Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong
- Thread starter MrBrau1
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Klaus
Refugee
'Serious flaws' in Iraq intelligence
Mr Blair said he takes "full responsibility" for any mistakes made in good faith.
In a 196 page report it says MI6 did not check its sources well enough, and sometimes relied on third hand reports.
It also says the 2002 dossier should not have included the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes, without explaining what that meant.
"More weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear" Lord Butler said, and he criticised the government for publicly stating the JIC had "ownership" of the dossier, lending it more credibility than it might otherwise have had.
Full Report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_04_butler.pdf
Mr Blair said he takes "full responsibility" for any mistakes made in good faith.
In a 196 page report it says MI6 did not check its sources well enough, and sometimes relied on third hand reports.
It also says the 2002 dossier should not have included the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes, without explaining what that meant.
"More weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear" Lord Butler said, and he criticised the government for publicly stating the JIC had "ownership" of the dossier, lending it more credibility than it might otherwise have had.
Full Report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_07_04_butler.pdf
That same report also said that Tony Blair did not attempt to mislead the Public.
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. Member states of the UN are authorized to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance with the resolutions in regards to Saddam's Iraq.
Saddam failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 bio/chem capable shells just to name a few things. 12 years of peaceful UN inspections failed to accomplish the objectives of the UN resolutions in achieving the complete verifiable disarmament of all of Saddam's WMD. The previous 12 years showed that only military force could insure that Saddam was verifiably disarmed. 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.
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. Member states of the UN are authorized to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance with the resolutions in regards to Saddam's Iraq.
Saddam failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 bio/chem capable shells just to name a few things. 12 years of peaceful UN inspections failed to accomplish the objectives of the UN resolutions in achieving the complete verifiable disarmament of all of Saddam's WMD. The previous 12 years showed that only military force could insure that Saddam was verifiably disarmed. 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.
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
STING2 said:
my god....why don't you just put this in your signature, it would save you having to type it in every single post you make.
Q Do you agree with abortion, sting?
A 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
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
That is a fact that Saddam Hussien failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD in violation of multiple UN resolutions and 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. It seems that no matter how much Sting repeats the blindingly obvious people will still try to ignore it.
We have found banned Chemical weapons, mustard gas, sarin and cyclosarin so it is flawed to say that we have found no WMD, we have in fact found WMD however no stockpiles have been found. Found the tools that Saddam could use to produce biological weapons and have found that he retained banned missile programs that exeeded the UN limits. It has now been established that the Baathist regime did in fact go to Niger in search of yellowcake and Mr. Wilsons claims that it was all a lie have been proven false, the British, French and Italian intelligence agencies have stood by it. The Russian government admitted that Iraq/Al Qaeda links were known to their intelligence agencies prior to the war - was all their intelligence also analysed by the comittee on intelligence?. Saddam did not comply and he was removed, there may have been systematic problems in judging the threat posed by Saddam but if worrying too much resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants, worrying too little resulted in 9/11 and I am sure that that is a better place to be than the recieving end of a preventable attack. The man had the intent and the capacity to create the means, prempting him was right and I think is a very good thing.
We have found banned Chemical weapons, mustard gas, sarin and cyclosarin so it is flawed to say that we have found no WMD, we have in fact found WMD however no stockpiles have been found. Found the tools that Saddam could use to produce biological weapons and have found that he retained banned missile programs that exeeded the UN limits. It has now been established that the Baathist regime did in fact go to Niger in search of yellowcake and Mr. Wilsons claims that it was all a lie have been proven false, the British, French and Italian intelligence agencies have stood by it. The Russian government admitted that Iraq/Al Qaeda links were known to their intelligence agencies prior to the war - was all their intelligence also analysed by the comittee on intelligence?. Saddam did not comply and he was removed, there may have been systematic problems in judging the threat posed by Saddam but if worrying too much resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants, worrying too little resulted in 9/11 and I am sure that that is a better place to be than the recieving end of a preventable attack. The man had the intent and the capacity to create the means, prempting him was right and I think is a very good thing.
Last edited:
STING2 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.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Diemen said:
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
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.
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.
Diemen,
You have mis-understood what Powell and others said at the begining of 2001 as they were entering office. They said that they had not seen evidence of a NEW build up of WMD material and that a coalition was still enforcing an embargo and sanctions remained in place.
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.
The Bush administration announced upon entering office that they were going to work hard to resolve the problems regarding Iraq's failure to comply and cooperate with the resolutions and UN inspectors.
No one has ever stated that Saddam was a "non-threat". The basis for the war in Iraq is Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. This basis is grounded in the UN resolutions and the results from UN inspections. When Iraq kicked out UN inspectors in November 1998, the UN inspectors then stated that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things.
This fact has stood every year since 1998. The Bush administration attempted to resolve the issue in 2002 and gave Saddam one last chance. Saddam did not take it and returned to the same bullshit games he played in the 1990s. The invasion started in March 2003 and successfully removed Saddam from power.
At any time, Saddam could send all or part of his 400,000 man military into neighboring countries with whatever conventional and non-conventional weapons they had. This is why the UNITED NATIONS at the end of the Gulf War required Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and passed those resolutions under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force if Saddam fails to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
In light of Saddam's past behavior, the unprovoked invasion and attack of 4 different countries, the murder of 1.7 million people in Iraq and neighboring countries, the widest use of WMD by any leader in history, the United Nations felt Saddam's possession of WMD was a grave threat to the world which is why multiple resolutions were passed authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to completely disarm. Saddam stopped all cooperation with the UN inspectors in 1998 which is why I site that date as the date when it became obvious to most people that Saddam was never going to comply with the resolutions.
