No WMD in Iraq

[SlowwHand]

Oh, bull****. It's a nation having to be babysitted.
Bastards wouldn't even lift a finger to rid themselves of Hussein.
What were they afraid of? Dying?
Sonofa***** was killing them off anyway.

And France is full of wimps and pussies.
If they want a say, they need to contribute; just like Bush is saying.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This is a going in a fairly pointless direction. Everyone has their own set of criteria for determining whether military action was justified- unless you're some sort of ideological empty carton ready to be filled with whatever your party/newspaper/social group thinks on your behalf.

To come out with comments like "The war was unjustified-FACT!" is nonsense. It's purely subjective. My own personal justifications were satisfied in this case, and if the motives of our glorious leaders were different then as far as I'm concerned the ends justified the means.

I don't think we intervene enough on humanitarian grounds. Had the Holocaust occurred, but Germany not invaded other nations post-1939 would military action have been justified? To me, it certainly would. Once you accept that, it's just a numbers game.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ramo


It should've been extensively planned ahead, and the plans should've been subject to public scruitiny to insure the liberties of Iraqis are being protected. The only plan Rummy created was to rely on a man convicted of a couple hundred million dollar bank fraud. Opposing a war and occupation run by a certain incompetent and evil administration doesn't mean opposing a war indefinitely.

You make some fair points, Ramo, but I wasn't sure how many more stories of Iraqi kids dying as a result of sanctions I could stomach. Or of ongoing HR abuses by the Ba'athists.

[Myrddin]

At least the US administration were open about the fact that the war was about regime change. In the UK it was dressed up as Iraq being a 'current threat', principally because of WMD.

There are now a lot of unhappy members of the UK Parliament who are feeling as if they were duped into starting a war

[Menlas]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And France is full of wimps and pussies.
If they want a say, they need to contribute; just like Bush is saying.

Bush said that ? Well, amen then . And don't forget your prayers for the "leader of the free world" before going to bed

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
This is a going in a fairly pointless direction. Everyone has their own set of criteria for determining whether military action was justified- unless you're some sort of ideological empty carton ready to be filled with whatever your party/newspaper/social group thinks on your behalf.

Yep, I agree with that.
Just as improbable as it is, that the Argments of someone of the Pro War Faction convince someone who thinks the war is unjustified,
so improbable it is, that anyne of those people who are against the war convince anyone who thinks the war is justified.

Most people posting in these threads have their points thought over for a long time and have come to te conclusion that their point of view is the correct one and it is hard to cnvince them rom the contrary.
(Holds also true for my part; it would be very vry hard to cionvince me that the war was justified. Altough I migt be convinced that there is a small chance that good things could come out of this war, there will be no chance to convince me, that the war was justified [as I see it as a war of Aggression, not covered by 1441 {I am one of those people who think, that another Resolution was necessary to start a war against the Iraq} and I also think, that it wasn´t just the UK but also he US-Government who played the WMD-Card, to convince the Public of the necessity of war and that there were no real talks about starting a war for Regime Change {which would also have made a separate UN-Resolution necessary} but always about starting a war to find those WMDs] )

[GePap]

The simple reason that the Bush admin. did not sell the war on humanitarian grounds, beyond the fact they don;t really give a damn about humanitariamisn (which is a big reason why not) is that, inherently, people in the US are anti-humanitarian wars (Sloww is case number 1 for this).

I have no problems with humanitarian wars, but for this Bush admin. (if not Blair), the humanitarian reasons came second, the theory reaosns came firts, and the theory under which this war was undertaken has shown itself to be faulty. It has not lead to Peace between Israelis and the Pals, it has not weakened Iran (whatever happened to the protestors?) it did nothing to dissuade NK from a nuclear program, oil is not cheaper, and support for Al Qaeada has stayed the same: the sanctions issue is now the occupation issue.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cruddy

Erm... no. I'm not desperate.

Your post says otherwise.

Not that I ever gave a stuff about the WMD. To me sitting in Kuwait waiting for the next suicide bomber for the next 10 years (or however long the Ba'athist regime lasted) was not a sensilble option.

And how many suicide bombers did Saddam send out to attack the western infidels? Zilch, none, nada.

You have no evidence, you have nothing...

NOT that things have gone perfectly - far from it. But it's nice to know that there are people who will face up to mass murderers, thugs and bullies, rather than sitting smugly on the side lines waiting for the next slip.

This reasoning is completely undermined by the fact that many of the people who advocated this war are the same people who supplied Saddam Hussein with the material and political support to commit these mass murders. Trying to argue that they underwent some mystical conversion experience that made them better people is simply ridiculous.

If you think that any reasonable person believes that this was a humanitarian war, then think again. Bush couldn't give a stuff about Arabs.

Some people never make a wrong move - because they never make a move.

Sound like anyone you know Agathon?

Again, your utter political naivete is touching. Here's a better one - if your course of action is idiotic, better to refrain.

Oh yeah, a couple other facts I heard from the Beeb; the interim report is going to stress very heavily that

a) Saddam definitely had a weapons development program, studying the weaponisation of both bio and chem weapons.

Again, another ridiculous smokescreen. The whole point of disarmament was to make sure that Saddam was no threat to his neighbours. He wasn't - he had nothing substantial left to fight with. I am sure that Saddam wanted to present the appearance of having WMD's in order to deter potential aggressors (Iran), and that is completely rational given his position.

What makes this whole thing complete bollocks is that chemical weapons are pretty much useless unless one faces WW1 style massed infantry (as Saddam did against Iran). In any case he would never use them against Israel, because he'd get a nuke up his butt.

And even the most powerful chemicals really suck as instruments of terror - look at the Aum Supreme Truth Cult - they only managed to kill the huge sum of twelve people in an enclosed space.

Bioweapons are also similarly unproven.

b) Conclusive proof that Saddam did not co-operate with the weapons inspectors prior to the war, actively fed them disinformation, and even built fake facilities to act as distractions. What was he hiding?

Like those farm trucks that were supposed to be mobile weapon factories? Or the "Drones of Death"? Give me a break.

Anyone living in the west who thought that this tinpot dictator was a significant threat to world peace is living in la-la land.

[Nubclear]

Why do you people always have to make such long posts? Can't you just say "I disagree and you suck try again " and be done with it?

[LoneWolf]

Oops. Our bad. Do you want Saddam back?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Comrade Tass: I disagree and you suck try again

[Jack_www]

Re: No WMD in Iraq

Originally posted by Myrddin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
This will be the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, the source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil


Something of a surprise

I heard that the report will say that Sadam did have an active weapons programm, but yes they have not found any WMDs.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by mindseye
The difference between 1991 and 2003 wasn't Saddam, it was the difference between multilateral and unilateral.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Yes- that's true. However the fact that other countries dithered doesn't leave me thinking it was somehow rendered immoral. I always considered it justified on humanitarian grounds alone.

Other countries dithering did not render it immoral. Other countries dithering rendered it less likely to be successful. By undertaking the mission alone this time, far greater long-term harm was brought both to the Iraqi people and American interests than by taking another year and building a coalition.

The benefits of a proper coalition backed by international sanction, better post-war planning, and collective funding for re-construction would have far outweighed the costs of another year of economic sanctions.

But the administration could have none of that. I still recall Donald Rumsfeld, a few months before the invasion, warning that "waiting will make war more likely".

[LoneWolf]

Oddly, we were, and are, criticized for not "supporting " the uprising in the south after the 1991 War. But we didn't because our "allies" wouldn't have it. So now we know, with certainty, that we are better off without "allies".
Its hard to believe that those who now criticize are on our side.