Wmds And The Iraq War
ElectricSheep
Join Date: 2003-04-21 Member: 15716Members
Join Date: 2003-04-21 Member: 15716Members
in Discussions
It is fairly clear at this point that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time the war began, unless they were <a href='http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp' target='_blank'>buried</a>. However, in my opinion the war was still a justified descision based on the intelligence at the time, better safe than sorry. So I think that given the information recieved during the tiome the war began that it was wise to go in and be sure there were no WMDs, than to not go in and potentially risk disaster either to the US (A nuclear device could be smuggled in via terrorist networks), or countries near Iraq that could potentially be targeted by a missle (Israel). So I would like to know if other people think GIVEN THE INTELLIGENCE AT THE TIME, that the war was justified or not.
Comments
While Hans Blix, Chirac, Clinton, Kerry, et al. all believed Saddam was developing WMDs, they did not think the best course of action was liberation. They wanted to send in more weapons inspectors to make sure.
Conspiary theories aside, Bush disagreed, and felt the evidence was good enough that ousting Saddam before he could either develop/use WMDs was the best decision.
Right, and to answer your question: Powell has admitted to exagerrating the evidence. I would agree with more investigation, with a zero-tolerance policy of obfuscation. In that sense it was "unjustified". However I still support the war for moral reasons.
Saddam was a thorn in our side, and the side of the Middle East, his country had the potential to become quite the powerhouse, if ignored for long enough. When Saddam died I shudder to think what his sons would have done with the place, I could easily see Uday killing Qusay for the dictatorship, or vice versa, both of them were crazy. Also the Middle East, to be blunt, is a mess with the exception of Israel, maybe Kuwait. If this invasion works out in the long run it could go a long way to stabilizing the entire region. People in Saudi Arabia see how good the people in Iraq are now, under their new democracy of sorts, they begin to want it for themselves. The people in Iran, whom as far as I can tell are fairly eager to adapt to a new, better way of life, could use Iraq's new found stability as a spring board to bring their own country into a self induced democracy.
It is most certainly a gamble, the whole thing could fall apart if not given the proper time, patience, and support. I think if it works out, like I hope it does, it well be remembered as one of the best decisions of the 21'st century, if not, well I think you can figure it out.
[/CNN]
Beyond that Saddam did allow the inspectors in and I clearly remember Blix saying, before the war, that in his professional opinion, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Why insist on wepons inspectors if your then going to ignore, or write off everything they say?
Futhermore, we have this bad tendency to turn a blind eye to these WMDs when they aren't being used against us. Iraq regularly was using chemical weapons agasint the Irainians, durignt their war in the late eighties. Rumsfeld was in Iraq talking to Saddam while we knew this was going on, and nothing was said. Are not WMDs just as immoral and horrible of weapons when their being used against our enemies?
I would like to point out that it is this hypocracy in American Foriegn policy that causes people to get really **** off at the US. Why can US TV stations show numerous pictures of dead and captured Iraqi soldiers, but when al-Jazeera showns the same pictures of Americans its in violation to the Geneva Convention?
I always doubted that Saddam was any risk anymore, he had been limited to almost no armed forces, the US armed the countries around him, if he was to attack Israel (or be involved in a terrorist attack on the US), he knew he would have the whole world invading as soon as they could. He was not stupid, nor insane. While he defiantly was a bad person, and there is no denying that trampled on the rights of many Iraqis, he was also mostly interested n keeping himself in power. Provoking the entire world would not help he maintain his power.
Now, if you feel that American and Israeli civilian lives that might sort of maybe kinda be pontentialy at risk are more valuable that the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians that have died, the hunderds of American soldiers that are dieing, and the numerous American and Israeli lives that are at risk from dieing from a terrorist who will take this war as the reason he(or she) is willingt o die to try and stop America. On of the things tha most **** off Bin Laden, according to himself, was the stationign fo American soldeirs in Saudi Arabia for the first Gulf War...I find it distressingly likely that we may have just spent a tons of money, lives and american credabilty abroad to spwan the next generation of terrorists.
no one going to change their mind either way...
