Why do people claim the military "risks their lives" to "protect our freedoms"?

[ChrisL]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster. Most of the people he killed were his own people, people who he felt betrayed him in one way or another. He was very paranoid as well, obviously. I really do think he was a psychopath, and if he ever did get WMD, he would have probably used them on a crazy whim.

That reasoning suggests there are a number of other nations in the world that we should invade. The fact that Hussein was a monster was really none of our business. He was an important ally during our conflict with Iran and he was not in any way aggressive toward us -- nor was there any reason to believe he ever would.

There was absolutely no reason for us to invade Iraq. None! And George W. Bush, along with all conspirators in his Administration, should be indicted and prosecuted. The problem is their crime is so great it exists beyond the perception of the average American.

As far as Hussein's killing his own people is concerned, did you ever hear of the Waco Massacre?

Oh please! You can't compare Waco or a few isolated incidents to the systemic genocide performed by Saddam Hussein, can you?

 

[MikeK]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster.

Would you say it was worth the lives of 5,800 American soldiers and the draining of our Treasury?

 

[ChrisL]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster. Most of the people he killed were his own people, people who he felt betrayed him in one way or another. He was very paranoid as well, obviously. I really do think he was a psychopath, and if he ever did get WMD, he would have probably used them on a crazy whim.

That reasoning suggests there are a number of other nations in the world that we should invade. The fact that Hussein was a monster was really none of our business. He was an important ally during our conflict with Iran and he was not in any way aggressive toward us -- nor was there any reason to believe he ever would.

There was absolutely no reason for us to invade Iraq. None! And George W. Bush, along with all conspirators in his Administration, should be indicted and prosecuted. The problem is their crime is so great it exists beyond the perception of the average American.

As far as Hussein's killing his own people is concerned, did you ever hear of the Waco Massacre?

I must admit that at first, I too was confused when it was announced (why in the hell do we ANNOUNCE this anyways? Lol! Seems kind of stupid to me) that we were going to attack Iraq but, then again, I don't know and probably never will know whether or not Saddam truly was a threat or how big of a threat he actually was. The media or citizens are certainly not privy to every piece of intelligence that the the government powers that be know about.

 

[MikeK]

Oh please! You can't compare Waco or a few isolated incidents to the systemic genocide performed by Saddam Hussein, can you?

Why not?

Maybe Hussein felt his reasons were as good as Janet Reno's and Bill Clinton's. The main point is, Waco was none of Hussein's business and Hussein's actions were none of ours.

 

[ChrisL]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster.

Would you say it was worth the lives of 5,800 American soldiers and the draining of our Treasury?

Oh, I don't think we should have gone to war. I just really believe that a lot of people in the government really did believe that Saddam was a potential threat in one manner or another. I think there were several reasons why they decided to go ahead with it, even if it was probably poorly planned and not very good timing. I've thought, why not just send over some group of assassins or something and assassinate these guys? But then, there are the others who would gladly pick up where the other crazies leave off, I suppose.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh please! You can't compare Waco or a few isolated incidents to the systemic genocide performed by Saddam Hussein, can you?

Why not?

Maybe Hussein felt his reasons were as good as Janet Reno's and Bill Clinton's. The main point is, Waco was none of Hussein's business and Hussein's actions were none of ours.

Good Lord, they didn't kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people in an attempt at genocide, did they? You cannot be serious with that angle. It is terrible analogy.

 

[MikeK]

Good Lord, they didn't kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people in an attempt at genocide, did they? You cannot be serious with that angle. It is terrible analogy.

Steal a penny, steal a dollar.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

 

[ChrisL]

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

 

[jasonnfree]

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Yep, there were wmd's in Iraq at one time. Provided to sadaam by bush. Not the prez that allowed terrorists to attack the country on 9-11, but the first bush who was a partner of sadaam. Keep telling the lies though if it makes you feel better.

 

[ChrisL]

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Yep, there were wmd's in Iraq at one time. Provided to sadaam by bush. Not the prez that allowed terrorists to attack the country on 9-11, but the first bush who was a partner of sadaam. Keep telling the lies though if it makes you feel better.

Lies? Everything I've claimed, I've been able to reference via links. You? Let me see your links, and we will see who is lying.

 

[jasonnfree]

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Yep, there were wmd's in Iraq at one time. Provided to sadaam by bush. Not the prez that allowed terrorists to attack the country on 9-11, but the first bush who was a partner of sadaam. Keep telling the lies though if it makes you feel better.

