NationStates Jolt Archive

ok this is just a poll to see if first if you like bush and if you think we should pull out of IRAQ this is a multi choise poll

Don't like him.

We should stay and finish the job.

we should pull out.

do I like Bush? I love him :fluffle:

He's trying his best... so yea, I like him.

And we should wait till their government is secure... then pull out without being asked.

Infact, we are pulling out now. just going slow.

Wheres the poll? there's the poll.


Bush blows etcetcetc

I don't think it's a matter of should or should not anymore--we simply can't keep this up. We don't have the soldiers.

Look at the current situation--we can't secure anything but the Green Zone, and we can't really secure that. Insurgents are attacking at will, and the violence is getting worse with each passing day. Here's an indicator for you--last year, when ABC news read the names of the fallen on the show Nightline, they read 721 names. This year, it'll be more than 900. But we're winning?

And remember Afghanistan, the one we supposedly won? Well, I hate quoting the Washington Times, (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050523-120939-3802r.htm) but apparently, Analysts and senior officers have warned British ministers that Afghanistan could become a "complete strategic failure" and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate.And we won that one, right?

So here's my answer--we'll leave and it won't be on our terms, and there will be a bloodbath afterwards, a civil war that will leave the country far more screwed that it was when we went in there. Sooner or later is immaterial--that's the aftermath we're looking at.

I don't think it's a matter of should or should not anymore--we simply can't keep this up. We don't have the soldiers.

Look at the current situation--we can't secure anything but the Green Zone, and we can't really secure that. Insurgents are attacking at will, and the violence is getting worse with each passing day. Here's an indicator for you--last year, when ABC news read the names of the fallen on the show Nightline, they read 721 names. This year, it'll be more than 900. But we're winning?

And remember Afghanistan, the one we supposedly won? Well, I hate quoting the Washington Times, (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050523-120939-3802r.htm) but apparently, And we won that one, right?

So here's my answer--we'll leave and it won't be on our terms, and there will be a bloodbath afterwards, a civil war that will leave the country far more screwed that it was when we went in there. Sooner or later is immaterial--that's the aftermath we're looking at.


but dont you remember that this is like when russia invaded afganistan i understand iraq's war will keep on even if we leave but look at it this way its not our war after that its up to them so i do understand what u are saying but hey russia got off easy so y cant we

but dont you remember that this is like when russia invaded afganistan i understand iraq's war will keep on even if we leave but look at it this way its not our war after that its up to them so i do understand what u are saying but hey russia got off easy so y cant we
Russia didn't get off easy, for starters. They lost a lot of soldiers and equipment along the way.

As to whether or not we should pull out now, I think the question is moot. We don't have the forces there right now to do anything, and we don't have the forces in reserve to escalate, assuming escalation would do anything more than it did in Vietnam. If we leave sooner rather than later, it'll save some US lives, so I'd be in favor of getting out now, but the fact is that we've fucked that country good, and we won't be welcome in that area for decades at best.

Russia didn't get off easy, for starters. They lost a lot of soldiers and equipment along the way.

As to whether or not we should pull out now, I think the question is moot. We don't have the forces there right now to do anything, and we don't have the forces in reserve to escalate, assuming escalation would do anything more than it did in Vietnam. If we leave sooner rather than later, it'll save some US lives, so I'd be in favor of getting out now, but the fact is that we've fucked that country good, and we won't be welcome in that area for decades at best.

i see what you are saying and i totally agree and when you think about it we more than screwd IRAQ lets just say if our men do pull out they will still be fighting but not with us and we are partly the couse of that

I voted against Bush twice, and voted against his Dad once too (Dukakis was too big an idiot to vote for, so I voted for senior Bush once).

Pulling out at this point though would be even a bigger strategic mistake then going in was, and would leave a bad situation a complete disaster for everyone

if we learn from history, we must stay and finish the job of getting the iraqi government and it's people back on thier own feet and able to be a stable , self sufficient government and nation.
the russians made the mistake of just suddenly pulling out of afghanastan and the nation plunged into civil war and fuedal kingdoms. iraq would have the possibility to spake a pan mideast civil war between sunni's and shiites if the US just up and left.

as for the rest of the poll, yes i think president bush is ok, and the reasons for the war were based on good intentions, and seriously percieved threats. the intelligence data was just flawed.
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, unfortunately a president nor a congress has the luxury of it when they are acting on all the information they have AT THE TIME they make thier decision.

I don't like him, but you should finish what you started even though it was for a stupid reason.

OI! YOU STARTED IT, SO YOU SHOULD END IT!

But with America's track record, it may just pull out in the end *rolls eyes*

I don't like Bush, but more for Domestic reasons than Foriegn policy ones. The whole "spread freedom" ideas is a good one, in theory, it's just been horribly and ineptly executed...

...I supported the war initially, on the premise of locating WMD's...when that idea died, I thought to myself, "So just how long do we plan on sticking around?"

As much as I would like us to pull out of Iraq tommorrow, it's just not an option at this point. The chaos we leave behind will ensure that peace in the region will never be even a remote possibility in our lifetimes, and will only result in more terrorist attacks on the U.S. and the World as a whole for years to come.

It's sad really...lose/lose. :(

Don't start things and then leave them for others to finish.

Whether or not the invasion in Iraq was necessary is no longer the question. The USA, or rather the government of the USA, decided to do it. Currently they are trying to justify this move, which the world will accept. Simply because it doesn't have another choice. America invaded Iraq on false pretenses, ok, but history is written by the winners. And, truth be told, the Iraqis don't look like the winners to me at the moment.
But by invading Iraq the United States have taken responsibility for its future. If you decide to invade a forgein country under the pretext of bringing democracy, you better damn well make sure that there is democracy when you leave again.
If you don't want to take responsibilty, do get involved in the first place.

However, nobody on this planet is currently in any position to hold the US responsible for anything they do (very sad, but true. You can't control the biggest bully in the playground on your own, and there are no other bullies left to keep him in check) So, my guess is they will pull out sometime soon, leaving Iraq a complete mess, politically unstable and a great base for Islamic fundamentalism. This mess is likely to catch up with them a few years from now, but by then they won't remember that they were the ones who started the whole thing to begin with...

*snip*

...This mess is likely to catch up with them a few years from now, but by then they won't remember that they were the ones who started the whole thing to begin with...

Well, I hope by "they", you mean the politicians. ;) I, for one, will not forget that we started this war, nor will I forget that the consequences of the U.S. pulling out now will be entirely our fault.

Whether the war was justified or not we can't pull out now. We can't just go in, tear a country apart, and expect it to pick itself up. I don't know why marines are being used as peacekeepers, they're amphibious assult troopers, not police. If we back out now the entire society falls into anarchy (more so).

Well, I hope by "they", you mean the politicians. ;) I, for one, will not forget that we started this war, nor will I forget that the consequences of the U.S. pulling out now will be entirely our fault.

I'm talking about the general public. Not necessarily you and me, but let's face it : Who is going to listen to us? ;)

The general public seemed to have forgotten that the United States were supporting Iraq on an enormous scale not that long ago, providing weapons for a war that ultimately left Iraq absolutely destitute. When trying to save his finances by raising the oil price, Saddam suddenly found that his allies turned against him, and he was the "bad guy" in the Middle East from then on. The USA were suddenly morally opposed to the same regime they had been financing for 10 years... Talk about general amnesia there.
Same with Afghanistan. The USA supported the Taliban and the Northern Alliance as long as they fought of Russian tanks, and then withdrew support and left the region in turmoil.
What really really gets me is how many US citizen are constantly surprised why the bad bad world hates them...

Its going to go the shit eventually just like afghanistan anyway.

Don't like him.

We should stay and finish the job.
What's job? Saddam Hussein's been out of power for some time and all the WMD's have been taken care of.

Mission Accomplished.

What's job? Saddam Hussein's been out of power for some time and all the WMD's have been taken care of.

Mission Accomplished.
It is necessary for the US to stay there in order to build Iraq's democratic political and economic infrastructure, just like they did in Germany and Japan.

It is necessary for the US to stay there in order to build Iraq's democratic political and economic infrastructure, just like they did in Germany and Japan.

Agreed, from a humantarian point of view.
Politically, it would pay to leave the region now and wait till the next dictator takes over. It's always handy to have a scapegoat at hand for the next time you need to draw attention away from pathetic failure in internal politics...

What's job? Saddam Hussein's been out of power for some time and all the WMD's have been taken care of.

Mission Accomplished.
Isn't the current reson to spread democracy? That mission hasn't been accomplished. Oh, and what WMD's? :p

Agreed, from a humantarian point of view.
Politically, it would pay to leave the region now and wait till the next dictator takes over. It's always handy to have a scapegoat at hand for the next time you need to draw attention away from pathetic failure in internal politics...
Another dictator should not be permitted to take over in Iraq, even if it means the US staying there for 10 years, and imposing an education system to foster pro-democratic thought among the Iraqi people.

if we learn from history, we must stay and finish the job of getting the iraqi government and it's people back on thier own feet and able to be a stable , self sufficient government and nation.
the russians made the mistake of just suddenly pulling out of afghanastan and the nation plunged into civil war and fuedal kingdoms. iraq would have the possibility to spake a pan mideast civil war between sunni's and shiites if the US just up and left.

as for the rest of the poll, yes i think president bush is ok, and the reasons for the war were based on good intentions, and seriously percieved threats. the intelligence data was just flawed.
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, unfortunately a president nor a congress has the luxury of it when they are acting on all the information they have AT THE TIME they make thier decision.
Have you ever heard of the Downing Street Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)? How about the Office of Special Plans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html)? Does the name Scott Ritter (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm) mean anything to you? It was all BS. Do you remember when Codi Rice said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? Do you really think they thought Iraq was a nuclear threat?

Another dictator should not be permitted to take over in Iraq, even if it means the US staying there for 10 years, and imposing an education system to foster pro-democratic thought among the Iraqi people.

I absolutely and totally agree. I just don't see it happening. At best, the US will withdraw and ask the UNO to take care of that...

Isn't the current reson to spread democracy? That mission hasn't been accomplished. Oh, and what WMD's? :p
Fuck democracy. What stupid ass reason to be killed. Let's say you're a soldier in Iraq, and President Bush asks you, "Hey Private Forest, we're not sure what to do, should we keep you guys here or send you home? Whatever you decide, that's what I'll do. If you think you can get that whole democracy thing going, that would be great, but I don't want to waste your time if you can't. If you want to stay, you can stay, but if you chose to leave, I'm sending you and every other American service member home. I heard that you lost two friends over here. That's too bad. So what is it?"

What would you say? If you decided to leave, would it be your fault if Iraqis killed other Iraqis?

What would you say? If you decided to leave, would it be your fault if Iraqis killed other Iraqis?

Yes, it would. Because you overthrew the original government (good or evil, it did keep a structured and ordered society), you caused a situation that is close to civil war. And now you take a look at that mess and say "Nah, let somebody else clean that up, I'm going home"?

