Time to face the music and dance Mark and Headrock

[pgaglio]

Here's the problem I see with the lack of WMDs and the glee that so many Bush and Blair haters seem to be feeling currently:
After Gulf War I, even Saddam admitted he had substantial stockpiles of WMDs. He'd used them against the Iranians as well as his own people, so there is little doubt that he possessed WMDs. As late as 1998 or 1999, the UN was still very much convinced that the weapons were still in Iraq. In the aftermath of Gulf War I, the only thing the UN (and the US) demanded was that Saddam destroy the WMDs and show us evidence of their destruction.

Being the large flaming arse-hole that he is, Saddam thumbed his nose at the world. WTF was the civilized world supposed to think at that point? Certainly Saddam had not suddenly become a benevolent and contented dictator with no interest in causing trouble in the region. He deserved to be taken out and I can't understand how anyone would think that the current situation is not better than when Saddam was in power.

As far as the lack of WMDs is concerned, it is true that we have not found the massive stockpiles that many (including the UN) assumed were present. Nevertheless, we have found considerable evidence that there was an aggressive WMD program in Iraq and our soldiers and airmen who fought the war certainly felt that there was a serious threat from these weapons. Saddam and his henchmen had considerable time to hide, export, conceal, destroy...... these weapons before the invasion. Obviously they took advantage of their opportunity.

I fail to see how this set of facts leads people to the conclusion that Bush and/or Blair lied about WMDs. Was some of the intell wrong? Yes it was. However that is the very nature of this kind of intelligence. None of the evidence regarding the lack of WMDs, Jessica Lynch's story, or anything else connected with the war and its aftermath convinces me that the US and the UK did not do exactly the right thing when we attacked and deposed Saddam and his bloody regime.

If there was ever a "just war" this one was it.

 

[Boomer (Tsunami)]

I can understand both sides of the argument here but the one thing I can't figure out is that ALL sources of intel and reports are ALWAYS double screened by the intel communities of the US and the UK...

Now, whilst the first reports of the WMDs came in, rather than wait to see if the reports were confirmed, Mr Blair decided that was enough to go to war on

Did Saddam deserve to be kicked out of power? Hell Yes!

Did we go about it the right way? Got me!

Did Blair make a total c**k up of the situation? again...Hell Yes!

 

[JTHM]

Originally posted by Boomer (Tsunami)


Now, whilst the first reports of the WMDs came in, rather than wait to see if the reports were confirmed, Mr Blair decided that was enough to go to war on

Time out, hardly based on first reports. I mean, reports were made while GW's father was still in office, then Clinton and I have no idea who your leaders were at the time.

Did Blair make a total c**k up of the situation? again...Hell Yes!

I fail to see where he screwed up, except for sticking with US, and I've never faulted the Brits or any other allies for going in and doing the right thing. This should have been done years ago and I applaud your country for a bang up job. ( my opinion only, not a flame)

 

[crom-dubh]

Lets face it. What government has ever told the truth about their motives for going to war?

All throughout history this is the case. Far easier to send thousands of men (and women) to their deaths in the name of God/freedom/democracy/national pride than to tell them its about their government getting richer/more powerful.

 

[Mark790.06]

Whoa! Guess I'm a little late for my own party. Let's get it on!

Originally posted by duffistuta
So 790 and 6, I seem to remember both of you insisting very strongly, in this very forum, that WMD would be found - how do you feel about our two Govts climb down?

As much as I would like for them to have found WMD by now; I'm not in any hurry to hear you, and others, claim that it was planted by coalition forces when they're finally found.

Originally posted by Tom Tom
They were very sure of the WMD and Saddams threat. Now dont get me wrong I am glad he is gone but I had my resevations about war, and the way we were sold it but the Govts. and TV.

You neglected to mention all the nations that signed UNSC resolution 1441, the IAEA, UNSCOM, UNOVIC, and the Clinton administration to name but a few who have gone on record in their belief of a WMD-armed Iraq and as a result did a fair amount of selling too.

Originally posted by Tom Tom
I think this flags up how shocking Bush is as a world leader (you only have to read Micheal Moores book Stupid White Men to realsie how corrupt it really all is) and I think people need to stop being so gung-ho without any real evidence and proof and only after wards when they cant find it go..."Oh well"

The fact that you read and lend any credence to Michael Moore (a man who believes that because the majority of African-American men are in a class of society where they are unlikely to be airline passengers, left the defense of 3 airplanes in the hands of weak white people, and thus made 9/11 possible) that sends up a few flags too.