[/CNN] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to ask you what I ask everyone who says this was a war for oil.
Where is the oil?
Saying that the war was bad because people die is ignoring the alternative, namely Saddam. Saddam killed 2 million people during his 20 year reign, and there is no reason to believe he would not continue to executing hundreds of people daily. In relative terms, the war has saved thousands of Iraqi lives that otherwise would have found themselves in those oft unmentioned mass-graves.
Yes civilians have died. But here is a certainty that people always seem to forget: You are guaranteed to have many more civilians die under Saddam. That is why I support the war.
By even the most <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/' target='_blank'>leftist estimates</a> this war has killed far fewer people than Saddam would have in a given year.
That is true, and I should have at mentioned it.
That is not to say that I think that the civilian death count is acceptable, nor does the simple fact that Saddam may have killed more absolve us of the responsiblitly for those that our actions have caused. Futhermore if we are comparing Saddam to the current state it should be mentioned that before the first Gulf War and the sanctions Iraq had one of the best economies (I belive second only to Saudi Arabia) with the best distrubution of wealth in the Middle East. It was also one of the only entirely secular arab governements, and had the highest precent of their population with upper level degrees. Does this make him a good leader? No, but it is important to remember that not everything abotu him was bad.
Saddam was evil, and I think that removing him from power was a good idea. However the way in which we went about doing it, and the reasons we used to justify it were unacceptable. My problem with the war is not what it succeded in doing, but how it was done, the lack of international support that is Hurting our forgein credablitly* and the simple fact that we have no busness policing the world as best suits us, nor can we: <a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23244' target='_blank'>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=23244</a>
*I saw a news article today on the television: People across Africa have been refusing to vacinated for polio because the effort is lead by the US. They saw media coverage of the war in Iraq and our actions in Afghanistan (Which I think was justified, though poorly handled) and else where and decided that they could not trust the US. Now there is the begginigs of a new polio epidemic there. Who knows what other unforseen horrors may come of our brash actions.
The war should be justified. Saddam wasn't supposed to have WMDs. There was this piece of paper that said he did.
In hind sight, the world has seen that this pre-emptive warfare mindset sets a dangerous precedent. The US doesn't need solid evidence to justify war. The intelligence was either flawed or complete bunk. A country's sovereignty can be put into question on nothing more than a false accusation. I don't agree with the belief that "might makes right", so I think this reflects badly on the Bush administration.
Now, instead of focusing on intelligence, how about the US constitution? The war is unjustified in that regard from day 1. But, I'm not going to hijack the thread.
That is result of their own stupidity, and I really don't think it's fair to try and blame that on us. We don't have to even make the attempt to help them.
Further more, would the fact that we were trying to help them even made the news if they had not refused to accept the help because they saw, most likely heavily slanted war coverage?
Africa isn't worth the money we put into it, but that’s another topic.
no just the fact that he liked to put people into plastic shredders feet first. I guess making christians and kurds walk through mine fields, without metal detectors, to find the mines didnt help him much either?
<!--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-->*I saw a news article today on the television: People across Africa have been refusing to vacinated for polio because the effort is lead by the US. They saw media coverage of the war in Iraq and our actions in Afghanistan (Which I think was justified, though poorly handled) and else where and decided that they could not trust the US. Now there is the begginigs of a new polio epidemic there. Who knows what other unforseen horrors may come of our brash actions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its their own stupid fault if they want to risk polio as a form of protest. I guess we are at fault for all the old desease that pop up now. Better yet, I'll spin it all back to Sadam. If Sadam would have stepped down from power when given the chance, than the people would not be protesting and there would be no epidemic. Now look at that, its all Sadam's fault.
