STING2 said:The fact remains that Saddam Hussien FAILED to verifiably disarm of all WMD in violation of multiple UN resolutions and 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
STING2 said:The use of military force was in fact long overdue, as it had become evident at least by 1998 that Saddam had no intention of ever fully complying with the international communities demands there by making military action a necessity.
Diemen said:
I find this interesting. If it was evident by at least 1998 that Saddam had no intention of complying and that military force was a necessity, then why did several members of the Bush administration, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, in public addresses in early 2001 state that Saddam Hussein posed no major threat because he had no access to weapons and that the (then) present sanctions were effectively containing him? If it was so evident 3 years prior that force would be necessary, why would there be no threat 3 years later? Could it possibly be because he did disarm to the point that he wasn't a threat? And to further that point, if in Feb. 2001 he posed little to no threat whatsoever, how could he pose such an immediate threat less than a year later that we had to invade immediately? That kind of turnaround from a non-threat to an imminent threat with the capability to cause mass terror seems a little far-fetched to me.
Face it, the Bush administration sold this war in part on lies. That he failed to verifiably disarm is a moot point. That is not how the administration sold this war. They tried that route, but when they saw it wasn't rallying the kind of support necessary, they sprinkled a little Al Qaeda/terrorism pixie dust and then things took flight.
And as of yet the "Coalition of the Willing" have absolutely and utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein posed anything even remotely resembling an imminent threat to the United States or it's allies. To me that is the damning factor. A few canisters here and there, but nothing that suggests an imminent threat which needed immediate military action to prevent.
Earnie Shavers said:Sting, A_Wanderer you're missing the point of the thread and a lot of the articles being posted. Sting you can put that "failed to verifiably disarm" speech in here in every second post if you want, but it's not what we're talking about.
If thats all the Coalition claimed was their reasoning for war, you would have had Bush speeches going "Well, we don't know if we have them or not, but they might, and Hussein won't tell us either way, and cos he won't, we're going to find out". That would create a very different pre war debate.
Instead there's loads of fear. We KNOW they are there. We KNOW he'll use them or sell them. We KNOW this could happen at any time. We MUST act immediately.
Very different, and thats the point. The article posted at the top of this page (Sydney Morning Herald article) discredits Powells entire speech to the UN. That was a crucial speech in gaining support from governments, the media and the public. And it was B.S.
They NEVER stated that Saddam Hussien did not pose a threat nor did they state that Saddam Hussien had complied with the UN resolutions or that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD. Saddam at that time in 2001 had still failed to account for Thousands of Liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells according to UNITED NATIONS Weapons inspectors who had been kicked out two years earlier.
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
Diemen said:
I never said they stated that Saddam Hussein had complied with the UN resolutions or had verifiably disarmed, so don't put words in my mouth.
And with that said, I'm going to call you on this one. I give you this quote, straight from Colin Powell's mouth, from a press conference in Cairo, Egypt on February 24, 2001 (I put the most relevant part in bold), in response to a question on the sanctions on Iraq:
Yes, there you have it. No significant WMD capability, and was in fact weakened to the point that he couldn't even bully his neighbors with conventional force.
So...what were you saying again?
Originally posted by STING2
Colin Powell never stated that Saddam did not have WMD capability
He's basically saying that Saddam posed no threat re: WMDs. Can we agree on that?Originally said by Colin Powell
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
Diemen said:Whether what will proceed out of Iraq will be a liberal democratic tradition remains to be seen. Right now much of the power still resides with the US, regardless of the "handover" of power. There are still the different factions within Iraq who have yet to come to terms with one another, and simple democracy is unlikely to fix that problem.
As far as state sponsors of terrorism, Iraq was, at best, a very minor player in the middle east. It has already been well documented that there were no significant ties between Saddam's regime and the Al Qaeda network of terrorists.
And if we are to really go after state sponsorship of terrorism, then we must, as uncomfortable as it may be to the Bush administration and certain US corporations, set our sights squarely on Saudi Arabia (and then Pakistan), who has been arguably the biggest source of funding for terrorism in the middle east for years. There are obviously some uncomfortable facts that have remained hidden - the 20 odd classified pages regarding Saudi Arabia in the recent 9/11 commission's reports, for one. Saudi Arabia is far more guilty of harboring and funding terrorism than Iraq ever was, and is just as guilty of crimes against it's people as Saddam was, and yet they are our allies?
This is why I view the war on terror as partially a sham. We simply cannot truthfully seek out to root out and destroy terror while allowing one of the principal funders and harborers of terrorists into our homes as we do with the Saudi's. But to remove ties with them would undoubtedly create a very negative impact on our economy which the Saudi's have invested a very large amount in. And I have little faith that those in power will wean themselves off the teat of money long enough to see the strange bedfellows they've created and try to rectify the problem.
Rono said:And the same United Weapons inspectors ask for 6 more weeks. it seems that those inspectors are only usefull when you can use them for you story.
STING2 said:There are certainly individuals and groups in Saudi Arabia that support Terrorism, but that is not the policy of the Saudi Government.
anitram said:
There is no way you can state that with any sort of certainty. How do you know what individuals or groups within the government and the ruling family support on the side all while smiling for the cameras?
At best, the Saudi Government has been complicit in terrorism, and has refused to properly crack down on the Wahhabist Islamist terrorists that are constantly bandied about on this forum.
At worst, the terrorists are quietly sponsored by the state, while the House of Saud talks out of both sides of their mouth.
Either way, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit.
STING2 said:Saudi Arabia definitely has a lot of problems, but its not the boogy man that liberals make it out to be.
Iraq definitely has a lot of problems, but its not the boogy man that conservatives make it out to be.
STING2 said:Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked in the previous 10 years, threatening the worlds energy supply and global economy, and the process used WMD more times than any leader in history and murdered over 1.7 million people.
Diemen said:
And he invaded one of those countries with the support of the US government, despite having already used WMDs, and I believe our statement at the time of his first attack against his own Kurdish people was along the lines of "what he does to his own people is his own business," so we weren't exactly taking a stand against tyranny there, either.
STING2 said:Why would the Saudi Arabian Government support hurting its largest interest and investment?