Bill Clinton made the US policy toward Iraq one of "regime change" after Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Unfortunately, while this was the correct policy, no serious effective action was taken in the regard until Bush began to in 2002.
The Bush administration has NEVER lied about anything! Yes, liberals can cherry pick various pieces of intelligence used in some speaches which have not turned out to be accurate, but that is the nature of intelligence. Every day in the CIA at US military intelligence headquarters through out Iraq and in Afghanistan, people involved with intelligence analyze things and take actions based on things that later turn out to be not entirely accurate or flat out wrong.
The Administration central case for war against Saddam was his failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. The #1 document in that case is UN resolution 1441 which was authored by the United States and then approved by a 15-0 vote in the Security Council. The speech that Bush gave in Ohio or Nebraska listing a piece of intelligence that later turned out not to be true is the moot point. The vast majority of those speeches sited by liberals happened after Congress and the United Nations had authorized war in October and November of 2002 if Saddam did not comply.
The intelligence listed in some of those speeches were supporting points, but not the central case for war as outlined by the President to the global community in September of 2002.
"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."
The United Nations already determined in 1991 that Saddam was a grave threat to the entire world and had to be disarmed or face the use of military force to do just that. The UN inspectors found thousands of pieces of evidence which showed this when they were on the ground from 1991-1998 in Iraq.
I remind you that Saddam, according to United Nations inspectors failed to account for thousands of liters of ANTRHAX, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, over 20,000 bio/Chem capable shells, just to name a few things.
It has never been incumbent upon any member state of the United Nations to prove that SADDAM had WMD. It was incumbent upon SADDAM and SADDAM alone to prove that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD. Those were the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement and are backed up by multiple UN resolutions.
What the Coalition finds or does not find now in Iraq is irrelevant to the case for war. The war was based on his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. To this DAY, Saddam has failed to do that.
You have mis-understood what Powell and others said at the begining of 2001 as they were entering office. They said that they had not seen evidence of a NEW build up of WMD material and that a coalition was still enforcing an embargo and sanctions remained in place.
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.
The Bush administration announced upon entering office that they were going to work hard to resolve the problems regarding Iraq's failure to comply and cooperate with the resolutions and UN inspectors.
No one has ever stated that Saddam was a "non-threat". The basis for the war in Iraq is Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. This basis is grounded in the UN resolutions and the results from UN inspections. When Iraq kicked out UN inspectors in November 1998, the UN inspectors then stated that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things.
This fact has stood every year since 1998. The Bush administration attempted to resolve the issue in 2002 and gave Saddam one last chance. Saddam did not take it and returned to the same bullshit games he played in the 1990s. The invasion started in March 2003 and successfully removed Saddam from power.
At any time, Saddam could send all or part of his 400,000 man military into neighboring countries with whatever conventional and non-conventional weapons they had. This is why the UNITED NATIONS at the end of the Gulf War required Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and passed those resolutions under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force if Saddam fails to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
In light of Saddam's past behavior, the unprovoked invasion and attack of 4 different countries, the murder of 1.7 million people in Iraq and neighboring countries, the widest use of WMD by any leader in history, the United Nations felt Saddam's possession of WMD was a grave threat to the world which is why multiple resolutions were passed authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to completely disarm. Saddam stopped all cooperation with the UN inspectors in 1998 which is why I site that date as the date when it became obvious to most people that Saddam was never going to comply with the resolutions.
Bill Clinton made the US policy toward Iraq one of "regime change" after Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Unfortunately, while this was the correct policy, no serious effective action was taken in the regard until Bush began to in 2002.
The Bush administration has NEVER lied about anything! Yes, liberals can cherry pick various pieces of intelligence used in some speaches which have not turned out to be accurate, but that is the nature of intelligence. Every day in the CIA at US military intelligence headquarters through out Iraq and in Afghanistan, people involved with intelligence analyze things and take actions based on things that later turn out to be not entirely accurate or flat out wrong.
The Administration central case for war against Saddam was his failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. The #1 document in that case is UN resolution 1441 which was authored by the United States and then approved by a 15-0 vote in the Security Council. The speech that Bush gave in Ohio or Nebraska listing a piece of intelligence that later turned out not to be true is the moot point. The vast majority of those speeches sited by liberals happened after Congress and the United Nations had authorized war in October and November of 2002 if Saddam did not comply.
The intelligence listed in some of those speeches were supporting points, but not the central case for war as outlined by the President to the global community in September of 2002.
"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."
The United Nations already determined in 1991 that Saddam was a grave threat to the entire world and had to be disarmed or face the use of military force to do just that. The UN inspectors found thousands of pieces of evidence which showed this when they were on the ground from 1991-1998 in Iraq.
I remind you that Saddam, according to United Nations inspectors failed to account for thousands of liters of ANTRHAX, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, over 20,000 bio/Chem capable shells, just to name a few things.
It has never been incumbent upon any member state of the United Nations to prove that SADDAM had WMD. It was incumbent upon SADDAM and SADDAM alone to prove that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD. Those were the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement and are backed up by multiple UN resolutions.
What the Coalition finds or does not find now in Iraq is irrelevant to the case for war. The war was based on his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. To this DAY, Saddam has failed to do that.
Earnie Shavers said:
If your talking about the central case for war against Saddam, then the resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement are the starting and ending point for debate.
