FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Justification for War in Iraq





S3nd K3ys
With all the misinformation going around these days about how the US should not have started a war with Iraq, I thought I'd post up this (rather lengthy) report detailing the many reasons and justifications for the war.

This is a long read and I don't expect you to read the entire thing, (unless you're STILL convinced the war in Iraq was not justified). Wink

Justification for the use of force against Iraq
by jdh Cool

reference: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
UN Security Council Resolutions


Quote:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;


Iraq WMDs:

http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88 :
Quote:
Nuclear Weapons


The IISS Dossier then goes on to analyse Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons programmes. It carries an extensive examination of Iraq’s programmes to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU) through various enrichment technologies, first electro-magnetic separation and then gas centrifuge. On the eve of the Gulf War, Iraq was on the verge of producing significant amounts of HEU that would have allowed it within two to three years to produce its first nuclear weapon. Had the Gulf War not intervened, Iraq could have accumulated a nuclear stockpile of a dozen or so weapons by the end of the decade.

The Gulf War heavily damaged Iraq’s nuclear facilities. By the end of inspections in 1998, the IAEA was confident that Iraq’s indigenous nuclear weapons programme had not produced more than a few grammes of weapons useable nuclear material.

At the same time, Iraq’s nuclear potential was not completely eliminated. Most importantly, the scientific and technical expertise of Iraq’s nuclear programme survived, and Baghdad has tried to keep its core nuclear teams in place working on various civilian projects.

Since 1998, Iraq has had more opportunities to reconstitute elements of its nuclear programme and to keep these activities secret. Iraq could have completed the necessary theoretical modelling and practical testing of critical nuclear weapons components. Our report covers this in detail. As for production of indigenous material, Iraq could take a number of measures to hide a 1000 machine centrifuge plant from surveillance, but it would be more difficult to acquire foreign materials, equipment and components without detection. It is unlikely that Iraq could have completed a facility for the production of nuclear weapons-useable material in only a few years.

Our net assessment of the current situation is that:

Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons.

It would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities.

It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.

It could divert domestic civil-use radioisotopes or seek to obtain foreign material for a crude radiological device.

Biological Weapons

Our Dossier then goes on to examine the much more difficult subject of biological weapons. In the mid 1980s, Iraq’s BW programme had picked up speed and by 1989, Iraq began to produce BW agent in volume. After its invasion of Kuwait, Baghdad stepped up large scale BW agent production and assembled rudimentary BW munitions. These weapons were distributed to military units, who were delegated to use them if coalition forces advanced on Baghdad or used nuclear weapons. Most of Iraq’s key BW facilities, which had been successfully hidden from Western intelligence agencies, escaped attack during the Gulf War. After UN inspections began, Baghdad continued to conceal its BW programme until 1995. By the time UNSCOM’s work ended in 1998, it was only able to account for a portion of Iraq’s BW munitions, bulk agents, and growth media.

Again, Iraq retains the expertise and industrial capability to produce agents quickly and in volume if desired. Moreover, Iraq has had a decade of experience countering intelligence and developing effective concealment methods. Western intelligence agencies take seriously defector information to the effect that underground facilities have been built and a fleet of mobile biological production laboratories deployed, though these are hard to confirm.

Iraq can certainly produce new stocks of bulk BW agent, including botulinum toxin and anthrax with its existing facilities, equipment and materials. BW agent could be delivered by short range munitions including artillery shells and rockets. Delivery by ballistic missile is more problematic given that much of the agent would be destroyed on impact and the immediate area of dispersal would be small. Civilian casualties could still be in the hundreds or thousands. Refurbished L-29 trainer aircraft could operate as weapons-carrying UAVs with a range of over 600km. Such UAVs, in theory, would be considerably more effective than ballistic missiles in delivering CBW. Commando and terrorist attack is also possible.

Our net assessment of the current situation is that:

Iraq has probably retained substantial growth media and BW agent (perhaps thousands of litres of anthrax) from pre 1991 stocks.
The regime is capable of resuming BW Agent production on short notice (in weeks) from existing civilian facilities. It could have produced thousands of litres of anthrax, botulinum toxin and other agents since 1998. Actual stocks cannot be known.
Iraqi production of viral agents is unknown as is the question of whether the regime possesses small pox.

Chemical Weapons

Compared to its efforts to acquire nuclear and biological weapons, Iraq’s chemical weapons (CW) programme was the first to reach full maturity, and included riot control, blister and nerve agents in a variety of munitions including missile warheads, aerial bombs, rockets and artillery shells. Iraq used chemical weapons extensively against Iranian troops from 1982 onwards. Indeed Iraq emerged from the war with Iran with the largest and most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Middle East at that time. Between 1988 and 1991 Iraq made further progress in developing binary chemical munitions, producing and weaponising an advanced nerve agent, VX, and developing an indigenous production base for key CW precursors. The Gulf War however devastated Iraq’s primary CW production facilities and a large portion of its stockpile of CW munitions. Through to 1998, UNSCOM was able to dispose of large quantities of CW munitions, bulk agent, precursors and production equipment that were not destroyed in combat.

Here too, Iraq was almost certainly able to conceal and salvage key aspects of its CW programme, including CW munitions, agent and precursors. Iraq has retained the experienced personnel, know how and chemical industrial capability to reconstitute elements of its CW programme on an emergency basis.

Iraq could have retained stable precursors for a few hundred tonnes of sarin and cyclosarin and a similar amount of VX. Weaponisation of any retained material would not pose a significant obstacle.

Assessing the production of new CW agent and precursors depends on determining the degree to which Iraq will have chosen to mobilise its civilian chemical industry to produce these capabilities. Without inspectors present, Iraq would not find it difficult to build on pre 1991 stocks and produce and weaponise fresh agent.

Unless Iraq has advanced beyond the impact fusing and warhead design of its 1990 era special warheads, its ability to disseminate effectively CW agent on ballistic missiles is questionable, since so much agent would be destroyed on impact. Iraq’s known ability to marry chemical warheads to its rocket and artillery pieces (with ranges up to 30,000 metres) could complicate operations for opposing forces, who would be required to wear protective gear.

Our net assessment of the current situation is that:

Iraq has probably retained a few hundred tonnes of mustard and precursors for a few hundred tonnes of sarin/cyclosarin and perhaps similar amounts of VX from pre-1991 stocks.

It is capable of resuming CW production on short notice (months) from existing civilian facilities. It could have produced hundreds of tonnes of agent (mustard and nerve agents) since 1998. In these circumstances, it is not possible accurately to estimate present stocks.


Quote:
US REMOVES TWO TONS OF RADIOLOGICAL MATERIALS
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States removed nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials from Iraq last month, the Energy Department said.
The material could have potentially been used to make a "radiological dispersal device" -- a so-called dirty bomb -- "or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program," the department said Tuesday.
Radiological sources for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed, the department said. Less-sensitive materials were repackaged and remained in Iraq.
The departments of Energy and Defense removed "1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Tuesday.
"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Abraham said. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."
The material was gathered from around Iraq and taken to the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, 11 miles southeast of Baghdad and the main site for the Iraqi nuclear program before the war.
The United States notified the International Atomic Energy Agency of the planned transfer on June 19, but "requested IAEA to keep the information about the intended transfer confidential for ... security reasons," Mohamed ElBaradei said in a letter released Wednesday by the United Nations.
It was then was flown to the United States on June 23, where it will be held at secure sites, said Brian Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/26/iraq.duelfer/
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The recent discovery of two chemical artillery shells in Iraq has raised concerns among weapons inspectors that other shells may turn up in the hands of insurgents battling American troops, the head of the U.S. search team said Wednesday.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
Quote:
An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm
Quote:
WARSAW (AP) — Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent, but it is not clear what period the weapons came from, the Defense Ministry said Thursday.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Quote:
Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered. Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.


http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
Quote:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
-A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
-A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
-Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
-New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
-Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
-A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
-Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
-Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
-Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.



http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001001mag-saddam.html
Quote:
Khidhir Hamza, once Iraq's leading nuclear physicist, defected five years ago and, so far, has lived to tell about it. In his new memoir, he recounts the inside story of how Saddam almost built an atomic weapon


Iraq Survey Group:
Iraq Survey Group wrote:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.
......
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
.....
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
.....
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.


at least nine Iraqi scientists questioned by ISG were assassinated within the year
and: http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/2005/06/saddams-wmds-issue-that-will-not-die.html

-David Kay (ISG leader):
Quote:
one scientist was ordered to conceal reference strains of [bioweapon] organisms like anthrax, ricin and Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever in his own refrigerator. The scientist knew of other seed stocks but these were missing when ISG investigators showed up to collect them.


-Duelfer:
Quote:
What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD

Duelfer told Congress that he
Quote:
was struck by the extreme reluctance of Iraqi managers, scientists and engineers to speak freely


-Duelfer Report:
WMDs : Stockpiles No, Intentions Yes says Report


Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;


Saddam-al Qaeda links:

thanks to MrSnuggleBunny from another forum (excerpt from his thread):
Quote:
There have been several recent developments. One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."

One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium attacks from Iraq.)

Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19." When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable."

In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's Intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA has assessed those documents as authentic. In 1999, a CIA Counterterrorism Center analysis reported on April 13 that four intelligence reports indicate Saddam Hussein has given bin Laden a standing offer of safe haven in Iraq. The CTC report is included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's review on prewar intelligence.

In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
Quote:
WASHINGTON — U.S. authorities in Iraq say they have new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.


Quote:
On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the "nothing whatsoever" crowd have to say about:

- Ahmed Hikmat Shakir -- the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?


- Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990s?

- Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which -- notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) -- the Czechs have not retracted?


The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

- Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

- Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

- Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

- Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden's fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

- Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as "an Arab and Islamic hero" following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

- The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

- Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and "[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad"?

- Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?


- Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

- Former CIA Director George Tenet's October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

- We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

- Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

- Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

- We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

- Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Possible Link to al Qaeda Seen in Oil for Food Program
Quote:
LUGANO, Switzerland — Did Saddam Hussein use any of his ill-gotten billions filched from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program to help fund Al Qaeda?


More Connections
Iraq: A convenient letter from an Al Qaeda terrorist
'Iraq and Al Qaeda; There's More Evidence of a Link than the Critics Admit'
Iraq, al-Qaeda links confirmed
Quote:
Washington - Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad Chalabi said on Sunday that he has"specific information" about links between the terror group al-Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat.

"We have specific information about visits that leaders of al-Qaeda made to Iraq in as late as 2000, and the requests for large amounts of cash," Chalabi said.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Case Closed
Zarqawi medical treatment before the war
The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
Excerpt:
Quote:
* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.



Quote:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;


Saddam's genocide:
Genocide in Iraq
GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
Quote:
Murder, in other words--including mass execution--continued to be a fundamental tool of the regime in its dealings with the Kurds, even
though Anfal was now over and most of the countryside was ninhabited. Anyone found in a "prohibited area" was likely to be killed, as was anyone suspected of peshmerga activity in the few villages that had been spared. Some of these killings were ordered by the Ba'ath Party's Northern Bureau, and Ali Hassan al-Majid appears to have kept a close personal eye on the elimination of prominent "saboteurs."

Saddam faces genocide charge
Anfal: The Kurdish Genocide in Iraq
Genocide is genocide is genocide
Mass Graves

over 400,000 have been found in mass graves

Quote:
gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=genocide

thanks to Proud_Israeli:
Quote:
From "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East scholar who served two tours of duty in Bill Clinton's National Security Council: "This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. . . . This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or as a means of execution. . . . This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare . . . not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan."

and:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm
Quote:
Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

Mass graves:





Quote:
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;


Saddam supporting terror:
Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president, has given over $25 million to Palestinian terrorist groups in less than two years.
http://www.husseinandterror.com
Saddam Terror Support Revealed
More on Saddam's Terror Links
Iraqi Intel Documents Show Saddam's Terror Ties
Saddam's Real WMD Was Terrorism
Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

From Saddam's Philanthropy of terror:
Quote:
According to dissidents, journalists who have visited, and even United Nations weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein appears to have offered training to terrorists, in addition to funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care.

The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.



^picture: Certificate recognizing a suicide bomber's "martyrdom." Note the attached "President Saddam Hussein's Grant" check in the lower right-hand corner. (Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror)


Saddam & 9/11: (sketchy)
Terrorism Vice Chair: Saddam Linked to 9/11

http://www.husseinandterror.com/ :
Quote:
Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing "a foreign government service," page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur’s airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. 19

Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi subsequently spent the morning of September 11, 2001 flying American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 184 people.

Shakir, the Iraqi airport greeter, was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and “Operation Bojinka,” al-Qaeda’s 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific. Interestingly enough, as a May 27, 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial reported, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. A government source told the Journal that the papers identify Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen. 20

Below is a rare photograph of Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. He was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001. He long has been suspected of meeting with September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta, most likely on April 8, 2001. Perhaps at other times, too. While skeptics dismiss this encounter, Czech intelligence found Al-Ani's appointment calendar in Iraq's Prague embassy, presumably after Saddam Hussein's defeat. Al-Ani's diary lists an April 8, 2001, meeting with "Hamburg student." Maybe, in a massive coincidence, Al-Ani dined with a young scholar and chatted about Hegel and Nietzsche.


