So they found WMD

[Bazzlad]

True, as stated, I had no idea this explosion of facts was gonna jump on me and start biting my toes.
This wasn't started as a debate, but now is one.

The problem being neither side can prove existance of lack of therefore of WOMD meaning it degrades into speculation- backed up or not, it is still speculation......I didn't mean to rile anyone over this, I seem to be doing a god job of annoying people without meaning to already...

Where do we go from here?

[spikegifted]

The whole point of our discussion here is because there're not concrete facts. However, the lack of up-to-date facts doesn't mean it would prevent us from forming our own opinion based on what out in the public domain.

When to come down to it there are two points that sum up my opinion:

1) The removal of Saddam from power can be considered 'just'.
2) The manner which the UK government led this country into war is incorrect and improper - 'the end', in this case, does not justify 'the means'.

Raise whatever points or speculation you choose to, but based on what is known - the lack of WDM; the dated intelligence prior to the invasion; the deliberately misleading of the use of WDM (instead of battlefield munitions); the PM ignoring the possibility of increasing terrorist threats after the collapse of Saddam’s regime; the lack of evidence regarding Saddam’s attempt to acquire nuclear materials; the brief weapons inspection allowed by the US prior invasion - there is no justification to send armies into the country. As I’ve said before, if the case for war was other than the threats of Saddam’s ‘WDM’, people (that’s the MPs) would have made up their mind to support military action based on other facts. The PM has deliberately misled this country into a war.

It is not as if there’s nothing better to do with the money we’ve spent, and are going to spend, on the war with Iraq and its ‘reconstruction’. We’re living in a country where law and order is breaking down; we’ve one of the worst public transport systems in the whole of Western Europe; we’ve an appalling health service; we’ve a substandard education system. Don’t let the propaganda from the government fool you into thinking that we’re living in paradise - we’re not! What’s wrong with spending some more money on these rather urgent domestic problems?

[Gr44]

hmmm, iv read the first page and abit, and i cant be bothered to read more, but here is my 2pence:

I believe Iraq proberly had more than was found, but we will proberly never know, But forgive me if i am wrong, isnt Iraq full of torturing and so on if they try and exercise free spech?

I personally don't know if what they done is right or wrong, but Iraq didn't help them selfs at all, the UN was being WAY TOO kind to them, you can only do so much, and the US/UK obviously won't happy with the progess that the UN was making, because the UN were taking it as a slow, not so important thing.

Iraq should not have resisted the UN weapon checkers for 1 year? was it? THEN when the UN had enough and wanted to get into Iraq to check it all out, they still wernt happy, but they got in.

Now, surly is they knew they were coming it wouldn't be too hard to move it all away? a massive country like Iraq, and they couldn't hide a few nukes? i lose my keys in my bedroom all the time - anyways you see my point

So we will proberly never know if it was the good thing to do, for all we know they had Nukes armed at half the world, nothing concrete says other wise.

anyways, thats my 2pence. and i think war with Iraq has been waiting along time, after the last event.

[spikegifted]

Loosing a key is a messy room is easy... But loosing a bunch of WDM, it's manufacturing sites, chemical and biological laboratories, etc is significantly more difficult. Just remember, the last time UN inspectors went there was late 2002. It may be possible for the Iraqis to have done deals with its neighbors to hide the weapons in such short period of time, but it is impossible to remove all the evidence if its capabilities - it takes a lot of time to remove the equipment, decontaminate the place, demolish the facilities, then decontaminate again to completely remove any traces of manufacturing capabilities. Iraq did not have the time nor the resources to carry out such operations.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
However, I'm 100% sure they will find more, they found evidence of some although I'll admit after being informed correctly by yourself, not WOMD themselves.

They will find _more_? That infers that

A) they had WOMD before the invasion
B) they will find WOMD after the invasion

Now, we can only guess about point B, but the way it is panning it you have to agree it is not looking very likely. One 10 year old vial of botulinum is hardly a threat to world peace.

Regarding point A. Well, yes he used chemical weapons in the 80's both against the Kurds and against the Iranians. I didn't see people complaining about his use of WOMD at that point in time (not to the extent that it warranted invading Iraq, in any case).

So, well, I disagree entirely on your point. He didn't use WOMD during the war, and we haven't found any subsequent to the war "ending".

[Bazzlad]

read mis type.
More = some.
Circumstances have changed, in the 80's we weren't under constant terrorist attack and the like, we have to be more careful now, and he was an well known terrorist sympathiser. If Al queida got their mits on WOMD and used them against us how would you fell then? Except dead.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
Circumstances have changed, in the 80's we weren't under constant terrorist attack and the like, we have to be more careful now, and he was an well known terrorist sympathiser. If Al queida got their mits on WOMD and used them against us how would you fell then? Except dead.

