Iraq war justified yes or no your opinion (wmd issue 2)

[Luxembourger]

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.

good point

So now my opinion
1) people are blaming the US for not having finished the job in 1991. Why is it bad now to finish the job? The UN would not have accepted to finish the job in 1991 and there would have been massive peace protests . and I am sure the guys who are now saying or blaming the US they did not finish the job in 1991 would certainly have been against it if the US had finished the job in 1991. Do the US use force during a crisis , they are the evil cowboys.
Do the US not use force during a crisis , then the point would be " there is no oil no interest in that region,--> cowards .

Many people before the NATO airstirkes in 1999 thought the US would not take action as they had no interests in that region , no oil or any other strategic ressources. And you could read in the media so many anti american comments for not taking action until they took action. So when the nato strikes started then you suddenly could hear " the Amercian aggressors they are bombing because they want to establish a base there afterwards..

SO ? what ever the US does....taking action or not taking action they are always the country of fat people drinking coke and seeking for oil, people without values., leaders who are whether LEwinsky addicted guys or Cowboys...I am just curious to know how the next american presidents would be called in europe . I guess if President unknwon would be voted ,,,the european media and left inteelcutalls would find out that his grand father was in mafia or was with the nazis.

It seems to me that the European press does not have enough stuff to report about their own business ( as there remain many problems in Europe to solve like jobless rates growing) or maybe the European left wing press does not want to report at all our problems that we have here as we europeans are the perfect guys. SO it is indeed easy to report on other countries and create sterotypes. ( if it not the US to report it s ISRAEL)

It is indeed nasty for us europeans that when there is a genocide infront of our door that we have to call the Americans , I mean while we keep on talking talking there are alright 1000 women killed , raped , children murdered while the US is ready to kick ass and stop this slaughter. ( KOsoVO)


Now back to iraq issue : Again had the US finished the job in 1991 they would have been portrayed as evil cowboys. So no matter what the US does or not they are bad .

What about Operation iraqi freedom ? justified or not ? It s was illegal as it broke international laws. Was the action against SErbian forces legal? No it was not and the UN did not approve it as Russia would have put veto. So ? The internation law then suddnely broguth peace to that region ? huh ?

It s not legal to attack dicatorships , to free people who are opressed killed raped etc...- I must say the international laws are really standing for humaity and peace :petting:

THe US was not right to take action in IRAQ 2003 but in my opinion on a moral base they were right .
Was it for oil ? Did oil played a role ? Sure it did but it was not the real reason to attack. If the US wanted the oil without a war,,there would not have been any problem. ( this sentence will surely be commented soon by others :-) )


In my opinion is that the US did right to kick ass Saddam and to send this as a message to other bad guys. The US+UK did one big mistake , they told the world they were going to invade IRAQ for the WMDs. They should n t have said that , they should have simply used another reason. Why?
Because what if the WMD were destroyed in secret a couple weeks before the invasion or shipped to another country? What it the WMDs are hidden in that huge country and will never be found? How are you going to explain this to the world community?

The search for the WMD that s now the sticking point in the media ...a shame because there are many other good stories to report from iraq.
Concering the UN inspections and lettting them search for a while......I don t know that would have been wasted time. You should at least had 100 000 UN isnpectors on the ground in IRAQ for years to make sophisticated surprise visits .


Conclusion + my opinon :
1) The iraq war was not justified by international law , but iin my opion it was necessary and jsutified on a moral base

2) THe UN way would not have worked ,,,even if the UN isnpectors had found the WMD do you thinkl FRance ( french government ,,,not citizens who are great ) would have participated in an military action and dumped it s financial money issues that it had with IRAQ? Come on
the UN proved again that is just a room of bla bla bla where every country has only it s own interests whatever happes.

3) the invasion was well planed and the troops did all a good job
BUT I am damn mad on Rumsfeld about the fact that after the invasion there was no good tight plan and that troops got to stay there for over 1 year .

