Why did we have to remove Saddam Hussein from power? (Congress, weapons)

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by victimofGM

Guess we were wrong to assume people in the region could govern themselves without having to resort to torture and mass murder and using chemical weapons on their own people.

We will probably NEVER know because Obama pulled out BEFORE we were finished.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by lorrysda

4. Saddam sent his "weapons of mass destruction" over the border into Syria...truck load after truck load which was caught on satellite.

(703) 482-0623 - that's CIA, Langley. They seem unaware of this.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Have we forgotten the Reagan policy of keeping natural enemies fighting each other to cheaply do our bidding?

Some people were not satisfied with this. They wanted a genuine client mideast oil state, not places like israel or turkey, which however strategically important they are, are not oil states. The saudis don't count as the controllable oil state they wanted, because a devil's bargain has been made - the saudis get to stay in power and export wahabbism, as long as they provide covert help to the us. Covert because the saudi population would be in open rebellion otherwise. This is not as stable a situation as, say, a totally owned iraq was fantasized to be.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Look up the order Bill Clinton signed for regime change in Iraq...

Ehm - by "order", I presume you mean the Iraq Liberation Act? The one about designating and supporting Iraqi democratic groups? The one very specifically prohibiting the President from doing anything beyond supporting said groups - like, say, launching an invasion? The one with a firm $97 million spending cap?

In short, this act? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...105publ338.htm

Not really seeing where that backs a trillion-dollar invasion and occupation, truth be told.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

So the war was justified, it just failed to achieve its central objective? Good intentions, incompetently carried out?

Incidentally, the left-wing peacenik nutjobs at the CIA concluded that there were no WMD, nor programs, to be found.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/.../iraq_wmd_2004

Is this the SAME CIA who gave Congress via, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees the info over the years that they based their quote on?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Those poor, poor democrats. Too stupid to figure out for themselves that not only were they WRONG when they were in power, they were STILL WRONG in 2003! After they didn't vote for the war that they voted for!

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by Glenn Miller

Sure he was an evil corrupt dictator but he was no actual threat to us and he kept the Middle East in order with an iron fist.

He should have been removed in 1991 after the Kuwati invasion that brought about The Persian Gulf War.

[TheDusty]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

We will probably NEVER know because Obama pulled out BEFORE we were finished.

Finished with what? We got Saddam. Isn't that why we were there (I know that's not why, but that's what we were told)? If we really wanted to 'spread democracy' why stay for so long after Saddam was removed from office? Surely a democracy doesn't need a foreign military to occupy it. I mean, really, that's not a democracy and if any other nation on Earth had done it, we'd condemn that as being a military dictatorship. But we did it, so who care, right? Add that to the list of lies, like manifest destiny and a free market (well, the last one used to be true).

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by Glenn Miller

Sure he was an evil corrupt dictator but he was no actual threat to us and he kept the Middle East in order with an iron fist.

Why don't you research it to find the answer. You won't find it here. All you will get are opinions.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Glenn Miller

Sure he was an evil corrupt dictator but he was no actual threat to us and he kept the Middle East in order with an iron fist.

He indeed may have been a threat to us and he did not keep the middle east in order. He kept Iraq under his thumb pretty well though.

[TheDusty]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

He indeed may have been a threat to us and he did not keep the middle east in order. He kept Iraq under his thumb pretty well though.

Which was his job, and he did it. Certainly not in the nicest of ways, but it's better than what's going on now.

One could argue that we would have no way of seeing this coming, but really, we couldn't have predicted that? You remove a government, install a new one that is monitored by the US military, then leave and just assume the government that has been dependent for it's entire existence would stay in tact? Pretty sure that was possibility that could have been predicted before hand. Perhaps ISIS and how extreme they truly are was a surprise, but this type of event should have been expected, at least to some extent.