I absolutely and totally agree. I just don't see it happening. At best, the US will withdraw and ask the UNO to take care of that...
Well, the US did it after WW2 with Japan and Germany, so it could still work out. Iraq's problem is that it's full of nutty conservative Muslims, and that Sunnis are not sufficiently included in the process.

Whether the war was justified or not we can't pull out now. We can't just go in, tear a country apart, and expect it to pick itself up. I don't know why marines are being used as peacekeepers, they're amphibious assult troopers, not police. If we back out now the entire society falls into anarchy (more so).

Maybe because instead of making sure we had the resources and manpower to go to war, he was too ignorent and too gunho to think for a goddamn minuet. So he sends a underfunded military that was unprepared to fight this kind of war and says, go. So when there is not enough soldiers so thats why Marines have to be soldiers.

Well, the US did it after WW2 with Japan and Germany, so it could still work out. Iraq's problem is that it's full of nutty conservative Muslims, and that Sunnis are not sufficiently included in the process.

Trust me, Germany was full of nutty Nazis and in the end it was split up between East and West. But it worked, nevertheless.
On the other hand, Germany is situated in Europe, most of its neighbouring countries were democratic already, so it did have a few examples to go by. Iraq doesn't.
But then, if the US was willing to make that effort (and, seriously, I doubt they want to), they could turn Iraq into a stable nation in this unstable region, it might have a good and lasting effect.
However, I don't see the US government nor the majority of the US citizens in any way ready to go through with that. Many just close their eyes to their responsibilites.

Don't like him.

We should stay and finish the job.

Mh... would you suggest "finishing" the job to a murderer who has just stabbed someone to within an inch of his life?

I like Bush-More than Gore so he one 2000-Kerrys married to an evil empire so pfft
The war was dumb because of your irrefutable evidence of mass destraction.
wow we cant argue with an inarguable fact now can we.......... :rolleyes:

Mh... would you suggest "finishing" the job to a murderer who has just stabbed someone to within an inch of his life?

Well, after starving the people for more than 10 years and then bombing the pathetic remains of civilisation to the ground... yep, leaving now might be a good idea. I'm sure these splendid Iraqi chaps learned their lesson and will start to build an exemplary, stable, pro-American democracy as soon as we leave...
:rolleyes:

What's job? Saddam Hussein's been out of power for some time and all the WMD's have been taken care of.

Mission Accomplished.

Hey dumbass before you go flinging Mission Acomplished stickers on the war in Iraq maybe you can do me a favor pull your head out of your ass and look at the mission.
The coalitions mission in Iraq was to (there was 8 points to the mission and I am paraphrasing it):
1. Remove Saddam's Baath Party from power in Iraq. (complete)
2. Find and eliminate all WMD in Saddam's control. (obsolete)
3. Set up a new democratic Iraqi government. (complete)
4.Secure Iraq so said goverent can progressively take back power. (incomplete)
5. Make Iraq a safer and better place for democracy and freedom. (incomplete)

The mission is far from over and will not be over for quite some time. The earliest the Coalition could pullout of Iraq while succefully acomplising all mission objectives is probally late 2011, if not later. The US will probally have
troops in Iraq forever (like with Japan in WWII after we rebuilt the Japanese they allowed us to stay because 1. they liked the added security of US presence and 2. the Japanese defensive force had little change of survining war with out support from another country.) To top things off I personally believe that all of your opinions don't mean a pile of shit, your bitching will not end this war sooner, if anything it will prolong the war. If you want it to end so badly get of your ass enlist and do a goddamn thing to put an end to it. It easy to make excuses from a free nation 10,000 miles away but see what Saddam did to these people, for over 40 years. See how desperate they want to be free and how they will do anything to be free. I went to Iraq last year because I had no choice, I go (this time around its voluntary, they can't force in to go agian till 2009) now because if I don't who will go in my stead.
(#1 Bush hater, he's a goddamn moron, but thats another topic for another thread and it takes too much time to explain why he's a moron because of how big a moron he is)

Do you remember when Codi Rice said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? Do you really think they thought Iraq was a nuclear threat?

Correction tht was not Rice but the man him self G.W. Bush!

I absolutely and totally agree. I just don't see it happening. At best, the US will withdraw and ask the UNO to take care of that...

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!! The UN is up to its ears in scandles the secretary general as well as the UN is more or a lame duck then usual. It would be better to just put saddam back in power than to had it over to the dumbfucks in the UN. We may have fuckied things up there more than helped but the goal is not to make it worse than before we were there.

Hopefully the complete Political and Military farse that is Iraq will have finally opened the "worlds" eyes to the ultimate threat that is America. Any person who stamps their will on another person whilst claiming to be Just and Right, closely follwed by kicking the crap out of "the perpetrator" in front of EVERYONE and it proves to be all lies and "jimmy didnt actually have the big rock I said he had...and now iv nicked his lunchbox gnarfgnarf"

this person would be outcast by his fellows,

If America is as wonderful as its media and citizens often delight in telling me,
i feel they would of had/have the resources to study Iraq to its fullest and ascertain whether the Region Full OF Oil (jimmys lunchbox) And American Interest for the last 15+ yrs isnt crammed full of chemical nasties

simple. Someone threw a rock at the bully (9/11) and the bully unable to see where the rock came from...!guessed! that it was from roughly that end of the playground and too prove "my" authority hasnt been usurped "im" going to impose "my" will in that direction.
Your Countries personality couldnt take it, you had to lash out,
how do you declare war on an enemy you cant see, who has no country. Guerrila actions in Napoleonic Peninsula Wars "the Little War" caused the french to have to use half their army just guarding their supply chain. In short
keep shooting at shadows

For want of a better generalisation "The East" dont ever have to indulge in any terroristic activity on America for years to come. They've already got you looking over shoulders at the rest of the world.

Just because ur damn country speaks "relatively" the same language doesnt mean I cant see your crimes for what they are, i only hope you turn and tear yourselves apart like a pack of rabid hounds. Spareing the world from illusions of Hope, Peace and a World called America
:headbang:

Fuck democracy. What stupid ass reason to be killed. Let's say you're a soldier in Iraq, and President Bush asks you, "Hey Private Forest, we're not sure what to do, should we keep you guys here or send you home? Whatever you decide, that's what I'll do. If you think you can get that whole democracy thing going, that would be great, but I don't want to waste your time if you can't. If you want to stay, you can stay, but if you chose to leave, I'm sending you and every other American service member home. I heard that you lost two friends over here. That's too bad. So what is it?"

What would you say? If you decided to leave, would it be your fault if Iraqis killed other Iraqis?
No US militray personel would walk away from combat. War is hell believe me I know, but at the same time Iraq is a opertuinity to see what the rest of the world is really like, and it is a picture so sad that you cry for these people and come back home and look at your own country and say don't we have it made. On top on that Warrior Ethos would not allow you to quit.
Now some may say what is "Warrior Ethos"????
Warrior Ethos
I Will Always Place The Mission First
I Will Never Accept Defeat
I Will Never Quit
I Will Never Leave A Fallen Comrade

This little motto is drilled into your head more than any other thing in basic and it beocomes more than a motto as you cahnge from civilian to soldier it because a part of you and a part of your life.
As a soldier you are to place your pesonal desires and wants below the mission because you give selfless service to you nation and your people. But seeig you never joined the military instead you sat back on your fat fucking ass and said let someone else deal with it, you have no Warrior Ethos, in fact you have nothing. Many say pitty the soldiers who leave there families for so long to go fight a war, I say pitty you for being so weak and afraid you were unable to face your own fears.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!! The UN is up to its ears in scandles the secretary general as well as the UN is more or a lame duck then usual. It would be better to just put saddam back in power than to had it over to the dumbfucks in the UN. We may have fuckied things up there more than helped but the goal is not to make it worse than before we were there.

I sure wish I was... but, sorry, I just don't have faith in the United States to finish jobs they started. Hasn't really happend for 60 years now.
Notice, I didn't say what kind of a job the UN would ultimately do in Iraq, given that they are more or less powerless and don't have the means to protect the population in a civil war in a country the size of Iraq.
It's just the most likely scenario in my eyes.

I like Bush, he's actually done what he said he was going to do.

The reason's for going into Iraq were misguided, but we still did a good thing. The reason we can't secure Iraq is because of the idiots in high brass over there who court marshal guys for shooting people in their defense (e.g. Pantano)

Iraq is just a foothold on the middle east, and every one can see that Iran is next on the list. We'll be able to attack in the east and west. But when Iran comes around I think that there will be a lot more support from the international community.

I like Bush, he's actually done what he said he was going to do.

The reason's for going into Iraq were misguided, but we still did a good thing. The reason we can't secure Iraq is because of the idiots in high brass over there who court marshal guys for shooting people in their defense (e.g. Pantano)

Iraq is just a foothold on the middle east, and every one can see that Iran is next on the list. We'll be able to attack in the east and west. But when Iran comes around I think that there will be a lot more support from the international community.

Why ON EARTH should anybody in their right minds support you for the next campain on a poor (but rich in oil, how convenient), islamic, non-offensive Middle East country? Do they have WMD as well? Another satelite picture of a truck parked in a no-parking-zone?
You threw one country in the region into complete and utter chaos, and rather than sorting this out, you just move on to the next? And you excpect international support for that?

Hey dumbass...
:upyours:
Hey cocksucker.

You go on listing 5 elements of the mission for the Iraq war as if these are things we all agreed to; as if the war was sold to us with these reasons; as if they're the actual reasons US forces are in Iraq shooting Iraqis right now. Whatever. I never supported it, I still don't. None of those reasons were good enough for me then, and they're not now. I distinctly remember before the war began, that it was being sold as a 'regime change'. I don't remember anyone explaining what it was going to be changed to. In fact, I remember a distinct lack of exit strategy. I didn't support it then, but some how because somebody launched a war in my name for reasons that still remain a mystery, I'm supposed give up my wealth and perhaps even my life to clean it up? Fuck that.



The mission is far from over and will not be over for quite some time. The earliest the Coalition could pullout of Iraq while succefully acomplising all mission objectives is probally late 2011, if not later.And what if all of those mission objectives can never be met?


The US will probally have troops in Iraq forever...Oh! Wow, that's great! Forever. So, Bush and friends fucked Iraq, and now it's my responsibility to pay for the futile attempt to un-fuck Iraq forever? I don't approve.

To top things off I personally believe that all of your opinions don't mean a pile of shit, your bitching will not end this war sooner, if anything it will prolong the war. If you want it to end so badly get of your ass enlist and do a goddamn thing to put an end to it.And you call me a dumbass? I don't want to die in Iraq for no good reason. But even if I didn't value my own life so much (how selfish of me) it'd still be stupid to enlist with such a specific purpose. I don't know if you're aware, but you don't get to pick what you do when you enlist. You get to pick your speciality, but you don't have much say in your assignments. But, even if I could pick my assignment, what the hell could I do to 'put an end to it'? I don't have firsthand knowledge of what's going on over there, but it seems that the presence of US troops has a largely opposite effect of pissing off the locals. I'd have to be a masterful politician to have an overall positive effect, but I'm a horrible liar.


