Bush Backs Away from Iraq WMD Certainty

[scoone]

Tue January 27, 2004 01:14 PM ET
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (*******) - In the wake of a top expert's conclusions that Iraq had no large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, President Bush on Tuesday dropped his previous certainty that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the reason given for the U.S.-led invasion.

The shift came as Bush met Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a close war ally, and as some of his top aides planned to meet a top U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, about a possible lead role for him in postwar Iraq.

The conclusions from David Kay, who resigned last week as the chief U.S. weapons investigator in Iraq, raised questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence before the war and whether the Bush administration hyped it to justify its case for war against Saddam Hussein. It was likely to resonate on the campaign trail as Democrats seek to replace Bush.

Bush, in his first comments on Kay's findings, did not rule out that unconventional weapons might be found in Iraq but neither did he repeat his earlier certainty that weapons would be found. He said the team of weapons searchers still there, called the Iraq Survey Group, was still looking.

"First of all I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work so we can find out the facts, compare the facts to what was thought," Bush told reporters with Kwasniewski at his side in the Oval Office, a fire crackling behind them against the winter chill.

Bush said last March in making the case against Iraq that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He has since tempered that to say that he believed Iraq was pursuing weapons programs. "We acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council," he said in a Sept. 7 speech.

On Tuesday, he expressed "great confidence" in the U.S. intelligence community and said intelligence agencies around the world shared the same view that Iraq possessed unconventional weapons.

http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NZ4MORTQBTHVOCRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=4220277

[Tane Angle]

:roll: "OOPS! My mistake!"

[farmgirl]

:roll: "OOPS! My mistake!"


I know you aren't a big FoB (Fan of Bush) ;) Tane, but what's your position on whether we should have gone in there or not? If you don't want to answer that... just ignore the question. I'm just curious.

[mustamato]

http://koti.mbnet.fi/enforcer/more****/oil.jpg

[Argyll]

what's your prespective on it Farmgirl?
Me One of the KEY issues was the WMD issues,Colin Powell went to the senate and to the world and held up a dossier that was like a copy of "War and Peace",showed countless "out of date satellite images" and banged on about the clear threat to the region and the US,it is the same here,there is no way whatsoever would Parliament sanction war had it not been for the 45 min claim,Saddam to may in Britain was no threat to us,the non intelligent people think it's easy to smuggle Chemicals out of the ME and into Britain and the US,when they could be easily made in both,or stolen from both........that's real good intelligence form the CIA and M I6.

I was all for the war,but I think the 1st one should have been completed to the end,the UN and both the UK and the US sat back and let him continue for 12 more years then all of a sudden he was an immediate threat....come on,what was so different than 2 years ago or even 5 years ago.......nothing!!
There are plenty of other dictators who could do with a regime change,especially in the African region but these are dismissed as having no strategic value,so nothing gets done about them......genocide is allowed there,but not in the ME!!
There are thousands starving to death on North Korea........not such a big rush to kick his ass......sounds like double standards to me

[Fox2]

http://koti.mbnet.fi/enforcer/more****/oil.jpg

Why must this tired argument be dragged over and over again? Why must you beat dead horses?

The simple fact of the matter is, it was not for oil. If it was for oil, bygod, I would not be paying nearly 3 dollars for a gallon of gas! Use common sense, man!

The WMD claim may be standing on a pillar of jello at the moment, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination it was for oil.

I will concede it is for our interests. No war is executed without the country's interests in mind. NONE.

It could be for a foothold in the region. It could be for regional stability. Hell, there may even be a little shred of a reason called the Iraqi people there!

I think some of you in the EU don't want to admit that maybe, just maybe, the big bad United States has done something good. I believe it pisses you off something awful to know that we are a nation of action rather than inaction.

I know a lot of Europeans. I know a lot of Swedes, French, and Germans. Many of them I call my friends. And to generalize the whole continent as anti-American is wrong. But some of you are anti-American. It holds its roots in the anti-establishment camp. Everyone wants to be the rebel and the cynic. Everyone wants to tell "the Man" to shove it.