4) the situation in IRAq is not perfect nowadays but I am confident the situation will improve ......hey we are just January not even 1 year passed , do you expect miracles in a couple of months of a country thatr was under a regime for years ? PEople today expect too quick a progress .


So now people you can flame on me , I won t reply to nasty comments and flaming stuff ,, just be nice





woot

[Dalleer]

Many people before the NATO airstirkes in 1999 thought the US would not take action as they had no interests in that region , no oil or any other strategic ressources. And you could read in the media so many anti american comments for not taking action until they took action. So when the nato strikes started then you suddenly could hear " the Amercian aggressors they are bombing because they want to establish a base there afterwards..

I have to agree with you on this, seems like whatever the Americanos do it's always viewed wrong by some party.

[mocking_loudly_died]

The great Satan is always in the wrong.

*****sarcasm explosion*****

[Roger Rabbit]

i love you mocking

*waits for shouts of metro*******

[Kitsune]

Luxembourger, any empire can only wish for subjects such as yourself...
It is truly a pity that not more Europeans share your sentiment. The transatlantic relations would be great and Europe would be such a happy, submissive place. ;)

[Luxembourger]

submissive place.
??? what do you mean ? that US domiantes Europe ?????

[Fox2]

submissive place.
??? what do you mean ? that US domiantes Europe ?????

He's calling you weak and submissive. As in, you don't have a mind of your own, you submit to whatever the US says, blah blah blah.

Just helping to translate.

[budanski]

Why submit to the U.S. when you can submit to Franco/German Axis.

[Luxembourger]

I think that by supporting some one does not mean to be submited to someone

[the_spec]

@Luxembourger:
Great job in kissing Americas ass.
Basically all you're saying is that the USA risks their soldiers life and spends billions of dollars just to help the people in other countries and make the world a better place. Interesting how such a "charity nation" could become superpower, don't you think? You should start looking for a middle way, otherwise you just embarass yourself and thereby europe on here.

[Fox2]

Amazing. Ya'll parade your "free opinion" talk around, and yet if a fellow European doesn't have your same opinion, he's labeled as an embarrassment!

Hell, you know what the people in the US get when they say horrible things about the Commander in Chief and the Nation? They get to run for friggin' President!

So much for "European democracy."

By the way, just because someone says they support something, doesn't mean they are submissive to it or are "kissing its ass."

I support Sweden in many things, and like many things they do and produce. But I sure as hell am not submissive to Sweden and I sure as hell am not kissing their ass.

[Luxembourger]

therwise you just embarass yourself and thereby europe on here

I don t embarass myself , that s just my opinion
some europeans share your opinion other do mine

WE have a lot of hard work in europe to do , new eu memebers, problems inside eu countries, jobless rate etc.... But it seems to me that today the biggest problems for some Europeans are the Americans instead of our own problems. And this is not about kissing some one´s ass.

[Fox2]

It's simply human. People feel a need to place the blame on something or someone else. People don't naturally want to take responsibility for their own welfare or quality of life.

They like to live in a world where everything is everyone else's fault. Today that scapegoat is the United States. Simply because it is the biggest target. People usually go for the closest thing they can grab when they are desperate to put the blame elsewhere.

[SFontaine]

What's great about WW2 is that it brought free speech back to certain countries, such as Luxembourg and this man here is excersicing that fundamental right. So is any other Euro on this site, no matter what an ungrateful moron he is.

[Fox2]

What's great about WW2 is that it brought free speech back to certain countries, such as Luxembourg and this man here is excersicing that fundamental right. So is any other Euro on this site, no matter what an ungrateful moron he is.

Agreed. Although I'd be quick to point out that it wasn't just us that liberated Europe from Nazi Germany. A whole bunch of countries were in on it. But yes, we (The US) definitely had a major role to play.

[Durandal]

Why submit to the U.S. when you can submit to Franco/German Axis.

rofl rofl rofl

[Durandal]

Agreed. Although I'd be quick to point out that it wasn't just us that liberated Europe from Nazi Germany. A whole bunch of countries were in on it. But yes, we (The US) definitely had a major role to play.