It easy to make excuses from a free nation 10,000 miles away but see what Saddam did to these people, for over 40 years. See how desperate they want to be free and how they will do anything to be free. I went to Iraq last year because I had no choice, I go (this time around its voluntary, they can't force in to go agian till 2009) now because if I don't who will go in my stead.
(#1 Bush hater, he's a goddamn moron, but thats another topic for another thread and it takes too much time to explain why he's a moron because of how big a moron he is)
Well, I'm not making excuses for anyone. It doesn't make me sad to see Saddam Hussien in prison, but that hardly justifies the Iraq war to me. I don't want you to go back to Iraq, and I didn't want you to go in the first place. However, I certainly prefer that the willing go vs the unwilling. I mean, I'd rather you go than I go.

Why ON EARTH should anybody in their right minds support you for the next campain on a poor (but rich in oil, how convenient), islamic, non-offensive Middle East country? Do they have WMD as well? Another satelite picture of a truck parked in a no-parking-zone?
You threw one country in the region into complete and utter chaos, and rather than sorting this out, you just move on to the next? And you excpect international support for that?

Iran has been ordered by the UN to destroy it's nuclear weapons, and because it won't be enforced by anybody we'll end up going in to do the dirty work. As usual.

Iran has been ordered by the UN to destroy it's nuclear weapons, and because it won't be enforced by anybody we'll end up going in to do the dirty work. As usual.

Why? I mean, what's it to you what the UN orders?

I like President Bush.

I'm not thrilled with US soldiers being killed on a daily basis, but in my opinion, we must stay and continue to support the new and fragile Iraqi government. Its clear the Iraqi people want this government. There are police chiefs and other officials being targeted and killed by insurgents now with the US there. If we left, they would be over-run by these scumbags and another crackpot dictator would gain a foot hold.
We stay till the job is done. It may take a while, but thinking that this could be accomplished overnight is foolish and unreasonable. It may take years.

No US militray personel would walk away from combat.That's not true and you know it.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p14.htm

Besides, my scenario is not about abandoning your mission, but about getting to define your mission.

War is hell believe me I know, but at the same time Iraq is a opertuinity to see what the rest of the world is really like, and it is a picture so sad that you cry for these people and come back home and look at your own country and say don't we have it made. On top on that Warrior Ethos would not allow you to quit.
Now some may say what is "Warrior Ethos"????
Warrior Ethos
I Will Always Place The Mission First
I Will Never Accept Defeat
I Will Never Quit
I Will Never Leave A Fallen Comrade

This little motto is drilled into your head more than any other thing in basic and it beocomes more than a motto as you cahnge from civilian to soldier it because a part of you and a part of your life.And you accept the 'Warrior Ethos' why? Because you are ordered to? Because it was 'drilled into your head'? You accept it, because you will be punished if you don't.


As a soldier you are to place your pesonal desires and wants below the mission because you give selfless service to you nation and your people. But seeig you never joined the military instead you sat back on your fat fucking ass and said let someone else deal with it, you have no Warrior Ethos, in fact you have nothing. Many say pitty the soldiers who leave there families for so long to go fight a war, I say pitty you for being so weak and afraid you were unable to face your own fears.Nice try. I spent 4 years in the US Army. I got out when my enlistment contract expired with an honorable discharge. But I don't think this is why I deserve to live. This warrior ethos thing must be something new because it was never drilled into my head, but I understand it. I also reject it.

When I was in, the Army came up with the LDRSHIP values. I thought was stupid that the Army was trying to teach me values, that was my parent's job. In particular, I never cared for S - selfless service. I never liked the idea that my life is worth less than the mission regardless of what that mission is. I never cared for being government property either. But I also had the drive to be a good soldier and to perform my duty. I suppose my thoughts were often conflicted. These days, I'm a bit more consistant and confident with my positions.

Two things that seems to not be mention in this thread.

Is if the iraqies want the americans there? And if they won't them there today will they be as happy to have them there in two years or four years?


And another how many insurgents would stop figthing if the american left and you had a iraqie goverment that was not seen as a american puppet?

This war was very stupid to begin with as we were lied to from the very begining. As we can do nothing about that now, the only thing left is to cleanup our mess. Unfortuneatly we can't simply pull out today for Bush has kicked over a hornets nest and leaving would cause the weak government of Iraq to collapse very quickly and possibly be replaced by someone worse than Saddam. Frankly were stuck there until the country is secure and I really hope Bush can look at himself in the mirror after this horrid affair.

Bush can be proud of the mess he has created in Iraq. Good job Mistrer President...

Of course this is not your son who is dying and you don't care about iraqi people.

But after all, business is business

In fact, I wonder how the american people can trust this guy. It was so clear he was lying...

And now that he "got" Saddam Hussein, he cannot even judge him. Otherwise, the dictator will say all the private and lovely relationships he had with congress-men, C.I.A., N.A.T.O., etc, etc, etc.

Oh, and look how it's "funny" : the policemen in Iraq are the same guy who were policemen when Saddam Hussein was dictator. So, I think, that's not strange if the Iraqui people hates his police and hates the american army

I like President Bush.

I'm not thrilled with US soldiers being killed on a daily basis, but in my opinion, we must stay and continue to support the new and fragile Iraqi government. Its clear the Iraqi people want this government. There are police chiefs and other officials being targeted and killed by insurgents now with the US there. If we left, they would be over-run by these scumbags and another crackpot dictator would gain a foot hold.
We stay till the job is done. It may take a while, but thinking that this could be accomplished overnight is foolish and unreasonable. It may take years.


Let's just hope that the next person in office understands this if it is still an issue.


Bush was the only option for president this term because anyone else would have started backing out of Iraq and left the country in a mess. We can't do that with Iraq, not an option at all IMO.

this is soley directed at Battery Charger:
sir i have done exhaustive reasearch to the point i literally have gigs of documents on the subject. let me once again share a few of them with you to show that from the operating intelligence at the time the US, german, french, british, russian and chinese intelligence agencies all concluded the same thing name iraq still had banned WMDs and was a threat. it was only after the invasion that the true eroror in the intelligence came to light. hence my previous comments

lets start with the UN inspectors shall we:
take this exerp from an UNSCOM report
Butler said that it is possible for Iraq to begin production of the
banned weapons now that UN weapons inspectors are no longer in the
country.

"Everything we know about their track record is that they are making
hay while the sun is shining," he said.

"It's been five months since we've been looking at their biological
and chemical laboratories and plants where equipment could be making
aspirin on the assembly line before lunch, rinsed out over lunch and
they can be making mustard (gas), VX or something after lunch," he
said.

"We don't know and that's the tragedy. We're not there, we can't see,"
Butler said.

Butler speculated that Iraq threw out the UN weapons inspectors
because UNSCOM was closing in on the weapons and programs Baghdad was
still hiding.

He pointed out that UNSCOM "gave Iraq a final list of weapons of mass
destruction of which we needed a final count ... a short list, but a
real list, in the missile, chemical and biological field and they then
threw us out."

"The logic of that behavior is that we were right and we were getting
very close to precisely the things that they retained and that they
had concealed and that they didn't want to give up," Butler said.

"That was our crime -- we were right, we were close and they threw us
out," he said.

now lets move ahead to then president clintons reasons for operation desert fox
American president defends timing and need for strikes

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16) -- President Bill Clinton Wednesday defended his decision to order airstrikes against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.

A showdown between the U.S. and Iraq six weeks ago, when again the military action was threatened, ended with Saddam Hussein's promise to give U.N. inspectors unconditional access to Iraqi facilities so they could determine if Iraq was rebuilding its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

At the time, Clinton said he "concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what 'unconditional cooperation' meant."

The American president said a report by inspectors to the U.N. over the weekend determined that Iraq had failed to fulfill that promise and had instead placed new restrictions on the inspections.

In response, Clinton gave the go ahead for "Operation Desert Fox."

Both directly and indirectly, Clinton addressed the impeachment crisis his presidency is currently facing. He defended the timing of strikes, which his critics have questioned in light of Thursday's scheduled debate and floor vote.

He also said that Saddam Hussein should not believe that domestic troubles in the U.S. would deter the nation from taking decisive action.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate before the House of Representatives would distract Americans," Clinton said. "But once more the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests we will do so."

White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said earlier that the president made his decision Wednesday morning after reviewing the United Nation's report.
note the reference to failed UN sanctions and WMD programs. sound familiar? it should because much of the intell clinton used was later used by president bush. yet funny thing is when clinton acted and then backed down. nobody cared.

now moving ahead chronilogically:
here is exerps from a meeting the president had with then CIA director tenet
on bob woodwards book-plan of attack--

-take the issue of weather buch massaged intelligence reports that saddam hussein still had weapons of mass destruction. at one point deputy CIA director john mclaughlin comes up with a report on iraqi WMDs, and bush says he thinks the evidence is too thin: "nice try," he says, but joe q. public isn't going to believe that.

woodward has bush telling CIA chief george tenet clearly and repeatedly not to massage the evidence that saddam has WMDs. the direct quote is: "make sure no one stretches to make our case." readers will have no doubt that bush believed the WMD were there. he was hearing it from allegedly sound sources. prince bandar , the saudi ambassador to washington, passes on to bush this word from egyptian president hosnei mubarak: "our intelligence has confirmed there are mobile labs for biological weapons" the national intelligence estimate of october 2002, filled with ambiguous material, begins with the unambiguous declaration that saddam has chemical and biological weapons.

tenet was loudly sure about it, too. in december 2002, tenet rises excitedly from a couch in the oval office, throws his arms in the air, and exclaims, "it's a slam dunk case!" bush presses tenet: "george how confidant are you?" tenent throws up his arms once more: don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

in addition to this we have the very threat assesment report now declassified the president got about iraq just prior to his decision to invade.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html
in this report they had "high confidence" I.E. they were certain about iraqs WMD programs.

following the conflict we also have after the fact reviews by inspector david kay who pointedly said
Throughout the hearing, Dr. Kay was adamant that the Iraq Survey Group had found no evidence that the Hussein government or military held any large stockpiles of unconventional weapons when America invaded last March.
But he also told the panel, "If I had been there, presented what I have seen as the record of the intelligence estimates, I probably would have come to - not probably - I would have come to the same conclusion that the political leaders did."-NY times 29 jan 04

as well as this piece in US news and world reports
US NEWS feb 16 2004 vol 136 #6 page 72-
"president bush and tony blair in london are caught in a political firestorm over the conclusion of the head of the iraqi survey group david kay, that there are no significant inventory of weapons of mass destruction(WMD) in iraq and virtually no programs to create them. why did bush and blair tell us otherwise? the short answer is that this is what they were advised by thier respective intelligence services. independant inquiries into the prewar performance of those services ghave been authorized in both countries. but even before the inquiries began, the suspicion was noised about that the intelligence agencies must have been pressured to say what they did so as to give bush and blair a cause for making war.