It is evident by your bias against anything even remotely American. You hate American products only because they are AMERICAN. I am not naive in that I think anything labeled "Made in USA" is good. But I am also not naive in that I think anything labeled as such is bad. Anything American from people to planes to abstract ideas and images makes your blood sizzle.

You dislike us because we are the big kid on the block. Coincidentally, you slam our allies because they agree with us of their own free will.

I think it's time you guys follow your own advice and use your head. Ya'll promote happiness, world peace, and nonviolence, and yet you fuel arguments and statements that separate the world. If you really wanted to change things for the better, why don't YOU do something about it? You continually say the United States is not the be all and end all and should not decide world affairs. Then why don't YOU get up and help decide world affairs for a change?

I cannot emphasize this enough. Stop being a pansy. If you really think we're not doing a great job, then why don't you get off your isolationist butt and help?!

This has all been said before, by many others. Most of it falls on deaf ears. So be it. It has been itching in me for a long while, and I had to get it off my chest.

[mustamato]

No war is executed without the country's interests in mind. NONE.

Exactly. Long term political (Israel) and enonomic interests in a oil-rich region. And for the prize of gas it has actually gone down lately, atleast here.

[usa320]

look fagbag, enough of your oil ****.

If the war was over oil, gas here wouldnt have gone up 7 cents the past 2 weeks.

WMD or no WMD, saddam needed removal. He was brutal, he supported terrorism, and he himself was a terrorist of the very worst kind.

[Fox2]

I was all for the war,but I think the 1st one should have been completed to the end,the UN and both the UK and the US sat back and let him continue for 12 more years then all of a sudden he was an immediate threat....come on,what was so different than 2 years ago or even 5 years ago.......nothing!!
There are plenty of other dictators who could do with a regime change,especially in the African region but these are dismissed as having no strategic value,so nothing gets done about them......genocide is allowed there,but not in the ME!!
There are thousands starving to death on North Korea........not such a big rush to kick his ass......sounds like double standards to me

I know you asked farmgirl for her perspective, but I thought I would chime in. Hope you don't mind.

I agree about dictators over the world and double standards. I don't think it is an argument to not go after Saddam, though. I think Saddam's fate should befall all of these thugs.

I think the situation the US is facing with North Korea is that it is indeed a bigger threat to the US. Infact, it is so much of a bigger threat, it might be too much of a danger to Japan and some other allies in the region. Hence why I think the administration is going about it as they are.

I also agree that we should've taken him when we had the chance. We could be on to other baddies by now if we had! But the governments of the coalition deemed it not necessary to prolong the battle and endanger more coalition lives. However, I think part of the reason we are more open to it now is that we are less afraid of a Vietnam or a Somalia due to the events of 2001 (as much as it is cliched).

Anyway, as Tane Angle says, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

EDIT: Stupid spelling mistake :|

[Tane Angle]

Were there reasons for going in? Sure, of course. But there were reasons for stopping the attacks on the Kurds and Shi'a in the early 90s too. The war was stopped short in 91 because Bush Sr. was concerned that the Arab allies might withdraw from the coalition. I'm not sure of what the correct course of action would have been, but it might have been to press on anyways.

I'll say this: in Bush's time in office alone, nearly four million innocent civilians were slaughtered in one of the worst genocides in history. And one of the roughly three nations who did something about it-FRANCE! Everyone bashes the French, but at least they did anything, however tiny their effort. Granted, the French went in to late to do much, but at least the did anything at all. Bush seems to have been content to just watch it happen.

Sure, there isn't as much strategic reason for going into the Congo, though terrorism and sub-Saharan Africa are closesly related. And sure, jungle fighting isn't fun, but there were bases in country available for our use, left over from the Belgians, including massive runways and bunkers large enough to house supposedly several hundred thousand personnel. It was left over from the Cold War, a hiding place for the Belgian government and royalty (they have royalty, right? Or did?).

Anyways, I would have said let's finish the job in Afghanistan (only 9,000 people there now, and most in the cities), and I would have said let's go into the Congo, but that's just me.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fox2]

No war is executed without the country's interests in mind. NONE.