It was the United Nations that has voted and approved multiple resolutions approving the use of force if Saddam failed to disarm. Those resolutions NEVER stated that covert intelligence from either the CIA or any other intelligence agency was required in order for military force to be authorized.
Since 1991, the use of military force against Saddam has been authorized if Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. Resolution 678 and 687 were the resolutions that authorized military action and the Bush administration got a further resolution authorizing military action in 2002, with resolution 1441.
Powell's speech was an attempt to confer more legitimacy upon a coming military action that was already authorized by 3 different UN resolutions. Any time intelligence is used especially on such a difficult area, it is bound to be flawed.
For example, the IAEA and other UN agency's gave Saddam a clean bill of health when it came to the production of Nuclear Weapons in 1988. We then found out in the 1991 Gulf War that Saddam was only a year away from developing a Nuclear Weapon.
That is why outside "intelligence" was never the central case in regards to the use of force against Iraq. In the resolutions, the United Nations stated that Iraq's "verifiable disarmament" or failure to would be the determining factor on whether war was needed or not. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove he had fully disarmed to the United Nations inspectors and Saddam decided he would not do that.
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?
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Perhaps the political niceties to reassure the arab world that the US had no interest in invading Arab countries went out the window when we learnt the hard way that Arab world is quite capable of sending its misery to our shores and that the only way to prevent a worse attack is to resolve any persistent threats is to take strong action. It was taken, Saddam is gone and any threat that in the next decade he could have reconstituted his weapons and furthur expoited Al Qaeda links is gone, it is not inconcievable that the regime could have reconstituted its weapons stockpiles over this decade and frankly that was too great a risk in a world where the strength of Islamist terrorism had come sharply into focus.
Last edited:
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?
Colin Powell has been asked about his statement there and as said it is not inconsistent with administration policy today. In the statement Colin Powell was refering to sanctions and sanctions ability to prevent Saddam from developing new WMD with materials from outside the country. Colin Powell never stated that Saddam did not have WMD capability or that war would never be needed to resolve Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD.
The statement is NOT inconsistent with what the Administration has said and done over the past few years. The administration has never claimed that sanctions did not disrupt Saddam's conventional and non-conventional abilities.
Despite the cries of liberals that Sanctions were hurting just the Iraqi people, sanctions and the embargo were the only effective means at the time short of war in containing Saddam and hindering his ability's. While Sanctions and the embargo were very effective early on, new information has shown that sanctions were eroding and Saddam over the past couple of years was making 2-4 Billion per year from illegal oil sales.
In addition, my friends that were in the war found various weapons from anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles that are brand new, foreign made, and were in the possession of Iraqi forces.
Ultimately, Sanctions and the Embargo, even re-newed inspections, failed to achieve the verifiable disarmament of Saddam. After 12 years, everything short of a full scale military invasion had been tried and had failed to accomplish the verifiable disarmament of Saddam.
Today Saddam sits in a 12 x 12 cell. One hopes that someday, those that opposed the war will realize the benefits of that fact.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
If I may add, the weapons sold to the Baathist regime were done through smuggling by among others Russian and Chinese groups, a specific example is the shipment of night vision goggles sold to Iraq by the russians just prior to the war, a tool which no doubt aided the republican guard considerably and may continue today in fighting against the Americans.
A_Wanderer, Islamic fundamendalist terrorists have made it quite clear they're willing to bring terror to the US mainland. Saddam Hussein is not an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are not peers. They do not share equal status in spreading terror. Name me ONE terrorist act carried out by Iraq against the US in the last 10 years. ONE.
Please. Let's forego petty semantics.
Yes, he failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
HOWEVER, just because he failed to verifiably disarm does not mean we should've diverted our resources from fighting the true war on terror and invade his country when he posed no immediate threat to us. There has been absolutely NO solid evidence presented that Saddam posed an imminent threat, and really that is how this war was sold. Saddam was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with immediately or else he might strike us first. Anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles are a far cry from weapons of mass destruction, nor do they make one an imminent threat.
I can't believe people so willingly bought into this war when it served more as a catalyst for terrorism than a deterrent, and only distracted us from concentrating on bringing in the real perpetrators of 9/11, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I thought we were supposed to be fighting the War On Terror, and yet here we are with Al Qaeda having regained much of it's strength, and new and big terror attack warnings almost weekly. Explain to me how invading Iraq was the right decision to make at the time it was made. Explain to me how it was the next logical step in fighting the War on Terror, since we hadn't even finished the job and captured Bin Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda elite in Afghanistan.
I'm getting extremely tired of this 'Saddam is in a cell, this a good thing' attitude. Of course a dictator facing his crimes is a good thing, but there are countless more people who are far more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam, whom we either ignore completely or call our allies.
We didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam had no viable ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. His WMD capabilities were grossly exaggerated, as has already been admitted by the administration. Much of the evidence presented for going to the war has been proven either false or exaggerated. Stop defending it as if it was the only logical choice to make at that juncture.
Now please, respond with something about failing to verifiably disarm. That'll make my day.
Please. Let's forego petty semantics.He's basically saying that Saddam posed no threat re: WMDs. Can we agree on that?
Yes, he failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
HOWEVER, just because he failed to verifiably disarm does not mean we should've diverted our resources from fighting the true war on terror and invade his country when he posed no immediate threat to us. There has been absolutely NO solid evidence presented that Saddam posed an imminent threat, and really that is how this war was sold. Saddam was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with immediately or else he might strike us first. Anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles are a far cry from weapons of mass destruction, nor do they make one an imminent threat.
