Original Reason For Iraq
BigBull
Join Date: 2003-04-02 Member: 15123Members
Join Date: 2003-04-02 Member: 15123Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">I believe</div> I believe watching and reading up on the Iraq situation (which i support)
I remember reading that it was policy since the first Gulf War that Iraq be open to periodic weapon inspections.
And if they declined or pushed inspectors away, they shall be dealt with. By Policy.
Countries against the war have no mentioned this, the policy they signed
Weapons or not, I think it was in all our right to go to war, due to the broken policy.
Of course people will think you have something, if your not willing to show what you have.
Like they were hiding something..
Correct me if im wrong.
/puts on flameshield.
I remember reading that it was policy since the first Gulf War that Iraq be open to periodic weapon inspections.
And if they declined or pushed inspectors away, they shall be dealt with. By Policy.
Countries against the war have no mentioned this, the policy they signed
Weapons or not, I think it was in all our right to go to war, due to the broken policy.
Of course people will think you have something, if your not willing to show what you have.
Like they were hiding something..
Correct me if im wrong.
/puts on flameshield.
Comments
Looking at the situation, there's 2 major problems with using the "They violated the inspection agreements" arguement. Firstly, the inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and they were given full access everywhere. They were doing their job right up to the point where America decided to invade.
Secondly, the right to decide whether or not iraq was in violation of the inspection agreement was given to the UN. The UN could decide if Iraq was complying and they could vote on the appropriate action. This was not under the control of the US and as such they had no right to override the UN and decide the matter themselves.
Hence even if Iraq had been lax in it's inspection obligations the US invasion was still unjustified and illegal.
Looking at the situation, there's 2 major problems with using the "They violated the inspection agreements" arguement. Firstly, the inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and they were given full access everywhere. They were doing their job right up to the point where America decided to invade.
Secondly, the right to decide whether or not iraq was in violation of the inspection agreement was given to the UN. The UN could decide if Iraq was complying and they could vote on the appropriate action. This was not under the control of the US and as such they had no right to override the UN and decide the matter themselves.
Hence even if Iraq had been lax in it's inspection obligations the US invasion was still unjustified and illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, that isn't true. Iraq was denying access to key factories and other locations to the inspectors. For crying out loud, I thought this was common knowledge. I even remember seeing an episode of the simpsons where they made fun of how the weapon inspection progress in Iraq was a complete joke. And this was back in the 1990's.
Second, it was the U.N.'s originally desicion to say whether or not Iraq is invaded, and guess what? Wasn't there 13 resolutions passed saying to find out the weapon situation or take things into forceful measures?
I mean, come on, don't tell me you buy the paper tiger's white lies Ryo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Key part there? back in the 1990's. When the inspectors went in again, right before the US invasion, they were allowed to go everywhere, and they did just that, finding I might add jack squat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second, it was the U.N.'s originally desicion to say whether or not Iraq is invaded, and guess what? Wasn't there 13 resolutions passed saying to find out the weapon situation or take things into forceful measures?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and then there was a vote on whether force should be used. Need I remind you that it failed. The UN never authorised the use of force in the Second Gulf War.
I'll believe something when I have proof. And the US was able to produce no convincing evidance that Saddam STILL had WMDs. If it had been convincing, the UN would have voted to take action. And before you say "Oh France and Germany were out to get the US blah blah" need I remind you that Germany and France both were members of the 1991 coalition that drove the Iraqis out of Kuwaiit and that neither of them stood to gain anything if Iraq had WMDs (in fact they stood to lose a great deal as if Saddam did give his weapons to terrorists, as part of the Western world they were as much at risk as Britian or the US).
Indeed. Let me elaborate-
If you are sent in to inspect for weapons, and you were denied access to some facilities, and then a while later they go "Ok, we're ready, come on in!" and have full access, it is not surprising that you won't find anything.
If I remember right, when the weapon inspectors cam back; they were allowed greater access. The inspectors just had to give advanced notice, not to mention that they were being spied on. Here I got an idea, Ill station you in the basement of my house and hide a ball upstairs. You are allowed to search on room at a time, you just have to give me advanced info on what room you were going to. Do you think you would find the ball?
On a side note it the UN will not back up its own threats, than what reason does anyone have to follow them. They passed 13 resolutions on Iraq for ignoring the UN. If I was a leader of a country and saw this, I would ignore the UN too.