Mural found in one of Saddam's palaces in Iraq:


Justification of the Authorization for use of force against iraq:
http://qando.net/archives/002062.htm
EXCERPT:

Quote:
Final Conclusions:
The inescapable conclusion is that, with the sole exception of the claim that Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability", the justification for war was completely accurate. And that claim has yet to be settled either way.

No facts subsequent to the war have proven any of the official justifications false.

Even the nuclear claim may be described as accurate depending on the extent to which Iraq is alleged to have "sought" the capability.


Bill Clinton:
Quote:
There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.







Lost In Translation
EXCERPTS:
Quote:
Mr. Qatou described how Saddam's army grabbed two men, each twenty years old, shot them, and then forced the families pay for the bullets.

Quote:
This seemed like the moment to ask the question, "What do you think of the United States?"

"We cry when America loses one soldier. We pray for the soldiers every night."

Many Kurds had expressed the same sentiment. One had said poetically: "For every drop of American blood, we shed one thousand Kurdish tears."

Quote:
"My life is nearly finished," he said, almost wistfully. "But will be good for my children and my children's children."

"Yes," I said. "It was worth it, no?"

"What?" he asked, confused at my meaning.

"Your struggle," I said. "Now you are free."

Mr. Qatou smiled and disappeared into his memories briefly, then he spoke:

"My life was mostly soldier and prisoner. My children are free."


Saddam's Regional Threat
thanks to Proud_Israeli:
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson041703.asp
Quote:
--An Iraqi poet celebrates fall of Saddam: "It is not only the people of Iraq who are grateful for the end of a nightmare. A majority of Arabs and Muslims are also grateful. The chorus of lamentation for Saddam consists of a few isolated figures espousing the bankrupt ideologies of pan-Arabism and Islamism. A Moroccan Islamist tells us that the American presence in Iraq is "a punishment from Allah" for Muslims because of their "weakening faith." But if the toppling of a tyrant is punishment, then I pray that Allah will bring similar punishments on other Arab nations that endure despotic rule."


Extended Justification of the Authorization for Use of Force Against Iraq :


This is the full justification for the Authorization for Use of Force Against Iraq

"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; "

True. UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, and 667 all had to do with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18076.pdf



"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; "

True. http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution687.htm


"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; "

True. http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimelineunscom.htm
Also, see above "Iraq WMDs", especially ISG leader David Kay's statement to House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.



"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; "

True. http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm



"Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); "

True. Public Law 105-235 here .



"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; "

True. UNSCR 1441:

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council
resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security.
Also, http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm , http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/cia-tenet-031902.htm , and President Clinton's statement above.

President Bush's speech to the UN: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Refer also to David Kay's statement from the ISG linked above and excerpts here:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant
amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the
inspections that began in late 2002. ......
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons......
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN......
With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information - including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on
maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to
surge the production of BW agents.
"With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from
Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These
officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at
some future point.......
Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term.



"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; "

True. Human Rights Watch :

"The Iraqi government continued to commit widespread and gross human rights
violations, including the extensive use of the death penalty and the
extrajudicial execution of prisoners, the forced expulsion of ethnic minorities
from government-controlled areas in the oil-rich region of Kirkuk and elsewhere,
the arbitrary arrest of suspected political opponents and members of their
families, and the torture and ill-treatment of detainees."
The UN :

Iraq has been condemned by the United Nations' top human rights body for
conducting a campaign of "all pervasive repression and widespread terror".
The claim that this was caused by the sanctions is false.

Refer to "Saddam's Genocide" above.



"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; "

True. Refer again to "Saddam's Genocide" above.

1986 March - UN Secretary General reports Iraq's use of mustard gas and nerve
agents against Iranian soldiers, with significant usage in 1981 and 1984." and
"1988 March 16 - Iraq attacks the Kurdish town of Halabjah with mix of poison
gas and nerve agents, killing 5000 residents.


"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; "

True. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1993/930626b.htm , http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm ,


UN Security Council Resolution 1441:


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,



"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; "

True. See the extensive connections between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda above.

and : http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html



"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; "

True. See "Saddam supporting terror" above. Also: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq/



"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; "

Opinion, but accurate.



"Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; "

True. Explained above.



"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; "

Accurate citiation of UNSC documents. See: UNSCRs 678, 660, 687, 688, and 949.

index of UNSCRs: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html



"Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; "

True. http://www.radford.edu/~mfranck/images/490%20seminar/Iraq%20resolution%201991.pdf



"Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; "

See the above justification.



"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; "

See the above justification.


"Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"; "

True. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html


"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; "



The UN gives its chronology of the Weapons Inspections:




23-28 Jun 1991 UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors try to intercept Iraqi vehicles carrying nuclear related equipment (Calutrons). Iraqi personnel fire warning shots in the air to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles. The equipment is later seized and destroyed under international supervision.
This was a blatant violation of the cease-fire. Also: David Kay's statement to Congressional Committees: saying that Iraq pursued its chemical weapons program up to 2003.

"...it is in the national security interests of the United States..."
The overwhelming evidence against Iraq validates this section of the clause.




"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations; "

The links between Iraq and al Qaeda as documented above prove a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.




"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; "

Saddam's support of other terror groups is also well documented above.




"Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and "

See previous authorizations:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html



"Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; "

This is an obvious fact.


Conclusion: Iraq had WMDs and the desire for stockpiles; links to al Qaeda; links to other terror organizations; had committed genocide against the Iraqis (sometimes with WMDs); and was a threat to the security of the United States and the world.
Billy Hill
Jesus man! My eyes hurt and I haven't even finished reading it all yet!

There's a lot of reason there, IMO, to justify war with Iraq. (I already believed it was justified, but it's nice to see so much info together in one place).

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt most people, especially those still trying to promote the false notion that Bush lied to get approval, will read it. And even if they do, they will likely dismiss it or ignore it completely.
m2kapadi
I think we need to get beyond justification for the war. Obviously there was no justification, it was a horrible mistake. However, its important that the mission in Iraq be successful.
S3nd K3ys
m2kapadi wrote:
Obviously there was no justification, it was a horrible mistake.


Um. Yeah. There was. Read the first post in the thread.

I just posted up about 60 kilobytes of data that says the war WAS justified. And I posted it so people like you would stop foolishly claiming there was NO justification, yet you STILL failed to read ANYTHING posted above, didn't you?

This is what I'm talking about. Some peolpe are so dense they can't see the truth if it bit them on the face. (Of course, you'd have to be numb to be that ignorant, so the bite on the face probably wouldn't get your attention either, would it?
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Justification for the use of force against Iraq
reference: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
UN Security Council Resolutions
Quote:
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated

I'll come to the part in bold in a few minutes, when I address the WMD in Iraq part.
Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq also wrote:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
.
.
.
.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

However, as we are discussing the UNSC, we might as well remember that nowehere in Resolution 1441 does the SC allow any member states to start taking armed action against Iraq. The attack on iraq by US and its allies was not endorsed by the SC and is not endorsed to this date. However, it is an established fact that Saddam was unhelpful during inspections. Re-read Resolution 1441. It clearly states that while recalling all those previous resolutions, it still does not endorse the use of military force against Iraq.

Now about the
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Iraq WMDs

You quoted IISS
Quote:
The International Institute for Strategic Studies is a British think tank based in London. The IISS provides information on international affairs.

source
However, the presidential commission, The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction (http://www.wmd.gov/report/), disagrees with the findings of the IISS and the CIA and other intelligence agencies that stated that Iraq had WMDs:
The Commision Site wrote:
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, MARCH 31, 2005

Its conclusion wrote:
We have approached our task mindful of its historical context. In truth, looking to the past, we find cause for discouragement. Many of the ideas and recommendations that we have made in this report were advanced with compelling reasoning by previous commissions. After ceremonious presentations to the President and to Congress, the previous recommendations were ignored or implemented weakly. Most of them failed to take hold. The question is inescapable: why should this Commission be different from the others?

Nevertheless, we are hopeful. The Intelligence Community is at the juncture of a number of powerful historical forces: the end of the Cold War, the first catastrophic attacks in the United States by international terrorists, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the failure of U.S. intelligence in Iraq, the broad-based demand for change by the American people, and enactment by Congress of the most sweeping legislative reform since the creation of the existing Intelligence Community in 1947. These are reasons enough to believe that our work may be put to good purpose.

Perhaps the single most prominent and recurring theme in our recommendations is a call for stronger and more centralized management of the Intelligence Community, and, in general, the creation of a genuinely integrated Community instead of a loose confederation of independent agencies. This is not a new idea, but it has never been successfully implemented.


Its findings about Iraq Nuclear Weapons wrote:
1. The Intelligence Community's judgment about Iraq's nuclear program hinged chiefly on an assessment about Iraq's intended use for high-strength aluminum tubes it was seeking to procure. Most of the agencies in the Intelligence Community erroneously concluded these tubes were intended for use in centrifuges in a nuclear program rather than in conventional rockets. This error was, at the bottom, the result of poor analytical tradecraft--namely, the failure to do proper technical analysis informed by thorough knowledge of the relevant weapons technology and practices.

2. In addition to citing the aluminum tubes, the NIE's judgment that Iraq was attempting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program also referred to additional streams of intelligence. These other streams, however, were very thin, and the limited value of that supporting intelligence was inadequately conveyed in the October 2002 NIE and in other Intelligence Community products.

4. The Intelligence Community failed to authenticate in a timely fashion transparently forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.


Its findings about Biological and Chemical Weapons wrote:
1. The DIA's Defense HUMINT Service's failure even to attempt to validate Curveball's reporting was a major failure in operational tradecraft.

2. Indications of possible problems with Curveball began to emerge well before the 2002 NIE. These early indications of problems--which suggested unstable behavior more than a lack of credibility--were discounted by the analysts working the Iraq WMD account. But given these warning signs, analysts should have viewed Curveball's information with greater skepticism and should have conveyed this skepticism in the NIE.

5. CIA management stood by Curveball's reporting long after post-war investigators in Iraq had established that he was lying about crucial issues.


Source I recommend you read through the Iraq Findings part. If I continue to quote from there, my post will be much longer than your 60 kilobytes of data.

Quote:
Remember the cause of the CIA leak

By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON – The fascination with the subject of which official knew what about Valerie Plame and how they peddled the information should not distract us from contemplating the great con game that the administration played with the American people on the road to war in Iraq.

Clearly the principals chose to assert, whether true or not, that only an invasion would spare America from the imminent danger of Iraqi nuclear and/or biological weapons. From early on, they bought and retailed a dubious bill of goods.

Let's go back to October 2002, when Vice President Dick Cheney received an Italian intelligence report about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in the African country of Niger. The report came to the CIA from a shady Italian businessman who produced a forged document, apparently written on stolen stationery from the Nigerian Embassy in Rome. The CIA doubted the authenticity of that document; the White House seemed more willing to credit it.

You can understand, then, how furious the White House Iraq Group must have been when Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sent to Niger to gather support for the story of Iraq's effort to buy uranium, instead returned with word that there was no evidence to support that supposition and then went public with his conclusion.

The Pentagon had one other source, equally dubious, on weapons of mass destruction. That was the smooth-talking Iraqi exile, Ahmed Chalabi, who offered a lot of inside information, including word from professed Iraqi scientists. Mr. Chalabi had not only a product, but a market, a friendly relationship with Judith Miller of The New York Times. She wrote a series of stories about Iraqi weapons that her paper ultimately had to disown and apologize for.

But the Bush administration continued to insert alleged Iraqi weapons programs into speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney
, culminating in a presentation to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Mr. Powell now bitterly regrets.

So let's not get too bogged down in details of the coverup and the leak. More important is what was being covered up - the sometimes frantic effort to justify a war that didn't seem to have much justification.

source - The Christian Science Monitor


Out of time. Will deal with the other issues shortly.
Oh, and by the way,
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Conclusion: Iraq had WMDs and ...

Pfft Rolling Eyes
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Conclusion: Iraq had WMDs and ...

Pfft Rolling Eyes


So I guess none of this will matter either since it goes against the liberal feeling(notice I didn't say thinking Wink )

Quote:
While the Democrats in the U.S. Senate forced the upper house to close to the public for the purpose of investigating whether President Bush deceived the nation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a new book attempts to remind the world that WMDs were indeed found after the invasion.



In fact, lots of them were found.

In his new book, "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror," investigative reporter Richard Miniter reports once again on some major nuclear and chemical warheads discovered by coalition forces. They include:

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

Let's take a close look at the first example. Many would be shocked to hear that nearly 2 tons of enriched uranium was found in Iraq – enough to make dozens and dozens of nuclear weapons and countless "dirty nukes."

Yet, in July 2004, the U.S. government announced it had transferred the nearly 2 tons of enriched uranium found in Iraq to an undisclosed location in the United States.

The uranium was what was left of supplies looted when the Iraqi facility was left unguarded between the retreat of Saddam Hussein's forces and the advance of U.S. forces.

The airlift was completed June 23, five days before the U.S.-led Coalition Authority transferred the sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government.

