NationStates Jolt Archive

We went to war over WMDs not terror: Hill

Australia went to war in Iraq because of the United Nations' inability to do anything about the country's weapons of mass destruction, not because of any terrorist links, Defence Minister Robert Hill said today.

He was responding to a report from the commission investigating the September 11 attacks which found no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda in attacks against the United States.

This contradicted US President George W Bush's assertion that such a connection was among the reasons it was necessary to topple Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein.

"Our reason for going to war ... was the inability of the Security Council to deal effectively with the weapons of mass destruction issue, in their failure to address that and to ensure the world that Saddam Hussein had disposed of those weapons," Senator Hill told Channel Nine.

"They had failed and left a security vacuum.

"As a result of that, coalition parties went in to ensure there would not be a threat from weapons of mass destruction."

No such weapons have yet been found.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney this week reiterated pre-war arguments that an Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda, which is blamed for the September 11 attacks, represented an unacceptable threat.

However, the commission said in a staff report, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11 - other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan," it added.

Counterterrorism officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency testifying at the hearing said they agreed with the staff report's conclusion.

The report was issued at the start of the commission's final two days of public hearings into the hijacked-plane attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. The hearings were called to find out how the United States failed to prevent the attacks and what it can do now to improve security.

The report stood in contrast to comments this week by Mr Cheney, who said that Saddam had "long-established ties" to al-Qaeda.

Mr Bush, asked yesterday about his deputy's comments, cited the presence in Iraq of Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "the best evidence" of an Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.

The president said Saddam had "sheltered terrorist groups" and America was safer because of his ouster.

Although Mr Cheney and other officials had suggested Iraq might have played a direct role in the September 11 attacks, Mr Bush acknowledged after the war that there was no evidence of this.

AAP-AP

SOURCE.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245010096.html.

COMMENT.
Oops, looks like Australia's Defence Minister has been caught telling the truth, for a change.
How embarrasing to so directly contradict our American allies.
Still, I expect he believes that those dreadful Weapons of Mass Destruction will appear any day now.

Our troops are in Iraq for a definate and defintive purpose that must be allowed to stay it's course lest evil be allowed to triumph! That tripe is almost believable, I should write GW's speechs.

I've always admired the Australian character trait of being able to cut through the bullsh*t

Saddam is gone, what's there to complain about? A politician lied, wow, that's a first. :roll:

Why are any troops in Iraq? Because International Jewish Finance and the Israeli government demanded the war as it benefitted World Jewry.

With all due respect to the Australians, could it be that Mr. Howard is just as deep in the pockets of the Bush administration as Mr. Blair is?

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.

Saddam is gone, what's there to complain about? A politician lied, wow, that's a first. :roll:

No, only conservative politicians lie haven't you heard?

Saddam is gone, what's there to complain about? A politician lied, wow, that's a first. :roll:

No, only conservative politicians lie haven't you heard?

Yes, I forgot.

I agree with you Vitania..Saddam is gone and Iraq has a chance at freedom it never thought it would get. Sounds like a success to me.

I agree with you Vitania..Saddam is gone and Iraq has a chance at freedom it never thought it would get. Sounds like a success to me.

Iraq will be plunged into anarchy and civil war so Israel will have 1 less enemy to worry about. Wait and see what happens when the USA pulls out from Iraq. What is going on right now is basically lawlessness, Iraq is a nation with an insurgency going on.

I agree with you Vitania..Saddam is gone and Iraq has a chance at freedom it never thought it would get. Sounds like a success to me.

Iraq will be plunged into anarchy and civil war so Israel will have 1 less enemy to worry about. Wait and see what happens when the USA pulls out from Iraq. What is going on right now is basically lawlessness, Iraq is a nation with an insurgency going on.

I compare liberating such nations to releasing a tiger from it's cage.

I agree with you Vitania..Saddam is gone and Iraq has a chance at freedom it never thought it would get. Sounds like a success to me.

Iraq will be plunged into anarchy and civil war so Israel will have 1 less enemy to worry about. Wait and see what happens when the USA pulls out from Iraq. What is going on right now is basically lawlessness, Iraq is a nation with an insurgency going on.

That is why the US and their allies will remain in Iraq in a scaled down role to ensure security. The interim government in Iraq wish for troops to remain in that role until the nation is stable. Once the interim government feels the need for the troops is no longer there they will be asked to leave.

That is why the US and their allies will remain in Iraq in a scaled down role to ensure security. The interim government in Iraq wish for troops to remain in that role until the nation is stable. Once the interim government feels the need for the troops is no longer there they will be asked to leave.


And then "BOOM" Civil war, kurds, sunni, shiite. Those who want the war will just wait until the time is right, they won't magically go away with time (unless we wait so long they die from old age). But by toppling Saddam the USA created a massive power vacuum.

I agree with you Vitania..Saddam is gone and Iraq has a chance at freedom it never thought it would get. Sounds like a success to me.Freedom by occupation? Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.


The Far-Left supported Saddam, He is their Middle East baby.