And as I keep saying, I'm not trying to say Saddam wasn't an increadably evil person. Nor does acknowelging that in some ways he helped Iraq diminish his evil deeds. But to foucs solely on the har,m he inflicted on his people is a very unbalanced way to view him, and could lead to problems int he long run.
Problems like what is happening in Russia: A picture Stalin is the most common fr truckers there to hang from their rear view mirrors. Stalin was at least as bad, if not worse than Saddam. Yet many people don't remember that now, they remember that they usualy had enough to eat under the communists, and tehats not nessicerly the case now. Does that meant hat they are right? No, but it means that Communism could gain enough support to reclaim the governement someday. What happens when the american governement stops subidizing Iraqi oil to keep at the 5 cents a gallon it was un Saddam? People are going to say, "well, Saddam was an jerk, but at least I could afford to drive my car." Where it goes from there only time will tell. If this trend is ignored we could easly see a governement of far greater evil that Saddam's come to power from popular support.
[/CNN] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to ask you what I ask everyone who says this was a war for oil.
Where is the oil? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The iraqi Oil Ministry was the only one left in good shape thanks to the GI's protection. Other ones , and important buildings such as the Iraq Museum (holding the remains of the first known human civilization) were completely looted , since they were left unprotected.
Now go ahead and prove me Bush cares less about the iraqi oil than the humanity's history.
Now go ahead and prove me Bush cares less about the iraqi oil than the humanity's history. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good he has his priorities straight.
Besides the oil was around before humanity, so technically he was protecting an older more important artifact. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Iraqi museums would have attracted countless toursists once a stable , secure democracy is established. Which means a critical part of Iraq's revenue has been forfeited , it has no durable income - none at all once the oil wells are drained.
Besides , Iraq will find itself in a cultural void - how can the Iraqis have faith in any government system , now that the remains of Hammurabi's first state of right are gone ?
I dare you prove me that Bush cares about the iraqi people's future the slightest bit <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
We don't need oil and hence, I seriously think securing Iraq or Afghanistan for their oil reservs is not important for anyone else but for those who cash with it. So yeah, the history is more important than the oil. And yes, Bush does care more for the oil than he should.
And yes, we are totally offtopic.
Edit: typo
Iraqi museums would have attracted countless toursists once a stable , secure democracy is established. Which means a critical part of Iraq's revenue has been forfeited , it has no durable income - none at all once the oil wells are drained.
Besides , Iraq will find itself in a cultural void - how can the Iraqis have faith in any government system , now that the remains of Hammurabi's first state of right are gone ?
I dare you prove me that Bush cares about the iraqi people's future the slightest bit <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once a stable democracy was established? You mean like in 10-15 years time. So in the mean time the Iraqis do what? Eat sand?
Oil is the single most critical industry in Iraq bar none. Its the backbone of their society. It makes perfect sense that the Americans would keep their Oil ministry protected as a priority. Oil has FAR more potential for the Iraqi's then old bones.
<!--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-->Besides , Iraq will find itself in a cultural void - how can the Iraqis have faith in any government system , now that the remains of Hammurabi's first state of right are gone ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That cracked me up. Would you abandon socialism if the capitalists burnt Lenin's body? Would the entire American democracy collapse if the bill of rights met a candle? Righttttt
Prove to you that Bush has the Iraqi's best interests at heart eh. Say no more. What Bush wants is EXACTLY inline with what is best for Iraq. Lets assume for a moment that Bush is the Satanic arab hater that he is painted as. Even if he hated Iraqi's, he still wants a stable government in Iraq. Stable Government = the oil keeps on flowing. Stable, secular democratic government = savage blow to fundamentalist Islamic militants, also in line with what George Bush aims to achieve.
So let me get this right. Bush wants a democratic, secular and free Iraq, with flowing oil, but he doesnt care about the Iraqi's... almost makes me wish I was an American so I could hang my head in shame over its President.....