The uranium was from the Tuwaitha nuclear facility, about 20 kilometers south of Baghdad. It was once a premium Iraqi facility for development of nuclear weapons but was dismantled in 1990s after the first Gulf war. The facility is now under the control of the new Iraqi interim government.

It was not clear where exactly the uranium is being kept, but American Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described its removal as a "major achievement" in the Bush administration's goal of keeping "potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

"It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons," Abraham said in a statement.

In a letter to the Security Council, IAEA Director General Mohammad El Baradei confirmed the transfer, saying that about 1.8 tonnes of uranium enriched to the level of 2.6 per cent had been transferred June 23 along with 6.6 pounds of low enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly radioactive sources.

What were the expectations of those looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – finished nuclear warheads ready for launch?

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid moved to lock out the public and press for the purpose of forcing an investigation into prewar intelligence issues.

Democrats said the move was necessary to overcome Republican efforts to "obstruct" a full investigation and a reluctance to investigate how administration officials handled the intelligence used to sell Congress and the public on invading Iraq.

The inquiry would be a follow-up to the July 2004 intelligence committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, a Republican member of the intelligence committee, said the panel's 2004 report found no indication that the mistaken assumptions about Iraq's weapons programs were the result of political pressure.

All of this leaves many inside Washington wondering why President Bush doesn't just cut the ground out from under his political opponents by reminding the American people in a televised speech exactly what kinds of WMDs and potential WMDs were found in Iraq.
lib
S3nd K3ys wrote:
lib wrote:
...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Conclusion: Iraq had WMDs and ...

Pfft Rolling Eyes


So I guess none of this will matter either since it goes against the liberal feeling(notice I didn't say thinking Wink )

Quote:
While the Democrats in the U.S. Senate forced the upper house to close to the public for the purpose of investigating whether President Bush deceived the nation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a new book attempts to remind the world that WMDs were indeed found after the invasion.



In fact, lots of them were found.

In his new book, "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror," investigative reporter Richard Miniter reports once again on some major nuclear and chemical warheads discovered by coalition forces. They include:

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a partial list of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found no weapons of mass destruction.

Let's take a close look at the first example. Many would be shocked to hear that nearly 2 tons of enriched uranium was found in Iraq – enough to make dozens and dozens of nuclear weapons and countless "dirty nukes."

Yet, in July 2004, the U.S. government announced it had transferred the nearly 2 tons of enriched uranium found in Iraq to an undisclosed location in the United States.

The uranium was what was left of supplies looted when the Iraqi facility was left unguarded between the retreat of Saddam Hussein's forces and the advance of U.S. forces.

The airlift was completed June 23, five days before the U.S.-led Coalition Authority transferred the sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government.

The uranium was from the Tuwaitha nuclear facility, about 20 kilometers south of Baghdad. It was once a premium Iraqi facility for development of nuclear weapons but was dismantled in 1990s after the first Gulf war. The facility is now under the control of the new Iraqi interim government.

It was not clear where exactly the uranium is being kept, but American Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described its removal as a "major achievement" in the Bush administration's goal of keeping "potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

"It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons," Abraham said in a statement.

In a letter to the Security Council, IAEA Director General Mohammad El Baradei confirmed the transfer, saying that about 1.8 tonnes of uranium enriched to the level of 2.6 per cent had been transferred June 23 along with 6.6 pounds of low enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly radioactive sources.

What were the expectations of those looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – finished nuclear warheads ready for launch?

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid moved to lock out the public and press for the purpose of forcing an investigation into prewar intelligence issues.

Democrats said the move was necessary to overcome Republican efforts to "obstruct" a full investigation and a reluctance to investigate how administration officials handled the intelligence used to sell Congress and the public on invading Iraq.

The inquiry would be a follow-up to the July 2004 intelligence committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, a Republican member of the intelligence committee, said the panel's 2004 report found no indication that the mistaken assumptions about Iraq's weapons programs were the result of political pressure.

All of this leaves many inside Washington wondering why President Bush doesn't just cut the ground out from under his political opponents by reminding the American people in a televised speech exactly what kinds of WMDs and potential WMDs were found in Iraq.

Maybe because George Bush has accepted that his intelligence ****** up. He even admitted it. I'm really strapped for time, so I'll post you the quote in a few hours or so.

Quote:
President Bush said he wanted to be able to compare what was found by the Iraq Survey Group formerly headed by Mr Kay with what had been thought before the war.

"I want to know the facts," he said.

Well, after that commision report I posted in my previous post, one would assume he knows the facts by now.
By the way, this isn't the quote I was looking for. I'll post the other one later.

By the way, I wonder when Richard Miniter published his book. Perhaps he didn't take into account that CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, David Kay, resigned and admitted that thhe previous reports about existence of WMDs in Iraq were erronous. Also referring to that article you posted, it would make sense for George to show evidence of the WMDs now when his rapproval ratings have hit the lowest point, don't you think so?

Oh and by the way, whatever you write about the Democratic Party/liberals ("notice I said feeling, not thinking") really doesn't bother me. Just because you assumed that I'm a liberal because my username is "lib" doesn't mean I am, so don't try provoking me with that kinda garbage writing ("liberalism is evil" or "liberals = tin foil hat wearing morons") That doesn't mean I voted for Georgie either (as is probably very apparent from my posts). But:

S3nd K3ys wrote:
So I guess none of this will matter either since it goes against the liberal feeling(notice I didn't say thinking )

Even after I published a Presidential Commision report that the previous reports on WMDs were useless, you still quote "a new book" by a single investigator-journalist that there were WMDs in Iraq. This speaks volumes about Conservative Thinking/Feeling, though.
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
...
Even after I published a Presidential Commision report that the previous reports on WMDs were useless, you still quote "a new book" by a single investigator-journalist that there were WMDs in Iraq. This speaks volumes about Conservative Thinking/Feeling, though.


Does that explain the chemical weapons lab found in Fallujah last Thanksgiving, the chemical artillery shells and rockets found, etc? Perhaps you'd like to say those were not there? Or they were useless?

The conviction that Saddam had WMDs was shared by France, Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the previous Democratic administration. Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee - now a full member of the "Bush lied" team - said, "I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat."

Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, and former Sen. John Edwards all voted for the war.

Most of these Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president. But now, Democrats have decided that they cannot accept their own responsibility in what they clearly consider to be a mistake. They cannot even criticize the CIA for yet another horribly botched job. Instead, the same CIA liberals derided for years is now heroic and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has decided - now that the Fitzgerald investigation has fizzled - to dedicate his party to slandering the president.

Meanwhile, they cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war - except in that they believed Bush's "lies."

The episode involving Libby and Wilson, summed up Reid, “is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.”

This is unpatriotic mud-slinging, with a touch of Black Helicopter looniness tossed in. To believe that the White House concocted a fable about WMD in Iraq, you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s CIA director, George Tenet; Bush’s first term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton’s key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations.

A declassified version of the 2002 NIE was released to the public in July 2003. Among its findings:

* “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.”
* “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. . . .”
*
“Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess [that] Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Those who say Bush “lied us into war” based on “manufactured” intelligence are either ignorant or malicious.
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
... "liberals = tin foil hat wearing morons"....


It's aluminum foil, and it's moon-bat, not moron. Wink
shaggly
Sorry to interrupt, being new here, but I wanted to add my tuppence worth in here.

I'm English by birth, lived for 26 years there, moved to the U.S. and lived for 7 years in Michigan, and now I've been in Canada for the last 3 years.

Reason I state this, is that I think it gives me a somewhat unique perspective on the political scenario, as I see it from a few different slants.

I'm a little confused, really, as to the underlying political agenda that your thread subtly references.

To be honest, I don't really give a rat's cahhoney as to whether the invasion was justified or not, but I am curious as to the underlying motives as to why people feel they need to explore the question.

From what I see there are a couple of different camps within this one:-

  1. Obviously, the Republicans. They need to find some sort of justification to prove to themselves and to the public that the initial action was a correct course of action; and that it wasn't motivated by money, revenge, or pursuit of oil resources conquest.

  2. Patriots. I think that a lot of Americans, whilst they may not agree with the politics behind any of it, still feel strongly about supporting their troops and countrymen. I agree with this sentiment. However, I think that as part of this ideal, they also feel that they have to believe in the action behind why their troops are over there. I have to say I don't understand that idea. I think that it's a little weak-minded that you cannot just support the troops, or the army, but that you have to feel that the overall action is justified.


My own take, for what it's worth, is this. I think that the Invasion (and yes, I do say invasion as opposed to war) was triggered out of a mix of Bush finishing off what his Dad had started, and also pecuniary interests.

Pecuniary, you say? You must be mad, this war is costing the taxpayers a fortune. Yes, so it is, but according to who? The figures relating to the cost of the action are released by the Government, and that hardly makes them impartial or unbiased, eh? Also, no one has released any figures on the other side of the overall action - THE INCOME. Yes, it costs a lot of money to keep troops over there, but what about the income side of the equation. You cannot honestly tell me that with a government lead by an Oil Business Man, in occupation of one of the richest Oil producing countries in the world, that there's no income coming back in?

My own belief, which I related to my own countries involvement, is that I would have been in favour of it all, had they been 100% honest about the reasons for it up front. I was against going in, under that bogus pretence of WOMD, and the pursuit of freedom and democracy (yawn, yawn); but I was in favour of going in to invade, remove a madman, and pinch some oil for cheap....

So, I was against my countries involvement, PRIOR TO THEM GOING IN, but I am a strong believer in supporting your countries armed forces, once they get involved. I think that everyone has the right to object prior to going to war with another country, but that once you are actually AT WAR then objection ceases to be objection, and becomes TREASON...

In olden times, if you revolted against King and Country, you were hung for treason. I think in some respects that those days are sadly missed....

Cheers....
lib
Yet again, more slandering of the Democratic Party. Like I said before, I don't really care about what you have to say about the Democratic Party. It doesn't appear to be any more cleaner than the GOP to me.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
The conviction that Saddam had WMDs was shared by France, Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the previous Democratic administration. Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee - now a full member of the "Bush lied" team - said, "I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat."

The commission report I quotes takes into account most previous reports. It clearly states that most reports had erronous information regarding Iraq's WMDs. It seems to me to be taking most foreign reports into account as well. Besides, you must agree that the US has superior spying capabilities and intelligence than most other countries, and if it's own intelligence did fail, then I can't say much about other countries' intelligence reporting the same mistakes.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
To believe that the White House concocted a fable about WMD in Iraq, you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s CIA director, George Tenet; Bush’s first term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton’s key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations.

Irrespective of what the Democratic party believes, I did not say that the Bush administration concocted evidence. I said merely that their intelligence reports were erronous, and Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs. I want to add another point to this argument, but I feel I still need to do a little more research on it.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
A declassified version of the 2002 NIE was released to the public in July 2003. Among its findings:

* “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.”
* “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. . . .”
*
“Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess [that] Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

Those who say Bush “lied us into war” based on “manufactured” intelligence are either ignorant or malicious.

Well, the Presidential commision that I linked you to refers to the NIE a lot, mostly saying that it's information was inaccurate.
Perhaps Bush did not "lie us into a war", however, he did lead the US into war based on faulty intelligence.

@shaggly, good points, especially this one:
Quote:
Also, no one has released any figures on the other side of the overall action - THE INCOME. Yes, it costs a lot of money to keep troops over there, but what about the income side of the equation. You cannot honestly tell me that with a government lead by an Oil Business Man, in occupation of one of the richest Oil producing countries in the world, that there's no income coming back in?
The Philosopher Princess
Initiation of force begets retaliatory force, which begets retaliatory force, ....., resulting in an ever-increasing buildup of force and counter-force, becoming more dangerous and more deadly as it builds.

Strong men (and women) show their strength (and smarts) by not initiating force.

It is the weak men (and women) who must resort to initiating force in order to make up for their lack of strength (and smarts). They don’t know how to get what they want without bullying others into it.

Their insecurity makes them feel unsafe unless they are threatening others. Because they live in fear, the weak use force to cause fear in others, which results in others’ fear boomeranging back (through even more terroristic use of force) until the whole world is submerged in a morass of fear and terrorism.

It would be nice to be able to choose to not take part. Unfortunately, the bullies of the world have made it so that everybody is literally forced to support their terrorism.
LeviticusMky
First, to help you out so that you don't have to read my whole post to decide whether I'm liberal or conservative, I will tell you:

I am very liberal. I am a socialist by most standards.

With that said, here's what I see:

Regardless of whether there were WMDs or not, regardless of whether Saddam was bad, Bush acted without the backing of the global community, and he acted in force.

Both these things are what condemned him in my eyes.

The Iraq situation could have been solved by one easy step: Stop buying oil from Saddam. He was rich with american dollars.

I will say only this, every dollar that went into the war in Iraq would have been much better spent on educating our own populace.
shaggly
LeviticusMky wrote:
I will say only this, every dollar that went into the war in Iraq would have been much better spent on educating our own populace.


But, again, you're not asking the pertinent question: "How much money is being made through this occupation?"

