So, no WMD... does that change anything?

[max]

Hi all
I'm still new to the forums so apologies if this is in the wrong forum...

I was wondering whether the news that the Iraq Survey Group has reported no WMD's in it's interim report has changed anyones views over getting involved in the first place...

Personally I have to say I think we had plenty of other valid reasons to be there anyway so I'm not worried if they find weapons or not (and Bruce Willis has just offered $1million additional bounty for Sadam's capture so he obiously isn't bothered either...!!)

Seriously though, just wondering what you all think

[Rotary Booty]

Max

They haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist!

However, if they did have other valid reasons for invading Iraq, they should have used them, and not WMD!

[max]

Rotary Booty

True about Sadam and definately true about their reasons.

I guess they were just going for the reason they thought would get maximum support... It seems to me that people are quite squeemish about using force these days, especially if the problem is not right on their doorstep so they can easily ignore it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying conflict is the answer to everything - it's definately a last resort - I just think it's a necessary one sometimes. I'm not convinced about the usefulness of sanctions - past a certain point they seem to victimise ordinary people rather than the regime...

[Tab]

Now is the World a better place without Sadam, I for one think that it is.

[Guest]

Our troops were sent to war on the basis of a load of bollox and thousand of people died as a result. Nothing Bliar says or does can change that. It was an unjustifed invasion of another country in which thousands of people died. It did f*ck all against terrorism, increased the risk of it probably as the JIC committee said (conveniently ignored by Bliar). In my mind it comes down one of two things. Either Saddam put one over Western Intelligence services for over a decade by pretending he had WMD which i find very hard to believe, or the Govt didnt have a case for war and decided to make one up by manipulating intelligence. I think its now obvious from the Hutton Enquiry correspondence it was the latter. My trust even in the impartiality of our intelligence services and civil service has been shaken. If there were justice there would be a full judicial enquiry and heads would roll and Bliar would step down. But its not going to happen, thats what a rotten state our democracy is in.

[Whitey]

No WMD, and does it change anything? Well obviously not, our troops are still getting lit up, and the media doesn't mention it much anymore. I never thought WMD was much of a justification anyway, Saddam had no Navy, no Air Force, and hadn't used any since we taught him how to against Iran. I mean, say he did use some of that crap on us later down the road, had that happened we wouldn't have invaded, we'd turned Iraq into a weapons test free fire zone, blockaded it and possibly let a guy like Mikkel decide what to do with the place after we got tired.

I support the war for one reason only, well not the war but the effort anyway, and that is because I have 3 friends there, and I hope things get better for their sake and not some politician warhawk's sake.
The action was wrong, we invaded a country out of our hemisphere, no declaration of war, no proof, and we killed alot of Iraqis, and US and UK personnel who were better men than those who sent them there.

Saddam challenged our man to a one on one cage match, if I was president I'd taken him up on it. Bush is in great shape, Saddam is fat and full of cancer, could you have imagined the ratings if Bush would of kicked Saddams ass personally? If ever I'm a leader and a bully challenges me, or calls me out, I'll accept the challenge.
But hey WMD or no WMD, we got to stop funding to groups that hate the Izzies, and with Iraq gone, we made our financers alittle more secure.

[Guest]

John Pilger's ITV docu on ITV UK last Monday was hard hitting, even Colin Power and Condileeza (spelling) Rice uttered the magic words BEFORE the war started that it was highly unlikely Saddam had WMD.

The war did the job, it got rid of Sad Man and his despotic dictatorship, still think it would have been better for the world (UN) to have decided WHEN we went to war and to get rid of the tyrant.

Anyone for tennis?

[Frank S.]

Spannerman's right: Rice and Powell stated back in early 2001 (first quarter of the year, or thereabouts) that Saddam had NO WMD CAPABILITY, LET ALONE THE DELIVERY SYSTEMS THEREOF.

So what does this tell us about February 2003? THAT WE KNEW WE COULD SAFELY KICK HIS ASS. And that's what we did. Forget about North Korea or Syria: THEY might fight.