Britain and Canada...with the United States forming the backbone. I agree.

[martinexsquaddie]

Bushes blairs reason for the war was a direct threat of Iraqi wmds thats the reason they gave.
So far squat has turned up even the stuff that may turn up in syria won't be a massive stockpile of of weapons ready to go.
they found various bits and pieces of stuff the UN did'nt find but nothing that would justify the invasion or it would have been all over the media.
Overthrowing tyrannical regimnes and nation building isn't really a big US policy goal. lets look at the last 50 years not exactly confidence building is it?
That said getting rid of saddam was a good thing just happend 10 years too late if Bush snr had just given the Shi's and Kurds a bit of air support he'd have gone to a painful death 10 years ago.
To sum up the leadership lied about going to war.
they went with less manpower than needed to establish security after the war. Its now going to take years for iraq to be able to stand on its own to feet and this is a success because.

[budanski]

The U.S. has a better record at nation building than say, the U.N. p-)

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

I don't think it was the leadership that lied..I think it was based off of bad intel that he got.

[martinexsquaddie]

I think Bush wanted rid of saddam and used sept 11 and his belief in Wmds to go for it. Unfortunatly the truth has turned out diffrently thats my defination of lieing.
Did'nt he set up his own intel setup as he did'nt like what the CIA was telling him?

[Royal]

I'm afraid that I have to side track this - I cannot let one of your premises stand.


Many people before the NATO airstirkes in 1999 thought the US would not take action as they had no interests in that region , no oil or any other strategic ressources. And you could read in the media so many anti american comments for not taking action until they took action. So when the nato strikes started then you suddenly could hear " the Amercian aggressors they are bombing because they want to establish a base there afterwards..


It is indeed nasty for us europeans that when there is a genocide infront of our door that we have to call the Americans , I mean while we keep on talking talking there are alright 1000 women killed , raped , children murdered while the US is ready to kick ass and stop this slaughter. ( KOsoVO)


While I'm in now way an appologist for Milosevic and his cronies, the NATO campaign in Kosovo was by no means as clear cut as the media (or Wes Clark) would have you belive.

Yes, the Serbs (VJ, MUP and paramilitaries) raped, terrorised and killed their way across the province (not country BTW). But so did the UCK and it's offshoots. We have at last begun to investiagte the war crimes of the 'Albanian' nationalists (something we did much earlier with relation to Croat and Muslim atrocities in BiH and Croatia).

Life is rarely black and white, rather shades of grey.



To answer your question. NO it was not. Will it eventually leave Iraq a better place. I hope so.

[marktigger]

we shall see if it was justified or not in the next 30 years. If we get a stable secular Iraq then yes. Getting rid of Saddam and his regeim was a good thing in my opinion but what we put into replace him is the important thing.

[Argyll]

Wrong Mark it's not who WE put in,it's who the Iraqi citizens put into place!
is that not what the whole war was about?,giving the Iraqi's the freedom of choice.
It is not upto the coalition who rules Iraq,or governs it,that is not a democracy is it?

[Resevoir Hogs]

WMD or not Saddam was a danger to the region and the world. It wasn't stockpiles of nerve or mustard gas that was the problem. It was Saddam's ambitions to attain such weapons. I don't see how anyone could believe that once the sanctions were gone and pressure was off that Saddam wouldn't go back to his old ways and rebuild his stockpiles.

[Argyll]

Oh you mean like the same intentions of Kim Il Jung?
ANY state that has WMD's are a threat to world stability,that includes the US,UK Isreal,and the Former Soviet states,all it need is something to go wrong,and we're all foked!
There are plenty of other Regimes out there who hate the West,and who could easily procure/manufacture these weapons.........look at the Libyans,all of a sudden they declare they are going to get rid of theirs!!
Now there's a man who hated the US every bit as Saddam did,and sponsored terrorism,why is it not possible he could have supplied such weapons to his terrorist buddies?