NO Government undertakes an action of this sort, just for the "Good of the World". Sorry, but that would be an extremely naive view of global politics to take. Therefore, there must have been something in it for them, and the only painfully obvious asset over there is OIL.

It was, and still has to be, all about the greenbacks. So in answer to your statement above, the Government obviously weighed up spending the money domestically (for which they would never have got approval) against spending vast amounts of money on a military action abroad and decided that the military action was a better course. Why? Again, we come back to the undeclared income.

Also, look how much additional employment has been generated in the U.S. as a direct result of this invasion and occupation. There are the obvious slots in the Armed Forces, but then there are also all the jobs created in the third party contractors, defence contractors, media, supply chain contractors, etc etc - the list goes on Ad Infinitum.

War has always been a great political tool (if you win) for generating political support, more employment (direct and indirect), nationalistic power (or the perception thereof), and also revenue (from the spoils).

As Edwin Starr said "War, huh, Good God, What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing, say it again."

Not quite Edwin, not quite old chap....
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
Regardless of whether there were WMDs or not, regardless of whether Saddam was bad, Bush acted without the backing of the global community, and he acted in force.


So over 80% of the WORLD is considered 'without the backing of the global community'? Is there a gas leak in your house? Confused
shaggly
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
Regardless of whether there were WMDs or not, regardless of whether Saddam was bad, Bush acted without the backing of the global community, and he acted in force.


So over 80% of the WORLD is considered 'without the backing of the global community'? Is there a gas leak in your house? Confused


S3nd K3ys, m8, I'm afraid to say that you're just pulling figures out of your butt. Where do you get the statistical justification for that 80% remark?

The only means that he had for getting quantifiable backing was through the U.N. and we all know that he failed to secure that backing. Therefore what other statistical basis are you using?

Seems a little like the old "put the wet finger up in the air to see which way the wind's blowing" technique Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
atomictoyz
shaggly wrote:

The only means that he had for getting quantifiable backing was through the U.N. and we all know that he failed to secure that backing.


Go to the UN website and tally the number of active members supporting the war verses not. I have had the discussion with many people who seem to think the US recieved NO backing from the UN based upon the manipulation of the media. Only the most vocals countries (which also are the most deeply involved in OFF) were noted by the media.

So find your way to the UN website and look at the numbers for yourself. Im not sure it's 80 percent and it surely wasn't unanimous but the reality is that the numbers are far different than the media portrays.

There were a few US companies involved in the UN OFF Programe and it's sad but it does reinforce earlier reports of Saddams intentions that every country openly discussed.

What I think the media is missing and most individuals for that matter, is why all of the sudden did Blix back pedal on earlier released comments?

The UN inspection and the US military inspection as far as I know still have not found what they know to be missing. The List of missing items are found also at the UN website. There are 2 positions you can take.

1)The weapons never existed.
2)They still exist but Sadaam through the years knew how to get around the problem. They are yet to be found.

Another side issue is the "faulty" intelligence and Bush lying to everyone.

I wouldn't use the term "faulty" when we all know that Bill Clinton had already started gutting the HUMINT portion of the CIA because he thought it was a sleazy group of people with a history of malicious behavior. Have we forgot the it was during the Clinton Admin that

There are several book available about Covert Ops (SPIES) predating WW2 and how far back into history our problems go. If it wasn't for the intelligence community (spite their failings) we most like would be living in a communist country is living at all.

My opinion of politicians is not so high that I trust what they say and I know that a good portion of them are ignorant Dodo birds who can't match socks. Unfortunately, that is the state of the Union. Lawyers should not be allowed to become politicians because they are not prone to be honest unless there is money in it. We are just now starting to watch the collapse of our Judicial and Political systems due to lack of passion for the truth. Power and other things have began to occupy them. Even the babylonians knew that liberalism unchecked is the common cause of death to a nation. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with standing firm in the face of stupidity.

Democrats and Republicans are both moving towards a goal not in the interests of the country.

I think it would be in this countries best interest to sideline thier selfish partisian politics and finish the job. We know deep down that those with the ability and the opportunity have the responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is no such place where tyranny and oppression does not exist. Maybe in the minds of Utopian fools who hang the responsibility of perfection on others.


Either you disagree with this war because of hatred of Bush
or
You agree with this war because Saddams open rebellion against the UN.

If you disagree with this war, you by the nature of opposites must also agree that 90,000 civilian deaths per year are a tolerable cost to hide and build WMD every chance you get.

We will see after Bush is gone how much the liberal mind really understands the enemy.

Liberality is what is killing us from within and from without.


Check the contents of OBL's last letter... Why did he bombing americans?

Have a nice Monday,
Atomic
S3nd K3ys
shaggly wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
Regardless of whether there were WMDs or not, regardless of whether Saddam was bad, Bush acted without the backing of the global community, and he acted in force.


So over 80% of the WORLD is considered 'without the backing of the global community'? Is there a gas leak in your house? Confused


S3nd K3ys, m8, I'm afraid to say that you're just pulling figures out of your butt. Where do you get the statistical justification for that 80% remark?


Shaggly, I'm afraid you don't know me well. I rarely pull numbers out of my butt. Most of what I post is researched and verified before I post it.

In 2003 there were 49 countries in the coalition publically supporting war with Iraq:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

There were 8 countries that publically opposed the war in Iraq.

Russia
China
Pakistan
Morocco
Germany
France
Canada
New Zealand

Oh, wait, make that 9, I forgot Iraq. Very Happy

That's about 18% not in support of the Iraq (including Iraq Wink ), or 82% supporting it.

Of course, if you hear CNN or BBC talk about it, the entire world was against it from the beginning. (Good thing you don't get all your info from siad sources, eh shaggly?) Shocked
Bondings
S3nd K3ys, how come you list the Marshall Islands (population: 56,429) and forget Belgium (population: 10,445,852)? The Marshall Islands are the 187th country qua population. Where are all those other countries?

But of course countries like Ethiopia and Angola were supporting the war in Iraq. "Support us or no food next year." It's easy to 'buy' those countries.

So why don't you give us a list with countries who send more than 5 soldiers to Iraq? Or countries bigger than a few million people.

You don't believe CNN and BBC, but give us such a list?

By the way, did you know that in the original list Belgium was included in the list of countries supporting the war? I wonder how many other countries were added by mistake. Wink
Ganesheeva
wow...back$in$the$times$where$i$was$uselessly$prying$for$no$innocent$death$of$poor unconcerned childs which dont hav a clue what a mtf' WMD was (weaponofmassdestruction)

Anyway...all$this$made$some$good$music$solidarity,$raised$the$altermoundialismo$at$anunexpected$level$and$caused$very$ useful changes (bouleversements= boule/versements...)

Shocked

now$a$dude come with all the political thesis about usefullity of war...

"war, the more it s crual the sooner it ends "

no,really talking this way must deserve u jail...

Anyway... usefull or use/fool no violence can b justified...it is a pulsion... something$old bestial..wolfic... some think hurted by ground zero, some needed revenge and it's the new hobbie of full politic class taking the heroe suit and being paid for it ... (when the real hero just fight up and get the benefits if he success,$i$would$bet$some$bucks$that$som$think$heroes$will$b$those$of$the$liberation$against$U.S occupation...)

Why the f aren't we at the superbowl'
Because$ u seem to forget easy all the cruelty involvd in this war, made so that it becomes a mix between Occupation Invasion Civil war...

In som words u U.S.A. bringed ur troops and ur historical secession complex in a firestarting country of middle east (called once upon motherland of civilisations...sumerians...etc,where lies the fundations of all judeochretian culture)


Who's the robber


so this all is more an unavoidable trash... a illness pervertings leaders minds..like when a child decide to beat another to steal his money or Happy meal... Twisted Evil

and$after this find reasons to justify his poor action ( he was bad with his bro's ... the band of bro's (BOB=CIA) told me to do it (hit)... oh my god why i did this , maybe i'm the antechrist ; me the skyullbones bohemiaan club satanist vip member... Twisted Evil let's say i'm the messiah, ok rich and permissive parents ?)

that's the way içt work and no official report or more than gig's of propagandia can u make feel better...just keep donating to the big more than thousands natural catastrophies u may b sure Bush has no responsability in (but are they innocent of it ...?)


No$Comments...(but$u$all$took$it$deep'.....yeahman!)

they begun an era of calamities... we all got to assume... not find excuses, complain neither justify... Wink
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
S3nd K3ys, how come you list the Marshall Islands (population: 56,429) and forget Belgium (population: 10,445,852)? The Marshall Islands are the 187th country qua population. Where are all those other countries?

But of course countries like Ethiopia and Angola were supporting the war in Iraq. "Support us or no food next year." It's easy to 'buy' those countries.

So why don't you give us a list with countries who send more than 5 soldiers to Iraq? Or countries bigger than a few million people.

You don't believe CNN and BBC, but give us such a list?

By the way, did you know that in the original list Belgium was included in the list of countries supporting the war? I wonder how many other countries were added by mistake. Wink


Well, gee Bondings, I was just listing the countries that publically supported or did not support the war. How would I POSSIBLY know what the other countries thought? Even if I did guess, would I not get it removed because I couldn't back it up with fact?

If I missed some countries that publically suppored or didn't support it, lets hear about them, (with proof, of course).

And as long as we're on the subject; of the hundres of coutries in the world, do you think none were NOT added to the support list by mistake? Wink
Bondings
Quote:
On Monday, NATO representatives from Belgium, France and Germany vetoed military preparations for the protection of Turkey in case of an Iraq war. Such preventive military planning, they argued, could “send a wrong signal” and subvert any peaceful solution of the Iraq conflict. “If we bowed to this request, we would embark on the logic towards war,” Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel commented.

This veto prompted indignant rebukes from US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who described it as a “shame” and a “terrible mistake.” He declared: “Whoever prevents the Alliance from taking even the most minimal provisions for the defence of Turkey threatens to undermine its credibility.” President Bush publicly accused Berlin, Paris and Brussels of damaging NATO.

Quote:
Belgium says it will use NATO veto to block US attack on Iraq

BRUSSELS: Belgium will use its veto power in NATO to block a US request for the military alliance to support a US-led military strike on Iraq, Foreign Minister Louis Michel said on Sunday.

He said on Belgian television that NATO Secretary General George Robertson would be sent a letter by Monday informing him of the veto. He added that he expected France and Germany also to block the US request. Michel said the Belgian representative to the alliance had already been given instructions to block the US request. “We are in the process, with France and also, I think, Germany, of preparing this letter to exercise our veto right,” he told VRT television. Belgium, France and Germany have been holding up an accord that would allow planners at the 19-nation military alliance to begin drawing up NATO’s contribution to any action against Iraq.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-2-2003_pg4_5

Belgium did everything in its possibiliby to openly oppose the war in Iraq. Some people in Belgium were actually afraid that all US companies would leave the country. (like they would care about something else besides money Laughing )

By the way, I didn't hear an answer about all those small countries. It makes me wonder why they didn't add the Vatican as one of the countries against the war. I thought the pope was against it? Wink

Also, what did we have to do to make us be added on that list? Hire 30 seconds of advertisement time on the Super Bowl and put up "Belgium is openly against the war in Iraq". If you don't search for countries, then you will never find them.
S3nd K3ys
So lets add Belgium to the list. That leaves it at .204 percent against, still very close to 80% (within LESS than a point). Wink
Bondings
S3nd K3ys wrote:
So lets add Belgium to the list. That leaves it at .204 percent against, still very close to 80% (within LESS than a point). Wink

Why don't we use population to calculate those statistics. I bet it will look differently. How on earth can you compare countries of a few 100.000 inhabitants to countries like China with apopulation of over 1.3 billion? By the way, did you notice that your list is filled by either very small countries or third world countries, while the other list isn't? I bet some countries don't even know they are on the list.

It's very easy to list countries like Angola/Ethiopia who don't even have enough food to feed their own people and depend (for some part) on food/money aid from the United States. I never heared them state that they are for the war in Iraq, while I did hear Belgium and other countries claim they were against it.

And you still didn't respond to my question about the type of countries in your list.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:
...
Why don't we ...


Why don't we... keep changing things around until they're irrelevant?

Bottom line is that MOST OF THE WORLD was behind the actions. I've already shown that, of the countries that publically announced their support or non support, 80% did! If you want to go poll the entire population of the earth, be my guest.

Quote:

And you still didn't respond to my question about the type of countries in your list.


This one?

Quote:
So why don't you give us a list with countries who send more than 5 soldiers to Iraq? Or countries bigger than a few million people.


Ok, here's a quicky...

The US has nearly 132,000 troops in Iraq.

The UK has at least 10,000 soldiers in Iraq. Other countries working with UK troops include Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the Czech Republic and New Zealand.

Polish soldiers are commanding a 9,000-strong 21-nation force in the south-central region of Iraq - in a zone between the US and UK-led areas.

Poland is contributing more than 2,000 troops to the force.

Poland, along with most of the former communist countries of central Europe and the Balkans, was a firm supporter of the US-led attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And alone among continental European countries, Poland sent a small military contingent to fight there during the war.

Spain has about 1,300 troops in Iraq, working with the Polish-led zone.

