NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyone has always stated that Bush invaded Iraq to find the WMD..

however after the passage of resuliton 441.. the argument maybe passed that Bush invaded Iraq to enforce the "grave consequences" claus which the UN warned of if Sadamm failed to openly cooperate with inspectors over the given time span.

Infact by Hans Blix's own accord this was not the case, and Saddam was seen to be counter productive and elusive.

Resolution 441 by default accepted the idea that WMD existed (based on flawed information or not (information complied by the international community)) and gave conditions of grave consequences if Saddam failed to comply..

By this merit Bush no longer needed to prove WMD existed because that was not a condition of the resolution. (finding WMD would not have incited a war)

Everyone has always stated that Bush invaded Iraq to find the WMD..

however after the passage of resuliton 441.. the argument maybe passed that Bush invaded Iraq to enforce the "grave consequences" claus which the UN warned of if Sadamm failed to openly cooperate with inspectors over the given time span.

Infact by Hans Blix's own accord this was not the case, and Saddam was seen to be counter productive and elusive.

Resolution 441 by default accepted the idea that WMD existed (based on flawed information or not (information complied by the international community)) and gave conditions of grave consequences if Saddam failed to comply..

By this merit Bush no longer needed to prove WMD existed because that was not a condition of the resolution. (finding WMD would not have incited a war)


It is widely held that that resolution did not allow the US invasion; the US itself spent some time trying to pass one that did, but that's the one France said they would block, so the US, bitching about the irrelevancy of the UN, made the UN irrelevant and attacked without "permission".

what is permission anyway.. the UN is incapable of taking action without the US giving it the troops to do so.. Besides after the SCandel with the oil for food program, we have more "perspective" on Frances real position against the war and why they were so adminate on preventing an invasion..

I keep hearing all these new excuses on why it was ok for the US to invade and occupy another sovereign nation, but why didn't they use that excuse in the first place? I keep seeing Ha! it was ok to invade {insert reason here} but that reason was never mentioned by Bush or whoever as a reason..

OK, listen carefully.
It doesn't really matter WHY the US invaded Iraq. it only matters that we DID. The "justifications" have all been disproven.
WMD: Nope. If and when he had them, they've been gone for over ten years now. Destroyed or sold to terrorists.
Liberation: Yeah, okay. Ask any Iraqi if he was better off now or then. Their homes are demolished, there's no electicity, food or decent water.
Saddam was a very bad man: true but so are about 20+ other dickheads who rule third world countries. Off the top of my head there are probably at least five who are MUCH WORSE than Saddam ever was. We're not going in guns blazing to liberate those people are we?
It's very easy to say that this is all about the oil, and I feel it largely is, but more to do with, ugggh, OTHER things. Okay?
"Oil for food" was corrupt? Geniuses! How could it not be? Anyone with POWER, anyone with WEALTH, is corrupt. It's human nature, for the most part. Just because it hasn't come to light doesn't mean it isn't so.