utter nonsense. the warnings that saddam hussein was actively persuing WMD pre-dated bush's inauguration and therefore could hardly be attributed to political pressure from him, any more than similar assesments by german, french, british,russian and chinese intelligence agencies could be atributed to thier political masters. both david kay and CIA director george tenet say they know of no such pressure. clearly, the CIA has suffered a blow to it's credibility, but when one looks at the context, the conclusions the agency reached is emenently reasonable. consider these facts:
.only after the first gulf war did we learn that saddam was less than 2 years away from from having usable nuclear weapons
.only after his son-in-law defected in the mid 1990's did we learn about saddams biological weapons programs
.when the united nations-led inspectors were ejected from iraq in 1998 they assumed the huge stockpiles of unaccounted WMD still existed

unanswered questions:
.what other assumption could the intelligence analysts have made?
.if saddam had destroyed his banned weapons or decided to give them up, why didn'tr he report it to the very agency that could have vindicated him?
.why didn't he change his behavior towards the UN inspectors?
.why, instead did he prevent the UN inspectors from going where they wanted to go and seeing what they wanted to see?
.why did his rehtoric continue to underscore his commitment to possesing WMD as part of his vision of iraq as the dominant power in the region and in the arab world?

kay has speculated that saddam continued to believe that he had WMD, as did most senior members of the iraqi military complex, because his own generals and scientists lied to him about the programs. how could the CIA conclude that the iraqis were just deceiving one another, along with everybody else-even deceiving saddam himself in a country where he had such absolute power and where even minor infractions were punishable by death?

finally there is no concrete evidence pointing to the other possibility, that iraq possesed no chemical and biological capabilities, no missles and that saddam had stopped trying to aquire them. everything saddam did gave the impression he had something to hide, including the willingness to sacrifice ovrer $100 billion of oil revenues and live with a regime of punishing sanctions. his push to end the UN inspections suggested he was attempting to free himself from supervision in order to accelerate his efforts to aquire WMD. add this to the fact that he was not only an evil tyrant but also a reckless gambler, instinctively agressive, operating with an intelligence of the outside world drawn almost entirely from sycophants and courtiers afraid of telling him the truth.

lets not forget our history. we underestimated the soviet nuclear program in 1949, china's in 1964, indias in 1974, and iraqs in 1991,. the list goes on: nrth korea in 1994, iraq again in 1995, india in 1998, pakistan in 1998, north korea in 2002, and iran and lybia last year.

the point is without solid evidence to the contrary, it was virtually impossible for the intelligence services to come to conclusions any different than the ones that they did"
-editor in chief mortimer b. zuckerman

now if you are not to closed minded and actually want to learn a little something i suggest renting or buying these documentories
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/

also, please take a look at the linked interview with said aburish, one of saddams long time aids.
:headbang:

What am immature poll -_-

OI! YOU STARTED IT, SO YOU SHOULD END IT!

But with America's track record, it may just pull out in the end *rolls eyes*

care to elaborate?

Pulling the troops out now would be exactly what I'd expect from the U.S.: First create a big shitload of a mess (all based on good intentions, of course!) and when the crap hits the fan, just run and leave the Iraqis in a distabilised environment - that would probably even more stupid than to have started the war in the first place.

The U.S. created the situation as is in Iraq and it's your god-damn responsibility to stay there and resolve it now!

On the other hand, Germany is situated in Europe, most of its neighbouring countries were democratic already, so it did have a few examples to go by. Iraq doesn't.
They could go by Israel's example. Not perfect, but it's all they have.

However, I don't see the US government nor the majority of the US citizens in any way ready to go through with that. Many just close their eyes to their responsibilites.
I know. In WW2 the US Government was fairly socialist and thus committed. That guarantee is not there anymore.

It may take years.
Correction: it should take years.

Two things that seems to not be mention in this thread.

Is if the iraqies want the americans there? And if they won't them there today will they be as happy to have them there in two years or four years?

1. Several polls have been done on Iraqis regarding this question over the past two years. They have usually shown Iraqis to be divided, but nowhere near unanimous in either direction. Shia Muslims tend to be more supportive of the US prescence than Sunnis.

2. These polls tend to show fluctuating opinions. Assuming that Iraq does not fall into civil war, and the democracy is strengthened over the next few years, I expect that the overall Iraqi opinion will be decidedly in favour of the US prescence.

Bush can be proud of the mess he has created in Iraq. Good job Mistrer President...

Of course this is not your son who is dying and you don't care about iraqi people.

Oh, and look how it's "funny" : the policemen in Iraq are the same guy who were policemen when Saddam Hussein was dictator.
This is an emotional argument. Over 420,000 of America's sons died in WW2. That was for a justified goal, and in the end democracies were built in Japan and Germany.

It's because I care about the oppressed Iraqi people, that I think the war was justified.

It is necessary to use Saddam's former police. They are the only people capable of doing the job for the time being.

The U.S. created the situation as is in Iraq and it's your god-damn responsibility to stay there and resolve it now!
I agree.

anyone interested in a PEACE WITH HONOR plan?

it worked for us in vietnam!

i hate george bush (as a president)

we went into iraq on lies deceptions and manipulations

we need to have enough honor to leave the iraqi people better off than they were under saddam hussein. we cant pull out before their security can be guaranteed.

The US should leave Iraq, unless they want to keep making the situation worse by being there. And Bush sucks fat monkey ass. :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']The US should leave Iraq, unless they want to keep making the situation worse by being there. And Bush sucks fat monkey ass. :rolleyes:
I agree about Bush ( :D ), but if the US left, there would be a civil war and Iraq would turn into a theocratic dictatorship.

anyone interested in a PEACE WITH HONOR plan?

it worked for us in vietnam!
Are you seriously suggesting that modern US policies be modelled off Vietnam? VIETNAM?

this is soley directed at Battery Charger:
sir i have done exhaustive reasearch to the point i literally have gigs of documents on the subject. let me once again share a few of them with you to show that from the operating intelligence at the time the US, german, french, british, russian and chinese intelligence agencies all concluded the same thing name iraq still had banned WMDs and was a threat. it was only after the invasion that the true eroror in the intelligence came to light. hence my previous comments
...All that for me? You shouldn't have. Seriously. Did some people who should've been in the know honestly believe that Iraq may have had biological or chemical weapons? I think so, but that was hardly a good enough reason for war, and whatever intelligence actually indicated the presence of WMDs in Iraq were clearly exagerated. The claims that Iraq even had a current nuclear weapons program were especially dubious. Somebody actually forged documents showing that Iraq attempted buy uranium for Niger.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, it became clear to me that war had been decided on while the justification was still up for debate. The fact that Bush and friends still wanted a war after weapons inspectors hit the ground in Iraq is all the evidence anyone should need that their concern was not about the weapons, but about war.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, it became clear to me that war had been decided on while the justification was still up for debate. The fact that Bush and friends still wanted a war after weapons inspectors hit the ground in Iraq is all the evidence anyone should need that their concern was not about the weapons, but about war.
actually the CEASEFIRE in 1991 did not end the US/iraqi war. the 2,000+ ceasefire violation on the part of saddams government meant the US could resume hostilities at any time.
if you bothered to read resolution 1441 if saddam actually wanted to stay in power there were a few very simple things he could have done to do so no matter what "bush and friends" wanted.

and your "evidence" is nothing more than assumption, speculation and opinion.


All that for me? You shouldn't have.
probably not since you apprently didn't read it.

Did some people who should've been in the know honestly believe that Iraq may have had biological or chemical weapons? I think so, but that was hardly a good enough reason for war,
following the events of 9/11 and saddams ties to known terrorist organization like hamas and islamic jihad it was more than enough reason.

and whatever intelligence actually indicated the presence of WMDs in Iraq were clearly exagerated.
well your entitled to your opinion of course, but 20/20 hindsight does little good back when they had to make decisions based on evidence thay had at that time, and that overwhelming weight of documented evidence says otherwise.

actually the CEASEFIRE in 1991 did not end the US/iraqi war. the 2,000+ ceasefire violation on the part of saddams government meant the US could resume hostilities at any time.
if you bothered to read resolution 1441 if saddam actually wanted to stay in power there were a few very simple things he could have done to do so no matter what "bush and friends" wanted. What could he have done? Please enlighten me.

and your "evidence" is nothing more than assumption, speculation and opinion. Iraq permitted UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and the Bush administration launched a war against Iraq some months later. That's an indisputable fact. My opinion is based on this fact.


probably not since you apprently didn't read it.
I skimmed it. What the hell do you expect? I was a bit confused by the way that stuff lacks proper punctuation. Did you paste that stuff from somewhere or just make it up yourself?

following the events of 9/11 and saddams ties to known terrorist organization like hamas and islamic jihad it was more than enough reason. What ties? And how does that justify a war? Whens the last time the United States was threatened be either one of those organizations.


well your entitled to your opinion of course, but 20/20 hindsight does little good back when they had to make decisions based on evidence thay had at that time, and that overwhelming weight of documented evidence says otherwise.Bull-fucking-shit. Before the Iraq war, I admit that I was not certain that Iraq lacked biological or chemical weapons. However, It was abudandtly clear to me that Iraq posed no credible threat to the United States. I suppose because I was blessed with local radio host, Charles Goyette (http://charlesgoyette.com/), I was very well aware that talk of Iraq having a serious nuclear weapons was total BS. And if they actually had stockpiles of nerve agents, it would not have been a very wise thing to put soldiers on the ground where the might be exposed to it.

As both my savings institution and my girlfriend have told me: "There is a substantial penalty for early withdrawal." :D

What could he have done? Please enlighten me.
if he had simply
1.provided evidence he had destroyed said weapons
or
2.turned over said weapons he was believed to have had at the time

if he had done either one of these things the US would not have had the political muscle to invade iraq, santions would have been lifted and saddam would have stayed in power.

Iraq permitted UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and the Bush administration launched a war against Iraq some months later. That's an indisputable fact. My opinion is based on this fact.
your twisting the facts. yes the inspectors were let back in but iraq was still not cooperating. this was like what saddams 5th "last chance" to cooperate.
if you had read said aburish's interview you would know that it was being used by saddam as a stall tactic which he had used before on the UN and international community.
resolution 1441 was put i place to appease tony blair. there actually was no need for yet another UN resolution. over 16 had been past and violated by saddam including 3 that allowed the use of military force. but if you bother to look at the breakdown of 1441 you see at the time the US had no other choice but to resolve the conflict with military action at the end.

lets look at Resolution 1441, which was passed unanimously. Important lines are in bold with correct statements about whether Saddamn did them in red and/or in double quotes ("") for those without color templates. i also have a lon gletter to the UN of hans blix's own admission of iraqi governmental breach of said resolution.


quote:

United Nations

S/2002/1198




Security Council

Provisional



7 November 2002



Original: English






United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"" Therefore the ceasefire was broken by Iraq, as it didn't comply in 1998 with the UN Resolutions. Thus a legal state of war existed once again.""