[martinexsquaddie]

sorry to be a pendant Argyl but as the occupied powers are in charge its there job to make sure the iraqi's have the chance to have a democratic country with respect for the rule of law.
IMHO a new ideal for an arabic country.
if it ****s up after they left fair enough but thats what they have to set up to say the war was justified

[oldsoak]

Interesting one. If one argues that we should have done it the last time around, one cannot argue against Saddams removal this time round. Yep, we're ten years or more out, but its done. Is it justifyable to remove a tyrant ? If so, who can do it ? Would the UN be prepared to set that precedent considering not a few of the votes would be cast by the representatives of tyrants ? If not, what recourse do you, as a subject of a tyrant, have except armed overthrow and hence civil war, with the UN on the sidelines ? And why should the UN be seen as other than an organisation that seeks to preserve the status quo if it does not intervene ? In removing Saddam, did we create trouble or save ourselves trouble ? Is libya's current dialogue with the USA based on a pragmatic appraisal of the US intentions in the ME post Iraq ? Is Syria's current round of diplomacy based on the assumption that the US may have plans for them ?
Back to the question - yes, Saddam had to go. The manner in which this has been handled could have been better ie more troops, more gear, keeping the Iraqi army on to keep the peace etc. Just MHO :)

[WARPIG]

Lux was right. This thread was bound for flaming. He expresses his opinion of the war and gets insulted for his candor. Typical. I don't think he has a very realistic view of the war but the situation is pretty complicated. I don't assume to know more than anyone else does but I do have an opinion. I try to look at the facts and use as much common sense as possible. Too many people rush to exercise their freedom of speech rights but never seem to exercise their right to freedom of thought.
Justify. What is justified to one person may not be to another. Every country, culture, people, religion, and individual sees things from a different perspective. Therefore, things that seem clear or obvious to you may not be so clear to me.
1 Were they a threat to US? Possibly. We still had a chip on our shoulder from 9-11 and didn't want to take a chance. If anyone had something to gain by hurting the US… Saddam was it. If he gained strength and threatened his neighbors again.. we would have been blamed for not taking him out in '91. We should have.
2 Did we believe they had WMD? Yes. Was their proof? Well if we had proof do you think we would have even asked the UN for support? If you know anything about intel, you know that it is usually a series of clues, signs, signals, reports, and activity that leads you to believe in one conclusion or another. We don't always get that Human Intel that points right at a smoking gun. All the signs pointed very strongly to WMD or at least a high potential in the near future. If we had backed down because the UN said so, what then? US would have been criticized (big surprise) and Saddam would have had all the time he wanted to sneak in some WMD, continue his programs or re-animate his old ones. He would have had the unofficial protection of an organization that has no intention of enforcing it’s own rules. Saying that Bush or his advisors flat out lied about WMD to draw us into a war is ridiculous. You would have to be pretty naive or stupid to believe that. Saying that Bush just got bad intel is just as naive. That being said, there are too many factors that any leader would have to work with to justify war. WMD. How much evidence of WMD is enough to justify a war? Bits and pieces? I guess not. What if we found a nuke? " They only found one nuke? Is that all?" At what point would the critics of the US shut up and give us credit?
3 Was our goal to free the people? Not the goal. Part of the reason for sure. Our critics like to put words in our mouths. Iraqi Freedom is the name of the Op. That is because that is what the end result will be. The invasion had little to do with Iraqi Freedom but the mission today has everything to do with it. We are well aware that the Iraqi's will not be close allies to the US nor will they be appreciative when we leave. Regardless, their freedom is what drives our presence there. We may not get a friendship out of this but respect and safety may be enough. Some idiot on this forum told me to ask the families of soldiers and the soldiers who were there if they think the deaths are worth it. Like I said… IDIOT. I am the family, I am a soldier and I don’t know anyone who hasn’t suffered some form of loss or sacrifice from the war. We all believe in it. We all have different opinions on how it came about and how it is handled but people fail to realize that we wouldn’t go or send our loved ones to war if we didn’t.
4 Was our intent to steal oil? Get real. Think the US is gonna send their loved ones to fight and die to save some pennies at the pump? Oil was definitely a factor though. Don’t believe for an instant that the ability for Iraq to be able to finance it’s own rebuilding wasn’t a decision maker. There is definitely money in that country and you better believe we are gonna make them use it rather than use ours.
5 Why not other dictatorships? Contrary to what many of our European friends think, we do not run around spanking all the bad kids in the world. One minute we are called “self proclaimed World Police” the next we are told that we only help those that we stand to gain from. Damned if you do.. damned if you don’t. Each country has it’s own impact on the world. If there is a negative impact, on the world or a people, and we have the ability to affect a positive change…. We definitely consider it. That doesn’t mean we go and do it. Dictatorship may not always be a negative thing. Other people are being oppressed and other people are being terrorized. Why isn’t the USA fighting for them? Good question. Why aren’t you?
6 Why not other threats? People like to throw North Korea or Syria in our face. We don’t have the balls to attack Syria. Well, we do. Of course then the tune would change to the US is “warmongering” or “power-hungry.” Again, damned if we do, damned if we don’t. No one pays attention to the fact that every country has different factors that can be used to influence them. N Korea is looking to extort money from the US or anyone who will pay to disarm them. Syria on the other hand can look outside their window and see the US standing right on their borders. They can either push us to the point of aggression or make the right changes on their own. Every threat doesn’t require the same action. They are all different. We aren’t hunting Osama with mass troops because it would be counter productive. We have to be a little less overt about it. We cut off his abilities as much as we can and try and force him to make a mistake.

