Diplomatic strategy pre war

[Pongo]

Reading the Canadian paper today I saw a lot of support for the war in Iraq and alot of shame that Canada isnt participating.
None of the support mentioned Weapons of Mass destruction at all.
I think a major diplomatic mistake for the US was the whole "you have to let us invade hes still got weapons of mass destruction" strategy.
Might seem like a silly difference but I dont think there was ever much support for the US waging war to stop another country from having Weapons of Mass destruction when they have them themselves.

I think the same amount of time focusing on the liberate Iraq angle would have been more effective. Showing the effects of the regime on the Iraqi people. We all know that Bush wants him out for that reason primarily.

I think the world got into an "if it doesnt fit, you must aquit" kind of mode about the WMD issue. Maybe it was thought it would make more sence to the countries in the area.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Pongo


I think the world got into an "if it doesnt fit, you must aquit" kind of mode about the WMD issue. Maybe it was thought it would make more sence to the countries in the area.

Well, I guess the world was wrong, huh?

[Hangtime]

if stuffing a soccer team into a shredder don't get yer intrest, why in hell would wmd catch anybodys attention?

[weazel]

You mean Canada wasn't fooled by chimpys roulette wheel of reasons either?

Damn heretics!:D

[Rude]

Ya know what Weazel? Watching you squirm through Gdudds second four years will be worth the $15/month in of itself.

[Rude]

Might seem like a silly difference but I dont think there was ever much support for the US waging war to stop another country from having Weapons of Mass destruction when they have them themselves.

Do you actually put the US on the same level as Iraq's regime because we have weapons of mass destruction as they do?

Unless I mistook what you posted, your perspective of my country is an ignorant one at best.

[Pongo]

woa big boy..
just some conjecture about why your diplomacy failed so dismally.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Pongo
Might seem like a silly difference but I dont think there was ever much support for the US waging war to stop another country from having Weapons of Mass destruction when they have them themselves.
 

The silly difference is that Iraq/Saddam is NOT allowed to have WMDs while the US IS allowed to.

Naturally, the "silliness" comes into view because the UN is viewed by the rest of the world just like how Iraq views them- redundant.
-SW

[funkedup]

Pongo I think the emphasis on the WMD had to do with the potential for them ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.  That's the post 9/11 paranoid worst-case scenario that I think has driven a lot of the "war on terrorism" stuff.

[Pongo]

Its kind of a non starter though anyway. Cause the no WMD clause was inflicted on the Iraqis as a way out of the Gulf war by the people threatening to invade again.  They would sign anything right?
I just think that focusing on that regimes effect on its people would have been more effective. I guerentee you it wouldnt have been less effective.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

That's a redundant statement.

Bush Sr. was threatening to invade again?

Saddam inflicted everything on the Iraqis by himself.
-SW

[funkedup]

Originally posted by Pongo
I just think that focusing on that regimes effect on its people would have been more effective. I guerentee you it wouldnt have been less effective.

You're probably right.  I don't think it was number one on the list of motivations though.  Maybe they were being too honest for once.