Blix and his inspectors - who were accreditted at doing an admirable job by the neutral members of the Security Council of their time - found a number of ground-ground rockets that could theoretically exceed the range specified as limit in the sanctions by a few dozen miles - provided they did not haul any payload. Additionally, there were findings of a number of papers on several Anarchists Cookbook-esque weapon technologies in scientist residences.
These were the hottest findings the Inspectors came up with, which is still more than Kay, who had arguably full access to Iraq, found.
The Inspectors left the country when their physical wellbeing could no longer be ensured - in other words, Blix left Iraq some twenty hours before the first cruise missles struck. The were <i>not</i> driven out.
Seeing that even Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, for all I know the two biggest hawks within the US administration, refuse to talk about Iraqi WMD at this point, I feel you should just drop the assumption.
Can anyone in here think of a single court that would follow such a leap of logic? Then why is it suddenly supposed to suffice if it comes to deciding about the fate of not only a single, but thousands of people?
To steer this back on track, looking at the whole background of the US-Iraqian confrontation, there are by far more likely reasons for this war:<ul><li>The heavy American military presence in Saudi Arabia was forseeably going to lead to increasingly severe tensions. A strategically comparable and at the same time religiously less difficult area of deployment was more than desireable, and Iraq offers just these qualities.</li><li>To get it behind us, the vast natural resources of the Iraq, namely its oil reserves, were basically unobtainable for the American economy, which is like no other depending on a steady supply of oil. It is foolhardy not to assume at least a partitial influence of this issue.</li><li>The Bush administration based its whole post - 9/11 image around the concept of what was initially dubbed a 'crusade', although the name was later dropped due to its negative connotations. Seeing that Hussein had already been demonized by the western media for a good decade, he was the logical target.</li><li>There's an obvious and deep 'feud' between the family Bush and Hussein, starting with the first Gulf War and later continued by the assassination attempt on Bush sen.. Seeing this, revenge appears to be a very likely personal motivation for Bush.</li></ul>These are the more likely influences I can name from the top of my head. Limiting this discussion to the question of the WMD is in my opinion obviously falling short of the truth.
"First, that isn't true. Iraq was denying access to key factories and other locations to the inspectors. For crying out loud, I thought this was common knowledge."
The chief inspectors name was Hans Blix, and iraq was not denying access to factories and other locations, according to him. Blix said he needed more time and that he didnt find any WMDs yet. Blix said iraq was in no way obstructing the inspection process, even saying they were being cooperative. So what in fact was denying access to inspectors was the US and UK army dropping bombs on people.
Burncycle
"If you are sent in to inspect for weapons, and you were denied access to some facilities, and then a while later they go "Ok, we're ready, come on in!" and have full access, it is not surprising that you won't find anything."
If you can find me a SINGLE quote from Blix saying he was hampered somewhere in Iraq looking for WMDs please link to me this , but im ready to bet you definitely cant
I am not specifically taking the side of the Bush camp, but I am trying to encourage thinking of both sides of the issue, especially when the stakes are millions of lives and the world's energy supplies.
Carry on.
And Mose, the only time that Iraq had used any sort of chemical weapon was back when they were our ally. We didn't particularly care then. As soon as it looked like he couldn't use them without bringing down some on his own head he stopped.
He's a criminal and a tyrant, not a madman.
This may be true, i am not that knowledgeable about iraq, they may have been caught a few times making biological & chemical weaps. What i do know for sure, is that France, Germany, Russia and the US has been selling these weapons to saddam in the 1980s. Isnt it a tad hypocritical to sell weapons to a dictator, then blast the people he oppresses into oblivion when hes got em?
The US in my eyes, has absolutely no moral authority in telling the rest of the world not to produce weapons or pre-emptively strike "rogue nations" that are supposedly an imminent threat to the US. Its not really a new tactic to fake a threat to "defend" against it, the cold war and the genocide of native americans being one example. The US is by far the largest seller of weapons to the rest of the world, it targets civilians when it goes to war, it targets the Al-jazeera news network and other journalists because they show the civilian cost and suffering of US bombing in iraq and afghanistan. It has a history of supporting dictatorships and setting them up all over the last half-century. Most of the world knows this, i think thats why you saw more than ten million people trying to stop the US from bombing iraq in march 2003. I know its hard to swallow for some americans, but the sooner americans get this, and the sooner they rein in people like Bush and Cheney in the US, the quicker the world will become a safer place to be.