Any one of these opinions of mine can be scrutinized and probably refuted. Big deal. The point I make is that when you try and justify, or discredit, a war with any one reason… well, it is a mistake. You have to weigh all the factors, all the action, and the outcome.
I say this all the time but watch where you stand. If you or who you represent are not involved with or aren't doing anything about the war in Iraq, realize that your opinion is welcome but won’t have the credibility that so many assume. Criticizing from the sidelines is a worthless effort.

[Argyll]

Good post WARPIG!
It seems that many people tend to forget that the US was not acting alone in it's actions!As we were being told repeatedly,there was a "coalition" of many!! ;)
The only thing I disagree with you is that ,Tony Blair did use dodgy intel to lure Britain into war,and that makes him out to be a liar,the 45 min claim was a deciding factor,don't forget the size of Britain compared to the US,the percentage against the war was far higher here,than in the US,so it had more of an impact to the British people,than to the US citizens!

[Durandal]

Now there's a man who hated the US every bit as Saddam did,and sponsored terrorism,why is it not possible he could have supplied such weapons to his terrorist buddies?

Because the last time he did something stupid like that we killed his fu%king kid in a bomb strike.

What disgusts me is that American companies have helped him, like Catepillar. They circumvent the restrictions by having their Italian office do the work. Of course, European nations have never stopped, even thogh he was one of the key supporters of MOST of the terrorism in Europe during the 80's.

Utter Crap...

[Kitsune]

Luxembourger wrote:

Quote:
submissive place.

??? what do you mean ? that US domiantes Europe ?????


Well, it does to quite an extend. (But they would even more dominate Europe if more people thought like you.)
To dominate Europe all they have to use is classic "divide et impera" strategy. It works somewhat like this:

budanski wrote:

Why submit to the U.S. when you can submit to Franco/German Axis.

(Remark: at least most French and Germans know what and where Luxembourg is...)


Fox2 wrote:

He's calling you weak and submissive. As in, you don't have a mind of your own, you submit to whatever the US says, blah blah blah.

Yeah, something like this. You got it. :D


Luxembourger wrote:

think that by supporting some one does not mean to be submited to someone

Here you are right...

Luxembourger wrote:
Thanks America that Europe is a peaceful place for over 50 years. We Europeans should not blame America for everything but support it and back it in tough times.