I can't believe people so willingly bought into this war when it served more as a catalyst for terrorism than a deterrent, and only distracted us from concentrating on bringing in the real perpetrators of 9/11, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I thought we were supposed to be fighting the War On Terror, and yet here we are with Al Qaeda having regained much of it's strength, and new and big terror attack warnings almost weekly. Explain to me how invading Iraq was the right decision to make at the time it was made. Explain to me how it was the next logical step in fighting the War on Terror, since we hadn't even finished the job and captured Bin Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda elite in Afghanistan.
I'm getting extremely tired of this 'Saddam is in a cell, this a good thing' attitude. Of course a dictator facing his crimes is a good thing, but there are countless more people who are far more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam, whom we either ignore completely or call our allies.
We didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam had no viable ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. His WMD capabilities were grossly exaggerated, as has already been admitted by the administration. Much of the evidence presented for going to the war has been proven either false or exaggerated. Stop defending it as if it was the only logical choice to make at that juncture.
Now please, respond with something about failing to verifiably disarm. That'll make my day.
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Iraq is dragging Al Qaeda resources in there to ensure it fails because Al Qaeda and the much larger threat of Islamic Terrorism cannot operate in a world where they lack support and state sponsers. By removing Saddam we have liberated the Iraqi people, that no matter how hard you try to argue otherwise is a truly great thing, and we have the oppertunity to shut down the very machinery that drives Islamist terrorism - that is the lack of freedom and democracy in the Middle East (Exept For Israel, but of course Muslim World is a racist - even though it is a religion and not a race - proposition) that would certainly be an asset in the long term fight against Islamist terrorism.
We have removed the persistent (key word, Saddam has been a problem for the international community for over a decade and his ongoing existence threatened ME Stability) threat from the Baathist Regime in Iraq. There is now absolutely no chance of Saddam rebuilding his stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons, we know he had the capacity to rebuild and the intention so it would only have been a matter of time until he reconstituted it without the eye of the UN watching him. We have also removed the threat of an Iranian invasion of Iraq if Saddam was eliminated in a Coup and the government collapsed, by removing him on our own terms it has prevented the chance of a much greater humanitarian and political disaster and that is a good thing.
Now in regards to my constant reference to why the War on Terror is entwined to war in Iraq. The Middle East has been fucked by the world ever since the end of colonial times, by carving up the Ottoman Empire into fake countries it was only under nationalist dictators like Nassr that the Arabs were able to achieve anything, they recieved consistent backing from the Soviet Union and all that wound up doing was providing the authoritarian regimes with the tools to attack Israel and reinforce their power base with force. After failing to obbliterate Israel these dictatorships only cling to power via ammounts of aid paid to them in exchange of cooperation, this has encouraged the Islamist movement which seeks to topple their own corrupt and unstable secular governments and put in place a Wahhabist superstate extending from West Africa all the way to Pakistan. This Ideology is unchallenged in the Islamic world because their view of secularism is that of quasi-socialist stalinist dictatorships, the only option apart from the status quo is an Islamist revolution. Now by invading Iraq and setting in place a liberal democracy it gives the Islamic world a competing ideology, one that is more peaceful and compatible with the rest of the civilized world (yes I consider the Taliban and Saudi Arabia to be uncivilized). If you can demolish Islamism as a legitimate alternative for the people of the Middle East then there will be a substantial drop in support for terrorism and eventually they will simply die off as the Islamic world moves into the 21st century and modernises. Iraq is key because it is introducting the catalysts for change and that is why winning in Iraq will be "knockout blow" against Islamism.
We cannot win this war by fighting against just Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. They are simply one cog in the machine of death of international terrorism, to truly defeat them you have to eliminate the state sponsers as well as win the hearts and minds of the people and to do that you have to be decisive and daring, the policies of pragmatism from the Cold War do not apply when dealing with a problem of this magnitude, taking action and directing resources where neccisary is what you have to do to end the global threat in a feesible ammount of time (This would take around 50 years to work in full, you cannot transform a region and ideology that backwards overnight).
Was this war neccissary, now that depends on how exactly you view it. If you view the War in Iraq as an example of oil imperialism that will only strive to achieve hegemony in the ME without fixing the underlying problems that lead to terrorism then you will see it as pointless. If you see the War in Iraq as one of liberation and the removal of a persistent source of instability in the region that may help bring the liberal democratic tradition to somewhere that has only produced violence and hatred for a century then you may subsribe to the "Neoconservative" (Funny thing is that there is nothing conservative about it, it dervives more from Classical Liberalism and Interventionism than modern conservatism) school of thought that this war is a good thing for the people of Iraq and the war on terror broadly.
We have removed the persistent (key word, Saddam has been a problem for the international community for over a decade and his ongoing existence threatened ME Stability) threat from the Baathist Regime in Iraq. There is now absolutely no chance of Saddam rebuilding his stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons, we know he had the capacity to rebuild and the intention so it would only have been a matter of time until he reconstituted it without the eye of the UN watching him. We have also removed the threat of an Iranian invasion of Iraq if Saddam was eliminated in a Coup and the government collapsed, by removing him on our own terms it has prevented the chance of a much greater humanitarian and political disaster and that is a good thing.