Dread, we may not need the oil, but the Iraqi's sure do. I cant remember what percentage of GDP it amounts to, but its a lot. The West may be able to adapt to life without oil after a while, but the impact a sudden oil disappearance would have is of such magnitude I dont know where to start. International travel = impossible. Electricity would be hammered, food transport would be shut down, the list is endless. People say money makes the world go round, but I reckon its oil. We just cant poo poo it because we could eventually figure out a way to get around without it.
actually they were not looted, rather it was a semiproffesional theft. A looting would imply that a bunch of random people ran in there and made off with items. If this were the case the they would have made off with replications of artifacts. The thieves knew what items were real and what items were replicates. Here is a link
<a href='http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/134069.asp' target='_blank'>here</a>
I do not believe the US could have stopped the theft, unless the dropped some marines there and told them to hold out on their own until help arrives (not gonna happen). The theft probably happened before we occupied the city.
<!--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-->But to foucs solely on the har,m he inflicted on his people is a very unbalanced way to view him, and could lead to problems int he long run.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A man is the sum of his actions. Though some of Sadam's actions may be percieved as "good", he has done far more evil to consider taking his good actions into question. There is a point when the "good" no longer matters.
I would like to add that as some people see their media portraying Iraq as a better place, it is not so good. Ever since the rioting and looting, it has been horrible.
People killing others because of the lack of law enforcement is frightening.
<!--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 is no government and no order,' said Abdul Mehdi Taleb, sciences dean at prestigious Baghdad University. 'That's a fact. So they threaten during exams and try to twist our arms not to fail them.' ... Death-threat letters have become commonplace this exam season, and there have been at least two other recent attempts on the lives of university officials."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040623/IRAQPROFS23/International/Idx' target='_blank'>source</a>
Well, of course it would be pretty bad if the oil would just stop flowing one day, but I think it would be good if they would start preparing themselves, because it IS going to end someday, or at least the drilling becomes too expensive and ineffecient to continue. Oil nations are going to feel the shock sooner or later, it might as well be sooner.
My point: don't fight to get oil, but fight to find a way to replace it. You know how many scientists you could've hired with those billions used on the war? Me neither, but prolly quite a few <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Certainly stabilising the oil flow was a big part of the decision making process. And like stated previously, oil ministry was protected, others were not.
Wendsday.
Now granting that the refinerys are probably a bit more involved and as such might take a bit more to fix that the oil, but its been over a year. To me this is a prefect example of a colonial relationship. The colony exports it raw matierials, an exceedingly small segement of the population gets increadably wealthy, but the common man on the street gets screwed, as now, instead of bieng paid to process that raw material and living in a country with a strong economy based on exporting the final product, he is paid to do the first step in the process only(incidently almost always the most dangerous) and the rest of the production goes on elsewhere, and the the product is shipped back and he must pay both a much higher fee, and live in an economy that is weak and more prone to the boom bust cycles.
1. <b>Bush and oil</b>: There are a ton of conspiracy theories about Bush sacking Iraq for the oil. I think such a reason is too petty and outlandish, but impossible to disprove. That said it doesn't really matter to me why Bush wanted to invade Iraq. He could have had a camel fetish and it wouldn't change my opinion one bit. Saddam was the most notorious butcher of the 90s and nobody did anything except put up self-defeating sanctions that were wholly counter-productive, and were attacked by the same peaceniks that are opposing the war right now. Saddam had to go. If the UN couldn't do it in 10 years, I'm glad George did it in a month.
2. <b>The museum thing</b>: The funniest part about the museum thing was the media's instant attempt to make the war look tragic by focusing on the theft of some artifacts. I have no doubt these were very nice trinkets. But war is a far from perfect operation. You have to make trade-offs all over the place. Making sure the oil fields, the only source of immediate revenue for the Iraqis, should have been a much higher priority then safe gaurding a museum. It was almost laughable that this was the worst event, other than civilian deaths, that occured.