The rise of Islam fundamentalist as a terrorism threat to the Western world is in part thanks to the decades of insensitive and ignorant policies pursued by, principally, the US and, less evidently, the UK. We planted the seeds of our current problems a long time ago. For example, Mr. bin Laden's hatred towards the US and the West was initially the result of the US's insistence on having an air base in Saudi Arabia and similarly stationing of troops inside Saudi soil... This ultimately led to the evil events which took place on September 11th, 2001. In effect, we created our own problems by being insensitive to Arab concerns and sensitivities and now we're playing price for it.

Don't try to mix the two of them together. Saddam's regime is not religious nor fundamentalist as it was essentially secular. He only played the Islam card when he needed Arab support. From what I can understand, al Qaeda can't stand Saddam either because of he isn't religious enough. You can't simply mix the two together. The simplistic case made by the US administration is misleading. What is Saddam's enemy and what is al Qaeda's enemy doesn't make them bed-fellows. Hence there's no tangible links between al Qaeda and Iraq before the war. However, now that Saddam is not around to run the show anymore, al Qaeda is free to roam the country to wip up anti-Western feelings.

What's better?

[VladTheImpaler]

However, that statement is only a good approximation of certain type of national culture. It relies on the 'obedience' of the people, like the Germans before WWII or the Japanese, where the people are generally ‘apolitical’. On the whole, these are ‘conformist’ type culture and the public is not going to question deeply the motivation or hidden agenda of politicians. However, we live in an information age, where people are accustomed to unbiased news reporting and freedom of information. People are allow and often encouraged to make up their own minds about things - hence the dossier on WDM.

I have to disagree with that. Take a look at America today and see what Goering said in action. Condemnation of anyone who disagrees with 'security' measures. 'You are with us or against us'. 'The lines have been drawn'...... All designed to keep people afraid and to keep them blindly supporting their scumbag neo-conservative government no matter how outrageous their actions 'in the name of America'.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
read mis type.
More = some.
Circumstances have changed, in the 80's we weren't under constant terrorist attack and the like, we have to be more careful now, and he was an well known terrorist sympathiser. If Al queida got their mits on WOMD and used them against us how would you fell then? Except dead.

I think you need to check your history books. Terrorism was alive and well in the 1980's.

Can you provide quotes and sources to backup the statement that Saddam was a terrorist sympathiser?

Are you suggesting we invade every country that may provide WOMD to terrorists? If this is the case, what on earth did we invade Iraq for? There are far more relevant countries to invade if this is the reason.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Are you suggesting we invade every country that may provide WOMD to terrorists? If this is the case, what on earth did we invade Iraq for? There are far more relevant countries to invade if this is the reason.

I'm not sure if any country has actually provided any WMD to terrorists, not as far as I know anyway... However, I see you point.

I think it is more appropriate to look at 'invading countries that have supplied weapon systems to rogue states' (to use a 80s term). In that case, the first country to be invaded should be the US, closely followed by the UK, then China, France, Russia - that's all permanent members of the UN security council!! And they're also the holders of over 95% of the world WDM!

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
I have to disagree with that. Take a look at America today and see what Goering said in action. Condemnation of anyone who disagrees with 'security' measures. 'You are with us or against us'. 'The lines have been drawn'...... All designed to keep people afraid and to keep them blindly supporting their scumbag neo-conservative government no matter how outrageous their actions 'in the name of America'.

To a large extent, I think you're correct... However, I try to make a point of the subtle difference between 'attitude of indifference' and 'subersion of opinion'.

[Blub2k]

I'm not sure if any country has actually provided any WMD to terrorists, not as far as I know anyway... However, I see you point.

What about Israel?

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Blub2k
What about Israel?

Israel supply WMD to terrorists?

[Blub2k]

NO the USA/UK supplied WMD to Israel!

[Blub2k]

Thing is that the US are shaping up through the IAEA to have a go at Iran next. Israel have Nukes and have never been called to account for it ...ever. In my mind they are a bigger threat to world peace than any arab fundamentalist. The whole Iraq thing fits in with Herzls original view of Eretz Israel anyway.

[G4Z]

yes, It has allways been like this though, as I get older I get more skeptical, I get more skeptical because of the on going never ending lying that our governments do to us.

The Israel thing is a great example, Watch as out great nations stand by whilst the Isrealies (4th largets army in the world) bulldoze pallasinian homes with famalies still in them. The pallestinians fight these tanks and gunships with nothing but sticks and stones... and suicide bombers. And I really love how bush can take the anti terrorism stance here because would you belive it in the earier part of this century (1900`s - 1920's) the isrealis were bombing pallastinian citys in terrorist attacks because they were in the exact same position the pallestinians find themselves in now.

Also, Saddam was clearly an evil man, but where do you think he got that idea about gassing kurdish villages? dont know, well il enlighten you. in the 1920`s the british occupied iraq and executed the worlds first civillian bombing and gassing attacks.

doesnt it make you feel proud....?