Now in regards to my constant reference to why the War on Terror is entwined to war in Iraq. The Middle East has been fucked by the world ever since the end of colonial times, by carving up the Ottoman Empire into fake countries it was only under nationalist dictators like Nassr that the Arabs were able to achieve anything, they recieved consistent backing from the Soviet Union and all that wound up doing was providing the authoritarian regimes with the tools to attack Israel and reinforce their power base with force. After failing to obbliterate Israel these dictatorships only cling to power via ammounts of aid paid to them in exchange of cooperation, this has encouraged the Islamist movement which seeks to topple their own corrupt and unstable secular governments and put in place a Wahhabist superstate extending from West Africa all the way to Pakistan. This Ideology is unchallenged in the Islamic world because their view of secularism is that of quasi-socialist stalinist dictatorships, the only option apart from the status quo is an Islamist revolution. Now by invading Iraq and setting in place a liberal democracy it gives the Islamic world a competing ideology, one that is more peaceful and compatible with the rest of the civilized world (yes I consider the Taliban and Saudi Arabia to be uncivilized). If you can demolish Islamism as a legitimate alternative for the people of the Middle East then there will be a substantial drop in support for terrorism and eventually they will simply die off as the Islamic world moves into the 21st century and modernises. Iraq is key because it is introducting the catalysts for change and that is why winning in Iraq will be "knockout blow" against Islamism.
We cannot win this war by fighting against just Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network. They are simply one cog in the machine of death of international terrorism, to truly defeat them you have to eliminate the state sponsers as well as win the hearts and minds of the people and to do that you have to be decisive and daring, the policies of pragmatism from the Cold War do not apply when dealing with a problem of this magnitude, taking action and directing resources where neccisary is what you have to do to end the global threat in a feesible ammount of time (This would take around 50 years to work in full, you cannot transform a region and ideology that backwards overnight).
Was this war neccissary, now that depends on how exactly you view it. If you view the War in Iraq as an example of oil imperialism that will only strive to achieve hegemony in the ME without fixing the underlying problems that lead to terrorism then you will see it as pointless. If you see the War in Iraq as one of liberation and the removal of a persistent source of instability in the region that may help bring the liberal democratic tradition to somewhere that has only produced violence and hatred for a century then you may subsribe to the "Neoconservative" (Funny thing is that there is nothing conservative about it, it dervives more from Classical Liberalism and Interventionism than modern conservatism) school of thought that this war is a good thing for the people of Iraq and the war on terror broadly.
Last edited:
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.
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.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
And I agree with you there, until we can honesty go out of our way and remove Saudi Arabia and Iran from the picture success in the war on terror is impossible, the solution is to engineer change in those countries from within. Pakistan is a different case, it is really dangerous if we apply too much pressure - having the Islamists sieze control there and possess nuclear weapons is a much larger threat than Iraq ever was because there we know that the weapons exist and that a faction is willing to use them.
The best option for Pakistan is to get India involved and mutually disarm, guarantee's of security in the subcontinent is the only way that that risk can be eliminated.
Crimes against the people however I will say that in barbarity Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria - well basically any Arab country they are all on par but in terms of crimes Saddam tops Saudi Arabia, intitiating two wars, the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, the supression of the uprising by the Shiites (blood is on the US's hands here, giving the regime the right to use attack choppers and telling the people to rise up, one major reason that trust for the Americans by the Shiites is less than otherwise), brutality against political prisoners (here he is on par with every other regime) and support of terrorism (Since 1991 he has done less but Saddam did promise to bring terrorism to the US and a little bit later the trade center bombing occured with some very interesting connections to Iraq by the key players).
I am optimistic that if the current appointed Iraqi Government that has the blessing of the UN is successful and elections get done then a lot can be accomplished, overall progression in the country has been forward and not backward, the economy is being built out of the ashes of the wreck left by Saddam, schools and hospitals are being build and funded and eventually the country can become a leader in the region (I reckon at least 20 years to become a truly independent sovereign nation that isn't reliant on foreign support). It is a massive task to build Iraq because unlike Japan or Germany it lacks the industrial base and skills they had in their postwar situations. The Iraqi's who were well educated in the 50's and 60's and are running the infrastructure are often exiles, hard to come by expertise in a country so devestated by war and dictatorship.
The best option for Pakistan is to get India involved and mutually disarm, guarantee's of security in the subcontinent is the only way that that risk can be eliminated.
Crimes against the people however I will say that in barbarity Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria - well basically any Arab country they are all on par but in terms of crimes Saddam tops Saudi Arabia, intitiating two wars, the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, the supression of the uprising by the Shiites (blood is on the US's hands here, giving the regime the right to use attack choppers and telling the people to rise up, one major reason that trust for the Americans by the Shiites is less than otherwise), brutality against political prisoners (here he is on par with every other regime) and support of terrorism (Since 1991 he has done less but Saddam did promise to bring terrorism to the US and a little bit later the trade center bombing occured with some very interesting connections to Iraq by the key players).
I am optimistic that if the current appointed Iraqi Government that has the blessing of the UN is successful and elections get done then a lot can be accomplished, overall progression in the country has been forward and not backward, the economy is being built out of the ashes of the wreck left by Saddam, schools and hospitals are being build and funded and eventually the country can become a leader in the region (I reckon at least 20 years to become a truly independent sovereign nation that isn't reliant on foreign support). It is a massive task to build Iraq because unlike Japan or Germany it lacks the industrial base and skills they had in their postwar situations. The Iraqi's who were well educated in the 50's and 60's and are running the infrastructure are often exiles, hard to come by expertise in a country so devestated by war and dictatorship.
Diemen,
To answer your question about Saddam and a terrorist attack launched directly at the United States, Saddam did try to kill George Bush Sr. when he was in Kuwait 10 years ago. Thats a fact. It is also a fact according to Russia, that Iraq was planning terrorist actions against the United States. That information just became public last week.