To me the most important reason for war had nothing to do with terrorists or WMDs. Saddam was the most vile tyrant of the last decade. You may argue that the US has no right to police the globe. Then might I ask who <b>is</b> supposed to? The UN is incompetent, and if we had it there way Milsevic and the Taliban would still be around today.
Of course my decision will be 100% reversed if the next government of Iraq turns out to be another ruthless dictator. The US has (had?) a nasty habit of doing that.
The museum thing I also found a bit over blown. It was a very bad thing, but its not like we bombed it or sat back smiling while the looters slowly strolled about. It happened before we got there, if I remember correctly. Our armed forces had far more important thigns to think about at that point too, like not getting shot. Thats not to say we are blamless, but seriously, if that was our worst slip up this war it would be a good thing.
Sanctions are among the worst ideas ever when appilied to a tyrant like Saddam. If he was willing to gas his own people how are we supposed to belive that he would care that others of them were starving? So instead of getting him out of power we starved at 1 million poeple, more than half of them childern, by 1995 according to UNICEF.
I agree the UN is, at least at the moment a worthelss organization. This is probably not for the reasons you do though. I find it inheirently flawed that a world organization that is designed to stop wars should place so much more power in the hands of the countries that need the UN's protection the least, the superpowers.
It is the US's behavior, though, that I find the most problematic in the UN. We use our security council veto right more than any other nation on it. We use it to do things like block the passage of an offical UN resolution condemning the Israeli humans rights abuses with their handeling of the Palestinians. I relise that this is an issue that could be contestable by many here, but every other country in the UN voted for this resolution. For some reason (the Israeli lobby gives out roughy 2 million dollars each election) the US saw fit to stand up to the opinions and standards of the rest of the world. This is why we do not have the right to police the world, we refuse to lsiten to it as to what we police for. To police is to a large extenet rule, how can we be a country who is supposed to stand for democracy if we try and rule the world in a way that goes against the wishes of the rest world?
<!--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-->"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so -- because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." John Bolton (Asst. Secretary of State for International Organizations)<!--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-->A phrase President Bush used on Sept. 20, 2001: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." I suspect that officials who have adopted the "with us or against us" formulation don't know its historical origins. It was used by Lenin to attack the social democrats as anti-Bolshevik and to justify handling them accordingly. Zbigniew Brzezinski(commentator for the Washington Post)<!--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 U.S. has perverted the U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military actions, falsely so. ... The U.S. was using the inspection process as a trigger for war." -- Scott Ritter, former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, on the NBC Today show, December 17, 1998. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is the way the US acts we do not have the right to police the world. We may be the strongest nation in the world, but might does not make right.
(Eg. The rest of the world is asking "Who the **** do you think you are?")
I'm trying to convince my parents back home to stop referring in his hate speech "Arrogant self-righteous American" but rather "arrogant self-righteous administration".
I don't feel like this is a war for oil at all.
Nor do I think this is a war against terrorist.
It's an election gimmick, preparing Bush for the next term.
Wmds? Half the world have WMDs. Iraq just feel like an easy pick, a humanitarian PR to boost. I'm glad they liberate the people, but I'm sure as hell don't like how they get there.
(Eg. The rest of the world is asking "Who the **** do you think you are?")
I'm trying to convince my parents back home to stop referring in his hate speech "Arrogant self-righteous American" but rather "arrogant self-righteous administration".
I don't feel like this is a war for oil at all.
Nor do I think this is a war against terrorist.
It's an election gimmick, preparing Bush for the next term.
Wmds? Half the world have WMDs. Iraq just feel like an easy pick, a humanitarian PR to boost. I'm glad they liberate the people, but I'm sure as hell don't like how they get there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gimmick for election? What? If you lived here maybe you'd think otherwise, had Bush not gone to war with Iraq his reelection would have been assured.
I guess you can only make huge generalizations about a very diverse nation if you're not from America...