

 

9Sub, I support your above statement 100%, and the reason I
support it is due to the cat that America needs to take a good
look at itself. Because it seems that America is always pointing
the finger at others, and yet the American government is the one
violating other countries Human Rights.

Another issue is most of you posters is always barking about
what Saddam did, but how many of you can say that Bush is
any better?, and the ones who would make such a claim is the
Republician party (aka Bush Supporters).

That so-called checklist is the same items that is in need to
be looked at, and handled here in America. Can't the weapons
we have developed be considered as Weapon that can do
massive damage to other countries?

Under links to terrorism, I am reading everything about other
countries being involved in terrorism, but I have not read where
the CIA, Secret Service, and other US Government agencies
commit certain acts of terrorism.

Yet we seem to think that we have such of a unique intervention
program going, but where is the proof that its working in Iraq?,
and why this intervention program isn't working here in the USA?

 

I can. But Im not a muslim like you. I have different standards of morality.
MARK

 

Whether we did or not is irrelevant, since we were correct not to simply take Saddam's word for it either way. It was reasonable to assume he was probably lying, given his continual interference with inspectors.

If so, we rubber stamped it. Bush is not a dictator...he could not have done anything without our consent. Congress CHOSE to give him war powers, and we elected Congress.

So do you believe that Americans voted to allow the war because they wanted oil?

It is obvious to everyone that Bush is better. Thats why statements such as this are ridiculed so much. It shows how completely out of touch you people are.

Yes, you and your tiny minority are the only ones who believe that Bush is not better than Saddam.

Yes. There is a double standard. Democracies are allowed to have such weapons. Non-democracies are not.

No, it's not fair. nor should it be.

Can you give a specific example?

Give me an example where any of the above organizations deliberately targeted civilians with the intention of spreading terror.

 

We aren't talking about terrrorism, we are talking about going against the Geneva convention.

As for the Muslim comment, thats blatant racism Mark. Its not called for, not all Muslims are the ones that blow each other up, just like every Christian is not part of Rev. Phelps church.

George Bush isn't as bad as Saddam, but Americas presence has made the country much more terroriszed that it was before.

 

Then why did you bring up the WMDs?

The condition is temporary. The insurgents do not represent most Iraqis. The polls I have seen indicate that many more people in Iraq want democracy than dont. The terrorists are exploiting the current chaos, but that chaeo wont last forever. Eventually the democracy will become entrenched.

Even conservative estimates say that the insurgents and their supporters combined number less than 200,000 (US military estimates are only a fraction of that...the 200,000 figure comes from the Iraqi government)...that is less than 1% of the population of Iraq. These people do not represent the Iraqi masses. They are a tiny obnoxious minority.

 

Because someone else bought them up, and I just said we never found them. The issue I wanted to discuss was Americas willingness to tell other countries to be free, humane and 'Western' but they go against the Geneva convention and Human rights act with Guantanamo and the less than secret torturing by the CIA.

And how long do you expect the American troops to maintain such a presence as they have now? Who do you think is more determined? Entrenched, I like it, its a watered down version of 'American Brand Freedom© Forced Upon Them."

Just like how Mark is so willing to accuse someone of having different moral standards because they are Muslim. The ones who actually have a different set of Morals are only minute fraction of the Muslim community.

And 200,000 is a hell of a lot, more than the number of American troops which is around 90,000 with about 50,000 in reserve.

 

So you believe it is impossible to be free and humane if you go against the Geneva Convention?

Probably several years. But as long as it takes. the alternatives are worse.

Look at America's track record...look at what it took for us to finally withdraw from vietnam. This is a walk in the aprk compared to that.

They freely elected their own leaders...so how is anything being forced upon them?

If you have the option of saying "no" you are not being forced.

Whether or not they are Muslim is irrelevant. They want to overthrow a government that was elected by the Iraqi People. They want to impose their will on an unwilling majority. That is what makes them anti-democracy. They are not any different from the Aryan Nations or the KKK in the US.

Not compared to 26 million.

With a fraction of the technology, funding, and without the support of the elected Iraqi government.

And keep in mind, that is the HIGH estimate. US military estimates are in the 20,000 to 30,000 range.

 

It's pretty offensive that you would compare a strip search, or disrespecting someone's religion to the horrors that took place in under Saddam. What is going on in Guantamo Bay, or the stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib cannot, under any definition of the word, be classified as torture. Plain and simple. Humiliation maybe, but certainly not torture.