I think its important for you to understand the context in which Colin Powell made that statement, otherwise you miss the point. He is talking about Sanctions and the embargo and the NEED to continue them because of their success in hindering Saddam's ability to make new WMD from materials outside the country.
In March 1991 when the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement was written and signed, the United Nations determined that Saddam and his possession of WMD were an un-avoidable threat to the international community that they decided that SADDAM had to disarm of all WMD or face re-newed military action to insure that Saddam was completely disarmed.
Why did they think this? 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.
Can you name another dictator in the world that has invaded 4 different countries in the past 20 years, murded 1.7 million people, used WMD more times than any leader in history, most of all, threatened the planets energy supply and global economy with mass disruption that could lead to a global economic depression worst than the great depression?
The United Nations approved a number of resolutions and a ceacefire agreement requiring Saddam to verifiably disarm in 1991 because Saddam was a huge threat to the world as demonstrated by his past behavior and continueing capabilities. The United Nations would NEVER have approved of the use of force to disarm Saddam if he was NOT a threat as you claim. They would not have passed the resolutions under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations that allow for enforcement with the use of military force if SADDAM was not a threat as you claim.
Saddam initially cooperated with the UN inspectors back in 1991, but then began a policy of cheat and retreat, in which he would cooperate a little in order to cover for things he was hiding. He was caught time and again, until his resistence in 1997/1998 became so intense that inspections were almost useless. Then at the end of 1998 UN inspectors were kicked out and Bill Clinton launched the largest US bombing campaign in 7 years against Iraq. In 1999 and 2000, the Clinton administration did not follow up these efforts but made it the policy of the United States to change the regime in Iraq.
The Bush administration entered office in 2001 with a determination to resolve the issue with Saddam keeping in mind as the Clinton administration and the UN knew, that a full scale military invasion may ultimately be the only way to end the threat. Bush succeeded in getting inspectors back in Iraq, but Saddam refused to account for the massive stocks of WMD that he had back in 1998 when UN inspectors were kicked out. After 12 years of attempting every means of disarming Iraq with out the use of military force, the United States and other member states of the UN invaded Iraq and removed the regime because of its unwillingness to give up the WMD that it was required to give up per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. This is the culmination of 12 long years of hard work to insure that Saddam would never be able to threaten the international community in the way that he did previously.
The war was absolutely necessary because of the threat Saddam posed to the planets energy supply, global economy, and people. If you don't understand that, look at what Saddam did in invading and attacking 4 different countries in the region, the murder of 1.7 million people, the use of WMD more times than any dictator in history, and the threat he posed being so close in proximity to most of the planets energy supply.
I included the findings of new foreign Anti-Aircraft missiles and Anti-Tank missiles found by my friends in Iraq, to show that the embargo and Sanctions were actually not perfect and were quickly eroding.
The United States has multiple threats around the world and I find it absurd this idea that there is only ONE war that one can fight. Thats like saying that the USA should have waited to defeat Japan before getting involved with Germany in World War II, simply absurd.
Another absurd thing is this idea that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terrorism. Here are some cold hard facts for those that think this: Most US forces in Iraq, primarily Armored and Mechanized Divisions, are not used to hunt terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan. These divisions and units in Iraq have hundreds of heavy tanks and other vehicles and would not be used in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan or chasing terrorist across borders in Europe or elsewhere.
The war in Iraq was necessary independent of any thing to do with Al Quada because it was the only way to resolve the issue of insuring that Saddam was disarmed fully. This is something that had to be done regardless of 9/11 or Al Quada. The process had been moving along with problems, but still moving until Saddam stopped all cooperation in 1998. Sanctions and the embargo were crumbling as I said before, and Saddam still had large stocks of WMD that he had not accounted for. It would have been irresponsible not to have used military force to remove Saddam in light of these facts.
"I'm getting extremely tired of this 'Saddam is in a cell, this a good thing' attitude. Of course a dictator facing his crimes is a good thing, but there are countless more people who are far more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam, whom we either ignore completely or call our allies."
Please name one person(besides Bin Ladin) who is equally or more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam.
Remember that Saddam has invaded and attacked unprovoked four different countries in the past 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, used a greater percentage of his resources than any other leader in history producing WMD, murdered over 1.7 million people, threatened the planets energy supply and global economy in a way that could cause a massive global depression.
So please, tell me who this person or persons that are more deserving in being in a cell than Saddam and please explain why in comparison to what Saddam has done and was capable of doing.
"We didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam had no viable ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. His WMD capabilities were grossly exaggerated, as has already been admitted by the administration. Much of the evidence presented for going to the war has been proven either false or exaggerated. Stop defending it as if it was the only logical choice to make at that juncture."
The war in Iraq was necessary for international security even if 9/11 did not happen and Al Quada did not exist. Its a fact that Saddam had thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells and NEVER handed them over or showed where they were dismantled if that is in fact what happened. Even when destroyed, this stuff does not disappear into thin air, and if Saddam destroyed this stuff, he could have shown the international community the remains to back up his claim that he in fact did destroy them. He was required to do so anyways under the terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire. THESE FACTS are not an exageration or false. They are the facts as presented by the United Nations Weapons inspectors.
To answer your question about Saddam and a terrorist attack launched directly at the United States, Saddam did try to kill George Bush Sr. when he was in Kuwait 10 years ago. Thats a fact. It is also a fact according to Russia, that Iraq was planning terrorist actions against the United States. That information just became public last week.