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; ""Iraq did not hand in a full and honest declaration. Hans Blix never got a full declaration""

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"" Therefore Iraq is in material breech of resolution 1441. As per what it says above""

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; ""SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. Not more inspections, not an extension, but serious consequences, IE WAR"".

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

I'm enjoying watching America get f'd over and having to take responsibility for electing such an awful president. haha!

The tragedy of the war (from the standpoint of the United States) is that we're trying to accomplish the difficult task of occupation with a mere 130,000 troops. That may sound like a lot of soldiers to be in one country, but we have to face the fact that nothing short of excessive force will alleviate the situation there. Not only do we have to be a strong presence in Iraq, we have to be the only presence, and we have to be everywhere in Iraq if we expect things to get better. The trouble is doing this without conscription :confused:

I skimmed it. What the hell do you expect? I was a bit confused by the way that stuff lacks proper punctuation. Did you paste that stuff from somewhere or just make it up yourself?
how dare you imply i made anything up! :mad:
there is a reason why i list all that source material. these text file copies are taken from documents i have accessed over the past 4 years. the intend was to show you a line of intelligence starting with the UN weapons inspectors in the late 90's all the way to the final intelligence breifings just prior to the decision to invade. all of them were nearly certain of iraq's posession of WMDs based on the flawed intelligence available at the time.


What ties? And how does that justify a war? Whens the last time the United States was threatened be either one of those organizations.
lest we forget why we fight :rolleyes:
on sept 11 2001 terrorist showed us they could seriously hurt us on our own soil. following the attack the US government from the president on down declared we were going after ALL terrorist organizations that threaten the US and it's interests(this includes US allies). to that extent the US is currently active all over the world engaged in activities against many terrorist organizations(not just al-queda) either directly or assisting other soverign nations.
saddam has publically shown monetary and social support for groups including hamas, islamic jihad(less than a year before the iraq invasion an iraqi government agent working for saddam was arrested in the west bank in a raid, there on the premise of providing funds for hamas, a known terrorist organization) as well as giving refuge to known wanted terrorists like abuni dal.

Bull-fucking-shit. Before the Iraq war, I admit that I was not certain that Iraq lacked biological or chemical weapons. However, It was abudandtly clear to me that Iraq posed no credible threat to the United States
and i throw the BS right back at you.
thats perhaps what you WANT to believe but the actually intelligence report i linked, the very one the president based his actions off of was CERTAIN iraq had chemical and bio weapons in violation of UN resolution and terms of the ceasefire. iraq was not a direct military threat to the US, but thats NOT what we were worried about. were were worried about his ties to terrorist organizations and his willingness to provide them aid in the form of WMDs to hurt the US or it's allies. because of this he was very much a a credible threat.

I suppose because I was blessed with local radio host, Charles Goyette, I was very well aware that talk of Iraq having a serious nuclear weapons was total BS.
even the intelligence breifing was incertain about that. just after the gulf war in 1991 we only then found out how close he was to having nuclear weapons and we knew he wanted them. nuclear weapons are not the only WMD threat iraq posed, but were a concern since we had so little intel about his programs on the matter.


And if they actually had stockpiles of nerve agents, it would not have been a very wise thing to put soldiers on the ground where the might be exposed to it.
1.we have equipment for our soldiers to deal with that...which is why that had to wear all the stuff you saw them in on the news.
2.the only way to hold ground or make a difference is "boots on the ground" . you can cruise missle or bomb somebody till your blue in the face, but without a rifleman on the ground you aren't going to make any signifigant change. clinton learned that lesson in kosovo, he failed to learn it earlier in operation desert fox or the silly cruise missle attacks on afghanastan and sudan.

if he had simply
1.provided evidence he had destroyed said weapons
or
2.turned over said weapons he was believed to have had at the time

if he had done either one of these things the US would not have had the political muscle to invade iraq, santions would have been lifted and saddam would have stayed in power. 1. Iraq submitted a report to the UN describing it's weapons and weapons destruction programs. A number of US and UN officials claimed this report was missing things, but these claims have not panned out. It's rather difficult for someone like me assess these claims, not only because 12,000 pages is too much for one person to sift through, but also because all of those 12,000 pages were only available to officials from the 5 nations on the UN security council. At such an extreme length, it's hard to imagine the report lacked errors, but we'll probably never know if there was any meat behind the allegations that Iraq was deliberately hiding facts about it's weapons.
2. Obviously you can't give up what you don't have.



your twisting the facts. yes the inspectors were let back in but iraq was still not cooperating. this was like what saddams 5th "last chance" to cooperate.
if you had read said aburish's interview you would know that it was being used by saddam as a stall tactic which he had used before on the UN and international community.Who's aburish? And why should I trust his opinion? Honestly, I don't remember hearing too many complaints from the UN or anyone really that Iraq was still trying to hide stuff.

resolution 1441 was put i place to appease tony blair. there actually was no need for yet another UN resolution. over 16 had been past and violated by saddam including 3 that allowed the use of military force. but if you bother to look at the breakdown of 1441 you see at the time the US had no other choice but to resolve the conflict with military action at the end.I can't refute this. I don't know what resolutions you speak of. This is interesting, but even if you're right, I would still not support the invasion. If the US violates the UN charter, the US is violating it's own laws and I have a problem with that. However, if the US happens to be doing something that the UN is completely okay with, that doesn't necessarily make it okay in my eyes. It was the UN that imposed the sanctions on Iraq that are believed to have caused the starvation of as many as half a million children. I admit that I had no problem with the sanctions for years, but today I think they were wrong. Similarly the UN was completely behind the first war against Iraq. Today, I have problems with that one too. Your claim that the US was forced by a UN resolution to invade Iraq is false. To my knowledge, the UN has not been granted the authority to compel members to wage war.

lets look at Resolution 1441, which was passed unanimously. Important lines are in bold with correct statements about whether Saddamn did them in red and/or in double quotes ("") for those without color templates. i also have a lon gletter to the UN of hans blix's own admission of iraqi governmental breach of said resolution.If we must, but I don't see how Blix claiming that Iraq violated a UN resolution constitutes an 'admission'. He's never been a representative of the Iraqi government.

As both my savings institution and my girlfriend have told me: "There is a substantial penalty for early withdrawal." :D
That's a good one - gotta remember that! :p

We should have left after getting Saddam. Let's face it, that was Bush Jr's primary motivation for the whole thing - one-up for daddy, mopping up the mess he made in the 90s.

It's rather typical that the "pulling out" thing has been portrayed as a sexual maneuver. Kind of makes you wonder how "liberating" we are to Iraq when the liberators are basically telling us their mission is to FUCK Iraq.

how dare you imply i made anything up! :mad:
there is a reason why i list all that source material. these text file copies are taken from documents i have accessed over the past 4 years. the intend was to show you a line of intelligence starting with the UN weapons inspectors in the late 90's all the way to the final intelligence breifings just prior to the decision to invade. all of them were nearly certain of iraq's posession of WMDs based on the flawed intelligence available at the time. Then why do they lack proper punctuation? Have you inserted your own statements into the quoted documents? Please don't do that if expect me to actually take your quoted texts seriously. Besides, I know what you're trying to show. You should understand that I'm not new to this discussion. I've been pretty heavily convinced that "mistakes were made" is bull-shit. I've seen more than enough evidence to show that the intelligence was cooked. Your claim that everybody or almost everybody or 60 nations all agreed that Iraq had WMD and posed some sort of real threat is common, but I don't understand what it's based on. The only non-US government official I ever heard claiming these things about Iraq was Tony Blair.



lest we forget why we fight :rolleyes:
on sept 11 2001 terrorist showed us they could seriously hurt us on our own soil. following the attack the US government from the president on down declared we were going after ALL terrorist organizations that threaten the US and it's interests(this includes US allies). to that extent the US is currently active all over the world engaged in activities against many terrorist organizations(not just al-queda) either directly or assisting other soverign nations. Yes, 3,000 people were killed that day. Then the President told us we were going to wage war against all terrorists for a really long time. Although, I felt I was with the President that day, I didn't really like the idea that it was somehow our responsiblity to wipe out all the terrorists all of the sudden. Today, I think it's pretty much absurd.

saddam has publically shown monetary and social support for groups including hamas, islamic jihad(less than a year before the iraq invasion an iraqi government agent working for saddam was arrested in the west bank in a raid, there on the premise of providing funds for hamas, a known terrorist organization) as well as giving refuge to known wanted terrorists like abuni dal. Perhaps that's true. That doesn't legitimize the invasion. Saddam Hussein pandered to the radicals by awarding families of suicide bombers and possibly gave other support to terrorist groups that were not a threat to the United States. However, he was not alone in this, and his support was not very significant. More significant support of these groups can be found in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and probably some of our other allies.


and i throw the BS right back at you.
thats perhaps what you WANT to believe but the actually intelligence report i linked, the very one the president based his actions off of was CERTAIN iraq had chemical and bio weapons in violation of UN resolution and terms of the ceasefire. iraq was not a direct military threat to the US, but thats NOT what we were worried about. were were worried about his ties to terrorist organizations and his willingness to provide them aid in the form of WMDs to hurt the US or it's allies. because of this he was very much a a credible threat.We who? I wasn't worried about that. Perhaps you were. I don't know what the President was "worried about", because the story changed based on public opinion. The allegation that Saddam would sell weapons to radical muslims is something I can't and couldn't take too serioulsy. Saddam was a secular brutal dictator. He did what he needed to appease the religious, to show himself as a muslim leader, but he was still largely hated by radicals for not being one. Actually arming the radicals with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is something he's not stupid enough to have done. This is something that the people at the CIA, in particular, had to have known.


even the intelligence breifing was incertain about that. just after the gulf war in 1991 we only then found out how close he was to having nuclear weapons and we knew he wanted them. nuclear weapons are not the only WMD threat iraq posed, but were a concern since we had so little intel about his programs on the matter. Yes, and if he had nuclear weapons, there would've been intel on the matter. Nuclear weapons and their production facilities are not that easy to hide. In any case, a lack of evidence is hardly a reason to act.



1.we have equipment for our soldiers to deal with that...which is why that had to wear all the stuff you saw them in on the news.
I'm familiar with "that stuff". Nuclear/Chemical/Biological (NBC) gear is not magic. You can be covered head to toe and still be suseptable to some types of chemical weapons. And if you stay too long in a contaminated area, the protection will wear down. The suit is not plastic like what haz-mat teams wear, it's cloth that filters out contaminants. It doesn't stop everything, and like all filters, it breaks down over time. The filters in the mask can't get everything either. Also, if there's an equipment malfunction, a bad fit, or it's worn improperly, you might be the first sign to your buddies that they're in a contaminated area. Finally, operating in all that gear is very difficult, especially in the heat. I don't know if there were many heat injuries or any deaths from soldiers wearing that stuff, but those do happen in training.

The protective equiment is designed to keep soldiers alive as long as possible. That could be till you're 120 years old or it could be another 120 minutes. I spent 4 years in the US army, where everyone gets a good deal of NBC training.


