Iraq has no WMD

[Jonaldo]

I think Adolf Hitler actually initiated WWII by invading Poland, France via Holland and threatening the rest of western Europe, not just Britain not liking Hitler, and these were valid grounds for us to

i. Not surrender our land and ideals to a fascist and psychotic dictator.
ii. Attempt to free the countries already unwillingly subjected to his regime.

Attacking someone we 'think' might be a threat with no conclusive evidence is quite a dangerous thing to do.

China and Korea are considered possible dangers for the future, if they were to ally and they consider the USA as threats, and Bush to be a dangerous and warmongering leader (which he has proved to be now), after the example the US & UK set in Iraq they have every right to launch an attack if they wanted. Admittedly it would probably be suicidal but hey... if they think there may possibly be some weapons there that the unstable leader may use in the forseable future then why not initiate the offensive to attempt to disable them?
It's all a completely ridiculous scenario but one that we have totally given license to with our attack on Iraq.

As I've stated before I'm glad we got him out of power, and once the war was started I was 100% behind our troops and fully supportive of everything we done out there. However I do wish we had thought it through a bit more as the implications of our actions out there could potentially come back to bite us in the arse, even if it would mean a worse case scenario. If we agree to certain rules and regulations we should stick to the said rules and regulations, and not break them when we can just get away with it just because we know no-one will stand against us. After all no-one wants another world war, and that's what would happen should the UN actually stood firm against Bush & Blair and said that we couldn't attack Iraq due to UN sanctions.

At the end of the day, it's over with. I'm happy we won, I feel for the families who lost loved ones out there and wish it could've been resolved peacefully but it was obvious Saddam wouldn't accept that. I just hope for more peace in the future. It'll certainly make DMW's life a lot more simpler

 

[Meatballs]

If we agree to certain rules and regulations we should stick to the said rules and regulations, and not break them when we can just get away with it just because we know no-one will stand against us. After all no-one wants another world war, and that's what would happen should the UN actually stood firm against Bush & Blair and said that we couldn't attack Iraq due to UN sanctions.

As far as Im concerned the UN was turning its back on previous agreements or whatever over iraq, and although going to war with iraq on our own with america may not have been the perfect solution, you cant just stand by and let countries weasel out of resolutions, because that means the UN becomes worthless (if its not becoming so already).

And about another world war, if you've done a little bit of study on things like the league of nations it kinda illustrates my point further

 

[dysfunction]

I completely agree with Bhodi. I was going to write a similar essay but just couldnt be bothered.

And that Kelly bloke stated that if weapons were not already primed they could be mobilised within a week...so all the info pointed to an unstable man with unstable weapons.

Good reason to go to war if you ask me.

What I find amusing is that every two minutes someone is asking for Blairs resignation over all this....They only want him gone cos only way anyone else will become Prime Minister.

And this Hutton enquiry is a complete waste of time and money. He's not going to find anything wrong with the way things were handled.

 

[Tom]

And this Hutton enquiry is a complete waste of time and money. He's not going to find anything wrong with the way things were handled.

Oh, I think he will. The PM might come out unscathed, but there may be a lot of critisism of the way that business is conducted in Downing Street.

 

[sibanac]

As far as Im concerned the UN was turning its back on previous agreements or whatever over iraq, and although going to war with iraq on our own with america may not have been the perfect solution, you cant just stand by and let countries weasel out of resolutions, because that means the UN becomes worthless (if its not becoming so already).

And about another world war, if you've done a little bit of study on things like the league of nations it kinda illustrates my point further

So Israel is next on the US their list ? They got about +50 UN resolutions since the 1970's that they ignore, Invaded a country and have
a verry bad human rights record and have WMD.
Oh did I mention their leader has been acused of war crimes and with alot more evidence then they had of Iraq's WMD

 

[xane]

So Israel is next on the US their list ? They got about +50 UN resolutions since the 1970's that they ignore, Invaded a country and have
a verry bad human rights record and have WMD.
Oh did I mention their leader has been acused of war crimes and with alot more evidence then they had of Iraq's WMD

This is exactly the kind of attitude that has caused the UN to be what it is, a feeble stick used more by rogue states than those willing to accept the UN protocol.