I think its important for you to understand the context in which Colin Powell made that statement, otherwise you miss the point. He is talking about Sanctions and the embargo and the NEED to continue them because of their success in hindering Saddam's ability to make new WMD from materials outside the country.
In March 1991 when the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement was written and signed, the United Nations determined that Saddam and his possession of WMD were an un-avoidable threat to the international community that they decided that SADDAM had to disarm of all WMD or face re-newed military action to insure that Saddam was completely disarmed.
Why did they think this? 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.
Can you name another dictator in the world that has invaded 4 different countries in the past 20 years, murded 1.7 million people, used WMD more times than any leader in history, most of all, threatened the planets energy supply and global economy with mass disruption that could lead to a global economic depression worst than the great depression?
The United Nations approved a number of resolutions and a ceacefire agreement requiring Saddam to verifiably disarm in 1991 because Saddam was a huge threat to the world as demonstrated by his past behavior and continueing capabilities. The United Nations would NEVER have approved of the use of force to disarm Saddam if he was NOT a threat as you claim. They would not have passed the resolutions under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations that allow for enforcement with the use of military force if SADDAM was not a threat as you claim.
Saddam initially cooperated with the UN inspectors back in 1991, but then began a policy of cheat and retreat, in which he would cooperate a little in order to cover for things he was hiding. He was caught time and again, until his resistence in 1997/1998 became so intense that inspections were almost useless. Then at the end of 1998 UN inspectors were kicked out and Bill Clinton launched the largest US bombing campaign in 7 years against Iraq. In 1999 and 2000, the Clinton administration did not follow up these efforts but made it the policy of the United States to change the regime in Iraq.
The Bush administration entered office in 2001 with a determination to resolve the issue with Saddam keeping in mind as the Clinton administration and the UN knew, that a full scale military invasion may ultimately be the only way to end the threat. Bush succeeded in getting inspectors back in Iraq, but Saddam refused to account for the massive stocks of WMD that he had back in 1998 when UN inspectors were kicked out. After 12 years of attempting every means of disarming Iraq with out the use of military force, the United States and other member states of the UN invaded Iraq and removed the regime because of its unwillingness to give up the WMD that it was required to give up per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. This is the culmination of 12 long years of hard work to insure that Saddam would never be able to threaten the international community in the way that he did previously.
The war was absolutely necessary because of the threat Saddam posed to the planets energy supply, global economy, and people. If you don't understand that, look at what Saddam did in invading and attacking 4 different countries in the region, the murder of 1.7 million people, the use of WMD more times than any dictator in history, and the threat he posed being so close in proximity to most of the planets energy supply.
I included the findings of new foreign Anti-Aircraft missiles and Anti-Tank missiles found by my friends in Iraq, to show that the embargo and Sanctions were actually not perfect and were quickly eroding.
The United States has multiple threats around the world and I find it absurd this idea that there is only ONE war that one can fight. Thats like saying that the USA should have waited to defeat Japan before getting involved with Germany in World War II, simply absurd.
Another absurd thing is this idea that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terrorism. Here are some cold hard facts for those that think this: Most US forces in Iraq, primarily Armored and Mechanized Divisions, are not used to hunt terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan. These divisions and units in Iraq have hundreds of heavy tanks and other vehicles and would not be used in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan or chasing terrorist across borders in Europe or elsewhere.
The war in Iraq was necessary independent of any thing to do with Al Quada because it was the only way to resolve the issue of insuring that Saddam was disarmed fully. This is something that had to be done regardless of 9/11 or Al Quada. The process had been moving along with problems, but still moving until Saddam stopped all cooperation in 1998. Sanctions and the embargo were crumbling as I said before, and Saddam still had large stocks of WMD that he had not accounted for. It would have been irresponsible not to have used military force to remove Saddam in light of these facts.
"I'm getting extremely tired of this 'Saddam is in a cell, this a good thing' attitude. Of course a dictator facing his crimes is a good thing, but there are countless more people who are far more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam, whom we either ignore completely or call our allies."
Please name one person(besides Bin Ladin) who is equally or more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam.
Remember that Saddam has invaded and attacked unprovoked four different countries in the past 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, used a greater percentage of his resources than any other leader in history producing WMD, murdered over 1.7 million people, threatened the planets energy supply and global economy in a way that could cause a massive global depression.
So please, tell me who this person or persons that are more deserving in being in a cell than Saddam and please explain why in comparison to what Saddam has done and was capable of doing.
"We didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam had no viable ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. His WMD capabilities were grossly exaggerated, as has already been admitted by the administration. Much of the evidence presented for going to the war has been proven either false or exaggerated. Stop defending it as if it was the only logical choice to make at that juncture."
The war in Iraq was necessary for international security even if 9/11 did not happen and Al Quada did not exist. Its a fact that Saddam had thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells and NEVER handed them over or showed where they were dismantled if that is in fact what happened. Even when destroyed, this stuff does not disappear into thin air, and if Saddam destroyed this stuff, he could have shown the international community the remains to back up his claim that he in fact did destroy them. He was required to do so anyways under the terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire. THESE FACTS are not an exageration or false. They are the facts as presented by the United Nations Weapons inspectors.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
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.
Diemen said:
There are certainly individuals and groups in Saudi Arabia that support Terrorism, but that is not the policy of the Saudi Government. Saudi Arabia has massive amounts of money invested in the United States and and the United States is one of the largest buyers of Saudi oil. Terrorism against the United States does not serve the Saudi Government in any way and is essentionally an attack on oneself do to the interdependent nature of the two countries.