Exactly. Long term political (Israel) and enonomic interests in a oil-rich region. And for the prize of gas it has actually gone down lately, atleast here.

The point is it isn't dropping here. As far as I know, neither Finland nor Sweden participated, so why would the gas prices of those countries be relevant?

[usa320]

being afraid of a somalia is what did us over in the first place. We pulled out cause we took some losses. THats not the American way..and it never will be again. Not in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya nor Somalia. We are fighting for our way of life, and by god we cannot lose, and we will not lose. We will stay no matter how hard it is, no matter how much sacrifice is necessary. 3 years ago these brutal cowards declared war on us, and terrorist camp by terrorist camp, bank acount by bank account, dictator by dictator, this war will be won. There are no other alternatives.

[Argyll]

Would that just be in the Middle East there 320?
Or do you plan to use the same logic against the African dictators and terrorist nations?

[usa320]

Ever hear of JTF:HOA?

[Argyll]

Joint Task Force:Horn of Africa?

Yeah so what,it's not like they're doing anything is it?

Miugabe is still there,as are Yemeni AQ and Saudi AQ

[mustamato]

No war is executed without the country's interests in mind. NONE.

Exactly. Long term political (Israel) and enonomic interests in a oil-rich region. And for the prize of gas it has actually gone down lately, atleast here.

The point is it isn't dropping here. As far as I know, neither Finland nor Sweden participated, so why would the gas prices of those countries be relevant?

Because the oil comes from the same place?

[usa320]

Yeah so what,it's not like they're doing anything is it?

They are doing more than you, or i know.

[Fox2]

Because the oil comes from the same place?

As far as I know, at the moment, until further United Nations involvement, non-Coalition nations do not reap the benefits of the liberated Iraq.

[Argyll]

If you mean the team of SF in the Yemen then they are not conducting Ops anywhere else bud,there are not the same levels of troops operating like Iraq or Afghanistan.........and how would you know what they they were upto any way?
I'm also pretty sure there would be stories in abundance of the Ops carried out by the US on African soil.......have we seen any?

Its common knowledge that the US has SOF conducting "training "in the Yemen.........but have they removed any regimes yet or destabalised any governments..............nope!

BTW who do you think has close ties with the Sultan of Omans SF?
I also have a mate who is Training the Quatari SF

[Trident-za]

Tane....

Nobody has payed much attention to your post, but damn.... it made sense. I guess that many of your points are not "politically correct" under the current political situation (I hesitate to use the phrase "political regime", since a lot of people are unsure of what the political goals are - including myself). Anyway, damn fine post!

P.S. This is not mean as a criticism of anyone, anywhere....

[Argyll]

That's because Tane looks at the problem from all sides,unlike some of the clowns here who only see whats ahead of them,sometimes you got to step back to look at the bigger Picture,something some folks here need to do!
Not all terrorist activities are carried out by Al Quida,but it seems to me that this is the only terrorist Name any one knows around here.
There are way too many folks who want to Smack the Syrians around,because basically they can,why?
If these a-hole's want to go find the WMD in Syria let them,they wouldn't have a clue as to what to look for,Saddam was given 12 years to pull the wool over every ones eyes,Diplomacy 1st,war is the last resort!
There are some gung ho types here,and they need to learn to listen ,and look and open their eyes a bit more.....nothing is as it seems!

[Trident-za]

Well said, Argyll.

[Fox2]

That's because Tane looks at the problem from all sides,unlike some of the clowns here who only see whats ahead of them,sometimes you got to step back to look at the bigger Picture,something some folks here need to do!
Not all terrorist activities are carried out by Al Quida,but it seems to me that this is the only terrorist Name any one knows around here.
There are way too many folks who want to Smack the Syrians around,because basically they can,why?
If these a-hole's want to go find the WMD in Syria let them,they wouldn't have a clue as to what to look for,Saddam was given 12 years to pull the wool over every ones eyes,Diplomacy 1st,war is the last resort!
There are some gung ho types here,and they need to learn to listen ,and look and open their eyes a bit more.....nothing is as it seems!