Why are any troops in Iraq? Because International Jewish Finance and the Israeli government demanded the war as it benefitted World Jewry.

well you are obviously anti-semitic. not only are you ignorant beyond limits, but you have the adaucity to blame the war on the jews? you really are ignorant. now before i go on babbling like i usually do when im angry, i ask someone else on this website to explain to this person what is wrong with his/her argument.

Why are any troops in Iraq? Because International Jewish Finance and the Israeli government demanded the war as it benefitted World Jewry.

well you are obviously anti-semitic. not only are you ignorant beyond limits, but you have the adaucity to blame the war on the jews? you really are ignorant. now before i go on babbling like i usually do when im angry, i ask someone else on this website to explain to this person what is wrong with his/her argument.

Decisive Action is essentially a self-proclaimed nazi, who is no better than wahibists and zionists that create the middle east problem. dont argue with him you wont win.

well you are obviously anti-semitic. not only are you ignorant beyond limits, but you have the adaucity to blame the war on the jews? you really are ignorant. now before i go on babbling like i usually do when im angry, i ask someone else on this website to explain to this person what is wrong with his/her argument.

Ignorant is a word used by jews and their allies to demean anybody who goes against their politically correct doctrines of egalitarianism and miscegenation.

The only thing wrong with my argument is that you are obviously either 1) A jew or 2) A Shabbas Goy (a non-jew who is a pawn of the jews).

Why is the war being fought? You tell me? Read about the mosul-haifa pipeline and then you tell me why the war is going on? Just because you don't like the truth, don't call me ignorant for telling you that which you don't want to hear. The truth is seldom pleasant, but it is always the truth.

well you are obviously anti-semitic. not only are you ignorant beyond limits, but you have the adaucity to blame the war on the jews? you really are ignorant. now before i go on babbling like i usually do when im angry, i ask someone else on this website to explain to this person what is wrong with his/her argument.

Ignorant is a word used by jews and their allies to demean anybody who goes against their politically correct doctrines of egalitarianism and miscegenation.

The only thing wrong with my argument is that you are obviously either 1) A jew or 2) A Shabbas Goy (a non-jew who is a pawn of the jews).

Why is the war being fought? You tell me? Read about the mosul-haifa pipeline and then you tell me why the war is going on? Just because you don't like the truth, don't call me ignorant for telling you that which you don't want to hear. The truth is seldom pleasant, but it is always the truth.
The Mosul-Haifa pipeline runs through Jordan. They'd never open it, and if they ever did, it'd be destroyed faster than even you could say "I told you so". Besides, the pipeline has been around for seventy years, and it probably needs a lot of repairs before it can ever reopen.

I agree with you Vitania..Saddam is gone and Iraq has a chance at freedom it never thought it would get. Sounds like a success to me.Freedom by occupation? Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Yes, because after all wars the region in conflict instantaneously reverts to paradise. Not in the real world. It took decades to rebuild Germany after WWII and you expect everything to be in place in a year in Iraq?
The coalition forces are still in Iraq to provide security for the citizens of the country. When the interim government of Iraq takes control on June 30th they will ask the forces to stay to maintain order until the government feels these forces are no longer necessary.
If you want to blame anyone for the unrest currently in Iraq then take a look at the foreign fighters and opportunists blowing up Iraqi civilians. Iraq is in the process of being liberated, the tyrant is gone and now the rebuilding of the nation has begun.
If coalition troops left now it would be a disaster hence they will remain. It is not an occupation, it is a coalition assisting a fledgling democracy to find its feet.

I do not want to get into rights or wrongs of being in Iraq, only to answer the question about Australia.
I once knew a CIA agent who said the only real friend the US had was Australia, we don't have to buy them or pay them for their support. They have always been a friend and supporter.
From my own experience I have to agree, they do not suck ass or pander. They are open and honest people. If the US does something they do not like they will let us know it, they are not afraid of saying it. They also do not falsely judge the US just because.
They have been there for the US when no others were, even in times when it was unpopular to like America. As with all peoples there are good and bad, but it seems there is a much larger proportion per capita of good Australians than any other nation I could think of.
I was once told that they should help us because they owe us, I have to ask, just what do they owe us? If anything we owe them, for their unwavering support, especially in our darkest hours.
They don't care what anyone outside of their country think of them and are not afraid to say so.
A very honest and upfront kind of people, I have an immense respect for them, always have.

Thank you for those kind words. I think most Australians value the alliance with the US and supports them in any action that is for the betterment of the world we live in, for example international security.

Unfortunately our opposition leader, Mark Latham, has no respect for the US or our alliance. I, personally, hope people see sense and do not vote this man into power in our country.

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.


The Far-Left supported Saddam, He is their Middle East baby.

What a ridiculous statement.

It was US and British support that enabled Saddam to remain in power. Both supported him during the Iran-Iraq wars.

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.

Did you perhaps not read the original post?

Australia's Defence Minister, Senator Hill, has stated that Australia was involved in the war due to Saddam's threat of using Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems clear enough. No mention of assisting allies, or removing tyrants.

Quite simply, we were there as a result of a lie.

