Originally Posted by: magicninjaOk I just don't get that if these chemical shells were the reason we went into Iraq why it wouldn't be a huge story. Apparently the public doesn't feel that those shells were enough to go to war over, I know I don't. I concede that I wouldn't want any weapons of that kind on any side.[/quote]
1). By and large, the public doesn't know about those munitions at all.

2). The truth about the WMD issue is that it isn't what either side wants it to be. There were no stockpiles that you could wage a chemical or biological offensive with nor indications that Iraq was actively manufacturing any WMDs, but there's too much evidence indicating that Saddam planned to reconstitute his WMD programs after the end of UN sanctions to ignore the long-term threat to regional security he presented.

As with anything, the truth is far more complicated than anybody would care to suggest and most people only hear what they want to believe. Anti-war and Anti-Bush people are never going to see a viable reason to go war with Iraq, end of story.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaWe still have no right to go in and force it on them. If they want it so bad let them do it themselves. It's not that Iraq is politically divided but moreso religously divided. Who are we to go tell anyone how to live. Change has to come from within or it's bound to fail.[/quote]
"Democracy" is not enough of a reason, I will readily concede that.

However, "Democracy" is not the only reason and never was. There was a huge laundry list of reasons to invade Iraq and most of them we had every reason to believe to be true.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a long term strategic threat to the region that was only getting worse and worse as years passed – either by his regime's eventual collapse or by its survival and eventual rearmament. Due to the number of allies we have in the surrounding area, a threat like that can't be ignored. Not if you intend to live up to the treaties you sign and not if you intend to be a responsible global citizen.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaI'm all for UN peacekeepers helping a fledgling government after the fact but to go in and be the cause to me is just not right.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but personally I'm not for another "Food for Sex" scandal.

Originally Posted by: Logan8267 pages of post on this topic and not one person points out the obvious here. Look folks, Number one, we were attacked on our own soil. We should have been over there with-in hours and without predjudice or remorse...[/quote]
Nor planning, I suppose??

Sir, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the people of this country with my life if need be, but I personally happen to value my life a little more than that.


[QUOTE=Logan826]yet we wait almost 3 yrs.

We were in Afghanistan (al Queda's former base of operations) within weeks... I really don't know what you're trying to say.



[QUOTE=Logan826]Number two, we have no business fighting someone elses civil wars, (and that's exactly what this is. a civil war that has been going on for 1000s of yrs.)

Elements of the sectarian violence we're seeing today have been at play for hundreds of years, but the biggest divisions were incited by Saddam Hussein only decades ago and the people we see acting them out are a substantial (if very brutal) minority. The majority of Sunnis and Shiahs only want to raise their families in peace and there's a substantial amount of intermarriage between Sunni and Shiah families.



[QUOTE=Logan826]stock market crash,

Have you looked at the stock market lately? Here's a hint: It's setting records and they're not lows.



[QUOTE=z0s0_jp]"The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, here’s what the administration’s own inspectors reported:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

I've read substantial portions of the Kay and Duelfer reports for myself and [in summation] they don't say what these excerpts say.

Moreover, finds have been made since they were written indicating (as Mr. Kay said in an interview with NPR) that the amount of chemical weapons we've found indicated that Iraq produced FAR more chemical munitions than anybody had previously estimated.

Back to the reports, what they effectively say is "we don't know." We know that Chemical, Nuclear and Biological weapon manufacturing and R&D capabilities were being preserved as much as possible and we know that Saddam went to great effort right before the invasion to obscure as much of the truth as possible.

Beyond that, nobody can really say anything for certain.


I urge you to do a quick google search for the Kay and Duelfer reports; they're very easy to find and you owe it to yourself to see what they actually have to say.