I suppose that was aimed at me...

Well, just for the record, I see where Tane is coming from and agree on many points.

I myself am not totally sold on the exact reasoning behind our going to war.

But I do not think that the reasons for the war, or the lack thereof, negate the results of the war. Iraq and the region is better off without Saddam Hussein running the country. I hope we can agree on that.

A good analogy someone passed to me is World War 2. We (the Allies) did not set out to free the Jewish people from the slaughter of the Nazis. There were different reasons for the war. That does not negate the good results that came from the war.

[Argyll]

No it wasn't aimed at you

[farmgirl]

Argyll,
I apologize for my tardiness in replying to your question. I was in and out, and didn't have time to actually sit down and compose a serious post.

I'm torn on this issue as I am on many others. I do feel that there are valid reasons for us to be there, but I remain very distraught that we didn't finish the job the first time we were there. I think that the distrust of the Iraqi people can be traced to our withdrawl. I know that there were many factors contributing to that decision, but leaving those innocents to be slaughtered was too high a price to pay, in my opinion. I believe we are reaping now what we sowed then.
I don't believe, as many people do, that oil was the motivating factor. I honestly believe that a lot of GWB's motives are steeped in emotion. Clearly SH is a bad man, and he felt that he needed to be removed. I don't doubt that the fact that he put out a hit on his father had a lot to do with it as well.
Regardless, I do feel that SH needed to be dealt with, whether now or later. I remain concerned about the long term effects of what seems to be a lack of consideration of possible reactions of the Iraqi people. Should we have known that it wouldn't be all hearts and flowers after the fall of SH? It seems to me that we should have..... what course now? How can we best deal with this very precarious situation? How can we best protect the interests of our soldiers and those of other coalition countries? How can we best help the Iraqi people?
These are questions that have no easy answers, and I'm thankful that I don't have to answer them. I remain supportive of all of the troops involved and pray for their safe return.

Marydawn

ps I'm in complete agreement with Tane that we need to finish the job we started in A'stan.

[Fox2]

No it wasn't aimed at you

Oh. Ok. Well, then, disregard last transmission. ;)

*runs away*

[Argyll]

Indeed!

[farmgirl]

Indeed!

was that "indeed" for me or Fox? :)

[Tane Angle]

Thanks for the support Trident-za, farmgirl, and especially Argyll. ;) Maybe some to Fox2. p-) Nice posts everyone.

[DE_Six]

Because the oil comes from the same place?

Your oil probably comes from the North Sea GOPLATs. Norway's export are 35% oil. And since it's next door, you're probably a big customer. Plus, the drilling is on the rise there, so a lower cost would make sense.

Leave oil alone, will ya?

[Fox2]

was that "indeed" for me or Fox? :)

Not to confuse an already confusing matter (ok yes that is the point of it)...but...

Indeed!

[Argyll]

For you Marydawn!
I was forever getting into bother with my line manager for having too many jobs on the go at once,he stated how can you fix something properly and quickly,and efficiently when you're dividing your time to other tasks?

I think everyone is in agreement that it was in the regions best interest to remove Saddam,not for the protection of the rest of the world,but to stop him from killing his people,He went from the 5th largest Army in the world down to the 10th or maybe even lower,so Militarily he was not that great a threat!.
I keep repeating this point ,about him giving the WMD's to terrorists,if he wanted to do that he could have done it every year since 91,after all he had the chance,and the motives,and at that time he had the stuff,so why was he all of a sudden this HUGE threat to the world?what was different about his posture and threat from say 1999?..........nothing........but along comes GWB and see's something that nobody else could.......hidden WMD's,I mean like how amazing is that,the man has xray eyes!!
There are splinter states all over the Former Soviet Union who have in their possesions WMD's,and these guys would sell to the highest bidder.
Saddam if he really really wanted to would have given any orginisation the capabilities to strike at America if he so wished.......that is if he actually had something to give.
Now here's a man who knows that Bush is not bluffing,and that his chances of survival were slim,to say the least,and that his days were numbered,so what does he do?.........he sends his WMD's(allegedly) to his sworn enemies(Iran),which makes perfect sense does it not?.....he sends his WMD'd but not his entire Baath regime,including himself and his sons to other countries for safe keeping........tell me this makes sense to a thinking man?
So now this country has in its possesion the capabilities to get payback,why would he do that,why would he give an enemy the chance to decimate his country?,why did he not run?He had the chance,probably numerous chances,he must've had a glimmer of hope that if he could stay and drag the war out,that the US public would start to lose faith and support,this does not sound like a desperate man to me,a desperate man would have decided to fire Scuds into the 4 corners of the region and to hell with the consequences,he never cared when he gassed the Kurds,he never cared when he slaughtered the Shia's,he never cared when he used WMD's during the 80's Iran/Iraq war.....here he was about to lose his country....why not go out with a huge bang and take 100's of thousand with you?Why did he not do so?........that was not the actions of a man hell bent on the destruction of the USA or any other country in that region!