I have people close to me over in Iraq that I don't want to see get wasted. Whitey, I'm with you on this.

[max]

I agree now that our troops are committed we should support them fully, at the very least, even if we don't necessarily agree with the cause but at the same time, spin and political justifications aside, I do still feel we were right to intervene.

Yeah sure, we picked an easy target. And yes there are several other equally, or perhaps more, worthy candidates due for a tougher approach than they've had so far... but at the same time it makes sense that you don't take on a difficult challenge to start with. You have to get public opinion on your side if you're going to take a more interventionist line (though I do think they've totally messed up on that front!)

I'm all for cultural diversity and sorting out our own problems before we get involved in others but I do think we in the west shouldn't stand by and allow atrocities and human rights abuses to be committed simply because it isn't on our doorstep.

It annoys me when people say that we shouldn't interfere in other cultures and political systems "because who's to say our way is right anyway". I think our way, the western democratic capitalist way, may not be right (by a long shot even) but it's certainly a lot better than most other systems of government on this planet. Our standard of living is better, opportunities are better, women are treated as equals, human rights are better, hell - we even have a vague chance of influencing what happens in our governments...

I find it difficult that people find themselves able to ignore some of the stuff that is happening in the world and - maybe I'm being incredibly naive here - I do think that is at least part of our motivation for being in Iraq...

[Whitey]

Max,
You just said it, you said "We" and "Western Civ", fact is permanent change must come from within, outside change never works in the long run, and women in Iraq were treated realatively equal compared to our OPEC chum Saudi Arabia.

[Smoke286]

Let us not forget Osama Bin Hidin' or rather should I say the USA has forgotten him

[max]

Whitey

Fair point about change coming from within. I certainly don't think we should go around imposing our own systems on other countries - look at the ongoing fallout from 19th century imperialism...

That said, in many countries the citizens couldn't make the changes even if they wanted to. Perhaps it's a somewhat arbitrary line but, for me anyway, as long as people in a country have freedom of choice, education and information then I don't think we should get involved unless attrocities are being committed. This is mainly because, with those 3 freedoms, people can make up their own minds about change and government and then it will come from within. It's the places in the world where these basic freedoms have been deliberately suppressed that worry me.

And yes the hypocrisy of western governments re Saudi and Israel among others, does anger me....

Having said this, perhaps we are at the beginning of a period of change - America and Britain seem to be putting pressure on Isreal - and give it a couple of decades things will hopefully have moved on a bit...

Also, I do wonder whether it is so wrong to bend the rules for countries that are so important to the western economy as Saudi etc. Yes okay we're turning a blind eye to some unpleasent things but lets be honest - if the west did not have access to the resources provided by these countries we would arguably not be in a position to provide for our own citizens, let alone do good work anywhere else. The lesser of two evils maybe...

[harry hackedoff]

Three times Tone said he`d show us the proof and guess what? There is no proof. I`ve asked before what was differant about Saddam? Pol Pot was far worse.
I was against the war, right up the first of our troops going in. Then I hoped for a speedy end and a safe return for all. It seemed to me at the time, and even more so now, that no serious thought was given to what happens afterwards.
Of course the Iraqis deserve better. So did the servicemen from both our countries who died, and who continue to die. Think of this next time you vote, think of Donald Rumsfeld or Tone or Hoon.
Iraq posed no direct threat. There was no just cause.
Aye,

[Wholley]

Harry,
hate to agree with an Antipodean,
but your right,Nail on the head,hit.
Wholley.

[Whitey]

They found the real WMD, they have it and knew where it was before the war. The WMD I'm talking about is oil. That oil reserve Iraq sits on posed an economic threat. Imagine what an alliance of Saddam and his oil with the EU would have caused? Our economy was being threatened and just like in WW2 we went to war over it, but this time we went hoping to stave off a world conflict. Did we? I don't know and really if I were to guess don't think so. If we fail in Iraq, it won't be long before the world get's crazy again. That is why I hope we don't fail.