IRAQ - A few simple questions. Where do you stand?

Aside from the negative or positive news in Iraq, Iraq really boils down to a few simple questions if we are to continue forward as a nation. The bickering over "liberation", "Sadam was a bad guy", "the oil", etc. is really useless. You need to take the 10,000 feet view.


1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes | No

Why?


2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.


Yes | No

Why?

[edit on 16-1-2005 by NavyDog]

[edit on 16-1-2005 by NavyDog]

1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes | No

Why?

No, because the hypocrits sold iraq WMD or the parts/means during the 80's when they had an issue with iran. If they really beleived in a threat from WMD they could have gone in when saddam and chemical Ali murdered their own people, why wait so long?


2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.


Yes | No

Why?

Yes, because they had make the invasion/war they had planned seem reasonable in the public eye and draw attention away from whatever real motive they had/have.



[edit on 093131p://58019 by instar]

Originally posted by NavyDog
Aside from the negative or positive news in Iraq, Iraq really boils down to a few simple questions if we are to continue forward as a nation. The bickering over "liberation", "Sadam was a bad guy", "the oil", etc. is really useless. You need to take the 10,000 feet view.


1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes | No

Why?


2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.

Answer to number one: I think there were honest. I believe they were MISINFORMED though.

And the second answer: I don't think so. If it is probable they have deadly weapons I think it is ok to get a little paranoid. Perhaps we were to paranoid but I would rather be alive then not do anything and get killed. I don't think there was a spin on Iraq's capabilities, I don't even think there is a reason to!

I think we had to get back at someone for 9/11. Iraq and Afghanistan were the first to get attacked. We needed to blame someone.

Overall, I think I support the war on terror and I think the Bush administration is doing a good job.

Originally posted by NavyDog
Aside from the negative or positive news in Iraq, Iraq really boils down to a few simple questions if we are to continue forward as a nation. The bickering over "liberation", "Sadam was a bad guy", "the oil", etc. is really useless. You need to take the 10,000 feet view.


1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes | No

Why?


2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.


Yes | No

Why?

1) i believe there were never any WMD. It was an excuse to go to war, and hopefully that the UN would be onboard because of they had information saying that saddam had WMD. Tony Blair is on record saying iraq had wmd, then as the information filtered to the public that this was not the case, tony went back on his word and said 'we were misinformed, there are no wmd in iraq'. lies lies lies is what this war is built on.

2) i think its obvious a spin was put on iraq's capabilities. all we heard was they were the most dangerous country in the world, and that saddam has to be stopped. right now im more worried about countries such as north korea. i dont think there was an immediate threat with iraq, i believe there should have been a secret opperation to get saddam, rather than to go in with all guns blazing.

Originally posted by NavyDog
1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

No

I personally believe that the administration realized it's case for war was not accurate, but seeing as though the American population was already fearful from 9/11 it believed it could pass off Iraq as 'payback' in an attempt to secure it for future use. The administration's so-called evidence that Iraq had WMD was not solid and at times very vague and abstract, which would explain the reason the CIA did not approach the administration about Iraq.

Also war itself should be considered a last action for its first causality is innocence, and under no circumstances should war be considered in aggression (commonly disguised as pre-emption).
Nothing should be enough to warrant the deaths of so many people.

Originally posted by NavyDog
2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.

Yes

Its not as if the CIA came to the Bush administration saying that there was an 'imminent threat' from Iraq, the Bush administration probed the CIA for any information on Iraq. This would just go to show that any comments of Iraq being an 'imminent threat' came from the administration and not its intelligence agencies. Thus being said, the information held within such agencies would never be expected to be 100% accurate all the time. The Bush administration would have known this large margin of error yet still proceeded to hype up its case for war and created the image that Iraq was a threat to other countries when in fact we now know it was not.

Originally posted by NavyDog
1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes, I believe the Administration and all agencies truly believed there were WMDs in Iraq. Saddam Hussein never offered any evidence that the weapons previously identified were ever destroyed and basically all intelligence agencies around the world agreed, even they didn't agree about how to handle the situation.

2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.

Yes, again I truly believe they thought he had the WMDs but probably exaggerated the "immediate" threat to U.S. interests. However, a good argument based on preemptive strike could have been made and probably would have been accepted nonetheless.

1. No they weren't, even if they were misinformed you should always have the right evidence before you start a war, but now its too late.

2. Yes, every president that wants to get something done is going to put a spin on it to get the american people to go along with it.

If all of us adopted the preemptive strike doctrine, we'd all be killing each other, right here in good old US of A. "Oh, what? You said Johnny down the street there has guns? Well he might attack us. We better go take him out before he kills us."

1) As to the WMD's, I have said it before. I had faith in this government until it was reasonably determined that there were NO WMD's. Had our government issued an appology, immediately withdrawn, and made what reparations it could, I would still stand proud as an American. And even then, the preemptive doctrine is still just rediculous, and will continue to get us into trouble. Why was NK or Iran not attacked instead? Clearly they were much more of a threat. Why Afghan/Iraq? Terrorism? To me it is obvious that there are some alterior motives. As to what what those are, take your pick. Oil, pipelines, etc, etc. And much of the problem lies in the definition of that word terrorism. IMO, it could be argued that spying is a form of terrorism. And all that implies.

2) With alterior motives aboard, yes, of course they overinflated the threat.

Not from the U.S. but...

1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes | No

No. They fabricated rumours and information to make their case because the invasion was planned long in advance of 9/11. The threat of WMD was something tangible they could latch on to in order to get the American people (and hopefully the world on board). All this was to gain a foothold in the middle east.


2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.


Yes | No

Yes. Although I don't think Colin Powell made the case for the world, they certainly got the American people on board. The spin was so well orchestrated the people played right into the administrations hands, and not only were they able to go in under the guise of removing WMD, but also removing Saddam without anyone saying boo.

Originally posted by NavyDog
1) Do you believe this administration was honest in its assessment of Iraq and WMDs? Enough to warrant civilian death, military death, military wounded, future terrorism, change in pre-emptive doctrine?

Yes | No

Why?

Yes to the first and no to the second. I do not agree with the administration's decision to invade a soverign country on its own. Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions - the decision to invade Iraq should have been left to the UN, regardless of how "in bed" they were with the Iraqi regime. I do not believe for a moment that Hussein would ever have allowed Al Queda to thrive in Iraq - he feared them.

IMO it was better to have a secularist government in power than a possibly religious one that may emerge now.

2) Do you believe this administration put a spin on Iraq's capabilities by using the words "imminent threat" "immediate threat" and "mushroom clouds". By Colin Powell showing pictures of containers, etc - by putting fear in the air.

Of course and I would expect no less from any adminstration. Wars must be sold to the people at home before they can be won in the field. Look no further than the propaganda machines during WWII.

Regardless of my opinion of the war - we are there and must finish what we started. We have given the Iraqi people a glimmer of hope of establishing their own government and we cannot abandon them until the job is done. We owe them that.

B.

1) No

why? see copy and past im to lazy to link

story.news.yahoo.com.../usatoday/20050114/cm_usatoday/endtosearchforwmdsealsdoubtsaboutpreemption

2) yes

Why how else could they selling

[edit on 17-1-2005 by ikillspys]