[farmgirl]

well said, Argyll.

[Luxembourger]

He had the chance,probably numerous chances,he must've had a glimmer of hope that if he could stay and drag the war out,that the US public would start to lose faith and support,this does not sound like a desperate man to me,a desperate man would have decided to fire Scuds into the 4 corners of the region and to hell with the consequences,he never cared when he gassed the Kurds,he never cared when he slaughtered the Shia's,he never cared when he used WMD's during the 80's Iran/Iraq war.....here he was about to lose his country....why not go out with a huge bang and take 100's of thousand with you?

YEah concerning the WMD things I am sceptiical too
but still I think Saddam was a WMd himself :lol:

[Skaman]

Remember, Iraq was a THREAT to the peace, sanctity and freedom of the Unites States and Western world. Isn’t that what Bush and Blair said? :cantbeli:

If not for oil, and its not for weapons of mass destruction, why is the coalition in Iraq?

To help the Iraqi people would be ones most probable answer. If so, I know a lot more deprived countries in dire need of help under corrupt regimes aside from Iraq. Simply put, America is establishing a nice foothold in the Middle East for her own security reasons. It’s outlandish to claim the USA is acting outside of her own interest. The United States was built on morality, freedom, and liberty, yet this is what the world is left with: a self indulgent patronage pig that looks after #1- The good ol’ red white and blue. I don’t disapprove of everything America stands for, yet I grow sick in my stomach as the USA establishes its ‘foreign policy’ on all corners of the globe. Enough suffering and death……….

Why must this agenda change time and time again, not to mention that the public shovels this **** day by day…


Argh, its so AGGREVATING

[Fox2]

Remember, Iraq was a THREAT to the peace, sanctity and freedom of the Unites States and Western world. Isn’t that what Bush and Blair said? :cantbeli:

If it not for oil, and its not for weapons of mass destruction, why is the coalition in Iraq?

To help the Iraqi people would be ones most probable answer. If so, I know a lot more deprived countries in dire need of help under corrupt regimes aside from Iraq. Simply put, America is establishing a nice foothold in the Middle East for her own security reasons. It’s outlandish to claim the USA is acting outside of her own interest. The United States was built on morality, freedom, and liberty, yet this is what the world is left with: a self indulgent patronage pig that looks after #1- The good ol’ red white and blue. I don’t disapprove of everything America stands for, yet I grow sick in my stomach as the USA establishes its ‘foreign policy’ on all corners of the globe. Enough suffering and death……….

Why must this agenda change time and time again, not to mention that the public shovels this **** day by day…


Argh, its so AGGREVATING

Of course the US has its own interests in mind. But frankly, Ducimus, if you think that the United States is the only country that does so in the manner it does, you are terribly, terribly naive.

Many people have used the "Why Iraq?" argument. To that I would answer, "Why not?"

Make a list of all the "evil regimes," et cetera. Think of it from the current US President's point of view. Please keep intelligence jokes to yourself.



Iraq - Saddam Hussein

Tried to off George Bush 1. (For a moment imagine someone came for YOUR father. How would that make you feel?)