...and here you are not. While your first sentence isn't entirely wrong, it is not entirely right either. The story is a bit more complicated. The USA has done what it thought was best for its own interests. They haven't exactly lived in squalor and misery because of it. To be grateful is ok. But if this leads to unquestioning loyalty you are overdoing it. And that is the problem I have with sentence (2) of your quote...it sounds somewhat...submissive.

Bush HAS justified his war with the WMD issue. Some Europeans had doubts. And as it looks now they were right. Period.
Others have decided to trot along with the USA, mainly to ingratiate themselves. France and Germany did not. Some call us cowards for what we did. I think we showed more bravery than these did. It would have been much easier to simply "support" the USA and send a few hundred soldiers.


Fox2 wrote:

Amazing. Ya'll parade your "free opinion" talk around, and yet if a fellow European doesn't have your same opinion, he's labeled as an embarrassment!

Hell, you know what the people in the US get when they say horrible things about the Commander in Chief and the Nation? They get to run for friggin' President!

So much for "European democracy."


Whoa there ! Did I bind and gag Luxembourger? With is post he stated his opinion and critized those who think differently. He even played the "Anti-Americanism" card :roll: . But he has the right to do it. I haven't taken that away. I have not send guys to his appartement to beat him up. I simply stated what I thought about it. I used a bit sarcasm but within reason.
But that is MY right.

[Argyll]

Very true durandal,but I think most folks here were not aware he actually had such weapons right up until a few months ago ;)

[Durandal]

Very true durandal,but I think most folks here were not aware he actually had such weapons right up until a few months ago ;)

He does not have nuclear weapons though. Nor has claimed to have them. He does claim he was researching reactor technology though. As far as the other WMDs...well...I personally assume every nation has them since they are so cheap to manufacture (relative to a nuclear program). Maybe not on the quantity, say, Russia, manufactured the stuff in the mid-80s but enough to be scary.

Remember, is a Japanese end-of-the-world-terror cult can do an nerve agent strike AND import a Russian AK factory in the heart of Japan, nothing suprises me anymore.

I gues, ultimately, while everyone thought Lybia had turned around, there were those of us preaching the opposite. I do not think the revealing of these weapon programs does anything BUT benefit Lybia. The duide is playing a game and everyone is getting taken in...

Trust me...

[cut]

According to the international laws the war was both legal and illegal, because they are so loose you can't say it was one or the other. Either way in real terms no permanent member of the security counsel can be held to international laws. So I find it stupid and a waste of time that the french and the americans complain about each others shortcomings. Essentially the laws of the UN are just there for the winners of world war II to police the rest of the world. But hey it works because the permanent security council on the most part democratic enough not to break the rules.

I also don't understand why some people on this forum (well some of the americans anyway) want to get rid of the UN, because it is the US's ticket to do largely what it wants, or in other words a lot more than it could do otherwise.

[Salty Dog]

@Luxembourger:
Great job in kissing Americas ass.
Basically all you're saying is that the USA risks their soldiers life and spends billions of dollars just to help the people in other countries and make the world a better place. Interesting how such a "charity nation" could become superpower, don't you think? You should start looking for a middle way, otherwise you just embarass yourself and thereby europe on here.

someone's got to do it, cockbag.

[Adri]

no wmd's.
no al-queda link.
however, to remove saddam and help the iraqi people was a good thing...but that was not what Bush used in his PR for the war.

[Luxembourger]

Luxembourger wrote:
Quote:
Thanks America that Europe is a peaceful place for over 50 years. We Europeans should not blame America for everything but support it and back it in tough times.


...and here you are not. While your first sentence isn't entirely wrong, it is not entirely right either. The story is a bit more complicated. The USA has done what it thought was best for its own interests. They haven't exactly lived in squalor and misery because of it. To be grateful is ok. But if this leads to unquestioning loyalty you are overdoing it. And that is the problem I have with sentence (2) of your quote...it sounds somewhat...submissive.