Al-quaeda's fan base would drop if only american army would stop being such a bully in the rest of the world, not saying it would not happen anyway, but the US and its hundred bases all over the world is not exactly behaving like the gentle green giant on its bean cans.
To follow Spooge's line of research, here's what Hans Blix said in his official report:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq’s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I point these out with Spooge's help to debunk the myth of 'complete Iraqi cooperation', and the concept that thousands of tons of known WMD's somehow disappeared and can no longer be acounted for. Remember, this is the UN report and has nothing to do with US intelligence.
Aster0ids, to the rest of your points, they are not strictly speaking on topic. I ask that you start a new topic with your opinions (although they have long since been talked to death previously here and you have not yet broken new ground). I have personally never seen any creditable links to the US selling Iraq WMD's, but I'm always willing to expand my mind if you can provide some objective news sources.
I will post links or quote a book on the bio-weaps sold to iraq in the 1980s by US companies soon.
You wouldnt beleive before the war with iraq, saddam hussein saying that he nows serves happy meals in prison and no longer tortures his prisoners. But you and I wouldnt take him at his word. Why is that? Because of his earlier actions.
I am doing the same thing, but in regards to US military action in recent history.
Have they been for justice, peace etc?
"We are not targeting ordinary iraquis, only Saddam and his WMDs."
in 1999: "We are not targeting ordinary serbs, were saving kosovars and after Milosevic. By bombing kosovo and upping the number of refugees from 2000 in 1998, to a couple of hundred thousands 2 days after the bombing started.
Serbs "genociding" Albanians, quick, lets destroy the civilian infrastructure of Serbia to save Kosovo! Yeah, right. My fathers friend works in a canadian telecommunication company and they got a juicy rebuild contract in Kosovo after the war. War is very profitable to a select few.
Milosevic is the new hitler, he has concentration camps in football stadiums.
That turned out to be total BS.
Vietnam: bombing your village in order to save it. Poisoning your kids to the 3rd generation with agent orange so the world will be safe from communism.
Guatemala 1954: Making the world safe from communism by supporting a military coup installing a fascist regime in place. I.E. making sure United Fruit company keeps the land of guatemala at the expense of poor farmers.
iraq 2004: Flat tax for US company setting up shop in iraq (0% tax). Its your oil guys, but you know, keeping those tanks in your towns and country is expensive, so were just gonna take your oil, sell it, and pay for our tanks with that! You dont mind, do you? Speak louder i cant hear you with my gun in your mouth.
All too familiar.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You wouldnt beleive before the war with iraq, saddam hussein saying that he nows serves happy meals in prison and no longer tortures his prisoners. But you and I wouldnt take him at his word. Why is that? Because of his earlier actions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are saying that we should not believe Saddam Hussein because of his earlier actions, correct? Glad you came around to seeing it my way. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Again, the rest of your points are not relevant to talking about the here and now in Iraq.
I know i seena video of Iraqi guards shunning inspectors away from palaces, and factories.
Can anyone in here think of a single court that would follow such a leap of logic? Then why is it suddenly supposed to suffice if it comes to deciding about the fate of not only a single, but thousands of people?
To steer this back on track, looking at the whole background of the US-Iraqian confrontation, there are by far more likely reasons for this war:<ul><li>The heavy American military presence in Saudi Arabia was forseeably going to lead to increasingly severe tensions. A strategically comparable and at the same time religiously less difficult area of deployment was more than desireable, and Iraq offers just these qualities.</li><li>To get it behind us, the vast natural resources of the Iraq, namely its oil reserves, were basically unobtainable for the American economy, which is like no other depending on a steady supply of oil. It is foolhardy not to assume at least a partitial influence of this issue.</li><li>The Bush administration based its whole post - 9/11 image around the concept of what was initially dubbed a 'crusade', although the name was later dropped due to its negative connotations. Seeing that Hussein had already been demonized by the western media for a good decade, he was the logical target.</li><li>There's an obvious and deep 'feud' between the family Bush and Hussein, starting with the first Gulf War and later continued by the assassination attempt on Bush sen.. Seeing this, revenge appears to be a very likely personal motivation for Bush.</li></ul>These are the more likely influences I can name from the top of my head. Limiting this discussion to the question of the WMD is in my opinion obviously falling short of the truth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are always side influences and extra motives. Big deal man.
And about the idea that the 'experts' could have never missed the WMD's; they had about <b>5 years at least</b> of not being surveyed, there is no telling what could have happened to the WMD's.