Treats his people very badly, and CURRENT INTELLIGENCE shows Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction. (If you are unaware, intelligence is shared today among allies. That means the UK, US and others share their information. It's the "Pass it on" game with world-changing results)

Leader is stubborn, unwilling to cooperate.

Populous disloyal to leader, but kept in check by fear tactics.

Said reported WMD could be well within range of Israel, a key ally of the US.

By liberating Iraq, you gain an ally in the Middle East.

Also gained is an alternative to Saudi Arabian oil contracts, which can change with political tides



Many African countries

Genocide. Starvation.

May incite reminders of Somalia for the American people.

Nothing to gain other than "good will politics"




North Korea - Kim Jong Il

Possesses WMDs in range of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, not to mention others. All key US allies.

Country has needs, and leader is willing to cooperate if those needs are met.

Population extremely loyal to the leader.

Nothing material gained by liberating North Korea.



Now, think this through practically, as if you are the Commander-in-Chief of an entire nation. Obviously Iraq is the easiest to take militarily.


Under that intelligence of Iraq having WMDs, yes, it WAS a threat to the peace of the world. What do you think would happen, honestly, if they launched a WMD attack into Israel via ballistic missile? Israel would retaliate violently. Perhaps setting off a war involving the WHOLE OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Then it's a whole new ballgame. The UN now has to contend with a whole lot more than a single country.

[Skaman]

[quote=ducimus19]Remember, Iraq was a THREAT to the peace, sanctity and freedom of the Unites States and Western world. Isn’t that what Bush and Blair said? :cantbeli:

If it not for oil, and its not for weapons of mass destruction, why is the coalition in Iraq?

To help the Iraqi people would be ones most probable answer. If so, I know a lot more deprived countries in dire need of help under corrupt regimes aside from Iraq. Simply put, America is establishing a nice foothold in the Middle East for her own security reasons. It’s outlandish to claim the USA is acting outside of her own interest. The United States was built on morality, freedom, and liberty, yet this is what the world is left with: a self indulgent patronage pig that looks after #1- The good ol’ red white and blue. I don’t disapprove of everything America stands for, yet I grow sick in my stomach as the USA establishes its ‘foreign policy’ on all corners of the globe. Enough suffering and death……….

Why must this agenda change time and time again, not to mention that the public shovels this **** day by day…


Argh, its so AGGREVATING




Of course the US has its own interests in mind. But frankly, Ducimus, if you think that the United States is the only country that does so in the manner it does, you are terribly, terribly naive.


Is that justification? If every nation spent 50 percent of the budget on Social Spending, would you? The USA does NOT need to be like EVERYONE else. Frankly, I don’t see my nation establishing a foothold in the Middle East and acting in military provocation under a false-pre-tense of preservation of international security. My nation does however provide peace keeping and foreign aid despite being economically stretched and militarily unequipped.

If the USA is really going to establish an Evangelist persona for itself, they would foremost

1. Act in nation of greatest need

2. Act in a nation where the population as a majority wants you there

3. Efforts will stabilize the nation, not result in animosity and discontent due to diverging cultural trends and ideals concerning US foreign policy.

4. Act in the interest of the people you are there to help.


Why Iraq? Why not Congo, why not Ivory Coast, why not economically stabilize South American third world states with a potent and proper leadership? These areas are rife with poverty and unemployment. Not all international effort needs to be done by the barrel of a gun.

[Fox2]

Is that justification? If every nation spent 50 percent of the budget on Social Spending, would you? The USA does NOT need to be like EVERYONE else. Frankly, I don’t see my nation establishing a foothold in the Middle East and acting in military provocation under a false-pre-tense of preservation of international security. My nation does however provide peace keeping and foreign aid despite being economically stretched and militarily unequipped.

If the USA is really going to establish an Evangelist persona for itself, they would foremost

1. Act in nation of greatest need

2. Act in a nation where the population as a majority wants you there

3. Efforts will stabilize the nation, not result in animosity and discontent due to diverging cultural trends and ideals concerning US foreign policy.

