Why are we fighting in Iraq?

[arnegrim]

No that isn't what I said at all. A suspicion without evidence is no precept for an invasion. Would an invasion of the US based on a suspicion be justified? I am not forced to admit to anything. The US was suspicious that Iraq had WMD. Was that suspicion based on fact? No.

Yes. Saddam had a history of WMD development and use.

Did that suspicion form a legal basis for action? No.

Yes. Saddam was directly defying the UN resolutions.

Actually I did not offer an opinion in the part of my post you quoted - I asked a question. As far as I can remember they conducted a full inquiry into it, and publicised the fact that Annan's son was involved. Not a very succesful coverup if that is indeed what it was supposed to be.

It was successful for 12 years... the only reason it was discovered was because there was so much interest piqued as to what Saddam did with the $$ and why he was so intent on thwarting the inspectors.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Yes. Saddam had a history of WMD development and use.

History does not equal current possession. Many of the WMP Saddam had were supplied by the west.

South Africa has a history of possessing Nuclear Weapons. Do they have any now?

Yes. Saddam was directly defying the UN resolutions.

That was for the UN to decide and act on, not for the US decide or act on. By taking Vigilante action the US and UK showed just as much contempt for the UN and international law as Saddam did.

It was successful for 12 years... the only reason it was discovered was because there was so much interest piqued as to what Saddam did with the $$ and why he was so intent on thwarting the inspectors.

Actually it wasn't successful, it wasn't a secret. The US and UK were aware of condoned, and even facilitated sanction busting oil deals. Everyone was up to their dirty little necks.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4450069.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722270.stm

 

[Arkanin]

Fact: EVERYONE, Democrat and Republican, including John Kerry, thought the opposite of the facts you posted.

So we are we still there? To finish what we started. It would be more wrong to just back out now.

Actually, way back in the day I was involved in a debate about whether Iraq had WMDs. Guess which side I was on? Just guess.

I know, some people thought I was crazy at the time.

 

[arnegrim]

History does not equal current possession. Many of the WMP Saddam had were supplied by the west.

I see. So if you see a man run into a bank with a rifle... but he tells you 1 hour later that he doesn't have it anymore... you're going to believe him with no further evidence?

South Africa has a history of possessing Nuclear Weapons. Do they have any now?

Probably. But its irrelevant to this discussion.

That was for the UN to decide and act on, not for the US decide or act on. By taking Vigilante action the US and UK showed just as much contempt for the UN and international law as Saddam did.

Really? I see the UNs refusal to include any further consequences to Saddams defial as contempt...

Actually it wasn't successful, it wasn't a secret. The US and UK were aware of condoned, and even facilitated sanction busting oil deals. Everyone was up to their dirty little necks.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4450069.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722270.stm

I never said the US and UK were innocent... but when push came to shove... they were willing to forgo any illegal benefits to ensure international security.

 

[arnegrim]

Actually, way back in the day I was involved in a debate about whether Iraq had WMDs. Guess which side I was on? Just guess.

I know, some people thought I was crazy at the time.

Would this be during the Clinton presidency when he stated they had WMDs? Or perhaps before 911 when all public officials were stating they had WMDs?

 

[peepnklown]

12 years of 'looking for WMDs' and being given the run-around by Saddam the entire time does not hint at 'something to hide'?

I’m sure the U.S. government is wondering what happened to all those WMDs they supplied Saddam with, but it still doesn’t account for no evidence of WMDs.
The whole issue was Saddam had WMDs, and this was the one of the reasons the U.S. was going to invade, thus it seems the U.S. government had to provide evidence, in which it didn’t.
Saddam isn’t giving anyone the run-around since we so-called won this war, and still no investigation, nothing.
The Bush administration believes it doesn’t have to be accountable.

They found no collaborative relationship in regards to 911... but they did find contacts.

Iraq never responded to bin Laden; it seems Saddam wasn’t playing well with others. This happened from 1994-1996.

The UN was too busy hiding its scandal to hold Iraq accountable.

It doesn’t matter, Iraq was to be handled by the UN not the U.S.
Your websites do not address the issue I was talking about; Iraq wasn’t involved in the terrorism against the U.S.