I mean, before the 5 year absence of UN, we know they have WMD's, and when we come back the UN tells us they don't have any because they can't find any.
All I have to say to that is:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>...</span>
I mean, it's like toddler logic the Iraqi government used, except it actually <i>managed to work</i>... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is though, you can't just assume that someone is still doing something wrong because they did it in the past. Say a man is killed, and his next door neighbour happened to be an ex-con who served 10 years for murder. A policeman investigating the case would certainly question the ex-con and be suspicious, but unless he can find evidence there's no grounds to convict him.
The same thing works with Iraq; there's a reason the UN security council, and the UN general assembly voted against taking military action against Iraq in 2003. That reason was that the evidence presented by the US was not convincing. The US did not offer hard proof that Iraq still had WMDs, and the inspectors, who were being allowed to go everywhere as Nemesis pointed out, couldn't back up the claims the US was making.
Now I accept your point that some WMDs can't be accounted for. But to assume that Saddam hung on to them is just as plausible as him getting rid of them. Who knows what went on in Saddam's mind, but I do recall a while ago hearing in the news about a high ranking Iraqi aide who gave an insight into Saddam's thoughts. He claimed that the reason Saddam wasn't giving out full information about WMDs was that he wanted the West to believe that he had some. Apparently he believed this would prevent an invasion (and to be fair, the Coalition didn't invade Iraq back in 1991). This makes a lot of sense to me, but if anything it does show that this whole thing isn't black and white, and that Saddam really might have gotten rid of his WMDs.
Naturally, Saddam wasn't the most trustworthy of men, that's a given. But even when someone has a history of lieing, you have to find evidence that they are lieing; to just assume makes a mockery of our legal system. And what was lacking before the invasion and now after as well is that proof.
Yes, you can assume. He had a history of lieing AND of using said WMDs. Why should we start believing him without any evidence? There was no direct evidence of WMDs, but at the same time there was LOTS of unaccounted for WMDs. So which scenario would you feel safe believing in? Would you really want to chance that the truth was being told this one time? If you ask me that's really naive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The same thing works with Iraq; there's a reason the UN security council, and the UN general assembly voted against taking military action against Iraq in 2003. That reason was that the evidence presented by the US was not convincing. The US did not offer hard proof that Iraq still had WMDs, and the inspectors, who were being allowed to go everywhere as Nemesis pointed out, couldn't back up the claims the US was making. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or we could bring the allegations that are now being made... That certain elements of the Security Council voted against invasion to save their own rears. Was there any hard evidence? Nope. Was there anything that would make you more than just worry? Definitely. Why should we wait for hard proof that a mad-man has WMDs or is going to use them? I say remove the mad-man and remove all doubt. This wasn't some mad-man that wasn't a threat to anyone. This was a mad-man that has started a number of wars... Gassed thousands of people... Tortured many thousands more... And murdered still more thousands.
So why should he be given the benefit of the doubt? He shouldn't have been. Was he an imminent threat to the US? Nope. The administration never said that either. I do believe the administration never once said imminent except to deny that they had every said imminent. It was the media and critics of the administration that said the administration said such things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now I accept your point that some WMDs can't be accounted for. But to assume that Saddam hung on to them is just as plausible as him getting rid of them. Who knows what went on in Saddam's mind, but I do recall a while ago hearing in the news about a high ranking Iraqi aide who gave an insight into Saddam's thoughts. He claimed that the reason Saddam wasn't giving out full information about WMDs was that he wanted the West to believe that he had some. Apparently he believed this would prevent an invasion (and to be fair, the Coalition didn't invade Iraq back in 1991). This makes a lot of sense to me, but if anything it does show that this whole thing isn't black and white, and that Saddam really might have gotten rid of his WMDs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some WMDs? Just how much damage can "some" actually cause? So even if it is just "some", would that not be too much in the hands of someone like Saddam?
How is it just as plausible that he got rid of them as him keeping them? He was a murderous dictator that has committed countless atrocities. Why should we even assume that he was capable of getting rid of a serious part of his power base?
