NationStates Jolt Archive

"Mr Ahmed al-Baz: A Jordanian taxi driver killed on the road from Baghdad to Amman. The first confirmed casualty of the War. Died during a US missile attack aimed at assassinating Saddam Hussein. Mr al-Baz had stopped at a shop to phone his wife. There was no military site in the area; only a police station about a kilometre away."

-The Curious Incident of the WMD in Iraq, by Rohan Candappa


Sorry for yet another Iraq thread, but I just wanted to see what people thought. Did you support the war? What do you think now (with the benefit of hindsight)?

I never bought the stuff about the WMD's, and I was always annoyed because it was so obvious that we were being lied to. But I don't think the war was the worst thing we could have done either.

Surely if we were lied to on such a scale about the presence of WMD, what stopped the perpetrators of the lies from creating a whole bunch of new lies? "Hey guys, here's the WMD! They were behind this big ol' pile of sand all this time!"

When the war started I was on another forum and supporters of the war were supremely confident in the WMD bullshit. I remember being told to 'wait until sometime next march or so when we start rolling out the evidence'.

There have been 2 march's since I got told that, and still.. nothing.


I'm not from a country that is involved anyway, so I'm fine.

I never supported the war and was dismayed that the UK government was effectively blackmailed into voting to support it.

The US should never have taken things into their own hands IMO, but tried harder to convince the UN to act.

But now that it's happened I don't believe the Iraqi people should be left to pick up the pieces on their own.

"Mr Ahmed al-Baz: A Jordanian taxi driver killed on the road from Baghdad to Amman. The first confirmed casualty of the War. Died during a US missile attack aimed at assassinating Saddam Hussein. Mr al-Baz had stopped at a shop to phone his wife. There was no military site in the area; only a police station about a kilometre away."

-The Curious Incident of the WMD in Iraq, by Rohan Candappa


Sorry for yet another Iraq thread, but I just wanted to see what people thought. Did you support the war? What do you think now (with the benefit of hindsight)?
WTF does that have to do with WMDs???? :confused:

Surely if we were lied to on such a scale about the presence of WMD, what stopped the perpetrators of the lies from creating a whole bunch of new lies? "Hey guys, here's the WMD! They were behind this big ol' pile of sand all this time!"
Well, you know what Hitler used to say "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."

WTF does that have to do with WMDs???? :confused:

the book's about Tony Blair and the war in Iraq

the book's about Tony Blair and the war in Iraq

But what you said has nothing to do with WMD. So whats your point?

I never believed that Iraq had WMD's.

Its not that simple to develop such weapons. Even prior to the first gulf war, Iraq had to basically import their chemical weapons, they couldnt develop them.

After the first gulf war, their infrastructure and army was wiped out. And so was any credibility, and any chance to get know how of how to build chemical weapons. So even if they wanted to develop them, they had to rely in their own resources. Now, Iraq has 30 million people or something, it suffered heavy economical sanctions. I never believed that they had the resources (though i grant they likely had the will) to develop such weapons.

Plus, i had a little faith in the UN inspections, that were telling the world that Iraq, though slowly, was showing their stuff. The main problem were disarmament issues, not developing issues, has in "We dont know what they did to those weapons we know they had", versus "they are building wmd's!!".

It was that last part that was brought in by Bush. Personally, i laughed my ass off, and immediatly started going against any plan of war after that ridiculous presentation that Powell did in the UN. MOBILE CHEMICAL WARFARE LABS??? ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS??? Any chemical engineer will tell you that the development of such weapons isnt easy, and it is restricted to many conditionings, including enviroment conditionings. Considering that you can transport military grade anthrax in a truck, even one "prepared" is ridiculous. Plus those acusations of "unmanned vehicles that can attack our cities"... AHAHH! The USA can barely deploy such vehicles, and we were expected that the poor, isolated iraq could develop the technology, test the technology, and produce it in quantities while embargoed, spied day and night? AHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

And the last straw was the war itself: I mean, what better proof could you have that saddam had no wmd's then his easy obliteration? If he had such weapons, being a madman with NOTHING to loose, he would have used them against the enemy forces. If he didnt, its because he didnt had them. That simple.