2.the only way to hold ground or make a difference is "boots on the ground" . you can cruise missle or bomb somebody till your blue in the face, but without a rifleman on the ground you aren't going to make any signifigant change. clinton learned that lesson in kosovo, he failed to learn it earlier in operation desert fox or the silly cruise missle attacks on afghanastan and sudan.I would never have suggested an 'Air Force only' war in Iraq. I condemn all of Clinton's little wars. I'm just saying that if the allegations that Iraq had chemical weapons had any merit at all, the risk to ground troops outweighed whatever necessity for war in Iraq one could realistically imagine. Or to look at this way, if Saddam had chemical weapon X, and you wanted to protect Americans from this weapon, not sending any of them to Iraq would be a more effective of doing so than actually putting some of them within reach.

WARNING: GRATUITOUS USE OF THE F-BOMB
We should have left after getting Saddam. Let's face it, that was Bush Jr's primary motivation for the whole thing - one-up for daddy, mopping up the mess he made in the 90s.

It's rather typical that the "pulling out" thing has been portrayed as a sexual maneuver. Kind of makes you wonder how "liberating" we are to Iraq when the liberators are basically telling us their mission is to FUCK Iraq.Well put. And now that they're fucked, some people think we need to keep our soldiers over there to un-fuck them. Of course, as fun as 'un-fuck' is to say, you can't actually un-fuck anything. They can either continue to fuck them, or they can stop fucking them. That's not our soldiers' fault; it's a law of nature. When you're fucked, you're fucked. And that's exactly what we mean when we use that fucking word.

*large explitive here*
i forgot to save my post before i hit submit and the server logged me off.....it's all gone an hours worth of work all gone :headbang:

ok let me start again

Who's aburish? And why should I trust his opinion?
as i posted in my intial reply which you "skimmed", here is the link to who aburish is and why he knows what he does-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

I don't remember hearing too many complaints from the UN or anyone really that Iraq was still trying to hide stuff.
once again in your skimming you seem to have missed the rather open and direct complaints from UNSCOM inspectors. if you bother to watch any of the 10-2hour documentories you can see recorded video footage made by inspectorsof iraqi attempts to obstruct the inspectors.

Your claim that the US was forced by a UN resolution to invade Iraq is false. To my knowledge, the UN has not been granted the authority to compel members to wage war.
i never said the US was forced, i said that previous resolutions allowed the use of force, that coupled with the cease fire violations made the US invasion legal from both the standpoint of international law and UN charter despite whatever backpeddling koffi anan now tries to come up with.


If we must, but I don't see how Blix claiming that Iraq violated a UN resolution constitutes an 'admission'. He's never been a representative of the Iraqi government.
hans blix was tasked with finding out if iraq had complied with resolution 1441. in his letter to the secretary general of the UN he admitted the that the iraqis were not in compliance. this admission should have led the UN to live up to it's responsibilities to invoke "serious consequences" IE war.
the exerp from the following essay on the matter sheds some light on what reallly went on however.
Hans Blix - now discovered to be ardently against war -, UNMOVIC changed its tone. They would act not merely as an inspectorate, but as the tool of disarmament. If Hussein hadn’t met the directives of 1441, they would pull teeth until Iraq was in full compliance. It was a concept the French, Russians, and others - all of whom around the world were eager to put a cog in American foreign policy and at least gauge the American response - took to heart. Why not laud the weapons inspectors as a force of containment unto themselves? Deflect American efforts by refusing to discuss “serious consequences” and touting every new find - however incriminating - as a new victory?



Then why do they lack proper punctuation? Have you inserted your own statements into the quoted documents?
i took the documents in whole or in part (related to the subject) as they were, the only inserted comments were as noted in the breakdown of resolution 1441

You should understand that I'm not new to this discussion. I've been pretty heavily convinced that "mistakes were made" is bull-shit. I've seen more than enough evidence to show that the intelligence was cooked. Your claim that everybody or almost everybody or 60 nations all agreed that Iraq had WMD and posed some sort of real threat is common, but I don't understand what it's based on. The only non-US government official I ever heard claiming these things about Iraq was Tony Blair.
you may not be new to this diuscussion, but the fact your "convinced" even when the documented facts say otherwise tells me that your mind is closed on the subject. even the commision that looked into the intelligence failures found no evidence that intelligence was "cooked" or manipulated to give a misleading view.

the basis for the broad belief that iraq still possesed WMD is based on many things.
.the overwhelliming support for resolution 1441 and the desire to look for weapons once again(interestingly on the lehrer news hour colin powel noted that france agreed that if they voted for 1441 and then found that iraq was in violation they would support military action. a promise made to secretary powel and later reniged upon)
.the "group think" mentality of various inteligence services in russia, saudi arabia, egypt, germany, france etc...including direct intelligence sharing from saudi arabia shortly before the invasion claiming they had proof of iraqs chemical weapons.... feeding off each other (as noted by the US senate panel that investigated the intelligence failures) and all reaching the same conclusion.
.the documented behavior of saddams government towards keeping and maintaining WMDs

the reason it is so common to hear this is because there is so much documentation about how everybody felt before the invasion. just because you personally only heard blair doesn't mean he was the only one talking.


Yes, 3,000 people were killed that day. Then the President told us we were going to wage war against all terrorists for a really long time. Although, I felt I was with the President that day, I didn't really like the idea that it was somehow our responsiblity to wipe out all the terrorists all of the sudden. Today, I think it's pretty much absurd.
the majority of american people today are a fical bunch who base thier responces on the feeling they get from watching thier local evening news. we are quick to forget and loose interest in anything that isn't "in our face" or a threat right this minute. we seem to have truely forgot the phrases "to bear any burden" and "pay any cost". when sept 11 happened we were out for blood, we wanted war. now that we have our war, found our enemies and have started fighting them (and taking losses) americans in thier same fical mindset now question the worth.
the president made very clear that military force alone was not capable of defeating terrorism, rather it is neccisary to alter the culture that leads people to terrorism. we have never been alone in this fight, in fact nations in europe and asia have spent many years dealing with terroists long before sept 11 forced the USA to get seriously involved.

That doesn't legitimize the invasion. Saddam Hussein pandered to the radicals by awarding families of suicide bombers and possibly gave other support to terrorist groups that were not a threat to the United States. However, he was not alone in this, and his support was not very significant. More significant support of these groups can be found in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and probably some of our other allies.
it most certainly does!
saddam was in essence funding terroist activity by paying families of bombers as well as directly funding thier abilty to purchase weapons. one of the basic tenants of warfare is to take out his support structure. which is why we the US government said we were going after the terrorist organizations and all those who aid and support them. and the fact that they threatened US allies makes them a threat to US iinterests. as for the signifigance of his support, the analyst i have seen discuss the matter had a diffferent opinion than you do.
the major difference here is the fact that saddam was providing STATE SPONSORED terrorism. something the governments of saudi arabia and pakistan are not doing. in fact they are fighting them because these organizations pose a threat to those regiems.


Yes, and if he had nuclear weapons, there would've been intel on the matter. Nuclear weapons and their production facilities are not that easy to hide. In any case, a lack of evidence is hardly a reason to act.
actually no there would not, the US lacked any intelligence operators on the ground to confirm thier suspicions, and as noted by butler in my previous post. iraq had many multi-use facilities that could easily make weapons when nobody was looking. then there is the fact that saddam had every intention of hiding and then restarting his weapons programs after sanctions had been lifted(as noted in aburish's interview). some nuclear weapons material was actually recovered shortly after the invasion from scientists who hid them in thier own yards under saddams orders following the first gulf war.
failure to act on the percieved threat was not an option following sept 11.


if the allegations that Iraq had chemical weapons had any merit at all, the risk to ground troops outweighed whatever necessity for war in Iraq one could realistically imagine. Or to look at this way, if Saddam had chemical weapon X, and you wanted to protect Americans from this weapon, not sending any of them to Iraq would be a more effective of doing so than actually putting some of them within reach.
i understand your point, but i totally disagree with it. the risk to ground troops is negligable when compared to the damage that could have been caused if saddam had given even a small amount of "chemical weapon X" to any of the terrorist groups he supported to be used on civlian targets in the US or on any of our allies. again this is a basic principle of war, take the battle to the enemy. i much prefer to have our soldiers over there fighting, than to be fighting the terrorists on US streets. cowering in a corner to "protect americans" from any weapon would not just be ineffective, it is a failure waiting to happen because the enemy only has to succeed once.

I'm glad the Americans are there because that means they can't be anywhere else.
I'm also glad because it means that they lose even more of that aura of being special, of being different that dominated the 20th century.
People might see now that there are no differences. Every empire is an empire only for itself. There is no country actually benevolent.
America is a nationalistic morass of corporate interests, some flag waving and a whole lot of an interesting philosophy summarised with the saying "God bless America"
----------
No one can say now that they made this decision based on the evidence of the time. In other countries, which got their intelligence from the US, maybe. But in America, everyone in the top positions must have known about how the intelligence was collected with a preconceived idea in mind. The idea to attack Iraq came up on bloody September 12 2001, didn't it?
None of the bigwigs can possibly have thought it a random occurence that all of a sudden all kinds of evidence comes up to support that idea, and none that doesn't. (Or if it did, then it wasn't publicised, which may be even worse)
-----------
As to what Saddam could have done: What could he have done to prove his innocence? Shouldn't the other side prove his guilt?
How can you prove that you don't have weapons, when the only thing accepted by the accuser is the delivery of such systems? Quickly build them to then hand them over?

No, buddy, on this one we can say unequivocally: The US Government was WRONG on that one!
And as a result, thousands died and will die yet.

ok this is just a poll to see if first if you like bush and if you think we should pull out of IRAQ this is a multi choise poll


I hate Bush, but Iraq is such a mess that we need to get out. You have to know when to fold.

well, personally, i think we should stay in iraq, and i think one of the main reasons that bush is staying is so he wont be like his dad and not finish what he started, the troops over three are doing everything they can, and yes, we are wanted there by the iraqi people, we shoudl help them get a stable government, say ok now, you're all good, we're gonna go back to our own country, and then leave, but bush did what any president who had his country attcked would do, im behind him

im sure this was said a million times by now.. but we CANNOT pull out now... dont you realize, we pulled out of afghanistan too fast when the commies were attacking. Anyway, we trained bin laden and others, then we ditched them... look where that got us... spet 11 .. which isnt very good. I was for the going into iraq in the first place, i support bush.. though he might not be the "brightest bulb in the tool box" (lol).

I hate Bush, but Iraq is such a mess that we need to get out. You have to know when to fold.


sorry to be repetetive... but you cant quit when the going gets tough.. its too late to pull out, were in there, we have to deal with it.. and whats this stuff about a mess, its better off now than before, were just working on a few groups of militants who want chaos and disorder.. what kind of superpower would we be to just give in when a few soldiers died and the militants are hard to find... and dont compare this to vietnam where we lost hundreds of thousands of men.( i know you didnt, but you were thinking about it ;) ).