Germany has ruled out sending troops to Iraq, saying it does not have the capacity. It already has 10,000 troops committed in peacekeeping operations around the world, and has pledged to expand its peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, where it already has 1,800 troops.

Ukraine has contributed about 1,000 troops, putting it among the largest contributors of non-US forces. It is working under Polish command in south-central Iraq.

There are more about 2,400 Italians operating in southern Iraq in the UK-led multinational force.

Portugal sent 128 elite police officers to Iraq on the same day as the bombing of the Italian base station in Nasiriya.

More than 2,000 Australian troops fought alongside American and British troops in the campaign.

Japan has said it will delay sending any troops until some time in 2004 because of the security situation in Iraq. Its troops would be intended for humanitarian work, since Japanese forces are barred from armed combat except in self-defence, under the country's pacifist constitution.

The Japanese parliament in July approved the deployment of up to 1,000 personnel to help with reconstruction in Iraq. The deployment would include about 700 peacekeepers and 300 logistical support staff.

South Korea has said it will send no more than 3,000 troops to Iraq.

The Philippines has sent 178 soldiers, policemen and social and health workers to Iraq.

About 400 Thai troops are stationed in the central Iraqi city of Karbala, carrying out humanitarian and reconstruction work.

Bangladesh may contribute peacekeeping troops at a later stage - but only under the flag of the United Nations.

Pakistan would be likely to contribute troops to a multinational peacekeeping force, but only if it was led by the United Nations rather than the US.

India has said it would consider deploying troops if there was an explicit UN mandate.

# India also wants: Differentiation between the multinational force and occupying US-led coalition forces
# The multinational force to be deployed after a request from the Iraqi people.

Keep in mind that 10 countries that supported the effort could not sustain troop involvement...

Angola
Colombia
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Kuwait
Micronesia
Rwanda
Solomon Islands
Uganda
Uzbekistan

Oh, BTW, Canada does not support the Invasion of Iraq and is not a Coalition member but had 31 troops in the theatre as part of an exchange program with the United States military.
shaggly
S3nd K3ys wrote:


In 2003 there were 49 countries in the coalition publically supporting war with Iraq:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

There were 8 countries that publically opposed the war in Iraq.

Russia
China
Pakistan
Morocco
Germany
France
Canada
New Zealand

Oh, wait, make that 9, I forgot Iraq. Very Happy

That's about 18% not in support of the Iraq (including Iraq Wink ), or 82% supporting it.

Of course, if you hear CNN or BBC talk about it, the entire world was against it from the beginning. (Good thing you don't get all your info from siad sources, eh shaggly?) Shocked


I do stand corrected then on these facts. I assume that these were from the UN website. Perhaps quoting the source in future on statistical quotes would be a good idea (for nerds like me Laughing ).

You're quite correct, I don't know you that well, my friend, so I apologise for jumping to conclusions - no offence intended. Very Happy
shaggly
I do wonder though how many of those countries were willing supporters, and how many were co-oersed using political and economic blackmail?
Ganesheeva
some will always give the stick to be beaten with seems... Laughing

u are not depicting effectively the fact that countries were ok to join in war ... but that money and imperialism and capitalism and influent bastard are able to convince other loosers to send troops...

why ? because there was already a " First Gulf War" and that people just got to sell the thing like another organized trip for rich soldiers...

Bah..let Rumsfeld make money on avian flu, Bush on oil.. and roger Moore on Halliburton and pray for the soonest peace possible..this will save some JohnDoe's lives.... Arrow
edallica
lol this guy actually believes that it was ok to go blow up iraq.

lol
S3nd K3ys
edallica wrote:
lol this guy actually believes that it was ok to go blow up iraq.

lol


LoL, this guy actually believes it would have been ok to let Saddam keep building a war machine to take over the middle east and continue murdering women and children.

lol
The Philosopher Princess
I do not deny a certain value in debating the veracity of countries’ loyalties towards the war. However, this does very little towards getting at the truth of actual support for the war. Ultimate support, or lack thereof, depends on individual human beings, not countries.

For example, there are millions of Americans who do not support the war. But this information is so merged with other information that it gets reduced to this
S3nd K3ys wrote:
In 2003 there were... countries in the coalition publically supporting war with Iraq:
...
United States
which is hardly very useful, when in search of the truth that matters.

Or, look at it this way. An individual can renounce their membership in a political party that no longer publicly supports their views -- causing that party to list one fewer person amongst their ranks. That is because individuals have a true choice of switching party membership, or abstaining from political parties altogether.

But an individual cannot equivalently renounce membership from their country. With land monopolized by governmental jurisdictions, and human survivability under the jurisdictional power of governments backed up by military force, there is no true choice to switch memberships or abstain from membership altogether. There is no land where one can go to be free. Freedom supporters are literally forced to be lumped in together with the political bullies.

That’s the power of big government -- and the bullies who support it -- oh, yeah, and the people who legitimize this bullying by voting in their systems (oops, that’s another Frihost thread Smile).
xalophus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
I rarely pull numbers out of my butt. Most of what I post is researched and verified before I post it.

In 2003 there were 49 countries in the coalition publically supporting war with Iraq:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

There were 8 countries that publically opposed the war in Iraq.

Russia
China
Pakistan
Morocco
Germany
France
Canada
New Zealand

Oh, wait, make that 9, I forgot Iraq. Very Happy

That's about 18% not in support of the Iraq (including Iraq Wink ), or 82% supporting it.

Of course, if you hear CNN or BBC talk about it, the entire world was against it from the beginning. (Good thing you don't get all your info from siad sources, eh shaggly?) Shocked


I'm amazed !
Either you know what you are talking about and it is deliberate, or you have the same amount of knowledge of the rest of the world as the average American.

You (your source) conveniently omitted India from the oppsosing nations list. See here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2867027.stm

Now let's add up the number of people on each side of this divide, and let's judge how much of this world actually supports this war, shall we ?

Can you honestly compare countries like Eritria, Georgia, Iceland, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (and many more) to countries like China, Pakistan and India ?
And you think you get a realistic ratio of world opinion ?
Are you so out of logic ?
Are you so desparate for cover ?

I can understand how you feel comfort in the false notion that the world is behind you.
Hate to break it to you, but it is not.

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Why don't we... keep changing things around until they're irrelevant?

No, and we are not trying for things to be like that.
We are working our way back from there. Wink



S3nd K3ys wrote:
I just posted up about 60 kilobytes of data that says the war WAS justified. And I posted it so people like you would stop foolishly claiming there was NO justification, yet you STILL failed to read ANYTHING posted above, didn't you?

I've read the 60 kilobytes of your justifications, you've summed up what they say at the end of your post quite well.

Stockpiles of WMD's - although none of your sources claim stockpiles of WMD's, you still do. Read below

Links to AlQaeda - Again none of your sources claim a link between Iraq(or Saddam) and AlQaeda, but you do. And if you are trying to say that an AlQaeda leader getting treatment or being found hiding in Iraq is a link, then USA is more deeply linked with AlQaeda, because the 9/11 terrorists were living and got their training in USA !

Mass genocide & Killing his own people with WMD's - read below.

I'd like to repost two things (you STILL failed to read ANYTHING posted before, didn't you?)


WMD ?
Quote:
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
The source is the report which was used as a justification for Iraq invasion. This is the intelligence report from CIA to President, This is what the decision was based upon.


Gassing of Kurds ?
Bush and his government (and you) repeatedly used Halabja for demonizing Saddam.
What they don't say is -

that Iran was in possession of Halabja at the time.
that Iran used WMDs there as well.
that even as per their understanding, the deaths in Halabja were due to Iranian WMDs.

Quote:
Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents-and the Iranians do - we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack.
- Appendix B to Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War, Vol . I, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

Threat to USA ?
Count again, the number of American people killed by Iraqis and then compare it to the number of Iraqi people killed by Americans.
You'll immediately see who is a threat to whom.

I suppose that painting of Saddam next to the burning WTC towers is justification ? Rolling Eyes
gonzo
xalophus wrote:
compare countries like Eritria, Georgia, Iceland, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (and many more) to countries like China, Pakistan and India ?


Whoa, patient liberalist minion, what happened to the one world goverment scheme of all equally more important than everyone else?

Quote:
[the world is not on your side]


Can you "honestly claim" justice is a function of consensus?
S3nd K3ys
gonzo wrote:
xalophus wrote:
compare countries like Eritria, Georgia, Iceland, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (and many more) to countries like China, Pakistan and India ?


Whoa, patient liberalist minion, what happened to the one world goverment scheme of all equally more important than everyone else?



LoL!

Quote:

Quote:
[the world is not on your side]


Can you "honestly claim" justice is a function of consensus?


Only if it suits his adjenda. Wink
atomictoyz
shaggly wrote:
I do wonder though how many of those countries were willing supporters, and how many were co-oersed using political and economic blackmail?


I wonder how many countries saw what Saddam had done in Iran and the Kurds and thought it best to let the US enforce what the UN had been dancing around after record numbers of resolutions.

Another question I had, if Bush was indeed the bad guy and committing crimes were significantly evident then why has the UN not drafted a resolution against the US? War Crimes and Whatnot?

If you look at the number of resolutions at the UN website and to whom those resolutions are addressed, there is a pattern of certain countries always stirring it up with thier neighbors and even the citizens of thier own countries.

It's unfortunate, but the UN does use the USA as the enforcer. Check the list of "conflicts" to the list of "resolutions" and correlate the data.

I think the UN needs a fixing so that OFF and Rwanda type incidents do not happen anymore.

I wonder how many lives are lost to the UN's difficulties in drafting and enforcing resolutions in a timely manner.


The reason alot of the countries who are backing the war politically and not militarily is that alot of these countries already have shortages in forces and equipment. Add the difficulties in multilingual warfare and it's safer to stay off the field unless absolutely neccessary.

During the 1st Gulf conflict there were difficulties with proper communications and friendy fire incidences were alot higher than expected.

In 10 years that won't be a problem.


Another thing to toss around.

This war is costing the US economy far more that it can possibly make from any level of profiteering. So it has to be about more than the dollar.

The US is in the process of killing military programs and taking multibillion dollars hits to corporations and laying people off. The exact opposite is happening than what the Micheal Moores of the world think. But why hasn't the media been all over this? We laid off 20% of the engineers where I work. Over 120million in cuts over 2 years and now it looks like we won't survive the Chistmas holidays.

Yeah... we spend alot on the military....

But most of that has to do with the cost of living in the cities where military items are built.

But condoms are free Wink


Peace,
Atomic
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
This war is costing the US economy far more that it can possibly make from any level of profiteering. So it has to be about more than the dollar.

The US is in the process of killing military programs and taking multibillion dollars hits to corporations and laying people off. The exact opposite is happening than what the Micheal Moores of the world think. But why hasn't the media been all over this?




And no matter how much we spend, in dollars and lives, trying to prevent civilian deaths, we're accused of being murderers.
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
...

For example, there are millions of Americans who do not support the war. But this information is so merged with other information that it gets reduced to this
S3nd K3ys wrote:
In 2003 there were... countries in the coalition publically supporting war with Iraq:
...
United States
which is hardly very useful, when in search of the truth that matters.
....


Like I said, if you want to go poll the entire population of the earth, be my guest. Otherwise, the majority of the US population was for the war in Iraq when we went there. It wasn't until the media started only showing the bad things and not the good over there that support declined.
shaggly
gonzo wrote:
Whoa, patient liberalist minion


I like it. What a good comeback, Gonzo.

I also liked this comment...

atomictoyz wrote:
Another question I had, if Bush was indeed the bad guy and committing crimes were significantly evident then why has the UN not drafted a resolution against the US? War Crimes and Whatnot?


Interesting idea. I was always under the impression that in modern history, basically since WW2, that when a sovereign nation invades another sovereign nation, that it was considered an illegal act of aggression.

Let's look at the definition of Invasion. This is from Webster's Online Dictionary - http://www.m-w.com/ -

Quote:
invasion
One entry found for invasion.
Main Entry: in·va·sion
Pronunciation: in-'vA-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Middle French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade
1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful"

PAGE LINK


Funny enough, underneath, the Google context ad points to Google Earth and a link to Iraq Maps !!!

So, can anyone tell me how the US operation differed in definition from number 1. above or in fact number 2???

So, assuming that the action was by definition of one of the world's oldest dictionaries, an "Invasion", shouldn't the perpetrators be punished?

Now, I do note that the last part of the definition is "for conquest or plunder". So, if there is no plundering or conquering going on, then why are the U.S. still there?

From the start, the only main thing that I've objected to is the interference in a countries internal politics. Persia has been having these sorts of disputes for well over 2,000 years. I still don't see what possible right a country less than 300 years old has to interfere in a time honoured tradition of self-population culling.

You simply cannot bring the Western defined system of Democracy to a nation that has had over 2,000 years of history of a feudal leadership system. It won't work, as we're seeing today. Besides, who's to say who's system is correct. The Middle Eastern system of leadership has evolved over a lot of time, whereas the modern system of democracy is still relatively new (in terms of world history), and really it hardly seems very effective.