I dont think i made a brilliant reasoning, just a logical one, that many people did.
Offcourse, what was funnier was seeing US zealots accusing Europeans of being wusses and their fellow countrymen of being traitors, when their only crime was actually THINKING.

I never believed Saddam Hussein had posession of WMDs either. Since the first Gulf War, his regime had lost a lot of money and resources. He wouldn't have the capabilities to build WMDs.

Although, I do believe Hussein was a threat to the world and removing him from power was necessary.

Well, you know what Hitler used to say "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."



:rolleyes: Do you liberals seriously think that the US government can, in any way, be compared to Stalin or Hitler's regime? At least our things were justified! Nor were they lies! A lie is willing deception. There's no evidence to suggest that this was anything other than an intelligence failure. Perhaps Bush was eager to go to war based on the intelligence he had, but that does not indicate any fabrication of intelligence.

WTF does that have to do with WMDs???? :confused:

The chap was killed on the basis of an attempt to locate and neutralise the (non-existent) WMD's in Iraq. Remember?

The chap was killed on the basis of an attempt to locate and neutralise the (non-existent) WMD's in Iraq. Remember?


That wasn't a super-secret spy missile with a camera and radiation/chemical monitors now was it? It seemed to me that chap was killed in a failed leader-incapacitation attempt, and was in no way related to WMD's.

When the war started I was on another forum and supporters of the war were supremely confident in the WMD bullshit. I remember being told to 'wait until sometime next march or so when we start rolling out the evidence'.

Much the same attitude was displayed by the pro-invasion contingent on this forum.

Question: what under international law gave the Coalition the legitimacy to start attempting to assassinate the head of a foreign sovereign state?

If he was wearing a military uniform, he becomes a perfectly legit military target. If he was in civilian clothes, then we couldn't do that.

:rolleyes: Do you liberals seriously think that the US government can, in any way, be compared to Stalin or Hitler's regime? At least our things were justified! Nor were they lies! A lie is willing deception. There's no evidence to suggest that this was anything other than an intelligence failure. Perhaps Bush was eager to go to war based on the intelligence he had, but that does not indicate any fabrication of intelligence.Do you conservatives seriously think that the U.S. is immune to corruption?

That wasn't a super-secret spy missile with a camera and radiation/chemical monitors now was it? It seemed to me that chap was killed in a failed leader-incapacitation attempt, and was in no way related to WMD's.

Question: what under international law gave the Coalition the legitimacy to start attempting to assassinate the head of a foreign sovereign state?

Only if you are actually waging an official war or an intervention sanctioned under international law in that state, and it was the supposed existence of WMDs which gave the coalition the 'legitimacy' to do so.


Sidenote: how did you manage to answer my question before I posted it?
You're time-warping like crazy! the post I'm quoting was made 6 minutes from now! It's been happening all over General. Something to do with the two forums forums.jolt.co.uk and forums2.jolt.co.uk being out of sync time wise. Or so I heard from Czardas who heard from Fris.

Only if you are actually waging an official war or an intervention sanctioned under international law in that state,


Legally, the war was still going on since there was never an official peace treaty.

and it was the supposed existence of WMDs which gave the coalition the 'legitimacy' to do so.

That was ONE and only ONE of the reasons why we went in there.

Sidenote: how did you manage to answer my question before I posted it?

I asked myself that same question when I saw that my response got ahead of your post.

Edit: It happened again!

If he was wearing a military uniform, he becomes a perfectly legit military target. If he was in civilian clothes, then we couldn't do that.

Only if you are actually waging an official war or an intervention sanctioned under international law in that state, and it was the supposed existence of WMDs which gave the coalition the 'legitimacy' to do so.


Sidenote: how did you manage to answer my question before I posted it?

You're time-warping like crazy! the post I'm quoting was made 6 minutes from now! It's been happening all over General. Something to do with the two forums forums.jolt.co.uk and forums2.jolt.co.uk being out of sync time wise. Or so I heard from Czardas who heard from Fris.

Yeah: I just had a look at the Technical forum and saw the explanation there.

Will I change servers to avoid this problem? Nope. I'm finding it mildly entertaining.

