If we had found WMD in Iraq, would the invasion have been justified?

[Guaranteed]

Everyone talks about how Bush lied to start this war. But that argument implies that IF there had been WMD, it would have justified invasion.

My thought is that it wouldn't have. No COUNTRY has attacked us since WWII, and it's for one reason- we have The Bomb. Terrorists have attacked us, yes, however terrorists use guerilla tactics, effectively making the The Bomb useless. But Saddam wasn't in that situation. We knew where he lived, and even if he had given some kind of WMD to a terrorist organization to use against us, we would have found out about it and made him pay for it, in the worst way.

Besides that, Saddam had no motive to do anything like that. He had a GREAT racket going. He was the CEO of an oil corporation called Iraq, living the life of luxury. What the hell would he have to gain from helping terrorists attack us, or attacking us himself?

Anyway, I realize that many of us made this very same argument before the war started, and during it, but I'd just like to bring it up again as a side note to our "Bush lied" argument.

What do you think? Was Saddam enough of a threat, if he had had WMD, to justify an invasion?

[Somawas]

1. I voted for "something else" because

even if he had WMD he was never a threat, but more important-the "Bush doctrine" of preemptive war is just wrong. Bad policy. Immoral. Wrong.

[Guaranteed]

2. Totally agreed.

EXTREMELY bad ethics.

You don't start a war to avoid a war.

[DivinBreuvage]

3. Hell YES it would have been justified! What if he teamed up

with the Nicaraguan Sandanistas? They could be in Harlan, Texas in 48 hours spreading anthrax and Godless Bolshevism!!!

(For our sarcasm-challenged readers here, this post is in fact sarcasm. It also refers to some similar "scare the public" nonsense from the Reagan administration.)

[markses]

10. Saddam possessed African Killer Bees

And he wasn't afraid to use them.

;-)

[gottaB]

4. If Blix had found WMD's

and the Security Council had agreed on the need for military action to disarm Iraq, perhaps it would have been justified.

Another administration might have solved the problem without launching a full-scale invasion, either through diplomacy or tactical strikes. So the presence of WMDs would not in itself have made war absolutely necessary.

But it's moot. George Bush, War Crimes pResident, wanted war at any cost, and that's what he got.

[rpannier]

5. I Picked Something Else

India, Pakistan and other countries have WMD's, so I think that's not really the issue -- for me at least. Now, if you could have shown that he had the capabilities (a fleet of ships to transport the weapons, or long range missile systems) and he was planning on striking at the United States, or another country, France, the UAE, Isreal, Ethiopia, etc (It doesn't matter) then I would be more supportive, because then he is/was a serious threat to the safety other countries.
But, even with a nuclear bomb, that doesn't mean he would use it, or had the capability to hit the United States or a US protectorate.

[OneTwentyoNine]

6. Should we be invaded because of our WMD??

Why its OK for the US to have the majority of the WMD in the WORLD but no one else should be able to possess them?

Ahhh,I know...its because we wouldn't use them. Nah...we illegally invade and kill tens of thousands of innocents without using WMD. That makes it OK for us to possess them...

David

[Guaranteed]

7. You've got a helluva point there.

Pretty damned hypocritical of us.

[trof]

8. No, because we're the good guys.

And "they" are the bad guys.
And yer either with us or agin us.
I hope that's settled, once and for all, now.
;-)

[MichiganVote]

11. So...

let me see if I understand the question. Is it ok for us to invade another country that is proven beyond a "slam dunk" to have WMD and / or that have WMD that are a proven threat to us?

Sure. Bring our guys home because its a slam dunk we have WMD and WMD have proven to be a threat to our safety, our environment and in some locale, the population. Since we have used them against other nations in wars, they are also a threat to our international relationships.

But we're a democracy with fairness and equality as a part of our mandate...so, lets also invade countries such as

North Korea,(no love lost for the US but not the kind of oil we're looking for either),
Russia,(WMD are old and unstable but hey, they do have some oil)
India,(Ok, they have that cow thing going but let's face it they are eating our jobs, so screw em')
Pakistan,(Osama Bin Laden and WMD in the same neighborhoon people)

How about our own state of Alaska? Oh, that's right, we're on the verge of doing that and building a huge pipeline at the behest of the Alaskan representatives.

This was/is not a war about WMD. It is a war about a reource named oil and so long as Americans insist on the priviledge of guzzling the stuff like heroin addict's, we'll be faced with this dilemma.

Look around. With a great deal of the world's manufacturing moving to other nations, how soon do you think our prices will reflect those of Europe? 2 years?, 5 years?, 10 years?

Think!

[gottaB]

9. The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by 11 of the Allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn....

http://honors.umd.edu/HONR269J/archive/JFK630610.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Is Israel next? They're jampacked with WMD.

They certainly contribute to "regional instability". They have stated that they are willing to use their WMD. They've used terrorist tactics on many occasions. They are an oppressive regime and have killed thousands of civilians. Their prisons are full of political prisoners.

So.....can we expect the marines and paratroopers to be "liberating" Tel Aviv or Jerusalem any time soon?