Originally posted by Tom Tom
Rant over

I can only hope.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
It's not just oil - there's no coherent plans or equipment in place for rebuilding - the same forces who are trained and equipped for destroying armies are now being forced into a peacekeeping role. (kind of a reverse Mogadishu).

They're not calling it a peace keeping mission, it's a security mission there's a big difference. And the reason things are slow and plans are un-implemented is because of the saboteurs destroying what has been repaired. We have to find Saddam, whether he's alive or a dead, and the Iraqis must be convinced that he's really gone. Until then the Iraqis will continue to play a wait and see game when it comes to rebuilding their country.

Originally posted by JTHM
But, it's yet to be proved we were mislead. Until there is evidence to prove otherwise, it's pure conjecture.

Now JTMH, you know as well as I do that they don't need any credible evidence that Bush mislead us, but by comparison need concrete and irrefutable evidence that a murdering dictator with a history of WMD still has WMD. Why on Earth should a murdering dictator be held to a higher standard, than that of the POTUS?

 

[Buddha 3]

Fact police.

First of all, the Dutch peacekeepers that were brought up earlier in this thread did not turn their tails and left. It was the Dutch government which sent them in there with a lousy mandate. For some reason they had decided that they were supposed to keep the big, bad warring parties away from eachother (good move), but to do so, they shouldn't send any offensive weapons (what?). No tanks were sent in. The only Dutch armour that was sent to Bosnia was the YPR "Battle taxi", which had it's turret with 25mm Oerlikon gun removed and replaced with a .50 calibre machine gun armed cuppola, because they figured that the Serbs might take offense at the 25mm gun...(what what!?). For the rest, they were only armed with light infantry weapons, so when the Serbs came in with tanks and such, there wasn't much they could do about it, even though they tried, and some lost their lifes in the process. It was the Dutch government which tied the hands of the peacekeepers.
Second, the WMD that a lot of people are talking about, such as poison gas as was used in the Iranian conflict, is actually not a WMD. Any serious strategis and tactical analyst will tell you that gas is hardly an effective weapon. There are too many variables to ensure an effective use. It is however a great psycholgical weapon, but as far as battlefield effectiveness goes, I'd rather go with a 155mm howitzer armed with high explosives, than the same thing armed with a mustard gas shell. Poison gas on the modern battlefield is a nuisance, not a threat. The effect that these gases (such as VX) can have on populated areas are scary indeed, but the same effects can be achieved with far simpler, and cheaper means.

Okay people, continue your debate.

 

[duffistuta]

>>>As much as I would like for them to have found WMD by now; I'm not in any hurry to hear you, and others, claim that it was planted by coalition forces when they're finally found. <<<

I may be paranoid, but I'm not that paranoid.

So you don't feel a little duped? Or are you unbothered at the possibility of deception because you feel the end would justify the means?

>>>Now JTMH, you know as well as I do that they don't need any credible evidence that Bush mislead us, but by comparison need concrete and irrefutable evidence that a murdering dictator with a history of WMD still has WMD. Why on Earth should a murdering dictator be held to a higher standard, than that of the POTUS?

I said 'If' all along, and have continued to - I don't know what's going on over there, but here there is a serious climb-down going on and a lot of people are very, very pissed off at the rhetoric change.

And yes Saddam has a history of WMD, but Bush has a history of lying and corruption.

Personally, I need credible evidence that we were mislead AND also credible evidence that Saddam had WMD.

 

[crom-dubh]

Carrying on from Buddha's point about WMD's

Even if Iraq still have stockpiles of said weapons, then the great majority of them are well past their "sell by date"

Anthrax has a shelf life of about 3 years
Sarin and mstard gas has a shelf life of about 5 years.

Since Saddams stockpiles are dated from around 1983-1991 we are pretty safe from the stuff anyway.

 

[Tom Tom]

Originally posted by Mark790.06


I can only hope.

Till next time

Again this is the argument as we all see it and how it has been sold to us. granted there are people on here and everywhere that pay more attention to all the real details of all the confilcts fights and wars, but Take on face value that we are the "stupid public" who really are being sold things by the TV, Papers and Radio, and I think there was never a convincing argument.

Look at all the anti-war demos (that really got up my nose, WHY? well people are saying we want peace and frankly you got it, it was never in my view directed towards peace for Iraq but the worry that because we go in Iraq may target us and we could be at risk, I may be wrong)

 

[duffistuta]

You are wrong.

Wel, from my viewpoint anyway...I wanted the truth, no hypocrisy and an honest explanation for why we went to war.

And as I said before, if Bush had said 'Right, time to sort this ****ty world out - Saddam, get ready; Shareon, then you Yasser, you're next, and then we're coming for you China' I wouldn't have had much of a problem.