 

[ballfan]

[/color]
I’m sure the U.S. government is wondering what happened to all those WMDs they supplied Saddam with, but it still doesn’t account for no evidence of WMDs.

Major problem. US never supplied Saddam with WMD.

 

[RomanSoldier]

Numbers one, three and seven: the plan to attack Iraq was in place well before Sept. 11.

http://www.sundayherald.com/39221

Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others see that expanding United States' interests in the Middle Eastern arena is key to securing oil. And if the military industrial complex profits from the expansion of military strength, even better. It's a win-win situation for oil companies and defense industries, and unfortunately a losing situation for many innocent civilians caught in the crossfire and soldiers whose loyalty and faith in the leadership of the country is being used and abused.

I Agree.

 

[QuestioningSoul2006]

Warmongering, oil, the lack of a co-ordinated anti-war movement, and to establish a base in the Middle East.

 

[peepnklown]

US never supplied Saddam with WMD.

The U.S. government aided Saddam (of course, they got him into power) during the 1980 – 1988 war with Iran, helping them develop its chemical, biological & nuclear weapons programs. Where do you think Iraq got the materials to develop such a program?
It came from the CDC and American Type Culture Collection.
Records from Iraq show that America was one of the suppliers of Saddam’s WMD program.

 

[Vylo]

Candy, Iraq has candy I swear, I've seen it .

 

[ScottishJohn]

I see. So if you see a man run into a bank with a rifle... but he tells you 1 hour later that he doesn't have it anymore... you're going to believe him with no further evidence?

If a man with a rifle and then meet him again 12 YEARS later and he tells me he no longer has the rifle I may believe him, I may not. The point is that in the sight of the law I am not allowed to break into his house and look for it, and if I do I am stepping outside the law. If I break into his house and he has the prohibited rifle, then my sentence for breaking and entry may reflect that, it may not. If however I break into his house and there is no rifle then in the eyes of the law I am straight forward criminal and should be punished as such.

Probably. But its irrelevant to this discussion.

No, it is an example proving that having had (past tense) weapons is no proof at all of still having them.

Really? I see the UNs refusal to include any further consequences to Saddams defial as contempt...

They didn't refuse. They merely didn't wish to be railroaded to the US timetable which was more to do with election timetables and wobbly excuses for war than it was to do what was good for iraq or international security.

I never said the US and UK were innocent... but when push came to shove... they were willing to forgo any illegal benefits to ensure international security.

lol how very moral of them. They were willing to take illegal action to gain a monopoly on any benfits? Unfortunately (or fortunately depeding on how you look ar it) their incompetence has negated any benefit so far.

It has also been an unmitigated disaster in terms of international security.

 

[applepowerpc]

Candy, Iraq has candy I swear, I've seen it .

Or was it because Iraq hid the Bud Lite?

 

[arnegrim]

[/color]
I’m sure the U.S. government is wondering what happened to all those WMDs they supplied Saddam with, but it still doesn’t account for no evidence of WMDs.
The whole issue was Saddam had WMDs, and this was the one of the reasons the U.S. was going to invade, thus it seems the U.S. government had to provide evidence, in which it didn’t.
Saddam isn’t giving anyone the run-around since we so-called won this war, and still no investigation, nothing.
The Bush administration believes it doesn’t have to be accountable.

You stated the very problem.

No evidence of WMDs.

There is no doubt he had them... he used them.
The question is what did he do with them... and he refused to answer that question.

Iraq

never responded to bin Laden; it seems Saddam wasn’t playing well with others. This happened from 1994-1996.

Then take it up with the 911 commission.

It doesn’t matter, Iraq was to be handled by the UN not the U.S.

And the UN refused (through veto countries) to do anything.

All bark... no bite.

Your websites do not address the issue I was talking about; Iraq wasn’t involved in the terrorism against the U.S.

I never said they were involved in terrorism against the US... although I have no doubts they had their hands in that pot.

The problem is they were involved in terrorism period.

 

[arnegrim]

If a man with a rifle and then meet him again 12 YEARS later and he tells me he no longer has the rifle I may believe him, I may not. The point is that in the sight of the law I am not allowed to break into his house and look for it, and if I do I am stepping outside the law. If I break into his house and he has the prohibited rifle, then my sentence for breaking and entry may reflect that, it may not. If however I break into his house and there is no rifle then in the eyes of the law I am straight forward criminal and should be punished as such.