We cant just close our eyes to the problems that we face.. we must face them head on, with fervor, support, and pride... that is what makes up a true american.

Leonstein

No one can say now that they made this decision based on the evidence of the time. In other countries, which got their intelligence from the US, maybe. But in America, everyone in the top positions must have known about how the intelligence was collected with a preconceived idea in mind. The idea to attack Iraq came up on bloody September 12 2001, didn't it?
be a dear and read my previous posts and check the links before you make incorrect commentary.
we can say they made those decisions at the time because they were DOCUMENTED AND RECORDED.

actually the idea to attack iraq had been around for for over a decade. look back at the comments made by clinton in 98 where he used many of the same arguments for military action (operation desert fox) as bush did. the problem was that the US and the international community did not have the political will to act before sept 11. as saddam once commented that the US had the technology and the power but not the will to get bloodied. it was a true statement. we care about our soldiers dying, as long as he stayed in power he didn't care how many of his people died.

as for intelligence-
british MI6 does not get it's intelligence from the USA nor does saudi, russian or egyptian intelligence.
prince bandar , the saudi ambassador to washington, passes on to bush this word from egyptian president hosnei mubarak: our intelligence has confirmed there are mobile labs for biological weapons


Shouldn't the other side prove his guilt?
his guilt had already been proven! which is why inspector were ther to take away said weapons. he lost a war and agreed to certain ceasefire terms and then failed to act in good faith.
look at the following comments from Butler the head of
UNSCOM "let's get
something straight: We faced a wall of deceit from Iraq. Iraq was
obliged under the resolutions passed by the Security Council, which
... are international law, to tell us the truth about its weapons. It
never did."

"Instead, it obstructed and concealed and put up a barrier against our
legitimate attempts to find those weapons," he said. "Yes, we employed
technologies to crack that wall of deceit. That's the perspective in
which this has to be seen."


"UNSCOM gave Iraq a final list of weapons of mass
destruction of which we needed a final count ... a short list, but a
real list, in the missile, chemical and biological field and they then
threw us out."



No, buddy, on this one we can say unequivocally: The US Government was WRONG on that one!
And as a result, thousands died and will die yet.
yes the US was wrong i agree, because the intelligence was flawed, but to your last point i am going to quote a local iraqi man who was replying to an anti-war protester on the radio there will be civilian deaths in the war, saddam has killed 2 million people.... i will tell you this, yes civilians may die, my cousins will die mabey, allah forbid, but here is a certainty that you do not understand in your simplistic nichelodian diplomacy, you are GUARANTEED to have civilians die under saddam

as i posted in my intial reply which you "skimmed", here is the link to who aburish is and why he knows what he does-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html
Okay, I read the whole thing. That's a good interview, I recomend to anyone interested in this stuff to read it. I learned a few things that I had never heard before. This man sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Although, I don't see what he said that supports your case. This interview is obviously from before Iraq War '03, it'd be interesting to see what he's said since.

once again in your skimming you seem to have missed the rather open and direct complaints from UNSCOM inspectors. if you bother to watch any of the 10-2hour documentories you can see recorded video footage made by inspectorsof iraqi attempts to obstruct the inspectors.When are we talking about? This century or last one? Saddam was convinced that the UN inspection team was being used to collect un-related intelligence for the US. He was right. Scott Ritter (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm) and others have admitted this.


i never said the US was forced, i said that previous resolutions allowed the use of force, that coupled with the cease fire violations made the US invasion legal from both the standpoint of international law and UN charter despite whatever backpeddling koffi anan now tries to come up with.
You said, "if you bother to look at the breakdown of 1441 you see at the time the US had no other choice but to resolve the conflict with military action at the end."



hans blix was tasked with finding out if iraq had complied with resolution 1441. in his letter to the secretary general of the UN he admitted the that the iraqis were not in compliance. this admission should have led the UN to live up to it's responsibilities to invoke "serious consequences" IE war.
the exerp from the following essay on the matter sheds some light on what reallly went on however.I've read that part of the resolution, and it doesn't look much like it authorizes the use of military force. It looks a lot more like a threat, that if Saddam failed to comply with demands such a resolution would be passed. But you have your opinion on the legality and I have mine. There's no point to argue this point further. I should add also, that the whether or not the Iraq war is legal according to the UN is not all that important to me. I think it matters, but it doesn't matter much. I'm not a fan of the UN.




i took the documents in whole or in part (related to the subject) as they were, the only inserted comments were as noted in the breakdown of resolution 1441


you may not be new to this diuscussion, but the fact your "convinced" even when the documented facts say otherwise tells me that your mind is closed on the subject. even the commision that looked into the intelligence failures found no evidence that intelligence was "cooked" or manipulated to give a misleading view.You're essentially giving me things that government officials have said and calling it 'facts'. And you're only giving me those things that support your case. As far as that commission goes, they didn't even pretend to try and answer that question. You should always be suspicious when the government investigates itself. The Warren Commision on the JFK assassination concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by itself.

the basis for the broad belief that iraq still possesed WMD is based on many things.
.the overwhelliming support for resolution 1441 and the desire to look for weapons once again(interestingly on the lehrer news hour colin powel noted that france agreed that if they voted for 1441 and then found that iraq was in violation they would support military action. a promise made to secretary powel and later reniged upon)
.the "group think" mentality of various inteligence services in russia, saudi arabia, egypt, germany, france etc...including direct intelligence sharing from saudi arabia shortly before the invasion claiming they had proof of iraqs chemical weapons.... feeding off each other (as noted by the US senate panel that investigated the intelligence failures) and all reaching the same conclusion.
.the documented behavior of saddams government towards keeping and maintaining WMDs

the reason it is so common to hear this is because there is so much documentation about how everybody felt before the invasion. just because you personally only heard blair doesn't mean he was the only one talking.
No, I hear it a lot, because people like you have to say something besides "mistakes were made."


the majority of american people today are a fical bunch who base thier responces on the feeling they get from watching thier local evening news. we are quick to forget and loose interest in anything that isn't "in our face" or a threat right this minute. we seem to have truely forgot the phrases "to bear any burden" and "pay any cost". when sept 11 happened we were out for blood, we wanted war. now that we have our war, found our enemies and have started fighting them (and taking losses) americans in thier same fical mindset now question the worth.
the president made very clear that military force alone was not capable of defeating terrorism, rather it is neccisary to alter the culture that leads people to terrorism. we have never been alone in this fight, in fact nations in europe and asia have spent many years dealing with terroists long before sept 11 forced the USA to get seriously involved. I never wanted to "bear any burden" or "pay any cost". Free men do not jump when stuffed suits ask for sacrifice. You'll get more mileage with me quoting the Holy Bible or The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/) to prove your point than quoting Bush.


it most certainly does!
saddam was in essence funding terroist activity by paying families of bombers as well as directly funding thier abilty to purchase weapons. one of the basic tenants of warfare is to take out his support structure. which is why we the US government said we were going after the terrorist organizations and all those who aid and support them. and the fact that they threatened US allies makes them a threat to US iinterests. as for the signifigance of his support, the analyst i have seen discuss the matter had a diffferent opinion than you do.
the major difference here is the fact that saddam was providing STATE SPONSORED terrorism. something the governments of saudi arabia and pakistan are not doing. in fact they are fighting them because these organizations pose a threat to those regiems.AFAIK, the Saudi Royal familiy still pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to appease the Islamists - the same thing Saddam was doing. Pakistan's military dictator most certainly "has ties" with some of the muslim extremists in his country. I doubt he could maintain power without doing so. Both regimes have fairly loose grips on their countries and are forced to appease these groups. I don't much care about that. It does worry me a bit that Pakistan has nukes and that someone like OBL could take control of that country tomorrow, but what the hell can be done about it? Western forces are responsible for the mess in the middle east, and nothing we do ever makes things better in the long run. It is our presence in Saudi Arabia that brought about the creation of Al-Qaeda. The best thing we could do to help things would be to get out of the middle east altogether. No bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwaitt, Iraq, Afghanastan, or anywhere else. No more foreign aid for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or anywhere else. It wouldn't magically fix things, but it would give the Arabs, Persians, Jews, and the rest the chance to become independent of the west. There would be no guarantee that things would improve, but good or bad, whatever happend would stop being our fault.



actually no there would not, the US lacked any intelligence operators on the ground to confirm thier suspicions, and as noted by butler in my previous post. iraq had many multi-use facilities that could easily make weapons when nobody was looking. then there is the fact that saddam had every intention of hiding and then restarting his weapons programs after sanctions had been lifted(as noted in aburish's interview). some nuclear weapons material was actually recovered shortly after the invasion from scientists who hid them in thier own yards under saddams orders following the first gulf war.
failure to act on the percieved threat was not an option following sept 11.
There's more than one way to gather intelligence. The military has satellites, airplanes, and big-ass radio antennas. If Iraq was actually producing nuclear weapons or nuclear material there probably would've been a few hints. The "nuclear material" you're talking about was papers. I'm talking about enriched uranium.


i understand your point, but i totally disagree with it. the risk to ground troops is negligable when compared to the damage that could have been caused if saddam had given even a small amount of "chemical weapon X" to any of the terrorist groups he supported to be used on civlian targets in the US or on any of our allies. again this is a basic principle of war, take the battle to the enemy. i much prefer to have our soldiers over there fighting, than to be fighting the terrorists on US streets. cowering in a corner to "protect americans" from any weapon would not just be ineffective, it is a failure waiting to happen because the enemy only has to succeed once.
You don't understand chemical warfare. The largest terrorist attack using chemical weapons that I'm aware of (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20030130a5.htm) killed all of 12 people. Although the reports did say that 5000 people were injured. That was VX gas. Saddam was suspected of having mustard gas. It was hardly something for us to be concerned with. However many people you might manage to kill with a mustard gas attack, it would probably be easier to use conventional explosives.

... It easy to make excuses from a free nation 10,000 miles away but see what Saddam did to these people, for over 40 years. See how desperate they want to be free and how they will do anything to be free...
First I agree with your post. I just wanted to pick this part for other reason. (Which may have been covered already by Cabra West, I'll find out soon and delete this if this is the case.)

They were desperate to liberate themselves after Desert storm but what did mr Bush do when Iraqis tried to kick Saddam out of office? He decided that he wants to keep Saddam as the leader, stopped military actions and even helped Saddam to stop the revolution. There could be a real democracy in Iraq now if Bush senior would have supported it back then.

After that the whole world ruined what was left of Iraq. US kept bombing no fly zones and killed thousands of civilians they said they were protecting. Now they have a new government but has anything changed? The infrastructure is a joke. The new government tortures it's own people just like the old one and people are forced to move out of their homes as their living areas have turned into battle zones.

There are many countries to blame for the situation in Iraq but USA has done more than anyone else. I hope that they can find a solution and after decades, leave that part of the globe alone. I'm sure you all know the famous quote by Kissinger: "Oil is too important to be left hands of the arabs." I say that US should leave this attitude in past and start looking for other solutions.