Yeah: I just had a look at the Technical forum and saw the explanation there.

Will I change servers to avoid this problem? Nope. I'm finding it mildly entertaining.
can I time warp too?

Legally, the war was still going on since there was never an official peace treaty.
Legally, the war didn't even start, as Congress did not declare war.

Damn, I can't post within the 6 minutes of the time-warped post. :(

Legally, the war didn't even start, as Congress did not declare war.

No but it was UN authorized (and yes it was and since there was no peace treaty and only a cease-fire.....)

Damn, I can't post within the 6 minutes of the time-warped post. :(

It is rather annoying I'll grant you that.

Corneliu is psychic. :)
me too!

Corneliu is psychic. :)

LOL! Funniest post ever :D

Edit: I guess I am after all :D

The only part about the war that I support, is making sure we don’t lose. I define losing by being beaten in a military confrontation. That isn’t going to happen; Saddam is removed from power. I say we leave.
As Bush said, “mission accomplished,” so let’s get out of there.
I was against the war in Iraq when it started and I'm still against it, but we must stay until the mission is actually accomplished, and Iraq is on its feet and free of any civil war. It would be irresponsible to just get up and leave. Now that we're in a big pile of shit, we have to clean it up, not just get out and leave the shit there for others to take care of.

Only if you are actually waging an official war or an intervention sanctioned under international law in that state, and it was the supposed existence of WMDs which gave the coalition the 'legitimacy' to do so.

Sidenote: how did you manage to answer my question before I posted it?
Corneliu is psychic. :)

The only part about the war that I support, is making sure we don’t lose. I define losing by being beaten in a military confrontation. That isn’t going to happen; Saddam is removed from power. I say we leave.
As Bush said, “mission accomplished,” so let’s get out of there.

How was he a threat to the world if he had no WMD's?
Everyone knows that he had a giant secret stash of marbles that he would put all over busy sidewalks in the U.S. and across Europe. :D

I never believed Saddam Hussein had posession of WMDs either. Since the first Gulf War, his regime had lost a lot of money and resources. He wouldn't have the capabilities to build WMDs.

Although, I do believe Hussein was a threat to the world and removing him from power was necessary.

How was he a threat to the world if he had no WMD's?

No but it was UN authorized (and yes it was and since there was no peace treaty and only a cease-fire.....)

Yes, the Gulf War was UN authorized, but it wasn't technically a war. The US hasn't been in an actual war since 1945. I believe the whole 1991 shebang is technically termed a 'conflict'.

Yes, the Gulf War was UN authorized, but it wasn't technically a war. The US hasn't been in an actual war since 1945. I believe the whole 1991 shebang is technically termed a 'conflict'.

And the Korean War was also a conflict and was authorized by UN Resolution 85! Another War that only has a cease-fire and no actual peace-treaty either. The US didn't declare war there and in reality can be considered illegal because Truman never got authorization from Congress to prosecute it. However that is considered a war.

The Gulf War Is also considered a war because authorization to use force to oust Saddam from Kuwait. The war ended in a Cease-fire and no peace treaty was ever signed between us nor with the UN. When the cease-fire was violated, that was all the authorization we need to go in and kick him out of power.

And the Korean War was also a conflict and was authorized by UN Resolution 85! Another War that only has a cease-fire and no actual peace-treaty either. The US didn't declare war there and in reality can be considered illegal because Truman never got authorization from Congress to prosecute it. However that is considered a war.

The Gulf War Is also considered a war because authorization to use force to oust Saddam from Kuwait. The war ended in a Cease-fire and no peace treaty was ever signed between us nor with the UN. When the cease-fire was violated, that was all the authorization we need to go in and kick him out of power.
Just because it is considered a war doesn't officially make it one. And the Korean War was actually considered a "police action" and not even a war.

Please stop saying how horrible the UN is, then say Saddam should have been taken out because he violated UN sanctions. Either you support all of it or you you support none of it. The black and white world is harsh isn't it?

How was he a threat to the world if he had no WMD's?
There's no denying that he has issues with the west. Besides, he was a violent dictator that proved that he would go to dastardly lengths to fulfill his goals.