4. Act in the interest of the people you are there to help.


Why Iraq? Why not Congo, why not Ivory Coast, why not economically stabilize South American third world states with a potent and proper leadership? These areas are rife with poverty and unemployment. Not all international effort needs to be done by the barrel of a gun.

Ducimus, to put it kindly, you're living in a utopia. The world is not a nice place. That in itself is evident just by this little forum on the internet! You seem to say that the US is the worst government come to power in recent ages, and yet you say that it should be morally above all the rest? Honestly, man, what are you trying to get at? Every military action in the last century, indeed, most likely the whole of history has a practical and tangible value to be gained from it. Every commander seeks it. As an example, I would bet Canada is not just "peacekeeping and giving foreign aid" because it feels jolly and generous. Infact, it could be said that the US is indeed "peacekeeping and giving foreign aid" when many of its forces are stretched thin, what with fighting two wars simultaneously! The US is one of the world's most giving and unappreciated countries. The US gives so damned much in foreign aid, it would make your ears bleed. We have participated in the peacekeeping operations in the Balkans region and in Afghanistan, and now Iraq. What we do today, post-war, is defined as peacekeeping.

But now, onto your points.

1. Iraq had a great need.

2. I don't know where you get your information from, but the majority of the Iraqi population DO want us there. These "insurgents" are from out of country. Iraq right now is the place to go if you want to "fight the infidel."

3. The only place this has caused major animosity towards the United States, frankly, is some European countries. And that animosity was there to begin with.

4. So deposing Saddam Hussein was not in the interest of the Iraqi people? Tell me exactly what part of this war is "Not in the interest of the Iraqi people." The only thing they are protesting is wages and the trial of Saddam. (They want him dead, by the way, if you haven't noticed)

France seems to be handling the Congo and Ivory Coast pretty well by themselves. About South America: There is no reason to politically.

Of course not every international effort should be carried out with war. Did you notice Hussein was given many warnings prior to the start of combat operations? Or did that slip CBC?

It seems to me the same wishy-washy behavior that many of the anti-Bush folks blast Bush for is present in their own deductions.

[Skaman]

Is that justification? If every nation spent 50 percent of the budget on Social Spending, would you? The USA does NOT need to be like EVERYONE else. Frankly, I don’t see my nation establishing a foothold in the Middle East and acting in military provocation under a false-pre-tense of preservation of international security. My nation does however provide peace keeping and foreign aid despite being economically stretched and militarily unequipped.

If the USA is really going to establish an Evangelist persona for itself, they would foremost

1. Act in nation of greatest need

2. Act in a nation where the population as a majority wants you there

3. Efforts will stabilize the nation, not result in animosity and discontent due to diverging cultural trends and ideals concerning US foreign policy.

4. Act in the interest of the people you are there to help.


Why Iraq? Why not Congo, why not Ivory Coast, why not economically stabilize South American third world states with a potent and proper leadership? These areas are rife with poverty and unemployment. Not all international effort needs to be done by the barrel of a gun.

Ducimus, to put it kindly, you're living in a utopia. The world is not a nice place.I am not arguing that That in itself is evident just by this little forum on the internet! You seem to say that the US is the worst government come to power in recent ages not at all, and yet you say that it should be morally above all the rest, it should be, it has the capacity to trimpth as a world LEADER Honestly, man, what are you trying to get at? Every military action in the last century, indeed, most likely the whole of history has a practical and tangible value to be gained from it. Every commander seeks it. As an example, I would bet Canada is not just "peacekeeping and giving foreign aid" because it feels jolly and generous.Canada has not acted in its own interest via. military effrot for quite some years Infact, it could be said that the US is indeed "peacekeeping and giving foreign aid" when many of its forces are stretched thin, what with fighting two wars simultaneously! The US is one of the world's most giving and unappreciated countries. The US gives so damned much in foreign aid, it would make your ears bleed. We have participated in the peacekeeping operations in the Balkans region and in Afghanistan, and now Iraq. What we do today, post-war, is defined as peacekeeping. Its the bad ingredients that ruin a tasty soup.

But now, onto your points.

