Liberals, do you only take one piece of evidence at a time, because you think it is easier to dismiss it?

Question

Or do you evaluate evidence as a whole?

For example, what conclusion would a sane person come to when they looked at all the following as a compilation?:



Start with the over a decade of failed u.n. resolutions in iraq,
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/iraq.resolutions/index.html

then move on to all the liberal quotes who knew saddam posed a threat, but changed their mind when a republican president had the same view:
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Then read the reasons for war in iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Then read the interview with saddams officials:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514


Would a sane person conclude that force in Iraq was, and is, justified, as our President and Congress new?

Answer 1

Maybe you should live there

then you'd see how wonderful this war is



The Iraqi's do NOT want us there

The American public doesn't want us there



but we should listen to those that do?

Answer 2

Ok. Let's look at all those facts together.



The UN didn't like Saddam. Lots of other people didn't like Saddam. Someone claimed that 10-15 years ago (1991-1994), Saddam was doing bad things. The White House says that Saddam must be stopped.



Ok. So, we go in, and depose Saddam and topple his government. Let's even assume that 10-15 year old stories and US resolutions provide a valid justification for the invasion.



If you accept Sada's statements, then the WMDs were moved out of Iraq BEFORE we invaded. What does any of those facts have to do with what the US has done in the 3-4 years AFTER Saddam was no longer in power?

Answer 3

I could spend the time providng links and information for you but have a strong feeling your mind is made up already, so I won't waste my time. Even if you could somehow justify the war, doesn't it bother you that little planning went into this war? They sent our soldiers without adequate body armor, etc and didn't plan for the insurgence that obviously was to follow. Saddam was a bad guy, who was supported by Reagan, Rumsfield and Gates back in the 80s because the entire region would deteriate without him keeping an uneasy peace. Anyone knowing anything about the politics & history of the area would know that, yet they were not prepared. And they made no preparations(Google Walter Reed ) for our returning wounded. How could they not know that our VA system was already only borderline adequate and would be highly stressed by a war? George HW wrote a book speaking about the problem of chaos in the area if saddam were deposed. George H should have read it.



It's also interesting that the "corrupt" UN Oil for food program proceeds were turned over to the US coalition-and promptly lost by Paul Bremer. Odd. They work very hard to discredit the UN, take the money and it disappears.

Answer 4

First, your premise that the UN resolutions and sanctions "failed" to control Saddam is false. There was much evidence his wings were clipped.



Second, Saddam had allowed UN and IAEA inspections just prior to the war. The inspection process, if allowed to continue, would have shown that he had a negligble amount of nuclear materials. What caused the hurry, the rush to war? Read "Hubris" or at least a book review of it.



Third, consider that the conservatives rail on and on about how ineffective the UN is, that the US should end its membership, etc. Then why were they so dead-set to "enforce" 8 and 10 year old the resolutions of this body they don't believe should exist?



Third, the US did not get the UN to approve a resolution to invade Iraq, therefore, the US itself acted in violation of the UN rules. You don't violate the rules and laws to enforce other rules!



Finally, following the principles of a just war, the US was not attacked nor was there sufficient evidence that it was in imminent danger of being attacked by Saddam.



"Would a sane person conclude that force in Iraq was, and is, justified" Yes, if they were deceived by false and slanted evidence.

Answer 5

I have met Scott Ritter former weapons inspector Iraq 1992 to 1998 and read his book , He was on the staff as Iraqi missile expert in gulf war 1 he said from day 1 they had no WMD. As did most of the inspectors. But their reports were given to political appointees and from there spun into a crafted series of partial info designed to mislead. Additionally since they possessed no delivery system capable of ranges beyond 100 miles it seemed quite a stretch to call them a major threat to the US. The Al Samud missile once stripped of it's 750 pound warhead had test range of 123 miles so they were destroyed before the war to comply with UN resolutions. It's now known that Saddam was not in violation of said resolutions.

Answer 6

Why did you leave off the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate? You know, the NIE that President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice cherry-picked (that is, intentionally failed to evaluate as a whole) to take us into the most colossal foreign policy disaster in United States history?



That was the most important piece of evidence, and President Bush refused to tell the American people the whole truth and nothing but the truth.



"Failed U.N. resolutions"??? The ones that said he should disarm? Who are you trying to fool? Haven't you heard, HE DISARMED! Only idiots could not see he was already disarmed. In fact, WE DISARMED HIM OURSELVES (following the First Gulf War under UNSCOM).



How stupid is that?!?! We disarmed Iraq then invaded the country because we thought we didn't disarm them.



It's pitiful.

Answer 7

I won't read the entire thing since unlike most trailer trash republicans, I have work to do, however I will comment on the first.



Since when did conservatives care about what the UN says? You guys have been bashing the UN, and rightfully so, for the past 20 years. Now that they UN supports your position, they suddenly have credibility? I could not care less about any failed UN resolution and neither should you.

Answer 8

you are selectively listing only those things which would lead one to make the conclusion that a war was necessary, you are also guilty of not "evaluating evidence as a whole", in fact the CIA and other intelligence services had doubts that Iraq was real threat but those were suppressed

Answer 9

LoL



'Saddam posed a threat'



And yet never actually attacked us.



Keep in mind, that the Bush administration openly ridiculed the outgoing administration people who attempted to warn them about the threat that Osama Bin Laden posed.



They were laughed at, and then finally ignored.



We all saw how well that worked out.



If we hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd still be waiting for Saddam to attack us.

Answer 10

eric s- it's too. It's always been "too."

To- preposition- I'm going to the store.

two- number- I want two chili dogs.

too- also, or used for emphasis- you're going too fast.



Sorry, but that makes you look like an idiot when you spout off about how stupid dems are and can't use third grade grammar correctly.



As for the question: There were no WMDs. End of story. You can make circular arguments all around that FACT, but it remains.

Answer 11

I agree with all your facts. But it is opinion on rather they are justifications for war. There are many countries around the world that have similar situations with weapons and threats. based one your logic, we should also be at war with N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, and a handful of other countries.



But that just isn't feasible.

Answer 12

I have neither the time nor the inclination to visit your web links in an effort to figure out what it is you're trying to prove with your drivel. Perhaps if you had a point, you could post it, but instead, you rely on spamming the entire Y/A community.

Answer 13

No, a sane person would not make that conclusion (in response to that very last bit) and you're proof of that.

Answer 14

It still adds up to nothing. No WMD's, no connection to terrorists, no justification for anything but kooky redstaters to whine and cry. Dismissed.

Answer 15

Your going to fast the libs need it slooowwwerr. its easier to take polls and change their mind that way.