Was our involvement in WW II justified?

[kyleb]

I don't know how people reach the conclusion that "the CIA knew there were no WMDs". How did the CIA know this, remote viewers? Saddam did everything in his power to keep the information a secret from us, and he succeeded. We know for a fact that he had nerve gas, and with that he didn't need a large military to be a credible threat.

Germany declared war on the US; Saddam anounced that he was going to destroy the US. We had just as much reason to believe him as we did Hitler.

WW2 was not started over what the CIA did or didn't think they knew, it was not started over what information or weapons anyone was holding, and it was not started over any announcements. WW2 was started because the Axis powers chose to launch their attacks; while the war in Iraq was started because we chose to launch ours.

 

[LURCH]

The US's involvement in WW2 (in Europe, at least) was started by an announcement. We enetered the war when Germany declared war on us, even though they did not launch any attacks on us, their declaration of intent to do so was the reason we launched our attacks on them when we did.

How is Saddam's declaration any different?

 

[kyleb]

We would have been justified in entering the war long before as by then there were many nations who deserved our help in defending them. Again, the Axis started WW2 and everyone defending themselves or those attacked were justified in doing so. I'm not sure what "Saddam's declaration" you speak of either. Justification for this war was first attempted on theories about weapons that never held much water. After that it shifted to a plan to throw the Iraqi people into chaos, I'm sorry, I mean "liberate" them.

Regardless, surely you understand that Saddam in no place to wage much war. His armies proved that quite clearly could barely hold a defense on their own soil; and our weapons searches turned up even less than what little the CIA expected there might be. Surely you can respect the difference between whatever declaration from Saddam you might be speaking of and the war that the Axis powers were actively waging whether we ever made the choice to attack them or not.

 

[LURCH]

... I'm not sure what "Saddam's declaration" you speak of either. Justification for this war was first attempted on theories about weapons that never held much water. After that it shifted to a plan to throw the Iraqi people into chaos, I'm sorry, I mean "liberate" them.

I'm speaking of Saddam's declaration that Iraq would destroy the United States. That is a declaration of war, and requires a response, especially coming from someone who was known to have WMD's, and the willingness to use them.

Liberating the Iraqi people is certainly a great benifit of the war, and not at all trivial IMO, but it was never the reason for the war.

Regardless, surely you understand that Saddam in no place to wage much war. His armies proved that quite clearly could barely hold a defense on their own soil; and our weapons searches turned up even less than what little the CIA expected there might be. Surely you can respect the difference between whatever declaration from Saddam you might be speaking of and the war that the Axis powers were actively waging whether we ever made the choice to attack them or not.

As I said, we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's, and that makes the condition of his conventional army irrelevant to his abillity to cause destruction on US soil. He said he would attack, and his proven possession of, and willingness to use, these weapons made him a credible threat, one that had to be elliminated.

 

[Anttech]

As I said, we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's, and that makes the condition of his conventional army irrelevant to his abillity to cause destruction on US soil. He said he would attack, and his proven possession of, and willingness to use, these weapons made him a credible threat, one that had to be elliminated.

Your reasoning is based on an assumption that Sadam had the ability to inflict harm on the US from Iraq. Do you really believe this? Having WMD and being able to deliever them intercontentinentally are two different things. Nobody thought Sadam was going to "cause destruction on US soil"

The general consences is that Iraq was a mistake. But we have to live with it, the real questions we should be asking now, is how we should fix this mess. (And it is a total mess).

 

[kyleb]

I'm speaking of Saddam's declaration that Iraq would destroy the United States.

Will you please directly quote what you are referencing here?

As I said, we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's...

Surely you are not speaking of weapons able to destroy the United States? I can't say I've heard of anything like that either found or presumed missing so I'm really curious to get specifics on what you are speaking of here as well.