What if Iraq had WMD?

[BOSSHOG]

- Bush lied about Iraq's weapons capability to get us into war (to justify carrying out the orders of the Halliburton Cheney War for Profit Energy Task Force).

- bush's PNAC supporters told us it would be a cakewalk and that we would be greeted as liberators (AS THEY CONTINUED TO HOLD FORTH THE NOTION THAT IRAQ HAD WMD.) Per rumsfeld - "oh my, it shouldn't last more than six months" (hanging to the notion that Iraq had WMD).

- Iraq had no WMD, thousands are dead, most likely thousands more will die, we are in a quagmire AND IRAQ HAD NO WMD.

- Right wing radio and faux continues to cover for this administration.

- What if Bush were not lying and Iraq had WMD?

Please, would some conservative lurker explain this to me.

[wryter2000]

1. So, what?

We had inspectors in Iraq. They were checking wherever they wanted. They would have dismantled the WMDs, and no one would have died.

Besides, even if SH had had some chemical and biological weapons (no one ever believed they had nukes), they were no threat to the US, so the US had no business invading them.

Oops, I misread your questions. My assertions still stand, though. :)

[BOSSHOG]

8. They would have been a threat to our troops if bush sent them there

[sandnsea]

9. That's why we know they were lying

They didn't secure one single WMD stockpile or factory. NOT ONE. At least that's how I knew they were lying. There is no way the military would have not secured known WMD locations. If you don't KNOW where something is, you can't possibly know it actually exists. At least ONE location.

The UN was in there and we should have let them continue their inspections. If they found something that proved Saddam was lying and not cooperating, then we would have been fully justified in launching a military attack. Of course, then we wouldn't have because it would have put our troops, and the Iraqi people, in way too much danger.

[BOSSHOG]

So just why did we launch a military attack?

bush cares not about our troops or iraqis. His goal was oil and it was going to be an easy fight (even if iraq had wmd). Please someone absorb my point. bush was going to war regardless of iraq's weapons capability. He thought wmd was not big deal. Sadaam had no wmd, it has become a big deal. Back to my original query. What if Iraq had WMD?

[sandnsea]

25. I don't understand

I'm not trying to be dense here. Ooooh, what if they thought Iraq didn't have WMD, but they really did have WMD, what then? Well, then millions dead. And yep, they didn't give a shit. Is that what you mean?

[ComerPerro]

28. Its just an exercise in logic

and, you nailed it there.

The main argument is, suppose there were WMD and we invaded.

Thousands of our troops, maybe millions (as dark as Bush painted it) would die.

But we went in anyway.

So, this alone is proof that Bush was either lying the whole time and knew the "intel" was bogus, or that he really is a dangerous, wreckless fanatic.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Coercive inspections and UN-led disarmament.

So?

[AJ BENDER]

3. You don't get it ?

"What if Bush was not lying..."Lies & lying are the core of this administration's policies...they stand against all that should be done by a government ...instead they rule for their own enrichment, empowerment at the expense of everyone else. This fool & his pack of lying war mongers & thieves are the absolute worst administration to ever occupy this White House.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. If he wasn't lying about Iraq WMD's

Colin Powell would have given REAL evidence a the UN presentation (instead of that embarrassing pack of lies) and we would have the entire world with us - and the Iraq situation would have some chance of success.

Bush would still be lying about everything else.

[wtmusic]

4. Iraq had never threatened the US

contrary to party line.

Even if they had developed a bomb UN inspections were effective in containing the program to one that could be well-monitored.

The fundamental principle of preemption is unethical and immoral. Does a child have a right to attack another child on the playground, whom he/she believes may attack her in the future? Of course not.

Preemption is a tool to placate our fears through cruel and unnecessary domination of potential enemies.

[daa]

5. The reality is

1. The UN inspections were working.
2. Saddam and UBL were not working together, hence toi terrorism link.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

30. If the UN is the biggest joke on the planet, why is Georgie asking

them for help/resolutions/etc. now?

[daa]

33. It certainly worked for Papa Bush nt

[BOSSHOG]

7. OKAY LET ME TRY THIS AGAIN FOLKS

BUSH' PREMISE FOR WAR WAS THAT IRAQ HAD WMD. THAT FIRED UP HIS BASE. IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD AND WE ARE UP TO OUR NOSTRILS IN FECAL MATTER CREATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. THOUSANDS ARE DEAD BASED ON HIS LIE.

AGAIN - WHAT IF HE WERE TELLING THE TRUTH? WOULD WE HAVE A MILLION DEAD? WOULD LIMBAUGH, HANNITY AND FAUX BE INSISTING WE STAY THE COURSE?

OR SHOULD I JUST SIT BACK AND SAY, GOSH ITS A GOOD THING BUSH IS A LIAR? WOW, ONLY THOUSANDS DEAD SO HALLIBURTON CAN GET BIG CONTRACTS.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. If he wasn't lying the proof would have been better.

Removal of Saddam & his WMD's would be a WORLD COMMUNITY effort.

Anyway, if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and al Q, why did he SUDDENLY become such an emergency? Presumably, he had the WMD's for years.

[AJ BENDER]

11. The Bushies wanted a War !

That is the whole point...the racist imperialistic policymakers, and the millions of people who support them in this country, WANT WAR....right now all ,my friends on the right are foaming at the mouth over Iraq...and THEY WANT BLOOD...they adhere to the fascist logic of "America is # 1 and screw the rest of the world"..they want our army to be unleashed against the population and the consequences be dammed ... they are even whining over how because of the left and the media that Bush is being handcuffed in Iraq and cannot kill enough people fast enough.