Ah well, sorry about the rant. I hope you can follow my twists and turns. As you may be able to tell, I haven't got my morning fix of coffee in yet. I think I'll go and put the kettle on.... Razz :-
lib
gonzo wrote:
Can you "honestly claim" justice is a function of consensus?

So what do you want to do now? Claim that justice is a function of the most powerful? Rolling Eyes

source
Doesn't look like 80% based on the size of the countries.
Yet, perhaps this map wouldn't appeal much to you because it's a physical representation based on the countries' sizes.
Talking about populace,
white house site wrote:

# The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.

source
S3nd K3ys wrote:
There were 8 countries that publically opposed the war in Iraq.
...
China

China alone has a population of 1.3 billion.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
if you want to go poll the entire population of the earth, be my guest.

No, thank you. Apparently, neither will you.
But if you want to take the government's stand as the stand of the population of that country, well, one single country that did not support the Iraq war has outpopulated the 49 countries that supported the war. Now what was that about 80% of the world supporting the Iraq War?
S3nd K3ys wrote:
So over 80% of the WORLD is considered 'without the backing of the global community'?

Would you like to redefine "global community" now?

PS: S3nd, I see where you got your list of countries that supported the war (The White House Gov Site), but where did you get your list of countries that opposed it. Perhaps if you say that you comiled it yourself, then it could also mean that you could have missed quite a few countries that were opposed to the war.

gonzo wrote:
Can you "honestly claim" justice is a function of consensus?

By the way, isn't the American judicial system based on the consensus reached by 12 members of a jury? Confused
xalophus
gonzo wrote:
what happened to the one world goverment scheme of all equally more important than everyone else?

you can keep faith in that scheme, just be aware that if you are having to pad up your supporters' list with countries of a few thousand people, you are indeed running out of friends.

I'm trying to point out that you are using the wrong units of measurement here.

gonzo wrote:
Can you "honestly claim" justice is a function of consensus?

I think the word you'd want to use is "majority" and not "consensus".
And yes, Justice is a function of majority.
or as we see here, it becomes the bully's bimbo.

Also, it seems unfair that only you have the right to use "majority backing" as a justification.
S3nd K3ys wrote:
So over 80% of the WORLD is considered 'without the backing of the global community'? Is there a gas leak in your house?


Please don't claim that Iraq was a threat to the whole world, because "the whole world" did not see it that way.


gonzo wrote:
Whoa, patient liberalist minion

"liberalist minion" ?
do I have to be that if I say something you don't like ?
or is it the other way round ?
do you know which political side I am on ?
or do you always resort to calling names when arguing ?
atomictoyz
shaggly wrote:

I also liked this comment...

atomictoyz wrote:
Another question I had, if Bush was indeed the bad guy and committing crimes were significantly evident then why has the UN not drafted a resolution against the US? War Crimes and Whatnot?


Interesting idea. I was always under the impression that in modern history, basically since WW2, that when a sovereign nation invades another sovereign nation, that it was considered an illegal act of aggression.


I sort of answered the question to why no resolutions have been drafted against the US already. Look for the word enforcer in my previous post.

Something else to ponder!

If were going to define some words lets start with the "political" definitions of:
Sovereign?
Illegal?
Global Authority?


We know that word definitions morph over time because of cultural influences so it might be difficult to use a dictionary in trying to define these words.

So who get to define these words?

In one sense, Saddam is not a ruler over a "Sovereign Nation" because he took over Iraq by force and subversive methods. If Saddams take over was legal according to the UN, then it cannot say that the US taking over Iraq is not legal?

If the UN is the global authority then they get to define the words and they also determine legality of actions.


Wikipedia:
Quote:
On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal. He cited the lack of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war.


The UN determined via 16 or so resolutions that Iraq was in breach and that the UN was going to do something...when is anybodies guess. Since a majority did vote for the resolution at what point does the resolution become invalid? Do resolutions have to have an unanimous vote?

There seems to be a double standard at the UN.

If the War indeed is illegal like Annan said then why has not the UN drafted a reolution drafted?

What would te point be? If the UN cannot address resolution pertaining to Iraqs continual breaches what are the chances of the UN being able to do anything about the US?

The UN leaders made themselves ineffective. Everyone knows it and thats why Saddam did what he could. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan...etc etc...

Blackhawk Down was the beginning of the UN's end.


Too Little..

Too Late...

UNreliable...

Corrupt...

Now what?

Since when has imperialism been wrong?

Only recently.....


Peace,
Atomic
gonzo
lib wrote:

Doesn't look like 80% based on the size of the countries.


Since when is democracy a function of landmass?


Quote:
China alone has a population of 1.3 billion.


oh, I must have missed it. When did the Chinese empower themselves to take an active role in their government?

lib wrote:
gonzo wrote:
Can you "honestly claim" justice is a function of consensus?

By the way, isn't the American judicial system based on the consensus reached by 12 members of a jury? Confused


no
Paul Knight
1. The War was illegal. We needed to get a resolution passed that didn't get passed.
2. Saddam hussain was a genocidal pig and deserves life with hard labour.
3. The War was justified(although not legal) to remove a dictator of the worst kind.
4. Although I believe there were WMD's, there was never proof of significant quantity before the invasion. (ie: enough to wipe out Israel). The allies should have gone to War to kick Saddam's butt because he was a murderer, who needed to go on trial. Under his leadership the state of Iraq becomes an outlaw state.

Nice report btw. Some good points made.
LumberJack
There are bigger fish to fry in the world than Iraq. Although, the United States is the reason why Iraq is in such a bad state. So I guess your country is obligated to fix it. Too bad your making it worse.
riyadh
I think Bush is going a bit too far with the war on Iraq. Yes, I do agree that Saddam was a cruel man but that doesn't mean you have to destroy a whole country just to capture one man. If hundreds of people die in Iraq it is of no importance but if one US soldier is killed Bush makes the headlines with his oh so boring topic about the war on terrorism. I think it's high time USA left stopped butting in other people's businesses and the public who give him the support he needs.
Laz
I think this whole war crap is so bad.
Bush is a very very rare person as for he is so stupid. I hate to say it.
Amercians are fine but Bush seems to give USA a very bad name.
Im sorry for all you USA people out there.
Bush cant even pronuce the word "Nukeyalar" how ever you spell it.
Quite frankly I think this world would be better without him and better with some one like one of those peresednts of that big rock. Razz Mt Something starts with F i think.
Insaniac
Great timing, the war is already over, just some rebels and you go posting about the "war"? Every1 knows Bush was right, even if they dont want to admit it. Saddam was a crazy dictator and he had to be nutralized.
atomictoyz
riyadh wrote:
I think Bush is going a bit too far with the war on Iraq. Yes, I do agree that Saddam was a cruel man but that doesn't mean you have to destroy a whole country just to capture one man. If hundreds of people die in Iraq it is of no importance but if one US soldier is killed Bush makes the headlines with his oh so boring topic about the war on terrorism. I think it's high time USA left stopped butting in other people's businesses and the public who give him the support he needs.


The number of people dying per year under Saddam was 90,000 civilians.
We watched Saddam gas his own people and he continued time after time to reconstitute his WMD arsenal. Millions of Iranians died during the Iran/Iraq war.

It's the media that makes it seems like the US doesn't care about Iraqi's and makes such a big deal about soldiers deaths, but those who sacrificed thier lives did so because they care about people who are oppressed. Don't let the anti-war liberals convince you otherwise.

The country was destroyed by Saddam, the US is trying to rebuild it to the Pre Saddam Glory. Yes, prior to Saddam, Iraq was one of the most advanced countries as far as culture and education.

The US could do a better job, but the UN needs to do thier job. SO far in the last 20 years over 2 million people have died because of genocides the UN refused to do anything about. The US cannot stand by and watch "Rwanda" happen all over again.

If you want the US to butt out of everyone business then you better keep praying another Hitler doesn't come into power. Or Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam......


Peace,
Atomic
atomictoyz
LumberJack wrote:
There are bigger fish to fry in the world than Iraq. Although, the United States is the reason why Iraq is in such a bad state. So I guess your country is obligated to fix it. Too bad your making it worse.


Iraq was a beautiful Country prior to Saddam and the Ba-athist Party.

Saddam did what all dictators did. Sucked the wealth and culture out of the people and began terminating anyone who disagreed. The US is trying to rebuild that Iraq that existed prior to Saddam. The anti-US media is not showing the postive side of the War, the reconstruction of all the infrastructure.

Peace,
Atomic
shaggly
atomictoyz wrote:


Iraq was a beautiful Country prior to Saddam and the Ba-athist Party.

Saddam did what all dictators did. Sucked the wealth and culture out of the people and began terminating anyone who disagreed. The US is trying to rebuild that Iraq that existed prior to Saddam. The anti-US media is not showing the postive side of the War, the reconstruction of all the infrastructure.

Peace,
Atomic


Errr, correct me if I am wrong, but was it not the same United States that supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war for however many years it was?

Was it not also the same United States that, in supporting him during this era, consolidated his rule, and also condoned it to the international community?

I find it absolutely comical that the U.S. just keeps on repeating it's mistakes in international polocy time and time again.

How many South American countries have the U.S. interfered with, to "F" up?

They covertly support a revolutionary force with arms and financial aid. They give these guys enough backing to provide them with the means to take over their countries (a lot of times via force) and then wonder why the "worms turn" when they get power.

It's pretty simple really. When someone takes the route of using force to obtain leadership, why on Earth is it so confusing when they become dictators afterwards. They spend time using force, and it gets them powerful friends and fast results - why is it then such an alien concept that they'll continue to use that same force when in power?

Perhaps if the United States quit interfering in the power plays of other countries, they wouldn't get bit by the long term ramifications of their meddling.

Iraq is a popular topic, sure, but how many other countries are in the process of, or going to spawn problems in the future because of "covert" actions by the United States' Government?
atomictoyz
It is a similar US, but not the same US.

The motives of any country are never pure, they never have and never will be. If you look at why the US uses covert activites and why they choose the countries that they do there is a balance. International balacing game in which not everything works the way you want. Iran at the time was a huge threat and Saddam was just a pimple. He was a tool used to help keep Iran in check. They certainly could not have known he was a nutball right? Rolling Eyes

I don't agree with alot of what the US does or how they go about it, but I don't agree with doing nothing at all either. We tried isolationism already.

World peace is not a spectator sport. It requires alot of discipline, power and patience.

Are you ok with genocide?

How many millions can die globally before somebody speak up?

I feel that global politics have gotten more difficult. The screw ups of the past have to be dealth with and we have to learn to fix them as we go. We tried walking away once before... that didn't work either.

My point originally was to point out Saddam messed it up. We used him, it backfired but at the time it seemed like a good idea. But what were the options? Iran having no resistance in a volitile area of the world? Who knows, but you don't have cystal ball. 20/20 hindsight is great, it woulld have been great if the Japanese or the Nazis would have had one.

Peace,
Dennis
S3nd K3ys
Laz wrote:
... but Bush seems to give USA a very bad name.


Bush doesn't give the US a bad name, the media that hates him and will do ANYTHING to make him look bad give the US a bad name.
SunburnedCactus
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Laz wrote:
... but Bush seems to give USA a very bad name.


Bush doesn't give the US a bad name, the media that hates him and will do ANYTHING to make him look bad give the US a bad name.


Yes, but he doesn't exactly make it difficult for them to do that...
S3nd K3ys
SunburnedCactus wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Laz wrote:
... but Bush seems to give USA a very bad name.


Bush doesn't give the US a bad name, the media that hates him and will do ANYTHING to make him look bad give the US a bad name.


Yes, but he doesn't exactly make it difficult for them to do that...


You missed the point. All you see is what the BBC or Reuters or AP etc or other sources in the UK want you to see. (My in-laws live there, and last year when they were here they said the media does NOTHING but bash Bush.)Therefore it's all bad. No matter WHAT Bush does, it's bad. Even if it's good.
yzy
People always live in a smoke of gunpowder environment and dread,are they still have any hope.
Quote:
Former US President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

Clinton cited the lack of planning for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

Clinton's remarks came when he was taking questions about the U.S. invasion, which began in 2003. His response drew cheers and a standing ovation at the end of the hour-long session.

Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.

The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

As the borders were unsealed, "the terrorists came in," he said.

Clinton said it would have been better if the United States had left Iraq's "fundamental military and social and police structure intact."

Democrats are accusing President Bush of having misled the American public about the urgency of the Iraqi threat before his order to invade, and Bush on Monday threw back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed about Saddam.

"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now," Bush charged.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld continued Bush's attack, citing the words of Clinton and others from his administration as saying Saddam was a security threat to the United States and its allies.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld noted the Iraq Liberation Act that Congress passed in 1998 had said it should be U.S. government policy to support Saddam's removal from power. He noted that Clinton signed the act and ordered four days of bombing in December 1998.

Recent opinion polls show Bush as having the lowest approval rating of his presidency. In AP-Ipsos polling, a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.
LumberJack
Please allow me to educate you.