12 years of being watched... observed... having never left the house... and you would believe him?

It's not like we saw them go in and closed our eyes for 12 years.

No, it is an example proving that having had (past tense) weapons is no proof at all of still having them.

The UN resolutions specified that he was to prove he got rid of them... saying he did is no proof.

They didn't refuse. They merely didn't wish to be railroaded to the US timetable which was more to do with election timetables and wobbly excuses for war than it was to do what was good for iraq or international security.

Which election? The presidential one 2 years later?

They DID refuse... France and Germany threatened to veto ANYTHING that had any sort of consequence to it.

lol how very moral of them. They were willing to take illegal action to gain a monopoly on any benfits? Unfortunately (or fortunately depeding on how you look ar it) their incompetence has negated any benefit so far.

What monopoly on what benefits?

It has also been an unmitigated disaster in terms of international security.

Really? How do you figure?

 

[ScottishJohn]

12 years of being watched... observed... having never left the house... and you would believe him?

I believe I gave you an answer:

I may believe him, I may not

The point is whatever I believe it does not gove me the right to break into his house and look for the weapon.

It's not like we saw them go in and closed our eyes for 12 years.

After the inspectors were kicked out who was watching?

The UN resolutions specified that he was to prove he got rid of them... saying he did is no proof.

I agree entirely. Saying he has them (the basis of the US taking themselves to war) is just as weak in terms of evidence. We were actually engaged in a productive search for them which had to be called off because the US were keen that no conclusive results should come from it which might interfere with their plans for war.

Which election? The presidential one 2 years later?

Of course! How many elections have there been since the invasion? Do you think that anyone really thought you could get into Iraq and out again in less than two years?

They DID refuse... France and Germany threatened to veto ANYTHING that had any sort of consequence to it.

No, other consequences remained on the table, what was vetod was a plan which has now been shown to be just as insane as France and Germany thought it was at the time. Military action was never removed from the table, never ruled out - it was the rash impetuous and poorly planned US desire for invasion which was vetoed.

What monopoly on what benefits?

How about the Haliburton monopoly on the only benefits coming from Iraq so far.

Really? How do you figure?

Well for one, the Bush administration has just admitted that Iraq, far from reducing the international terrorist threat, has become a cause of terrorist threats in its own right. For another since our foolish lapdog of a Prime Minister skipped into Iraq behind Bush we have suffered one successful and one botched terrorist attack on our capital.

Terrorism has increased fourfold since 2004, which incidentally was just about time enough after the the invasion for the Iraqis to begin to realise the US occupation was making the situation worse rather than better. Incidentally the report in 2003 showed an increase in attacks as well. The previous report was dropped and the replacementreport was changed in format in 2004 to make the failure of the 'War on Terror' less obvious

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-2157116,00.html

 

[peepnklown]

No evidence of WMDs.

And we are still waiting for the evidence promised by the U.S. government.

Then take it up with the 911 commission.

Who commissioned them? Iraq doesn’t have a connection to bin Laden thus why did we invade Iraq?

And the UN refused (through veto countries) to do anything.

So, if the UN doesn’t want to move, when does that even the U.S. the right?

The problem is they were involved in terrorism period.

I know you didn’t say that, but you jumped into a discussion about Iraq’s links to terrorism against the U.S.

 

[arnegrim]

And we are still waiting for the evidence promised by the U.S. government.

Wonderful... I suggest you don't hold your breath.

Who commissioned them? Iraq doesn’t have a connection to bin Laden thus why did we invade Iraq?

I'm not going over this again. I answered this before.

So, if the UN doesn’t want to move, when does that even the U.S. the right?

The US government has an obligation to its people and interests that outweigh any obligation to the UN.

I know you didn’t say that, but you jumped into a discussion about Iraq’s links to terrorism against the U.S.

And I showed you where they had links to terrorism... and with their hatred for the US... to let them continue unabated would be stupid.

 

[arnegrim]

I believe I gave you an answer:

Maybe so, maybe not... good answer. Would you trust your child being held hostage with that answer?

The point is whatever I believe it does not gove me the right to break into his house and look for the weapon.