In no way do I ever praise Israel's actions, but considering the fact that unprovoked invasions of its territories by coalitions of nations have taken place three times in the past in direct violation of the UN protocol of negotiation, I can see why they no longer trust the UN or any of its member states who claim to have signed up to its charter.

It seems incredible that a country can attempt invasion of another then, when it fails, go crying to the UN for protection and support, without even hinting that the government that instigated the invasion is prepapred to step down.

Israel is more than prepared to negotiate rather than fight, others less so.

Israel has nukes, but then it didn't sign up to the non-proliferation treaty either, so technically it is not hiding anything.

 

[old.Osy]

America has learned that going to war is still a costly exercise, in financial terms, in political terms and in human lives. The UN has learned that there is only so much crap that countries like america can take before they start acting unilaterally. I doubt we'll see much more of this kind of thing, unless of course countries continue to act like Iraq did.

Hellooo ? Gulf War, Bosnia, etc, etc... Costly my ass, the bloody yankees do as they please, all in the name of world peace. Their peace, their oil, their world influence... give me a break.
I have yet to see US acting like a *drumroll* Democratic nation. When France and Germany said Halt, they just moved on, ignoring the world. As they did each time. It's not Iraq we should be afraid of, but US.

 

[sibanac]

This is exactly the kind of attitude that has caused the UN to be what it is, a feeble stick used more by rogue states than those willing to accept the UN protocol.

In Israels case its mainly the US vetoing any proposed sanction or action against them that cripled the UN

 

[xane]

When France and Germany said Halt, they just moved on, ignoring the world. As they did each time. It's not Iraq we should be afraid of, but US.

France and Germany agreed to Resolution 1441 in November 2002 that specified action would be taken against Iraq if they did not meet the conditions of previous Resolutions within the required time, this is hardly saying "halt".

France was too busy negotiating oil contracts with Iraq to worry about what would happen, after all they were one of Iraq's biggest customers, unlike the US who got more oil from the UK than from Iraq.

yes, of course it was all about American Oil, nothing to do with France, or Russia or China either.

 

[xane]

In Israels case its mainly the US vetoing any proposed sanction or action against them that cripled the UN

Why don't you read up on the story of UN GA Resolution 3379 to find out those who abuse the processes in the UN for a wholly political agenda, you will soon see why the US vetos so many of them nowdays.

 

[exxxie]

*resists Liberal rant and decides to go to here instead*

 

[dysfunction]

*resists clicking on link to another forum*

 

[Stazbumpa]

My point in all this remains the same.

Bodhi aer teh l33t dude0r.

Sorry, that was a point I wanted to make, but not THE point Ok, let me break it down for you, although Bohdi did this admirably well on the last page.

Saddam = teh b4d man.
USA/GB/other clever nations = teh l33t farsighted peeps with very good human rights records and a long history of NOT being a threat to our neighbours.
WMD = teh n4sty threat that we don't know much about. Why? Because Saddam ignored all the rules laid down in Iraq's surrender during the last Gulf War, so despite inspections running around the place he was the uber disruptive and non cooperative bloke. Ergo, we have to fill in the blanks with what he says.

So there you have it, a case for war. All this arse juice about the USA being able to invade who they like is, well, arse juice. How long did it take before the shots were fired? Was there not a huge UN get together to try and sort it out? And did the UN not fail to sort the mess out? Again.

Question: If the right course of action in this situation fails to get the UN seal of approval due to wrangling by the French, Russia and China (like xane says below), at what point does it cease to be the right course of action?
Just because a bunch of political toss bags fail to ratify it, how does it stop being right?

The issue as I see it is not the USA/GB/whoever being the new world police force, its the UN's consistent failure to do anything usefull at all, ever. The world under the United Nations flag (say United Nations to yourself and have a little think about what that name entails) fail to unite and so a smaller group of nations, and lets face it these are the more powerfull, well established nations we are talking about, unite and sort it out themselves.
Problem solved, free(er) Iraq, no more WMD threat.