Lies? Everything I've claimed, I've been able to reference via links. You? Let me see your links, and we will see who is lying.

Ok, I'll do it later, gotta go ahorita. I'll show you links, you show me links. Nobody will surrender, but ask yourself where sadaam got those original wmd's.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Yep, there were wmd's in Iraq at one time. Provided to sadaam by bush. Not the prez that allowed terrorists to attack the country on 9-11, but the first bush who was a partner of sadaam. Keep telling the lies though if it makes you feel better.

Lies? Everything I've claimed, I've been able to reference via links. You? Let me see your links, and we will see who is lying.

Ok, I'll do it later, gotta go ahorita. I'll show you links, you show me links. Nobody will surrender, but ask yourself where sadaam got those original wmd's.

IOW, you don't have anything to back your claims.

 

[Iceweasel]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster. Most of the people he killed were his own people, people who he felt betrayed him in one way or another. He was very paranoid as well, obviously. I really do think he was a psychopath, and if he ever did get WMD, he would have probably used them on a crazy whim.

That reasoning suggests there are a number of other nations in the world we should invade. The fact that Hussein was a monster was really none of our business. He was an important ally during our conflict with Iran and he was not in any way aggressive toward us -- nor was there any reason to believe he ever would.

There was absolutely no reason for us to invade Iraq. None! And George W. Bush, along with all conspirators in his Administration, should be indicted and prosecuted. The problem is their crime is so great it exists beyond the perception of the average American.

As far as Hussein's killing his own people is concerned, did you ever hear of the Waco Massacre?

LOL. He shot at our planes in the no fly zone we were patrolling for the Un sanctions against Iraq. Why do you even think there were UN resolutions and sanctions? No one was worried about him? Seriously?

We wouldn't have invaded if the UN put some effort into it instead of things like the oil for food scan that lined some of their pockets, with countries like Germany selling weapons and parts, etc. A serious blockaid would have squeezed the asshole out of power.

 

[rightwinger]

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Oh please...save us the revisionist history

Where were the WMDs that justified......we don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Where is the evidence of an ongoing WMD program
Where is the evidence Saddam wanted to give WMDs to terrorists?

Bush lied

 

[ChrisL]

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Oh please...save us the revisionist history

Where were the WMDs that justified......we don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Where is the evidence of an ongoing WMD program
Where is the evidence Saddam wanted to give WMDs to terrorists?

Bush lied

Some of Saddam's own top generals believed he had them.

 

[rightwinger]

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Oh please...save us the revisionist history

Where were the WMDs that justified......we don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Where is the evidence of an ongoing WMD program
Where is the evidence Saddam wanted to give WMDs to terrorists?

Bush lied

Some of Saddam's own top generals believed he had them.

Where was the threat?
Who the hell was Saddam going to use them on?

We invaded him TWICE and they were nowhere to be seen

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

Saddam was a nasty prick who terrorized his own people
By 2003, he had been contained to the point he was no threat to anyone outside of his own borders.
Hardly a justification for war. But Bush had to trump up claims that he was still actively producing WMDs, was a threat to develop a NUCLEAR BOMB and was going to give them to TERRORISTS

Iraq had to be attacked immediately.......before it was too late

The safety of all Americans depended on it

Did you read the links? Obviously not. There WAS evidence of WMD found in Iraq.

Oh please...save us the revisionist history

Where were the WMDs that justified......we don't want a smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Where is the evidence of an ongoing WMD program
Where is the evidence Saddam wanted to give WMDs to terrorists?

Bush lied

Some of Saddam's own top generals believed he had them.

Where was the threat?
Who the hell was Saddam going to use them on?

We invaded him TWICE and they were nowhere to be seen

But they did find some. Not some massive production or anything, but old stock piles, which proves that Saddam had never gotten rid of his laboratories, etc., so the intel wasn't completely false. Also, like I already stated, this illusion was intentionally created by Saddam Hussein. He wanted everyone to believe he had WMDs or had the capabilities to obtain them at least.

Imagine That Wikileaks Docs Show There Were WMDs in Iraq

Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. - See more at: Imagine That Wikileaks Docs Show There Were WMDs in Iraq

 

[cnm]

It is not the job of the military to make us more free-that job belongs to civilians-it is there to defend the freedoms we already have.

In which case, according to your logic, you are less free than before Vietnam, seeing you lost there.

 

[cnm]

so the intel wasn't completely false.

Do you not see how laughable that defence is?