Saddam's regime has been known to aid and harbor terrorists and terrorist organizations.

However, I'm still Anti-Operation Iraqi Freedom (from the start). It was a waste of money and thousands of lives were squandered.

Just because it is considered a war doesn't officially make it one. And the Korean War was actually considered a "police action" and not even a war.

To some circles it was a police action! I looked into the Korean War and judging by how ferocious the fight was, it was a war. A police action would be like Panama. Now that was a police action

Please stop saying how horrible the UN is, then say Saddam should have been taken out because he violated UN sanctions.

It was because of the UN's inaction against Saddam due to his violations that I don't trust the UN to do the right thing. And on top of that, they haven't done much anywhere else either. Sudan is still a mess, as is Congo and even the balkans are still a mess even after the UN took that over. The UN has had so many scandals rock it that it is hard to trust them.

If they had just followed through on the Resolutions that they passed, they'll be a more credible organization. As of now and due to recent history regarding the UN, it'll take a miracle to reform it.

Either you support all of it or you you support none of it. The black and white world is harsh isn't it?

Unfortunately, the world of politics is a grey area.

I was just wondering if with the recent loss of Marines bush is starting to regret landing on an aircraft carrier with the sign job done behind him?

Nope because the job of ousting Saddam was accomplished. That was what that sign ment.

How exactly was the cease-fire violated? By obstruction of the weapons inspectors?

Once he stonewalled the inspectors, that should've been our clue to roll the tanks to Baghdad since that was a clear violation of the UN Cease-fire.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Iraq had allowed them another chance to return, but this wasn't taken up by the Coalition.

And then stonewalled them a few more times. What is it about surprise inspections that Saddam didn't get? He wanted to know where and when an inspection was taking place before it took place! Why? What did he have to hide?

I was just wondering if with the recent loss of Marines bush is starting to regret landing on an aircraft carrier with the sign job done behind him?

I was just wondering if with the recent loss of Marines bush is starting to regret landing on an aircraft carrier with the sign job done behind him?
Of course he dosn't regret it. He's a war President, he makes decision with war on his mind. He said that. And the banner read "mission accomplished." The White House claimed they had nothing to do with the production of the banner, they claimed it was the Navy all along...because every carrier has a high end printing press to create random banners. The aircraft carrier had to turn around so the California coast line didn't obstruct Dubya's photo-op.

This article is rather amusing:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/05/06_mission.html

When the cease-fire was violated, that was all the authorization we need to go in and kick him out of power.

How exactly was the cease-fire violated? By obstruction of the weapons inspectors? Correct me if I'm wrong but Iraq had allowed them another chance to return, but this wasn't taken up by the Coalition.

Saddam's regime has been known to aid and harbor terrorists and terrorist organizations.

Which ones, exactly?

Which ones, exactly?
Abu Mud’ab al-Zarqawi's organization, Palestinian Liberation Front, to name a couple.

Info (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19996.htm)

When was Hussein's official capture again?
The link I provided dates to February 5th 2003.

If you're right, then I'll have more reason to criticize my government.

Yea considering we didn't invade till March of '03 and Saddam was Captured in December of '03.

Abu Mud’ab al-Zarqawi's organization

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this organisation was only classified by the US as a terrorist organisation over a year after Hussein's capture, yes?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this organisation was only classified by the US as a terrorist organisation over a year after Hussein's capture, yes?
When was Hussein's official capture again?
The link I provided dates to February 5th 2003.

If you're right, then I'll have more reason to criticize my government.

Once he stonewalled the inspectors, that should've been our clue to roll the tanks to Baghdad since that was a clear violation of the UN Cease-fire.

...
I love this part of yours... what are you talking about, UNSCR 687?

I love this part of yours... what are you talking about, UNSCR 687?

The Cease-fire Resolution that Saddam never complied with and by not complying with, violated it and there fore......

Unfortunately, the world of politics is a grey area.
Not the "War on Terror." I either blindly follow the Administration, or I am an America-hating terrorist.

Not the "War on Terror." I either blindly follow the Administration, or I am an America-hating terrorist.

To some, you can be construed as such. To me? I don't give a damn.