Hopefully, the Australian people will by now be sick of Howards continual lies (GST, children overboard etc) and Latham will be Australia's next PM.

This is why Australian troops are in Iraq. The Real Abu Ghraib (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp). (Links to horrific video. Clicking on the link here will not start video)

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.

Did you perhaps not read the original post?

Australia's Defence Minister, Senator Hill, has stated that Australia was involved in the war due to Saddam's threat of using Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems clear enough. No mention of assisting allies, or removing tyrants.

Quite simply, we were there as a result of a lie.

Hopefully, the Australian people will by now be sick of Howards continual lies (GST, children overboard etc) and Latham will be Australia's next PM.

Did you not read my other post stating that the reasons to go to war in Iraq were not important to me, the fact that Saddam is out of power and Iraq has a chance to build a free and democratic nation does matter to me.

Ha ha ha, I was wondering when someone would talk about the 'never ever' GST. If I recall correctly, John Howard won an election on the promise that Australia will 'never ever' have a GST. He was voted in, and so we promptly got a GST.
We've also been fed the tripe about 'core' and 'non-core' promises, another thing introduced by Little Johnnie.

John Howard can weave the truth into a complicated braid at times, or perhaps compress it into a singularity, especially in an election year.

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.

Did you perhaps not read the original post?

Australia's Defence Minister, Senator Hill, has stated that Australia was involved in the war due to Saddam's threat of using Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems clear enough. No mention of assisting allies, or removing tyrants.

Quite simply, we were there as a result of a lie.

Hopefully, the Australian people will by now be sick of Howards continual lies (GST, children overboard etc) and Latham will be Australia's next PM.

Did you not read my other post stating that the reasons to go to war in Iraq were not important to me, the fact that Saddam is out of power and Iraq has a chance to build a free and democratic nation does matter to me.

If the reasons are not important to you why, may one ask, are you posting in this thread?

This thread is designed to discuss why Australian troops were committed to the war in Iraq.

The fact, unpalatable as it may be to you, is that we went to war on a lie.

That remains the case irrespective of whether or not it is important to you.

This thread is designed to discuss why Australian troops were committed to the war in Iraq.
The title "Why are Aussie troops in Iraq?" suggests that this thread is not about why they were committed, but why they are still there. In which case Tygaland's insight is entirely appropriate. :P

This thread is designed to discuss why Australian troops were committed to the war in Iraq.
The title "Why are Aussie troops in Iraq?" suggests that this thread is not about why they were committed, but why they are still there. In which case Tygaland's insight is entirely appropriate. :P

For those who came in late:

The first two paragraphs of my orginal statement at the commencement of this thread read:

"We went to war over WMDs not terror: Hill

Australia went to war in Iraq because of the United Nations' inability to do anything about the country's weapons of mass destruction, not because of any terrorist links, Defence Minister Robert Hill said today."

I would have thought that made it fairly clear as to the intent of the topic.

If you wish to make observations about a thread, please feel free to do so, but you may in fact find it helpful to read it from the start.

Australia went to war to get on Americas good side. To get a free trade deal.

Or they are possibly there assisting an ally to remove a tyrant and liberate an opressed nation.

Did you perhaps not read the original post?

Australia's Defence Minister, Senator Hill, has stated that Australia was involved in the war due to Saddam's threat of using Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Seems clear enough. No mention of assisting allies, or removing tyrants.

Quite simply, we were there as a result of a lie.

Hopefully, the Australian people will by now be sick of Howards continual lies (GST, children overboard etc) and Latham will be Australia's next PM.

Did you not read my other post stating that the reasons to go to war in Iraq were not important to me, the fact that Saddam is out of power and Iraq has a chance to build a free and democratic nation does matter to me.

If the reasons are not important to you why, may one ask, are you posting in this thread?

This thread is designed to discuss why Australian troops were committed to the war in Iraq.

The fact, unpalatable as it may be to you, is that we went to war on a lie.

That remains the case irrespective of whether or not it is important to you.

The question was "Why ARE Aussie troops in Iraq?" not "Why did Aussie troops go to Iraq?".

Present tense..means now. Now, they are in Iraq assisting allied troops and Iraqis to rebuild a free and democratic country. Previously, they have helped overthrow a tyrant.

This thread is designed to discuss why Australian troops were committed to the war in Iraq.
The title "Why are Aussie troops in Iraq?" suggests that this thread is not about why they were committed, but why they are still there. In which case Tygaland's insight is entirely appropriate. :P

For those who came in late:

The first two paragraphs of my orginal statement at the commencement of this thread read:

"We went to war over WMDs not terror: Hill

Australia went to war in Iraq because of the United Nations' inability to do anything about the country's weapons of mass destruction, not because of any terrorist links, Defence Minister Robert Hill said today."

I would have thought that made it fairly clear as to the intent of the topic.

If you wish to make observations about a thread, please feel free to do so, but you may in fact find it helpful to read it from the start.

If you want to discuss the past then ask the right question. Thank you Stirner, I felt I answered the question in the right context.