How is this wrong?


PS: I love Bodhi.

 

[Jonaldo]

Problem solved, free(er) Iraq, no more WMD threat.

Of course there was no WMD threat to begin with from Iraq. And whatever little threat there was from other countries developing weapons is still there.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Of course there was no WMD threat to begin with from Iraq. And whatever little threat there was from other countries developing weapons is still there.

Which is why I'm all for sorting them out too. Lets face it, these countries tend to be the ones that screw their own population whilst spouting death to west at the same time.

And of course there was a WMD threat, only an idiot thinks that he honestly had nothing to fire at anyone.

 

[Jonaldo]

We looked and found nothing

Then we blew them up, chucked out the leader and had a closer look, and found nothing

Hence the title of this thread and why more questions are being asked to Bush & Blair.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Of course there was no WMD threat to begin with from Iraq. And whatever little threat there was from other countries developing weapons is still there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3431445.stm

 

[fatbusinessman]

Problem solved,

At least until the US finds another country they want to invade, whereupon they'll invent a new problem

free(er) Iraq,

Interestingly, the US are telling Iraq they can only have people in power who the US appoints. Foreign oil multinationals are getting massive contracts on Iraqi resources, and Hilary Rosen is writing their copyright laws. How free does that sound?

no more WMD threat.

I've seen no evidence of this since the 90's. The head of the team searching for them has said he doesn't think they existed. So this point is kinda irrelevant.

All that's really happened is that the Iraqi people have gone from being under the control of an oppressive leader who likes to fuck over people he doesn't like to being under the control of an oppressive leader who likes to fuck over countries for profit.

 

[dysfunction]

Yeah thats right we should have left them under the rule of Saddam instead. Also the west should not have bothered him with stupid weapons inspections or invaded him in the 90's

Then things would have been much better off...

 

[Stazbumpa]

Don't think so mate, you honestly believe that the Iraqi's are worse or no better off than they were before? Sort it out. Who's doing the bombings? Iraqi's Saddam loyalists, maybe even Al Quaida.

What is it with you people? Non intervention paves the way for dickheads like Saddam in the first place. And before some "oh so correct" snooty bollocks harps on about the west putting him in power in the first place, thats because he was a better bet at the time than the guy who was in charge.
He went off the rails afterwards. Even so, how does putting him in power make removing him wrong?

WMD exists in many countries, not just Iraq, and the only way I'll be pissed off is if we fought in Iraq but then the other bastards off the hook, and it does make me wonder how much of this anti-war sentiment is more to do with fashionable Bush/Blair bashing than actual credible argument.

One more thing, given that we know of WMD around the globe, and given that we know the militarism of these nations, and given that people are moaning about using force to get our way; what in the name of sanity do you suggest we do??

Nobody in the anti-war camp has ever given an alternative to the course of action we took in Iraq.
I doubt they are capable.

/edit the "dont think so mate" start to this post was not directed at dysfunction

 

[dysfunction]

What I'd like to see is them going into Zimbabwe and removing that bastard from power...

 

[Driwen]

you cant actually stop terrorrists from getting their hands on chemical weapons. Off course advanced ones are hard to get, but simple ones shouldnt be so hard. So a war against WMD's isnt and wasnt that smart. Besides that you shouldnt be holding any then aswell.
You should fight a war, because the leader of that country is irrational(/dictator/warmonger) or the people in that country are. If you make sure of that then countries having wmd's isnt a real problem or atleast just as big as the USA or Isreal having it.
I do think invading Iraq was a good thing, but then again I am not so pessimistic about what the americans will achieve in Iraq. However only time will tell.