The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). But there is another exception allowing for the use of force, and the United States has simultaneously been pursuing this track in arguing that an attack on Iraq would be justified. This exception is found in Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and applies to situations in which the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

Resolution 1441 was poorly worded and left many things open to interpretation, which is part of the reason why things too so long in the UN. While the resolution makes clear that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply with the resolution's demands. It does not make it clear that non compliance automatically will allow the USA to use military force, France would have never allowed that to pass. Which is why you are saying freedom fries instead of french fries.


Iraq WMDs:

I do not understand why Americans still believe that there is weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, when the UN and even the US Government says they could not find any.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/


All you could find is intent and a bunch of "likely's" and spare parts which may have been a result from previous resolutions for Iraq to disarm, alas we will never know. For a nation that was so certain that there were weapons, you certainely fell on your face on that one.


Saddam-al Qaeda links:


Some relatively current links to justify why your evidence is just as good as Micheal Moores Bush-Bin Laden Theory. Once again, a lot of could have, and circumstancial evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/page/2/


Saddam's genocide:

I agree that this is a reason why force could have been used, and I don't generally agree with the evidence trying to dismiss his genocides, it is very easy to hide bodies (not that i would know) Razz.

However , It is too bad that this was not one of the reasons brought forward by your administration to go into Iraq (you could argue that the finally mentioned it after everything else was shot down), and it is too bad that the United States finally thinks that he should be brought to justice 15 some years after the fact, when you already had a gulf war and never seemed to have cared about the genocide in the first place.

Another reason why I think that the American AdministrationI does not give a crap about genocides is the Darfour, Africa genocide and your hesistation do declare it a genocide, despite obvious evidence. This is disturbing when you declare it a reason for your rush to go to war in Iraq, but then again, Africa only has sand and not oil, right? Wink

For those individual americans who believe that the war was justified because of Genocide, and support immedate action on other genocides occuring in the world, then I have no issues with you.


Saddam & 9/11: (sketchy)

From your own presidents mouth. Posted on the whitehouse website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

And a current quote to help re-enforce the fact, since the link above it a bit outdated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm


Saddam's Regional Threat

The entire middle east has been full of regional threats, international threats before America was even a concept and even goes back into the times of Jesus. It is not our job to bring stabilty to a region, because if you don't have the local populations support, then all you are doing is occupying a region. However, it is our obligation to help people resisting persecution, oppression, and violence, especally if there is a cry for help from those people.

1. The Iraqi's never really shown an interest in liberating themselves that met my threshold in sending my forces over there. Even today, it seems you have more Iraqi's being recruited to use against you, instead of with you. (no evidence for that though). Evidence for local support with regards to your presence is weak considering the difficulties you have trying to root out opponents. You should have won the people over first, before you de-stablized the entire region.

2. One of the problems that the United States has is that they are totally obvious to the culture of the middle east. There are hundreds of generations of hatred bred into some cultures, and that is not going to disappear with any sorry excuse for a democracy. People down there are desprate and are willing to cling to any sign of hope and fundamentalists take advantage of that using religion. (ie. how they are able to brainwash many people to blow themselves). You cannot stablize the region without choosing a side, and by doing so, you are naturally going to create opposition. The best thing for the middle east right now would be the attempt to educate and eliminate poverty, to cutoff the supply of recruits to terrorists, and try to get a population to think for themselves and have something to live for, and something to fear losing.


My final two cents:

- There are some people on this board that don't like the fact that the US military is held to higher standards that the terrorists. To those people, I say that you are disgusting americans and a disgrace to your country. America is a nation that hold life, liberty and freedoms in high regard, and is one of the worlds most civilized nations. However, these people seem to want to bring America down to terrorists level, and advocate the use of torture and extreme unneccessary violence. If that is the road that America wants to take, that is fine, it is your decision that I will have no part of. However, keep in mind, as outraged you are about your citizens being be-headed, there is just as many outraged on the other side about Abu Ghraib Prison, and the torture allegations that press just got wind of. There by proving al Qaeda propaganda for them, and giving them more people who are willing to blow themselves up over it.

- Pictures of people holding up American flags, and pieces of paper with writing on it supporting the war is nice, but useless. There is just as many people burning american flags, and bush representations, and even more firing bullets at your troops.

- Keep in mind that the USA did help bring Saddam Hussein to power. Your past foreign policy has helped to bring you to this moment. If I were you I would stop and think about where you have gone, and where you want to go from here.



Finally, even if you don't agree with the evidence I just posted, the fact that there is all this evidence questioning previous evidence, and uncertainty behind facts, means only one thing. That the war in Iraq should have never happened when there is so many unanswered questions (and still unanswered questions). I find it appalling that no one seems to want to think for themselves, and question question question evidence. That was your media's job and they failed miserably. The world tried to tell you no, and you pretty much told the world to screw off. ... if only America would only open its eyes a little wider.

It is 4:30am now. I am going to bed o_O Sorry if there is some weird sentences in there, it is late, and I will edit in the morning.
lawtherj
You did a great job of documenting the progression to war. The congress had the same information as the president.
LumberJack
atomictoyz wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
There are bigger fish to fry in the world than Iraq. Although, the United States is the reason why Iraq is in such a bad state. So I guess your country is obligated to fix it. Too bad your making it worse.


Iraq was a beautiful Country prior to Saddam and the Ba-athist Party.

Saddam did what all dictators did. Sucked the wealth and culture out of the people and began terminating anyone who disagreed. The US is trying to rebuild that Iraq that existed prior to Saddam. The anti-US media is not showing the postive side of the War, the reconstruction of all the infrastructure.

Peace,
Atomic


o_O

What positve side? Reconstruction is painstakingly slow...
atomictoyz
LumberJack wrote:


Please allow me to educate you.


About your personal views. Ok.

But I’m going to stir the pot.

Quote:

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII). But there is another exception allowing for the use of force, and the United States has simultaneously been pursuing this track in arguing that an attack on Iraq would be justified. This exception is found in Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and applies to situations in which the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

Resolution 1441 was poorly worded and left many things open to interpretation, which is part of the reason why things too so long in the UN. While the resolution makes clear that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply with the resolution's demands. It does not make it clear that non compliance automatically will allow the USA to use military force, France would have never allowed that to pass. Which is why you are saying freedom fries instead of french fries.


The UN resolutions were empty because Saddam accused the UN of being the agent of the US Zionists. If the UN had no intentions of enforcing the resolutions why write them up. I think the UN roles in this fiasco will come soon enough. France was in bed with Saddam, the sale of over a billion dollars worth of F-1’s Mirages helped lower France’s price per barrel.


Quote:

Iraq WMDs:

I do not understand why Americans still believe that there is weapons of mass distruction in Iraq, when the UN and even the US Government says they could not find any.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/


All you could find is intent and a bunch of "likely's" and spare parts which may have been a result from previous resolutions for Iraq to disarm, alas we will never know. For a nation that was so certain that there were weapons, you certainely fell on your face on that one.


Intent is a valid concern, and they did not understand the intent which led the US to miss a few opportunities to stop terrorism from gaining as much momentum as it had. The media which has been pretty much anti-Bush alongside a lot of the foreign media really does not highlight the parts of the WMD search that causes concern. Most parents would not think twice about ransacking their children’s bedroom if they noticed particular patterns of behavior and certain devices yet the same logical thinking that brought them to that conclusion is not supposed to be a valid line of reasoning? Probable cause? If you do not use Intent and probable cause then the only thing left would be reactionary to the events seen on 911. Intent and Probable cause are the foundations of crime prevention.
What I find odd about the mindset of a lot of the current line of criticism is that we are using 20/20 hindsight to make a determination to whether we had justification. At the time, there was probable cause and a history of intent that Saddam was doing what everyone thought he was.

Extracted from THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Chemical Weapons.

Quote:

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.


Biological Weapons.

Quote:


Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax


Missiles.
Quote:

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.


Another Blix Quote:
Quote:

Blix: First of all, I think one must be aware that the Iraqis would not have moved one inch without political and military pressure. I took part in Secretary Kofi Annan's discussions with Iraqis last summer and I'm quite sure they would not have moved but for that. It's fine with public opinion and with the Arab League and many others urging them to accept inspections, but they would not have accepted inspections had it not been for the U.S. pressure. And this has to remain there. Even now I think the pressure is a necessary element. The threat of force is important and vital, but the use of force is awful.


Yet Mr. Blix accused the US of fabricating evidence when it was Blix who provided the answer to the international community via the UN reports that there was more to the story then jumping on the anti-US bandwagon. Did Blix lie to the UN or did he lie to the media? He can’t have it both ways.

Corroborating the evidence.
Blix and UNSCOM confirmed through independent inspections the US and British Intelligence was saying.

When dealing with international incidents you only have 2 options, preventative or reactionary. Looking at our intelligence dilemma you’re rolling the dice in which neither is acceptable.



Quote:

Saddam-al Qaeda links:


Some relatively current links to justify why your evidence is just as good as Micheal Moores Bush-Bin Laden Theory. Once again, a lot of could have, and circumstancial evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/page/2/



Again you are trying to use 20/20 hindsight. Please review my comments on Intent and Probable cause.

Furthermore,
IF you do some research on Dr. Laurie Mylorie you will see a connection to Iraq and Osama. Dr. Mylorie is the leading expert whereas most journalists are not. Typically I see a play on words between Saddam and Osama and Iraq and Osama, the two relationships are completely different.

But does the connection really matter?

One major concept that seems needs to be brought to the table is Iran and Syria, both who do not want Iraq to be a democracy. It would be in Syria and Iran’s best political and military interests to oust Saddam. Could there be a link to the Ba-athist leadership using propaganda to implicate Saddam and get him removed?


Quote:

Saddam's genocide:

I agree that this is a reason why force could have been used, and I don't generally agree with the evidence trying to dismiss his genocides, it is very easy to hide bodies (not that i would know) .

However , It is too bad that this was not one of the reasons brought forward by your administration to go into Iraq (you could argue that the finally mentioned it after everything else was shot down), and it is too bad that the United States finally thinks that he should be brought to justice 15 some years after the fact, when you already had a gulf war and never seemed to have cared about the genocide in the first place.

Another reason why I think that the American AdministrationI does not give a crap about genocides is the Darfour, Africa genocide and your hesistation do declare it a genocide, despite obvious evidence. This is disturbing when you declare it a reason for your rush to go to war in Iraq, but then again, Africa only has sand and not oil, right?

For those individual americans who believe that the war was justified because of Genocide, and support immedate action on other genocides occuring in the world, then I have no issues with you.

My main support comes from the genocide. I have chastised often the liberals who say that genocide was not a good enough yet Rwanda highlighted we need to act quicker just to say were humans. Somewhere on the internet I have a dissertation on the problem of genocide in the last 50 years. I can’t remember where it is but Google provided many better links. Basically I was ashamed that Americans and other were OK with the death rate under UN sanctions and that liberating humans from Saddam was not a good enough reason. During WW2 there were American who did not think we should have liberated France and other parts of Europe.

Quote:

Saddam & 9/11: (sketchy)

From your own presidents mouth. Posted on the whitehouse website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

And a current quote to help re-enforce the fact, since the link above it a bit outdated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm


I actually do believe there is a direct link. Here is why.
Covert Intelligence and the operations used by the US government and most other governments use techniques that are well known. Meetings and knowledge transfers are operated in such a way that you cannot trace the event. Plausible Deniability and Leave No Trace. I am trained in these techniques. I have to have annual counterintelligence briefings and a book that tells me how to avoid various scenarios. The type of work I used to be involved in required lying to family members, doing background checks on “new friends”, driving like I’m lost and looking like a tourist.
To an observer, I would look like a tourist asking for directions where in reality something completely would be happening. This technique is the one that keeps most Mobsters out of jail as well as prevents covert operatives from being caught in foreign countries. When I see a lack of an obvious connection where I know there should be one it usually tells me something more sinister and dangerous has taken place. But you never really can tell can you. Go to the CIA, FOIA lookup and search for PSYWAR by Forgery.

But it’s never that simple when you’re an outside observer.

The Intelligence Dilemma

When HUMINT is completely subject to whether or not you’re being told the truth or not, how does one react to not know whether to believe or not to believe?

It is reported that the US was given false information by captured Al-Qaeda members and if that is true, where does one decide to act or not to act upon this information.

The Intelligence people are the same intelligence people that failed to predict 9-11 even though the information was there, is the same intelligence that led the US to believe Iraq was imminently dangerous.

If the CIA did not take serious the pre 9-11-2001 chatter, and we witnessed the results, why would President Bush trust that those same people were right about Saddam not being a threat? Considering the amount of damage done in New York on 9-11-2001 and the loss of life, how do you gamble American lives when you realize the ineptness of your own Intelligence Community?

What if the intelligence prevented the 9-11-2001 disaster by believing the chatter yet were wrong about Iraq and Saddam launched WMD against Iran or even the US causing millions if lives?

The intelligence community were wrong in both cases, yet Bush had no idea how backwards the truth was. There were a lot of contradictory reports. Which do you trust?


When we look at the US intelligence community we can see that it was not only Bush, but Bill Clinton as well. During the Clinton years, 2 countries not only had developed illegal nuclear capability, but they did it under the watchful eye of the IAEA and CIA without being caught.