MY signature line does not mean that I agree or will agree on anything the US does or will do. I am not brainwashed . I like the US and I am aware for their contrubition for the construction of Europe . You may say that they did it to earn money from it ...so what s so bad ? Iif I go to work for someone and earn money isthat a bad thing ?
I must say that unitl now concerning american military actions I agreed on all of them ......just my opinion .
There are issues like environment that I disagree with the US.

I just want to say that the Americans pushed us Europeans to unit and create the EU . IF you check the first steps of the EU construction you will witness what parties in Europe were against the idea of the EU, those parties didn t want the EU because they knew the US were backing it.Of course we Europeans already had the idea of the EU in the twenties ..remember Aristide Briand french politician....even Charles V in the 16th century had the idea. But the Americans after WW2 gave us the real push to do it and I am thankful for that as I am thankful for libertation , protection during cold war and other issues.

Being thankful to a nation does not mean kiss someone s ass
woot My second sentence is not submessive . When I back a friiend at university or somewhere else in diffultiess it does not appear submessive to me as far as I agree on the issue if it is backable.

Submessive is when you are in one way forced to back someone and that if you do not you will be punished.
;)

[marktigger]

it is we will see i hardly expect to see a Baa'th regeime back in power and yes it will be the iraqi people who vote for it. But the elections and their form will be put in by the we of the international community.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Was Saddam "a clear and present danger" to our security and peace I doubt it, he was though a five star b*stard to his own people but we have a lot of those about at the moment.
Did he have WMD's I believed he did not have significant stocks of chemical or biological weapons, Iraq technologists could not produce a functioning kettle at the time we went in.

[WARPIG]

The whole WMD issue seems to be a constant focus when speaking of Ops in Iraq. Many people simply assume that Allied parties, specifically Bush and Blair, simply lied about them to create a war. That is a pretty subjective statement. For one to believe that there was a conspiracy to go to war is just an adventure in ignorance. I won’t try and tell you that the turn out of WMD compared to the “hype” that was generated before the war is very disappointing. The thing to keep in mind here is that intel.. and remember how much technological and covert resources the US and UK have, and some rather weak reports from UN inspectors led to the decision for war. Intel isn’t something that can be used as evidence. It is flawed and not accurate enough to be called proof. But it is enough to support action. If you remember the dialogue generated by UN inspectors..almost all of the focus was on Nukes. Why would we claim a threat of WMD if we were only worried about Nukes? Saddam Hussein has defied the UN agreements for 11 years and as intel reports showed trends and traffic that pointed to WMD programs… it made Saddam a threat. Yes the events of 9-11 put the US on the edge but why wouldn’t we be? Who knows… if North Korea continues to to progress toward their terror-inducing extortion campaign, someone will take military action against them as well. So far it isn’t our ball to run with. ROK and other Asian countries have asked to shoulder this burden for now.

[marktigger]

in the aftermath of Hutton the leader of the liberal democrats and the conservitives have called for an inquiry into the Inteligence used by British government to justify going to war.
If no WMD are found in Iraq then I would sugest that the inteligence services of both countries should be held to account for how they got it so wrong.

[Fox2]

WARPIG - Awesome post. I agree on pretty much every point. It addressed many issues at once and gave some perspective.


If no WMD are found in Iraq then I would sugest that the inteligence services of both countries should be held to account for how they got it so wrong.

I agree, Mark. If there was a hole in the intelligence, they need to find out exactly where it came from, why it was so inaccurate, and action needs to be taken to fix that.

I will however say, that searching all of Iraq will be hard. Take for instance that we have said, even with the amount of troops there from the all members of the Coalition, that we can't reliably seal off the borders. That is a testament to how big the country is.

I can tell you from personal experience, the desert is an easy place to get lost in. Also an easy place to get rid of something. All it would take is the Iraqis driving out to the middle of the desert and burying the stuff in a large enough hole. Hell, I don't think they've found the all of MiGs the Iraqis were ordered to bury! And they know the area they were buried in!

And then you have to ask yourself if we're having a border problem now, how easy would it be before the war to smuggle something into Syria or Iran? Remember, although the Iranians hate Iraq and Saddam, the Iranian government hates America and its allies much, much more.