And that is what the Neo-Con PNAC mentality is all about.

I don't blame you for inquiring on a hypothetical question, but it just dosen't seem plausible to me.

And of course...We have got to stand up and oppose this insanity that is our government's policy any way you can...Hell they are enough complacent and apathetic sheep in this country.

[elperromagico]

12. I have little doubt that, had Iraq possessed the WMD of which Bush spoke,

those weapons would have been used against our troops as they marched toward Baghdad. What would Saddam have had to lose at that point? The Bush Administration had made it abundantly clear that they intended to depose Saddam and his regime; it would have been absolutely idiotic for Saddam to just sit on those weapons once an invasion began.

If those weapons did exist (extraordinarily doubtful at this point), and Saddam still did not use them, then the only conclusion I can reach is that he's in on the deal. But I won't delve into that possibility.

As for Hannity, Limbaugh, and their ilk - they would have defended the Bush policy come hell or high water unless it adversely affected their ratings and by extension, their personal profits. We deceive ourselves if we believe that these right-wing commentators act out of any real sense of outrage. Their "outrage" is about as authentic as a Rembrandt reproduction painted by Chagall.

[BlueEyedSon]

17. The best argument for the case that Bush was deliberately lying

about the WMD's is his eagerness to invade, and with such a small (and unilateral) force.

If Saddam had 'em, he would have used 'em. Bush knew there was no chance of that happening.....

[BigBigBear]

13. If Saddam actually had WMD

The inspectors would have found them, and the UN would be disarming the regime with a REAL coalition military looking over its shoulder.

This is definitely NOT wanted Bush wanted. What he wanted was to pull the UN out before they could verify that Iraq had been disarmed, invade and then find or plant WMD to retroactively justify the war.

I think he believed he could get away with that because the world would be too busy cheering his removal of Saddam to care about the missing WMD.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elperromagico]

29. Why then weren't they (or haven't they been) used against our troops?

Did Saddam's regime misplace them? :eyes:

If you're aware that you're about to be invaded, and that if the invasion succeeds you will be deposed and/or killed, why would you keep your best defense buried?

It simply makes no sense. Please explain it to me.

[Vickers]

32. Iraq is big? WTF?

You almost sound like....nah, couldn't be.

[ComerPerro]

14. The would have used them to ambush our troops

Bush would have potentially sent thousands of US soldiers to their death at once.

Either he knew there were no WMD, or he is really a sick son of a bitch.

Actually, though, I think its both.

[BOSSHOG]

16. THANK YOU!

We are dealing with a republican therefore absent ourselves from reality. bush said iraq had WMD. IMAGINE, please.

[ComerPerro]

24. I picked right up on what you meant, because I thought that last year

In the month or two before the war, I kept thinking:

"Well, Bush wants his war, so he will say anything to get it. But, what if there are actually WMD there... Bush is going to send our troops into Iraq, they will get to Baghdad, and then... Oh my God..."

In fact, that train of thought almost had me thinking that there would be WMD in Iraq, and that there would be an ambush killing thousands of troops at once.

My mistrust in Bush is that powerful.

I believed that he would knowingly send thousands of troops to their death just so he could prove a point.

Imagine it:

Spewed all over reich wing TV and radio: "These troups were slaughtered by the thousands, but they are heroes because they made us aware of the danger.

It would be like the rhetoric now of "We could fight the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad, or on the streets here at home" (which is of course complete BS).

Liberals would be ostracized, and branded as traitors even more frequently.

Funny, but people would overlook the fact that Bush knowingly sent thousands of our troops into an ambush without even blinking.

[AJ BENDER]

20. Yes Sick SOB...You got my vote there !

EOM

:toast:

[elperromagico]

21. He knew there were no WMD. The WMD business was a means to an end.

And they don't fool me for one second with this crap about a humanitarian liberation. If liberation was their noble goal (heavy on the sarcasm there), why did they rush to secure the oil wells before making sure that all Iraqis had electricity and clean running water?

[ComerPerro]

26. well, yes, but this is hypothetical

The scenario was "Imagine there actually were WMD"

And I agree with you completely.

[boobooday]

15. Even if he had them

There was never evidence that he was preparing to use them -- an imminent threat -- like having them pointed at somebody ready to fire.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[BOSSHOG]

19. What if bush attacked his country? Like he did?

[elperromagico]

27. Push a cat into a corner, and out come the claws.

To think that Saddam wouldn't have fought back with every weapon at his disposal as soon as an American boot hit the sand is ridiculous.

If the cat was Saddam - the cat had been declawed years ago.

I think the original poster's point, though, was that Saddam was not prepared to attack another country (and certainly not the United States; he had no capability to do so).

[JanMichael]

18. It wouldn't have mattered. Because Iraq had not attacked us.

It was a UN issue, not and American solo (With a lap dog named Blair) issue.

I know it sounds preposturous but there's this theory that nations ought not to go around invading other nations just cause they wanna...

[BlueEyedSon]

31. More proof that Bush knows there are no WMD's

If they are there as described, they are plentiful and large. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Iraqis know where they are. Most would be Saddam loyalists, but now that Saddam is in captivity they should fear no reprisals for divulging a state secret.

So, just offer a big fat cash reward and, optionally, safe passage out. One must assume that "disarming" Iraq would still be a good idea, aside from validating the policies of the Bush admin.

Sorta like what OJ did (only Bush isn't as smart).

No reward offer = no real chance of finding preexisting WMD's.

Other possibilities:
1. We haven't planted them yet
2. Waiting for politically advantageous time to "discover" them