The UN passed numerous resolutions... which he ignored.

After the inspectors were kicked out who was watching?

From a distance... we were... as well as many other countries, which is why they all thought he continued to have and develop WMDs.

I agree entirely. Saying he has them (the basis of the US taking themselves to war) is just as weak in terms of evidence. We were actually engaged in a productive search for them which had to be called off because the US were keen that no conclusive results should come from it which might interfere with their plans for war.

Without prior history you would be right... but Saddam did have them... he even used them.

As for the 'productive search'... how many 'productive searches' were engaged in in the preceeding 12 years? How many more years do you give him leeway to ignore the UN?

Of course! How many elections have there been since the invasion? Do you think that anyone really thought you could get into Iraq and out again in less than two years?

Well then, they were VERY stupid if that was their reasoning... seeing as how we knew it wouldn't take two years to overthrow Saddam... that leaves at least 17 months for things to go downhill enough to 'ruin' their election. If that was the reason for jumping in... they would have waited another year at least so that the 'overthrow high' was in full effect for the entire voting public.

No, other consequences remained on the table, what was vetod was a plan which has now been shown to be just as insane as France and Germany thought it was at the time. Military action was never removed from the table, never ruled out - it was the rash impetuous and poorly planned US desire for invasion which was vetoed.

Prove it.

It was reported repeatedly that France and Germany stated they would Veto ANY resolution that included ANY kind of military action.

How about the Haliburton monopoly on the only benefits coming from Iraq so far.

They don't have a monopoly on Iraq...

 

[ScottishJohn]

Maybe so, maybe not... good answer. Would you trust your child being held hostage with that answer?

What? What have my as yet non existant children got to do with this? It is quite simple. Suspicion does not amount to proof, and suspicion does not make all things legal.

The UN passed numerous resolutions... which he ignored.

That doesn't make any difference. Israel has ignored plenty of UN resolutions. Do you think the US would allow another county to invade and attempt to enforce those resolutions in Israel? I doubt it very much. One rule for our friends and another for our enemies.

From a distance... we were... as well as many other countries, which is why they all thought he continued to have and develop WMDs.

Not watching very closely then, as noone had any idea where these WMD might be, and 3 years of occupation have failed to turn up any of these WMDs. Once again, a suspicion is really not good enough, and does not give a legal basis for viglante actions.

Without prior history you would be right... but Saddam did have them... he even used them.

Yes I know. Past possession and even past use do not form any kind of proof of current possession or intent to use.

As for the 'productive search'... how many 'productive searches' were engaged in in the preceeding 12 years? How many more years do you give him leeway to ignore the UN?

How many years of productive searches? None. The inspectors were frustrated by Saddams lack of cooperation and were eventually thrown out. It was not until Saddam realised that we were serious about taking action that he started to cooperate, so the US interrupted the only productive search.

The problem was that for 12 years we sat and allowed him to defy the UN, and then all of a sudden changed our minds.

Well then, they were VERY stupid if that was their reasoning... seeing as how we knew it wouldn't take two years to overthrow Saddam... that leaves at least 17 months for things to go downhill enough to 'ruin' their election. If that was the reason for jumping in... they would have waited another year at least so that the 'overthrow high' was in full effect for the entire voting public.

That is nonsense. They didn't expect Iraq to go downhill, they didn't expect internecine conflict or an insurgency. They expected to get into Iraq , fight a quick war, and then get on with reconstruction, and aim to have an Iraqi government up and running, and a reduction in troops - basically a success story in time for the election.

It would strike me as being far less intelligent to invade Iraq at all if they were expecting the situation to worsen over the 17 months as opposed to improving.

Prove it.

No, it is for you to prove that France or any other country removed military action from the table given that this is what you originally stated.

It was reported repeatedly that France and Germany stated they would Veto ANY resolution that included ANY kind of military action.

Was it? Prove it.


All the reporting I remember was related to US and UK proposal to invade and rejected that military action. I don't remember any unilateral rejection of force, or moves by either France or Germany to dismantle their armed forces.

They don't have a monopoly on Iraq...

Of course they do - they were given a government monopoly - no other companies were allowed to bid for the main contract in Iraq. They have made billions from it.