Anyway, good discussions, all. I hope we'll be able to look back on this situation and see something good come from it.

[-=TFN=-Karab]

We don't send people off to die, we send them off to fight. They fight and sacrifice for the right reasons, God bless them all. The United States would not go into any war without just cause. People talk too much crap about everything the U.S. does. I think the war in Iraq is for great cause to help protect the Iraqi people and the world. I don't have relatives going there and coming back after battles for no reason, I've even lost a close relative to the war. I thank God for all the coalition forces and their ultimate sacrifice to help preserve peace. They're protecting our future generations so that they don't have to end up fighting in something we could have prevented. We train and fight for wars when it is the final straw, it's never the first thing on our minds. We attempted to settle with Saddam since before the first Gulf War and he would not agree to terms to ensure safety of people. So we had to take action... twice now. WMD or not, his threat to safety is slowly diminishing and people are feeling that they can live in peace. We have every right to go into this war.

"Evil Thrives when Good Men do Nothing..."

[WARPIG]

Well, I don't plan to go off and die for my country either. Out of all that I wrote in that post that one tiny detail stuck out to you? :roll:

Our intelligence should be scrutinized and held accountable for bad intell yes. Don't take our leadership out of the hotseat though. I support their decisions but they have the responsibility to make informed decisions and use every resource. If Blair or Bush or anyone in thier circles of influence suger coated intel to push them to a decision.. they need to be held accountable. Will it happen? Doubt it. It the ends justify the means..there isn't really anyone to blame is there? Hopefully it will be a lesson learned though. I already have read a lot of memos talking about change and improvement plans for our intelligence community.

[Fox2]

Well, I don't plan to go off and die for my country either. Out of all that I wrote in that post that one tiny detail stuck out to you? :roll:

Eh? Was that directed at me?

If not, please disregard my reading too much into your post.

[WARPIG]

Negative

The America's Army player seemed to focus on one phrase of mine and misinterpret it. No big deal. I'm just feeling a little froggy today.

[OldRecon]

I don't think it was the leadership that lied..I think it was based off of bad intel that he got.

1. Leaders only hear what they wan't to hear.

2. USA should have left Saddam to rot like Qadaffi and concentrated its effort against Afghanistan and against Al Qaida. Instead USA have now spread thin, and given Qaida yet another playing field in Iraq. The royal family in Saudi Arabia don't look all that safe in the seat either (and don't tell that the Western presence in Iraq haven't escalated that element of subversion).
If you don't execute Saddam in the meantime he's not much left to live anyway with his cancer. Hafes Assad in Syria is also about ripe to pass out from old age. I think USA would do wise to pay attention to how things develop there after his death (provided you don't kill him first that is).

3. USA didn't join the fracas in WW-2 voluntarily, they were dragged into it by the Japanese and Hitler.

4. USA did imense good during WW-2 and especialy in the immediate aftermath because you had the right people at the top (not at least the best president the USA have ever had, FDR, besides other giants like IKE, George Marshall, and Douglas Mac Arthur (the way he run Japan immediately after that nations surrender was a better deal than the Japanese could ever have hoped for). You also had a conscript citizen army at the bottom (though use of national guardsmen, and US Army reserve personel in Iraq is a good thing).
Bush unfortunately is not a Giant on the same level as those above (even though he appears to be faithfull to his wife, and I can understand that's more important to US voters).

5. From 4 you will see that we don't think everything the US does is bad.
And I for one f.ex don't think your intervention in Somalia was bad.
Only that the local cultural values there would have made any external attempts to establish stability there near impossible without a severe blooding of the locals. To get what you need through smuggling and intimidation is an ingrained way of life there and also sort of a necessity in order to survive there.
I'm not against you being in the Afghanistan or Balkans either.
Yet to me the Iraq thing appears to be a classical collision between Ideology and reality.
To beat the armed forces of a nation with air-land battle is one thing. To keep things quiet as occupants of that same nation with the same amount of troops quite another.