And Jonaldo the UN has never actually been a working organisation. I think Korea was one of the few times the UN actually acted. The UN has been useful since its origine, but not at world politics. I do think that it has more power than it did before 1989, but in its current form I doubt countries will always(or even usually) listen to it. So the US hardly damaged anything with going against it, as it has never been fully functional in world politics. Allthough going against the UN is abit to strong as most agreed that there should be sanctions against Saddam, just how severe they should be was the question.
And UN not working is proven by the fact that Saddam did not cooperate with the UN in proving the existance or nonexistance of wmd's. He only gave files when he was asked about them, which isnt really cooperating. Saddam has always been trying to tread the line of going just not to far for the US to do something against him.

 

[xane]

We looked and found nothing

"nothing" ?

Prior to 1998, the UN Inspectors had disabled a chemical munitions plant, and destroyed 100s of tons of chemical agents, 1000s of chemical munitions and all their delivery mechanisms (missiles and the "supergun"), also the IAEA had established that Iraq more than likely had the technology to develop nuclear weapons given the right materials, then Iraq kicked them all out.

In the four years between then and the war, Iraq did not submit any viable report on outstanding weapons that satisfied the UN that they had been destroyed.

 

[Tom]

Xane is one of the few guys on here whose opinion and facts can be taken for granted as being correct.

 

[dysfunction]

An opinion is an opinion...it can't be correct or incorrect.

 

[Tom]

My opinion is that Ian Brady will never be released from jail.

 

[sibanac]

"nothing" ?

Prior to 1998, the UN Inspectors had disabled a chemical munitions plant, and destroyed 100s of tons of chemical agents, 1000s of chemical munitions and all their delivery mechanisms (missiles and the "supergun"), also the IAEA had established that Iraq more than likely had the technology to develop nuclear weapons given the right materials, then Iraq kicked them all out.

In the four years between then and the war, Iraq did not submit any viable report on outstanding weapons that satisfied the UN that they had been destroyed.

Well first off all Iraq told the UN about them before the war and started destroying them before the war.
They are primitive guided missiles, so far they havent said a word about finding any chemical or biological payloads for them.

 

[dysfunction]

My opinion is that Ian Brady will never be released from jail.

Tbh thats not really an opinion...its really a fact if you think about it.

 

[xane]

Well first off all Iraq told the UN about them before the war and started destroying them before the war.
They are primitive guided missiles, so far they havent said a word about finding any chemical or biological payloads for them.

Saddam's word was about as worthless as a chocolate teapot, considering the rate at which his government consistantly broke their word on international agreements.

These "primitive guided missiles" you refer too were in direct violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreed to after Gulf War I, in fact, they were designed, developed and manufactured _after_ the agreement, not only were missiles found but the manufacture and testing facilities too, this was way worse than a simple violation, it was literally a two-fingered salute to the UN.

Iraq only destroyed them on the instistance of Blix, and made a big show of it, this was in the months just before the war started and well after the time alloted to them by the UN Resolution 1441.

I doubt Saddam was stupid enough to openly develop NBC weapons after 1998l, because he was persuing a diplomatic solution (read: sucking up to France, Russia and China, the majority on the UNSC) and I doubt any concrete evidence will actually be found, however, the "smoking gun" will be the facility to create banned weapons, probably determined from documents that escaped destruction.

The issue remains that Iraq virtually admitted to having banned weapons prior to Gulf War I and has not accounted for their destruction, to all intensive purposes they "exist", whether they are found or not is another matter. The terms of the ceasefire of 1991 require Iraq to make every effort to establish the whereabouts of such weapons, something they failed to do for over 12 years.

The major problem will be that most of those seeking "evidence" will only settle for a major find, which is not going to be forthcoming, however, my own opinion is that it is naive in the extreme to think that Iraq, left unchecked, would never have persued development of banned weapons, certianly no evidence exists to show that Iraq had no intention, but that's trying to prove a negative.

Missiles being developed to be within range of Israel ? I don't think he's going to load them up with confetti.

P.S. This is all my opinion

 

[dysfunction]

Oh, I think he will. The PM might come out unscathed, but there may be a lot of critisism of the way that business is conducted in Downing Street.

Well well well...it was mainly the BBC that has been the only one found to be lacking in decent conduct