All of this poor intelligence was under the Directorship of George Tenet. There were more attacks on US interests during Tenet tenure than any other.

Considering how wrong we were…. It could have been much worse than 2 towers, and under 10,000 American Lives thus far.

With all the liberal pundits, media personalities and left wing politicians slinging mud at President Bush there is an obvious failure of Intelligence in America. Americans have become so dumbed down as a whole, they can’t see past the beer can and Cheetoes.

Anyone who really understands the Balance of Powers in the US government knows that Bush wields very little power and therefore cannot be faulted right?



Congress is at fault.

Congressmen and women are the ones who introduced and passed budget cuts that systematically gutted the intelligence community of the tools required to do a decent job.

Congressmen and women are the ones who authorized War.

Congressmen and women are the ones who failed to give the military the money required to buy armor.

The best Bush could muster is a veto. (Balance of power)

A safe America required a good defense.

Prior to Bush Jr., Bill Clinton had dropped defense and intelligence spending to a low point where we practically invited an attack on western civilization.

If America wants open borders, small defense systems, lots of social programs and free porn, then it has to learn to deal with sleeping in the bed you’ve made.

Let’s see how great the government works after the liberal democrats dismantle the military and intelligence community in the coming months.

I can’t wait until America votes a liberal democrat into the Presidency while having a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. More covert nuclear programs in rogue states, more terrorism, more immoral behavior being legalized, free abortions paid for by taxes, less security, less defense, less intelligence and less foresight into why we were attacked in the first place. Yay!

You can disagree all you want, but that does not constitute you being correct.

Saddam Lied about his WMD
Detainees Lied about his WMD
Chalabi Lied about WMD
UNSCOM continually raised questions about compliance
Tenet manipulated Bush and Clinton
The list is a lot longer but you might get the idea.

Intelligence has always been analogous to Russian roulette. Sometimes you’re right and sometimes your not.




Quote:

Saddam's Regional Threat

The entire middle east has been full of regional threats, international threats before America was even a concept and even goes back into the times of Jesus. It is not our job to bring stabilty to a region, because if you don't have the local populations support, then all you are doing is occupying a region. However, it is our obligation to help people resisting persecution, oppression, and violence, especally if there is a cry for help from those people.

1. The Iraqi's never really shown an interest in liberating themselves that met my threshold in sending my forces over there. Even today, it seems you have more Iraqi's being recruited to use against you, instead of with you. (no evidence for that though). Evidence for local support with regards to your presence is weak considering the difficulties you have trying to root out opponents. You should have won the people over first, before you de-stablized the entire region.

2. One of the problems that the United States has is that they are totally obvious to the culture of the middle east. There are hundreds of generations of hatred bred into some cultures, and that is not going to disappear with any sorry excuse for a democracy. People down there are desprate and are willing to cling to any sign of hope and fundamentalists take advantage of that using religion. (ie. how they are able to brainwash many people to blow themselves). You cannot stablize the region without choosing a side, and by doing so, you are naturally going to create opposition. The best thing for the middle east right now would be the attempt to educate and eliminate poverty, to cutoff the supply of recruits to terrorists, and try to get a population to think for themselves and have something to live for, and something to fear losing.


Oppression and Terrorism are powerful tools. I know that there is a lot of work to do yet. Saddam was a regional threat, you can ask the Iranians about the specifics and more than likely the Kuwaiti’s will have something to say. Not many of the Kurds in Northern Iraq talk much after being gassed.

Quote:

My final two cents:

- There are some people on this board that don't like the fact that the US military is held to higher standards that the terrorists. To those people, I say that you are disgusting americans and a disgrace to your country. America is a nation that hold life, liberty and freedoms in high regard, and is one of the worlds most civilized nations. However, these people seem to want to bring America down to terrorists level, and advocate the use of torture and extreme unneccessary violence. If that is the road that America wants to take, that is fine, it is your decision that I will have no part of. However, keep in mind, as outraged you are about your citizens being be-headed, there is just as many outraged on the other side about Abu Ghraib Prison, and the torture allegations that press just got wind of. There by proving al Qaeda propaganda for them, and giving them more people who are willing to blow themselves up over it.

- Pictures of people holding up American flags, and pieces of paper with writing on it supporting the war is nice, but useless. There is just as many people burning american flags, and bush representations, and even more firing bullets at your troops.

Pictures speak louder than words and pictures of actions speak volumes. Considering the past records of the relationship to communism and the media I see an effective Psyops organization doing their jobs. Whether you realize it or not, the old Soviet, German and French communists are working hard to get a foothold into the Middle East.

Quote:

- Keep in mind that the USA did help bring Saddam Hussein to power. Your past foreign policy has helped to bring you to this moment. If I were you I would stop and think about where you have gone, and where you want to go from here.


This is a false accusation without basis. Saddam was a Ba-athist who murdered and executed many people in a coup. The USSR and France have always been the largest supporter of Saddam‘s military capability.


Quote:

Finally, even if you don't agree with the evidence I just posted, the fact that there is all this evidence questioning previous evidence, and uncertainty behind facts, means only one thing. That the war in Iraq should have never happened when there is so many unanswered questions (and still unanswered questions). I find it appalling that no one seems to want to think for themselves, and question question question evidence. That was your media's job and they failed miserably. The world tried to tell you no, and you pretty much told the world to screw off. ... if only America would only open its eyes a little wider.

It is 4:30am now. I am going to bed o_O Sorry if there is some weird sentences in there, it is late, and I will edit in the morning.
_________________
I'm a LumberJack and I'm Ok

What you posted was not evidence. What you posted were commentaries. The evidence, according to Hans Blix, Charles Duelfer and David Kay suggested that we had a problem that needed looking into. It was clear to Hans that without the threat of military action, Saddam would do nothing. The oil for food program proved yet again that he was bent on acquiring WMD.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html This is quite extensive on the investigation after the fact. Part of the problem you will see that Saddam overstated his WMD because of creating fear amongst his Iranian enemies. Saddam shot himself in the foot. Saddam himself lied about WMD. Hans Blix, David Kay and Charles Duelfer added to the problem by creating uncertainty. Saddam’s past behavior made everyone mistrust him after years of deception and manipulation. Saddam brought this war to his doorstep.

The dictator that cried wolf.

Whether he is tied to Osama does not really matter after all does it? As far as I’m concerned, the Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists. Every country in that region has al qaeda members coming and going.

We were “unconcerned” about Arab countries until there was a mixture of oil and nuclear weapons.

But the Islamic radicals have always been concerned about taking over the world.

It must be nice to live in a place where nobody cares whether that country exists or not. I was born into this mess like many others. I cannot defend or condone the actions of individuals in the government because there are too many variables in the big picture. It usually takes several decades for things to actually come to fruition politically. Especiallyconcerning things of this magnitude.

Or to ride in the backseat of a car telling the driver where to go.

I guarantee the ride is going to get more interesting.

I may be right or I may be wrong, but Im certainly not in control.

Peace,
Atomic

Reconstruction takes alot of time.

Do you see any buildings where the WTC used to be?
diverden
One of the reasons for going to Iraq was some vague connection with Irag and Al Quaeda/9-11. If the connection is with 9-11 then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia since 19 of the 21 bombers were from there. Even though they do not have any resemblance to a democratic government we call them friends because of the oil and turn our heads away. We do not seem to understand that if we kill 100 terrorists a day there will always be more until we kill the conditions that create terrorists, inequity, few haves and many have-nots, lack of education and jobs, lack of basic clean water, housing, adequate food and sanitation, etc...
i_am_mine
s3nd k3ys wrote:
I just posted up about 60 kilobytes of data that says the war WAS justified. And I posted it so people like you would stop foolishly claiming there was NO justification, yet you STILL failed to read ANYTHING posted above, didn't you?

Heh heh, I somehow missed this whole thread and am joining late.

s3nd k3ys are you now debating your point in terms of the kilobytes you post?

In that case remember the thread you abandoned a long time ago ( once I furnished the evidence you kept asking me for ) ?

Let me refresh your memory...

i_am_mine wrote:
Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD

# Volume 1 (52.5 MB)

* Transmittal, Acknowledgements, Scope Note (1.59 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent (2.2 MB)
* Regime Strategic Intent Annexes (2.34 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 1-71 (11.6 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 72-141 (8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes A (4.8 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes B-C (12.5 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes D-H (9.56 MB)
* Regime Finance and Procurement Annexes I-L (3.97 KB)

# Volume 2 (74.2 MB)

* Delivery Systems (14.1 MB)
* Delivery Systems Annexes (8.12 MB)
* Nuclear (12.6 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes A-B (7.32 MB)
* Nuclear Annexes C-D (3.87 MB)
* Nuclear Annex E (64 KB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 1-5 (12.4 MB)
* Nuclear Annex F, p. 6-10 (14.7 MB)
* Nuclear Annex G (2.2 MB)

# Volume 3 (71.6 MB)

* Chemical Weapons (8.7 mb)
* Chemical Weapons Annex A (7.95 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex B (8.8 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annexex C-F (10.3 MB)
* Chemical Weapons Annex G (15.2 MB)
* Biological Weapons (10.5 MB)
* Biological Weapons Annexes (9.11 MB)
* Glossary (94 KB)

CIA Copy Here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Mich. State Univ Copy Here:http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

The Above is Commonly known as The Duelfer October Report of 2004.The report, written by Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group and not liberal pot smoking junkie.


Can you add all those MBs and KBs up?

How much is that?
gonzo
i_am_mine wrote:


Can you add all those MBs and KBs up?

How much is that?


You weren't merely failed by the education system were you?
busman
atomictoyz wrote:
riyadh wrote:
I think Bush is going a bit too far with the war on Iraq. Yes, I do agree that Saddam was a cruel man but that doesn't mean you have to destroy a whole country just to capture one man. If hundreds of people die in Iraq it is of no importance but if one US soldier is killed Bush makes the headlines with his oh so boring topic about the war on terrorism. I think it's high time USA left stopped butting in other people's businesses and the public who give him the support he needs.


The number of people dying per year under Saddam was 90,000 civilians.
We watched Saddam gas his own people and he continued time after time to reconstitute his WMD arsenal. Millions of Iranians died during the Iran/Iraq war.

It's the media that makes it seems like the US doesn't care about Iraqi's and makes such a big deal about soldiers deaths, but those who sacrificed thier lives did so because they care about people who are oppressed. Don't let the anti-war liberals convince you otherwise.

The country was destroyed by Saddam, the US is trying to rebuild it to the Pre Saddam Glory. Yes, prior to Saddam, Iraq was one of the most advanced countries as far as culture and education.

The US could do a better job, but the UN needs to do thier job. SO far in the last 20 years over 2 million people have died because of genocides the UN refused to do anything about. The US cannot stand by and watch "Rwanda" happen all over again.

If you want the US to butt out of everyone business then you better keep praying another Hitler doesn't come into power. Or Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam......


Peace,
Atomic

The US helped put Saddam Hussein into power really though. Jesus man... Learn some history.
Bikerman
I would like to know where these figures come from.
eg 90,000 civilians per year,

Who says so?

If you mean during the 10 years of sanctions then it is probably right - estimates go as far as 1 million children killed by the direct or indirect effect of the sanctions. If you mean before Gulf War 1 then I'm afraid I don't believe it.
Quote:
Iraq was one of the most advanced countries as far as culture and education.

WRONG. It was DURING Sadam that Iraq was one of the most liberal and prosperous middle-east nations with high literacy rate in women (highest in the region), very good education and health systems and no threat of Islamic Militancy (Sadam hated the religious clerics).

Was he a monster - yep, created, trained and funded by the US and UK amongst others.
Was everything in Iraq crap when he ruled? Nope.

And the UN can only do what its members allow it to do. The US has consistently shackled it, refusing to allow actions, not paying subs etc, then turned round and blamed it for inaction. Pathetic hypocritical crap. Last time I heard the US still owed $180 million in fees. Things are slightly better under Obama, but not a whole lot. The US blaming the UN for inaction is like a shopkeeper refusing to pay his shop-boy and then complaining when he wears scruffy clothes.
Don't get me wrong - the UK plays its own games, as do most countries, but the US has the most clout and can do the most damage - like vetoing any resolution which mentions Israeli attrocities - not the best way to win friends and influence people, yet the US has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country - by a country mile. The last was only a month or two ago:
February 4, 2012: China and Russia double vetoed for the second time a draft resolution calling for support for the Arab League plan to end violence and support political transition in Syria.

I bet you heard about that one on your news...yes?

February 18, 2011: The United States vetoed a draft resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

I bet THAT didn't feature high on your news, no?
Related topics
IRAN'S MILITANT STUDENTS TO SEIZE BRITISH EMBASSY
The Iran Issue!
The Supreme court rules
The Middle East Conflict
Is this democracy?
Tony Blair
Are Americans stupid?
Is it a worry about Iran?
Is Capitalism Evil?
Canada pulls all but 1,000 troops from Afghanistan
The 3 most historically important events in the last 50?
US missing Billions in Iraq
Thankyou America
Is it wise for Britain to expel Iranian diplomats?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.