The Cease-fire Resolution that Saddam never complied with and by not complying with, violated it and there fore......
Is it UNSCR 687 or something else, that's what I want to know. Wouldn't you mind to give me a direct answer?

Is it UNSCR 687 or something else, that's what I want to know. Wouldn't you mind to give me a direct answer?

Yes! That is the cease-fire resolution that Saddam violated!

Yes! That is the cease-fire resolution that Saddam violated!
He violated it in 1991, not in 2003. What prevented the US from attacking him then?

He violated it in 1991, not in 2003. What prevented the US from attacking him then?

Not just in 1991 but every year since then. I don't know. Why don't you ask the United Nations that was supposed to have done something about it and didn't!

Not just in 1991 but every year since then. I don't know. Why don't you ask the United Nations that was supposed to have done something about it and didn't!
The United Nations did exactly what they are supposed to do--passed a resolution. You don't expect the UN officials acting as a kind of posse, do you?

And Saddam techically couldn't violate UNSCR 687 by 'stonewalling' UN inspectors in 2002.

He violated it in 1991, not in 2003. What prevented the US from attacking him then?
The presidency/administration at the time.

The United Nations did exactly what they are supposed to do--passed a resolution. You don't expect the UN officials acting as a kind of posse, do you?

Since it was then that approved of the cease-fire, it was their responsiblity to make sure it was followed. It wasn't followed. Because it wasn't followed, it means that the cease-fire was violated. Once a cease-fire was violated, it is the obligation of the people who signed it to enforce it. They didnt

And Saddam techically couldn't violate UNSCR 687 by 'stonewalling' UN inspectors in 2002.

It still falls under 687! And it was 687 we used to go back into Iraq (ontop of a few others)

Since it was then that approved of the cease-fire, it was their responsiblity to make sure it was followed. It wasn't followed. Because it wasn't followed, it means that the cease-fire was violated. Once a cease-fire was violated, it is the obligation of the people who signed it to enforce it. They didnt
Who signed what, Corneliu? The ceasefire was signed by Schwarzkopf, am I wrong?

How do you suppose the UN passes its resolutions, Corneliu? Some country brings them to the table, and then they vote. It's not like the UN bureaucracy can make political decisions on its own accord.

No country even thought of attacking Iraq in August 1991. No such resolution was proposed then, even floated as a suggestion. Why, Corneliu?



It still falls under 687! And it was 687 we used to go back into Iraq (ontop of a few others)
I don't care what UN resolutions your government used as a cover. The inspections of 2002 were authorized by another UN resolution.

Who signed what, Corneliu? The ceasefire was signed by Schwarzkopf, am I wrong?

But it was approved by the UN Security Council and Schwarzkopf was the coalition commander in charge of Desert Storm so of course he signed it.

How do you suppose the UN passes its resolutions, Corneliu?

By having a vote in the UNSC! :rolleyes:

Some country brings them to the table, and then they vote. It's not like the UN bureaucracy can make political decisions on its own accord.

Correct but once they pass a resolution, it is their obligation to make sure that it is followed.

No country even thought of attacking Iraq in August 1991. No such resolution was proposed then, even floated as a suggestion. Why, Corneliu?

Because the rest of the world didn't want to see things through to the end.

I don't care what UN resolutions your government used as a cover. The inspections of 2002 were authorized by another UN resolution.

And yet, he didn't fully comply with that resolution either. Ironic isn't it?

But it was approved by the UN Security Council and Schwarzkopf was the coalition commander in charge of Desert Storm so of course he signed it.
Of course not, the ceasefire signed by Schwarzkopf preceded UNSCR 687 and the texts are entirely different... I suppose you haven't read either.



Correct but once they pass a resolution, it is their obligation to make sure that it is followed.
1)The UN Charter contains no such obligation. ;) 2) The Security Council may pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against a transgressor. Who proposed such resolution in August 1991? No one did.


Because the rest of the world didn't want to see things through to the end.
It seems that the US didn't want to depose Saddam in 1991 either.


And yet, he didn't fully comply with that resolution either. Ironic isn't it?
Actually, no one found him in violation of UNSCR 1441... :rolleyes: