Nobody can tell me...

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Sandman
Oh that's rich. The US killed a resolution to invade Iraq because they knew that they could not get approval from the UNSC, and now it's the fault of the UN that the US has been unable to find the WMD.

It's only the fault of the UN if the UN inspectors incorrectly reported the existence of the WMD. They reported this many times over several years. Are you refuting this? Are you denying that the UN reported this:

"...U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced –- the 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin –- is enough to kill tens of thousands of people...."

If you are denying that the UN reported that Iraq had WMD and that SH was not cooperating with their attmpts to account for and destroy them then I will be glad to dig up some more reports.

[Toad]

Originally posted by NUKE
If Iraq had hidden WMD, then our invasion was justified no matter if we found them or not.  

Justification? You've been talking about "mission accomplished" and "ensuring Iraq had no WMD". Which is it?

Because we haven't found doodle. So you have the double-whammy. You can't show justificiation nor can you say "mission accomplished" for any justification you might imagine.

[lada]

Originally posted by AKIron

"...U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced –- the 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin –- is enough to kill tens of thousands of people...."

If you are denying that the UN reported that Iraq had WMD and that SH was not cooperating with their attmpts to account for and destroy them then I will be glad to dig up some more reports.

UN inspectors clainmed several times, that there are no WMD left in iraq before War and they confirmed their attitude several times in past year.

They former report were about suspicion and not reality.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lada
UN inspectors clainmed several times, that there are no WMD left in iraq before War and they confirmed their attitude several times in past year.

They former report were about suspicion and not reality.

You have anything to back this up?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
They saw the US as a threat to the war they were fighting to conquer the nations of East Asia and the Western Pacific.

 

Don't forget that in their POV they were just following the "approved" procedure of the colonial Western powers in Asia.

After they whipped the Russians in 1905, they became imperialistic and were even encouraged in that vein. TR suggested that "Korea should be entirelylwithin Japan's sphere of interest". The US certainly wasn't restraining them then.

Thirty year later, when they proved a bit too skilled at the game Western powers had played in Asia the friction began. The US stood in their way, a threat to their national security because of their dependence on imports.

Of oil, of all things. No similarities, you say?

[lada]

while US' congres hear this  , world hear that

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13445375_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-NO-WMD-IN-IRAQ--SAY-CIA-name_page.html

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/60253.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/iraq/main603691.shtml

Actualy do you see something odd about report by Mr. Blix and report for US's congres whitch were supposed to be based on UN words ?

edit damm ... somehow i posted wrong link... will find old one later.. hopefuly

Most funny thing are mobile laboratories.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lada
while US' congres hear this  , world hear that

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3135932.stm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13445375_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-NO-WMD-IN-IRAQ--SAY-CIA-name_page.html

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/60253.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/iraq/main603691.shtml

Actualy do you see something odd about report by Mr. Blix and report for US's congres whitch were supposed to be based on UN words ?

Most funny thing are mobile laboratories.

After 12 years the Iraqi's budged from their obstinate refusal to cooperate only when there appeared to be an imminent threat of invasion. What if the US had backed down? Would Iraq have ever again cooperated or taken the threat seriously? Here's an excerpt from your first "what the world heard" link:

"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.  Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

[lada]

you wantd me to prove that UN inspectors claim, there are no WMD.

I provided you sutch materials. Sort it out yourself.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lada
you wantd me to prove that UN inspectors claim, there are no WMD.

I provided you sutch materials. Sort it out yourself.

Gotta go, read only the first link. No claims of no WMD there. Will read rest when I return.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
Justification? You've been talking about "mission accomplished" and "ensuring Iraq had no WMD". Which is it?

Because we haven't found doodle. So you have the double-whammy. You can't show justificiation nor can you say "mission accomplished" for any justification you might imagine.

If Iraq did in fact have hidden WMD, then that alone is justification for going in. How can you say otherwise? Just because we didn't find them? That doesn't make sense.

Maybe I should not have said "mission accomplished" as we are still carrying out the mission. Before I said that, I said "good call" a few times regarding the decision to go in. That's more accurate of my view so far.

As for ensuring Iraq had no WMD, I was refering to the fact that Hanz Blix was not going to be able to ensure it and Saddam sure wasn't. The only option we had was to go in and make sure ourselves. If they are hidden, at least WE are looking and WE control the country. If we find none, then we have esured Iraq did not have them. Either scenario is good news to me.

 
The "double whammy" was brought on by Saddam, no one else. He either had WMD and refused to give them up, or he didn't have them and refused to cooperate enough to ensure he did not have them.

Toad what is the worst case scenario that you can come up with in Iraq , post Saddam? Maybe some crazy person could gain control of the hidden WMD? Seems like that was the case before the war.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
Don't forget that in their POV they were just following the "approved" procedure of the colonial Western powers in Asia.

After they whipped the Russians in 1905, they became imperialistic and were even encouraged in that vein. TR suggested that "Korea should be entirelylwithin Japan's sphere of interest". The US certainly wasn't restraining them then.

Thirty year later, when they proved a bit too skilled at the game Western powers had played in Asia the friction began. The US stood in their way, a threat to their national security because of their dependence on imports.

Of oil, of all things. No similarities, you say?

I thought you would have dropped this comparison by now, as it is ridiculous.

Iraq was warned for 12 years to comply with the UN and inspectors after a war they lost.

Japan was on a non-stop war rampage and the US did not threaten their security in any way. We were seen as a roadblock to their conquest and a threat to their EXPANSION .

Japan did not negotiate with us for 12 years and warn us the we faced war if we didn't comply with their demands. They attacked us in a cold, calculated move to decapitate our Pacific fleet in order to have free reign. They didn't want our compliance or peace, they wanted our fleet gone so nothing could stop them.

Simply a ridiculous compairison.

[Toad]

Nuke, if they had WMD you say there was justification. To date, there hasn't really been any WMD shown. Certainly not enough to justify an dinvasion. Where's the justification then?

Still carrying out the mission? I don't think so, Nuke. Right now the mission is get an Iraqi government out on the world stage and start getting the troops home. Don't kid yourself, at this stage the issue is "the election". The US one, not the Iraqi one. They're not looking for WMD anymore, they're looking to significantly draw down troops and minimize casualties before November.

Ensuring they didn't have them? It took an invasion to do this? No, the invasion was justified on the basis that they HAD them and that the WMD were a clear and present danger to the US.

Well, we haven't found them so the question remains: did they really have them?


If they do exist, they are still a clear and present danger to the US, perhaps even moreso,  that we are doing nothing to remove.

For this, we have sacrificed 800+ of our citizens and spent untold amounts of lesser national treasure.

In short, BAD decision. Responsibility, accountability. Didn't say he lied or misled. I said BAD decision.


Maybe some crazy person could gain control of the hidden WMD? Seems like that was the case before the war.

So 800+ dead for no change sounds good to you? Not me. BAD decision.

[Toad]

Originally posted by NUKE
I thought you would have dropped this comparison by now, as it is ridiculous.

I'd have thought you'd have done a bit more research on the origins of WW2 in the Pacific and realized that Japan felt the US was a threat to their nation and struck preemptively. Just as the US thought Iraq was a threat and struck preemptively.

Japan was warned for years not to try to emulate the Western powers conquest of Asian countries.

Japan was on a Western power emulation trip of "conquer and colonialize". The US cut off oil exports to them and they were totally dependent on oil importation. There's that oil thing again.

Again, I think you need to review how the Western powers had behaved in Asia prior to Japan coming of age by  whipping Russia in 1905. Post 1905, when Japan then continued to emulate the Western powers and grow stronger, they suddenly found out the Western powers didn't consider them a legitimate colonial power.

Do you find it in the least strange that the US had no problem with other colonial powers in Asia doing essentially what the Japanese did? IE: colonizing with force and/or the threat of force? How about the US actions in the Phillippines in the late 1800's early 1900's?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by AKIron
After 12 years the Iraqi's budged from their obstinate refusal to cooperate only when there appeared to be an imminent threat of invasion.

Iraq wasn't obstinately refusing to cooperate for the entire 12 years.  It was something that developed over time.  You can read the UNSCOM reports and acchievements yourself here...

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/

[beet1e]

I don’t have any answers in this thread, only questions. Based on the threat of Iraqi development of WMD including nuclear weapons which had been talked about by GB1 himself, I was dumbfounded when he stopped the first conflict (1991) when he did. But that was a mission to liberate Kuwait – job done. So in subsequent years, it was quite alarming to hear how Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions, and being allowed to get away with it during a period of complacency in the Clinton years. Worst of all was his being able to kick out the weapons inspectors, and to get away with it.

So when GB2 declared a war on terror, and links were identified between Iraq and AQ (AQ suicide pilots’ families being paid $25,000 by Saddam), and the CIA and MI6 seemed so sure that WMD were in Iraq, I believed that the war was justified. We know that Saddam did have chemical weapons, as these were deployed against the northern Kurds in 1988. And I doubt that anyone believes he was above trading his WMD with other terror groups like AQ.

Some questions: [list=1]

• How could the intelligence services have got it so wrong?
• If the WMD were indeed moved to a sympathetic neighbour like Syria, wouldn’t the CIA satellites have been able to track the vehicle movements?
• Before the war could begin, there was what seemed like endless UN prevarication which went on for several months. Would this have been enough to provide Saddam with a window of opportunity to move all WMD out of Iraq?
• The US has Saddam and many of his agents in custody. How come the CIA has not been able to get the information they want about WMD whereabouts?

That’s all for now.