Osuma Bin Ladin may be from Saudi Arabia, but he is not nor has he ever been a member of the Saudi Government. Bin Ladin hand picked the hijackers for 9/11 and loaded it with people from Saudi Arabia because he was hoping to drive a wedge between the two countries. Bin Ladin wants people to believe that Saudi Arabia is America's greatest enemy and he appears to have duped millions of people into believing this.
Saudi Arabia and the United States have had a very long and tight relationship. This strong and tight relationship was started by Roosevelt in the 1930s, not the Bush family as MOORE and ultra-liberals believe or would like to believe. Saudi Oil has been a massive benefit to the global economy for decades, reducing the cost of energy which improves the economy and makes the development of a strong, stable prosperous world, more likely and has contributed to just about everything people do in their lives in an industrial society. When you pay less for energy, you have more resources to do an in-numerable amount of things. In addition, Saudi Arabia was an excellant ally in the Cold War.
The governments of Iran and Syria are deserving of mass scrutiny and possible action for their support of terrorism. Regardless of one some individuals and groups in Saudi Arabia have done, Iran and Syria make them seem like angels.
Saudi Arabia definitely has a lot of problems, but its not the boogy man that liberals make it out to be. Having strong ties with Saudi Arabia is very important. Yes, Saudi Arabia has a non-democratic repressive regime, but that can change with time, and the government has worked very hard for US and global interest over the past 60 years.
Rono said:
The inspectors I was refering to were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Hans Blix and his team led a different group and were unable to accomplish almost anything because Saddam was not cooperating. Peaceful inspections to disarm a dictator only work when the dictator cooperates.
STING2 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.
anitram said:
Why would the Saudi Arabian Government want to suddenly harm their largest source of revenue? How does terrorism in any way benefit a government that is so closely intertwined with the United States. Money, not religion, drives the House of Saud. The terrorist don't have money and simply do damage and harm to the Saudi governments largest source of revenue.
There probably are some individuals in the government who do support terrorism against the USA, but the government as a whole clearly does not for the obvious reason that doing so would be the same as cutting ones arm off.
The United States and Western Europe have a long and strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, and it is unlikely that Al Quada or anyone else is going to be able to stop that, because the ties that bind that relationship are simply to strong.
There is most definitely a STATED policy of the Saudi Government. That does not mean the individuals in the government follow what the "Wink, Wink" stated position is. Turning the other way and supporting and allowing a form of Islam to breed hate towards other nations is a prime example.
Nice posts Anitram.
Nice posts Anitram.
STING2 said:
One could easily replace 2 words in that statement and come up with an equally applicable statement:
And of course it's not official Saudi policy to support terrorists, since they're tied so tightly to the US it wouldn't make sense to make it official. However, that hasn't stopped them from harboring known terrorists and funding terrorist organizations. There are links to both the Bin Laden family and the royal family on these issues, too.
STING2 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.
Diemen said:
Thats actually incorrect. The United States did not support the invasion of Iran by Iraq as it nearly led to Iraq being overrun by Iran which presented the unhealthy situation of Iran being in a position to overrun both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Certainly the United States was heavily concerned about Iran since the fall of the Shah, but there was no desire to see such a fullish and reckless action by Iraq that would later threaten Iraq and the Persian Gulf being overrun by Iranian forces. Had Iraq not invaded Iran, that would never have been a problem. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, but talks and changes in US policy toward Iraq did not start and change until 1982.
In the mid 1980s, Iraq was struggling to survive and prevent Iran from winning the war. As terrible and brutal what Saddam did to the Kurds was, it would have been unwise to put Iraq in a worse situation and have it lose the war to Iran. The cost of that happening would have been far greater for the people of the region and the world, than what actually transpired. Its not the first time the United States has had to look the other way, when a dictator repressed his own people. Stalin did far worse when he was an Ally of the United States in World War II.
Lets also remember that the United States wanted to avoid having to send large numbers of troops to the Middle East during the Cold War because the vast majority of US military power was tied up in detering and if need be fighting a full scale war in Europe against a potential Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.
As far as Iraq's threat to the world goes, can you name another country that has the track record that Saddam's Iraq had over the past 20 years? Bill Clinton and many Democrats took Iraq very seriously, and most foreign policy experts through out the 1990s believed that the country the United States was most likely to go to war with was Saddam's Iraq. So no, the two statements are not applicable at all.
Answer me this, Why would the Saudi Arabian Government support terrorism against the USA, in private or not? Why would the Saudi Arabian Government support hurting its largest interest and investment?
If anything, Saudi Arabia is probably closer to the United States in ways that most of us do not know. Its just been revealed that Saudi Arabia played a much larger role in the invasion and overthrow of Saddam's regime that was known at the time of the invasion.
STING2 said:
This is one way of looking at it.
We should also ask why it is that Saudi Arabia is strategically investing their money in the US and subsequently flexing its muscle all the while oppressing and murdering its own citizens at home. It really does put them at an advantageous point to have multiple investments in the US totalling billions of dollars.
You constantly argued that France and Russia were protecting their investments in Iraq. Well, you can then argue that the Americans are also protecting foreign investments by turning a blind eye to arguably the most corrupt and vile regime in the Middle East.
There are few nations in the world more oppressive to women than Saudi Arabia. There are public beheadings there on a consistent and regular basis. We have a thread for crimes of the terrorist when the crimes of the Saudi government are just as appalling except in vastly greater number and scope. But nobody cares about this brutality so long as we have the money flowing. It is nothing short of despicable.
Similar threads