[/rant]

Iran has been ordered by the UN to destroy it's nuclear weapons, and because it won't be enforced by anybody we'll end up going in to do the dirty work. As usual.
Misinformation. UN does not even know if Iran has any nuclear weapons or not. Saying that they should destroy those implies that there are something to be destroyed. This kind of misinformation is one of the biggest reasons why people start believing in rumours instead of facts.

First I agree with your post. I just wanted to pick this part for other reason. (Which may have been covered already by Cabra West, I'll find out soon and delete this if this is the case.)

They were desperate to liberate themselves after Desert storm but what did mr Bush do when Iraqis tried to kick Saddam out of office? He decided that he wants to keep Saddam as the leader, stopped military actions and even helped Saddam to stop the revolution. There could be a real democracy in Iraq now if Bush senior would have supported it back then.

After that the whole world ruined what was left of Iraq. US kept bombing no fly zones and killed thousands of civilians they said they were protecting. Now they have a new government but has anything changed? The infrastructure is a joke. The new government tortures it's own people just like the old one and people are forced to move out of their homes as their living areas have turned into battle zones.

There are many countries to blame for the situation in Iraq but USA has done more than anyone else. I hope that they can find a solution and after decades, leave that part of the globe alone. I'm sure you all know the famous quote by Kissinger: "Oil is too important to be left hands of the arabs." I say that US should leave this attitude in past and start looking for other solutions.

[/rant]


No, I don't think I covered that aspect yet ;)

I deliberately kept quiet about it, because in my view, this discussion is about what the US should do NOW, not what it had done in the past. If we started on that, there would be a large number of other countries the US would have to un-mess...
My point simply was, the US started it, the US should finish it, clean up after itself and leave the place tidy. However long this is going to take. And, if I had one wish, it would be that the US would never again start things it has no intention of finishing.
From a moral point of view, whenever you get involved in somebody else's affairs, you take over responsibility. It's morally wrong to withdraw yourself again when you see that the job you took up will take longer than expected and will be less easy and more expensive.
But you still can't bomb a country, take a look around, say "I've got no business here" and go back home!

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, the US can. Who's going to do anything against it? :rolleyes:

No, I don't think I covered that aspect yet ;)

I deliberately kept quiet about it, because in my view, this discussion is about what the US should do NOW, not what it had done in the past...
You're right. I know this is wrong thread for that post. I wrote it anyway because it haven't been discussed much on this forum (I haven't noticed) and because I don't have enough time to start a new thread and keep discussing about it right now. I might do it another day.

As people become more and more aware of these things, the attitude towards US foreign policy might finally change so much that they just might be forced to change their policy. (extremely wishful thinking) Lying becomes harder and harder as people have better access to information.

You're right. I know this is wrong thread for that post. I wrote it anyway because it haven't been discussed much on this forum (I haven't noticed) and because I don't have enough time to start a new thread and keep discussing about it right now. I might do it another day.

As people become more and more aware of these things, the attitude towards US foreign policy might finally change so much that they just might be forced to change their policy. (extremely wishful thinking) Lying becomes harder and harder as people have better access to information.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. There is nobody to persuade the USA of doing anything, nobody they would regard equal at the moment.
Russia crumbled, and ever since the US have been the only superpower on this planet. It's not very likely that another one will emerge to keep them in check within the next decade or so, so until then they will do as they please.

I selected "I hate Bush" in the poll, because there was no option for "Bush is a really stupid bugger who got to play with the really big toys, and I'm angry at the American public for letting him do that"

Fact is, the world's only superpower can do whatever it wants at the moment. We can argue about right and wrong, we can quote international law at them, we can declare intentions and pass resolutions, it's not going to change a thing.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. There is nobody to persuade the USA of doing anything, nobody they would regard equal at the moment.
Russia crumbled...
Yes I see it's very naive. But I wasn't thinking about other countries. E.g. European countries are just as bad (well, most of them do not attack other countries...) when it comes to business vs ethics. I'm talking about the people of the country. Though I have to be very skeptic. I've always wondered why Americans let their leaders lye to them and not punish them for it, not even demand the truth. The leaders are able to silence everything to death and that's scary. The only exception is when their leader lies about a relationship. Political murders, coups, wars, anything meaningful have often been forgotten.

This man sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Although, I don't see what he said that supports your case.
the bit about saddams view of the inspections, how he inteded to work around them and maintain his weapons programs.


When are we talking about? This century or last one? Saddam was convinced that the UN inspection team was being used to collect un-related intelligence for the US. He was right. Scott Ritter and others have admitted this.

this is from the UNSCOM chief
Rejecting suggestions that actions by UN weapons inspectors have been
the cause of friction between Iraq and UNSCOM, Butler said, "let's get
something straight: We faced a wall of deceit from Iraq. Iraq was
obliged under the resolutions passed by the Security Council, which
... are international law, to tell us the truth about its weapons. It
never did."

"Instead, it obstructed and concealed and put up a barrier against our
legitimate attempts to find those weapons," he said. "Yes, we employed
technologies to crack that wall of deceit. That's the perspective in
which this has to be seen."

Butler noted that over the years he has received many suggestions from
staff and governments on how to crack that wall of deceit and
technologies that might be employed. "I rejected some because they
would be the subject of potential misinterpretation. I wanted to keep
this clean. And I am satisfied with that record," he said.

"If other people piggy-backed on ... us when they helped with some of
those technologies, go ask them about it, but I didn't approve of that
nor did my predecessor," he said.

What can be hurt by the allegations of spying under the cover of
UNSCOM, Butler said, are the verifications regimes of arms control
treaties.

"If people think that by entering in good faith verification of arms
control treaties there is going to be this back-door stuff ... then
we've got a serious problem," he said.

Butler said it is too early to assess what damage the news reports and
an upcoming book by former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter will have on
the future of the special commission.

Much "depends on the propaganda level Iraq will enter into," he said.

"Iraq has been saying for a long time you guys are a bunch of spies.
That was never true. Never," Butler continued. "(Iraq) may take
comfort from those allegations, which may be unfortunate."

Such news reports "might help them get themselves off the hook" of
complying with international law, he pointed out.

Butler predicted that "we will get press out of Baghdad in the next
couple of days saying, 'see, see we told you so. They always were
spies.'"

"Those hostile to the disarmament of Iraq will clearly take comfort in
this," he added.


I never wanted to "bear any burden" or "pay any cost". Free men do not jump when stuffed suits ask for sacrifice. You'll get more mileage with me quoting the Holy Bible or The Onion to prove your point than quoting Bush.
actually thats from FDR...ya know WWII


AFAIK, the Saudi Royal familiy still pays the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to appease the Islamists - the same thing Saddam was doing. Pakistan's military dictator most certainly "has ties" with some of the muslim extremists in his country. I doubt he could maintain power without doing so. Both regimes have fairly loose grips on their countries and are forced to appease these groups. I don't much care about that. It does worry me a bit that Pakistan has nukes and that someone like OBL could take control of that country tomorrow, but what the hell can be done about it? Western forces are responsible for the mess in the middle east, and nothing we do ever makes things better in the long run. It is our presence in Saudi Arabia that brought about the creation of Al-Qaeda. The best thing we could do to help things would be to get out of the middle east altogether. No bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwaitt, Iraq, Afghanastan, or anywhere else. No more foreign aid for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or anywhere else. It wouldn't magically fix things, but it would give the Arabs, Persians, Jews, and the rest the chance to become independent of the west. There would be no guarantee that things would improve, but good or bad, whatever happend would stop being our fault.
The best thing we could do to help things would be to get out of the middle east altogether. No bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwaitt, Iraq, Afghanastan, or anywhere else. No more foreign aid for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or anywhere else. It wouldn't magically fix things, but it would give the Arabs, Persians, Jews, and the rest the chance to become independent of the west. There would be no guarantee that things would improve, but good or bad, whatever happend would stop being our fault.
1.the saudi royal famly is huge, not all of them are the king or crown prince
2.said funding comes from proivate organizations
3.you make an assumption about pakistan without proof.
4.the saudi royal family founded thier kingdom hand in hand withthe conservative wahabist sect of sunni islam, and since it was good for saudi arabia they export it. the problem comes in the fact that the religious leaders are criticle of the royal families ties to the west and so to apeaser them they give control of education and such over to the religious leaders.(watched a documentory on wahabism, pretty over the top stuff)
5.It is our presence in Saudi Arabia that brought about the creation of Al-Qaeda.
well that blantantly incorrect, al-queda IE "the list" was formed to keep track and organize "holy fighters" battling the soviets in afghanastan in the 1980's, the whole issue of US forces on saudi soil didn't come about for bin laden till after the gulf war, and besides bin ladens true beef wasn't US forces on saudi soil, it was western influences tainting the purity of his faith(watched a rather good documentory on bin laden and the saudi royal family, some of who agreed to interviews).

6.on an intersting side note,
the us originally opposed the creation of isreal set out int the balford declaration, and didn't join with them until the start of the cold war, as part of the treaty agreement signed between israel and egypt, the US gives egypt 2,2 billion in yearly foreign aid to ofset the aid we give to israel. the US is also the primary humanitarian aid funder for the palestinian "refugee" camps.


You don't understand chemical warfare. The largest terrorist attack using chemical weapons that I'm aware of killed all of 12 people. Although the reports did say that 5000 people were injured. That was VX gas. Saddam was suspected of having mustard gas. It was hardly something for us to be concerned with. However many people you might manage to kill with a mustard gas attack, it would probably be easier to use conventional explosives.
i understand it quite well, i watch japanese news and i watched the sarin subway gas attacks as they happened. that act was carried out by a doomsday cult, a threat yes, but hardly on the same level as an organized terror network. the true effect of a chem, gas or dirty bomb attack is better measured by the attack saddam used on his own people.

So here's my answer--we'll leave and it won't be on our terms, and there will be a bloodbath afterwards, a civil war that will leave the country far more screwed that it was when we went in there. Sooner or later is immaterial--that's the aftermath we're looking at.
Yes, I tend to agree with this assessment. This war was stupid from the get go. Just think how that $173 Billion could have been spent (http://costofwar.com/index-world-hunger.html):

I linked to my particular favourite:

The War in Iraq Costs the United States

$173,988,454,694

Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.

An effort such as this noble cause would have done the most for restoring the US to her former glory.

I have no real preference to who is the American president (Australian).
I supported the Iraqi invasion and continue to support deployment of foces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We screwed up the invasion, there was only a few examples of WMD capabilities, so let's at least give them a proper government.

For people who are sceptical of the WMD's,
One of Saddam Hussien's assistants was called Chemical Ali. If the Australian government suddenly had an Nuclear Costello or a Chemical Downer, it would be reasonable to assume we had WMDs.
Chemical Ali was proven to have got his name from using Chemical weapons on Kurdish villagers around the first Iraq war.
He had about six months to get rid of any he had, and he was bribing associates of the UN for money to get them.
He wanted and had them previously. Also he would not fully co-operate with the inspectors.