1. Iraq had a great need.yes it does, not greatest need though

2. I don't know where you get your information from, but the majority of the Iraqi population DO want us there. These "insurgents" are from out of country. Iraq right now is the place to go if you want to "fight the infidel."

3. The only place this has caused major animosity towards the United States, frankly, is some European countries. And that animosity was there to begin with.

4. So deposing Saddam Hussein was not in the interest of the Iraqi people? Tell me exactly what part of this war is "Not in the interest of the Iraqi people." The only thing they are protesting is wages and the trial of Saddam. (They want him dead, by the way, if you haven't noticed)

France seems to be handling the Congo and Ivory Coast pretty well by themselves. About South America: There is no reason to politically.

Of course not every international effort should be carried out with war. Did you notice Hussein was given many warnings prior to the start of combat operations? Or did that slip CBC?

It seems to me the same wishy-washy behavior that many of the anti-Bush folks blast Bush for is present in their own deductions.

[usa320]

I'm also pretty sure there would be stories in abundance of the Ops carried out by the US on African soil.......have we seen any?


No. Because CNN and BBC cant report about things they dont see.

[Argyll]

They can't see them,but you can right?Give me a break,if a journo from Fox can say that there were WMD's shipped to Iran,and to Syria,without the US Military even getting a sniff at this,then i'm pretty sure they can resource the ongoing Involvement in Yemen!

[scoone]

Bush Tempers Pre-War Stance on Iraqi Weapons
Tue January 27, 2004 11:45 PM ET
President Bush on Tuesday tempered his pre-war insistence that Iraq had an arsenal of banned weapons, just days after the top U.S. arms hunter publicly undercut the administration's stated rational for war by saying no such stockpiles existed.

Softening earlier assertions that intelligence had positively identified such arms as a direct threat to the United States, Bush instead focused on what he said were the evils of Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi president now in U.S. custody.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world," he told reporters during a meeting with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a close war ally.

"And I say that based upon intelligence that I saw prior to the decision to go into Iraq, and I say that based upon what I know today. And the world is better off without him."

The shift in emphasis followed skeptical remarks last week from David Kay, who resigned as the chief U.S. weapons investigator in Iraq and publicly questioned whether Iraq had any chemical or biological arms.

Kay's comments renewed questions about the quality of U.S. intelligence before the war and whether the Bush administration hyped it to justify its invasion. And they were likely to resonate on the campaign trail as Democrats seek to replace Bush in November's presidential election.

Bush, in his first comments on Kay's findings, did not rule out that unconventional weapons might be uncovered in Iraq, but neither did he repeat his earlier certainty that weapons would be found. He said the team of weapons searchers there, the Iraq Survey Group, was still looking.

"First of all I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work so we can find out the facts, compare the facts to what was thought," Bush said, with Kwasniewski at his side in the Oval Office, a fire crackling behind them against the winter chill.

He did not say how long this might take.

'ADMINISTRATION EXAGGERATIONS CONTINUE'

Democrats have demanded an independent probe to look at what went wrong with U.S. intelligence and whether the Bush administration manipulated it to justify the invasion. The White House was cool to the idea
The exaggerations by this administration continue right up to date. It is a real disservice to the American people, and we've got to get to the bottom of it with a comprehensive investigation, not just a partial investigation of the CIA's failures," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat.
Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota added: "I think it is critical that we follow up and find out what went wrong. And I'd like to know what the administration's plans are in that regard."

Bush said last March in making the case against Iraq that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He has since said that he believed Iraq was pursuing a weapons programs. "We acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council," he said in a Sept. 7 speech.

On Tuesday, he expressed "great confidence" in the U.S. intelligence community and said intelligence agencies around the world shared the same view that Iraq possessed unconventional weapons.

Bush said that, in any event, toppling Saddam was a just cause given his refusal to comply with U.N. demands in a post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CTGQMCLSU0ITYCRBAELCFFA?type=domesticNews&storyID=4223834

[Adri]

why souldn't he back out ?
he is a politician and have just found out that there are no WMD's
"oh ****, who can I blame?"