Say he did get rid of them, but continued to bluff and give indications that he was lieing. Why should we assume that he was bluffing and actually did get rid of them but was just playing poker to make us believe there was still a strong possibility that he had them? We're not playing games here. Because of his history we do not assume that he's bluffing to prevent an invasion. Again, that is incredibly naive when the history and what is being bluffed are known. Again this is not a game. You do not make assumptions when a mad-man could have WMDs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Naturally, Saddam wasn't the most trustworthy of men, that's a given. But even when someone has a history of lieing, you have to find evidence that they are lieing; to just assume makes a mockery of our legal system. And what was lacking before the invasion and now after as well is that proof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you have to find evidence that they are lieing every single time? Especially when they are lieing about something of such a magnitude? This is not about whether little Tommy played with matches. This is about WMDs possibly at the disposal of history proven mad-man. You do not make assumptions and hope to be able to find proof all the time with stuff like this. It is far better to take action and be found out wrong than to be proven right and not take any action until it is too late.
Legal system? What legal system? Is it the legal system that has worked so well in regards to Iraq over more than a decade?
I know we are supposed to respect all ideas here... But you are asking us to give Saddam the benefit of doubt; and that is one idea I will never respect.
When then, Ryo? If you read the Hans Blix report, he talks about things going on 3 years ago. Three! And when exactly did Saddam ever suddenly start giving us the slightest reason to trust him?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Naturally, Saddam wasn't the most trustworthy of men<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Understatement of the century. You know, when you kill a few hundred thousand people, hide WMD programs for 20 years (according to the UN, mind you), and even murder your own son-in-law by having your daughter lure him back into the country on a promise of pardon, I guess you could say you're not "the most trustworthy of men". Are you even listening to yourself? You make it sound like he's often late for appointments, not a ruthless police state dictator. Based on this logic, if we had only fought Hitler to a draw, after a couple years we should have automatically started assuming everything he said was true.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please do.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what your definition of allied means, because I am positive this article is well under your attention:
<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-02.htm' target='_blank'>Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas </a>
- It does <b>not</b> mention that the US sold bio/chem weapons to Iraq. However, the next source, (and a more questionable source, I'll give you that), suggests US direct involvement in supply chem/bio weapons.
<a href='http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_BiologicalWeapons_Iraq.html' target='_blank'>What The New York Times Left Out </a>
- I'm positive this is common knowledge, (or is it a common rumour?) which is why I'm having difficulty understanding your definition of ally.
But it's still dodging the main problem: proof. There wasn't any. Past crimes or lies is not grounds for a full-on accussation of guilt. Saddam never gave us a reason to trust him, but what if you can't find any evidence to disprove what Saddam was saying?
On the Hitler comparison, if say in 1949 Hitler had said "I have no further territorial claims in Europe" but was building up a massive army then yeah, I reckon you could take that with a rather large grain of salt. But if Hitler said the same thing but no evidence could be found to indicate that Hitler had an army, why automatically assume he was lieing?
Why believe him this time? He has to actually make us believe him. Saying one thing and then performing actions with just the intention of making us believe the opposite of what he says will not cut it ( obviously ). This is a case where Saddam had to prove his innocence. He did not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the Hitler comparison, if say in 1949 Hitler had said "I have no further territorial claims in Europe" but was building up a massive army then yeah, I reckon you could take that with a rather large grain of salt. But if Hitler said the same thing but no evidence could be found to indicate that Hitler had an army, why automatically assume he was lieing?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would perhaps the invasion he'd already performed have something to do with it?
Actions speak louder than words. And when you have a mad-man with lots of power at the helm who has a history of lieing, his word is worth nothing and thus means nothing.
Again, it is far better to act and be found wrong than to be proven rightn after not acting. With Saddam it was too risky to gamble the future of the Middle East.
Stop giving him the benefit of doubt. He doesn't deserve it. There is no reason to give him the benefit of doubt. He had proven time and time again that his word meant nothing. Why should we just go ahead and start believing him? Why should we believe him when he does things in the background that seem to go against what he's said ( even if those actions are just to mislead )? He played a dangerous bluff and lost.
The evidence to go to war was circumstantial, but when the stakes are so high and you already know that the leader is a dictator, murderer and an all out mad-man... Circumstantial evidence is all the reason you need.
As for the history of the US giving Saddam these gruesome weapons... I do believe that we ( along with other countries ) gave him the ability to produce the stuff. This includes samples of the actual WMDs and possibly even equipment; but for the most part, the stockpiles that Saddam had were created in Iraq by Iraqi scientists. I may be wrong on this though... But I think it's right. Either way... Why does us supplying him remove some legitimacy of us removing him? I really don't think that has anything to do with the current situation. It does not matter at this point who actually supplied Saddam.
I thought the war and Hitler ended in 1945
Why believe him this time? He has to actually make us believe him. Saying one thing and then performing actions with just the intention of making us believe the opposite of what he says will not cut it ( obviously ). This is a case where Saddam had to prove his innocence. He did not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is completely impossible to prove a negative. This stance would get you laughed out of ANY court in the US. Hell it would get you laughed out of a highschool debate. There is a reason you have to PROVE someone guilty, not the other way around.
The point of bring up the fact that we were supplying arms and sattelite intelligence to Saddam, even after we knew about him using chemical weapons, is to polint out that any moves to use those actions as a reason to invade NOW is highly hipocritical. The US really doesn't care that much about human rights abuses when it doesn't negatively affect them.
There are no coencidences in politics people. The tail is wagging the dog and the people who wanted to make the US look like a tyrant are doing just that, now if 20 years from now history shows that this was a completely blown attempt at liberation and the whole time US military planes were smuggling oil out of the country *cough*vietnam*cough* then I'll eat my words. This war hasn't cost enough lives (gasp sue me) or gone on long enough to be compared to that yet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the response I wrote was referring to an analogy posted by Monse asking what the Allies would have done if instead of defeating Nazi germany the war instead ground to a halt and peace was declared.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why believe him this time? He has to actually make us believe him. Saying one thing and then performing actions with just the intention of making us believe the opposite of what he says will not cut it ( obviously ). This is a case where Saddam had to prove his innocence. He did not.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the US didn't prove his guilt. And how exactly would Saddam prove his innocence; as Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek said, proving a negative is downright impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are no coencidences in politics people. The tail is wagging the dog and the people who wanted to make the US look like a tyrant are doing just that, now if 20 years from now history shows that this was a completely blown attempt at liberation and the whole time US military planes were smuggling oil out of the country *cough*vietnam*cough* then I'll eat my words. This war hasn't cost enough lives (gasp sue me) or gone on long enough to be compared to that yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please don't try to derail this topic; this is about why we went into Iraq, not the consequenses of the invasion. We, the citizens of Australia, Britian and the US were told that Iraq had WMDs and links to terrorist groups, and thus we had to invade. Humanitarian concerns were secondary and were not the major selling point of the war. Frankly, if the price of Iraq's freedom was us being lied to, then it wasn't worth it.
That's the thing... He was already guilty. He was unable to prove his innocence in a verifiable manner. This isn't a court of law. The accused are not always innocent until proven guilty. Such an ideal does not apply nor belong here. This was Saddam... A murderer... A dictator... An owner of WMDs... A user of WMDs... A mad-man... An obstacle to Middle East peace... A liar.
All this is indisputable. All this has been known. All of this is relevant. You keep on suggesting that just the idea of him having WMD's was acceptable. It was not. If he says that Iraq destroyed all of its WMDs, yet there are large quantities unaccounted for AND he is doing things that would give the world intelligence community reasons to believe that he was in fact at least hiding, if not trying to produce WMDs, then why should he be believed? Why is he presumed innocent. He's already been found to be anything but innocent. He was not someone you would want to let simmer and eventually regain his lost stature.
You continue to look at this from one point of view... Lets switch the point of view around. Presume he is already guilty and a real threat to continual peace. Presume that you know he's a liar. Presume that you know he has had WMDs. Presume that you know he has used WMDs on his own people and agaisnt a neighboring state. Presume that you know he wants to acquire more powerful WMDs as well as increase his current stockpiles. Presume that Saddam is carrying out actions knowing that they, whether they really are or not, appear to be in relation to WMD storage, development or concealment. Presume that even after all of this, Saddam says that all of his WMDs have been destroyed. Now presume that there are large quantities of unaccounted for WMDs... WMDs which have supposed destroyed as the liar Saddam says; and that the supposed storage, developement and concealment actions still occur; and that practically every intelligence agency in the world believes that Saddam still possesses WMDs.
Now... Why is he presumed innocent? You continue to forget that the burden was on Saddam to prove his innocence. The weapon inspectors weren't there to prove him guilty, that was already determined. The weapon inspectors were the parole officers that only see one face of the criminal.
Saddam was not the victim here. He received only part of what he deserves. Its sad to think that the freedom of the Iraqis is less important than us being lied to. Not only that, but there is no proof that we were really lied to. We were told what our governments believed to be true. So it turns out they were wrong. It was a gamble they could not afford not to take.