Iraq's WMDs

fair enough...i didn't know that. Regardless, it is still a possibility that they were exported.

I find it ridiculous that the threat of WMDs were used as a reason to go into Iraq. I remember the run up to the war, the tabloids repeatedly ran that line as did the politicians. Certainly the emphasis wasn't on regime change.
There was no concrete evidence Sadaam had nuclear weapons, not agreeing to inspections from foreign forces is not a sign that you have WMDs.

Even if they had them there was no plausible reason they would be used or they were capable of being used against the west.

The regime had next to no links with Al Qaeda, yet politicians constantly linked this to the war on terror, in and the aftermath of 9/11 that was so irresponsible.

Further Sadaam, whatever else he was, was not a religious zealot who would have fired WMDs at the U.S or the U.K without fearing the consequences for himself or his country.

So much B.S went on with regards to that war, the people involved deserve to be on trial.

For foreign aggression that has resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians. If you think thats nonsense, maybe you should question your own views.

This is a rather insane point. You cannot assume every country has WMDs and invade countries who may have them.

Holds true for many countries and areas in the world, not anywhere near a good enough reason for an invasion.

What country doesn't have a weapons program or the intention to improve and increase it? The primary reason we were given was that Iraq had WMDs and they were an imminent threat to the West. What you have posted shows no evidence of this.

Israel fired unprovoked at Iraq during Sadaams reign. Israel was targeted because of its perceived persecution of Palestine and that they stole the land etc etc. To try and tie the firing of missiles at Israel with any real threat that the U.K faced from a WMD from Iraq is ridiculous.

Im not reading a random book that may offer some vague links to some terrorist organisations. Its well known that many Muslim states offer help to Palestinian terrorist organisations because of their views on Israel. That in no way puts the UK and the US from threat of a WMD from Iraq. The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, was that there was not a cooperative effort between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that he did not support the 9/11 attacks. That the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely. The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.

The reason given for the war was not for the stability of the middle east it was because of the direct threat the U.K and U.S faced. If Sadaam invaded an ally such as Israel, then sure the U.S and the U.K should have removed Sadaam, although this should have happened during the gulf war.

For foreign aggression that has resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians. If you think thats nonsense, maybe you should question your own views.

It's worth noting that the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the insurjent forces. Do you advocate surrendering to an abominable enemy because they are willing to slaughter civilians? You'd have a regime worse than Saddam erected in a couple of years and every life lost would have been for nought.

They were killed because of the instability in Iraq after the invasion and the insurgents had support because people didn't want to live under the foot of the U.S or the puppets who they put in charge of Iraq.

If the reason we invaded Iraq was to get rid of a dictator to improve the life of the citizens there were many other countries we could have chose and we could stop installing dictators of our own while were at it

lets not forget where Sadaam came from.

They were killed because of the instability in Iraq after the invasion and the insurgents had support because people didn't want to live under the foot of the U.S or the puppets who they put in charge of Iraq.
If the reason we invaded Iraq was to get rid of a dictator to improve the life of the citizens there were many other countries we could have chose and we could stop installing dictators of our own while were at it, lets not forget where Sadaam came from.

Some people didn't like Saddam either, they just didn't have the freedom or ability to fight in the same way the Islamist insurjents do now.

And I don't think we've ever claimed that the invasion of Iraq was purely humanitarian. You're arguments are very superficial.

People die in warzones, people die due to instability, does that mean we should never engage in conflict? No matter the cost? Equally, if we have made a poor decision in foreign policy previously, why does that prevent us from trying to intervene to change something in the modern day?

In my view we have no right to instigate regime changes or meddle in the affairs of foreign countries for our own interests unless we are under real threat of attack.
We have done both these things over a number of years in Iraq and other countries. I don't believe this war was truly about regime change for a greater good or a credible threat from Iraq to the U.K and the U.S.
I therefore believe that the U.S and the U.K should be held responsible for the deaths that have occurred since on those responsible should be put on trial.

When Civilians die as a result of war, in some circumstances it should be punishable, in others not.
When Civilians die as a result of foreign intervention to secure your own interests that should be punishable.

For our own interests? What do you think the world runs on?

In 2003, Iraq was a dangerous, failing state in the hands of a genocidal dictator. There was clear evidence of genocide, that's a pretty good reason. There was clear evidence of use of chemical and biological weapons, a program aimed at the production of more of these aswell as the pursuit of ever more dangerous WMDs. Then there are other factors to consider, such as regional security and stability.

You'll see we were talking about the issue yesterday regarding whether or not 'war should be thought in the shadow of prosecution'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an interesting example of this, and so it is fitting to "bang on about" them.

My point is that all those reasons are incidental. We went into Iraq for our own interests. We helped Sadaam get weapons when it suited us.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
We are largely responsible for the destabilization of the middle east through our constant intervention in a number of countries.
Your point about the dog is irrelevant and simplified.
The deaths that occurred as a result of the instability are down to us. The insurgents believe they are fighting for the freedom of Iraq and that anyone helps the U.S is a traitor. This gives them their support. The sectarian divides have been intensified through our involvement. We are therefore at least partly responsible for the deaths that have since occurred.

And your point in bold is disgusting, but its exactly the mindset that allows these atrocities to go on. That people think securing our foreign interests is worth spilling innocent civilian blood.

You are so very naive.

You make a point about how instability is our fault, and then admonish us for securing our own interests and supporting certain dictators. You clearly have no understanding of what is at stake. If we don't support a certain regime, what are we to do, declare the area a forsaken zone and have nothing to do with it? How well has that worked with NK, the Concentration Camp State? We must be involved in those areas, for our own benefit and the benefit of the people, as bad as Saddam was, he was the devil we knew. Look at that area, it's history of bloody sectarian violence, religious extremism and so forth. If we have nothing to do with them, the dictators have less power, the people are abused even more and we gain nothing. If we are involved, we have a measure of control over the dictator and can secure our own intersts. Saddam stepped out of line, his regime was abusing too many people and cooperating with too few.

Before we were involved there was an authoritarian, rouge dictatorship committing genocide. Now there are backward Islamist insurjents killing their own people. Yet when we support the dictatorship, we're in the wrong. When we remove the dictatorship, we're in the wrong. And when we have nothing to do with the state, nothing goes well. People like you live in a niave little bubble and have no concept of the intricacy of international relations.

Im sorry but what a load of rambling that was ^

My point is that we have destabilized the middle east and installed a number of puppet regimes and dictators that are there only to secure our own interests.
People acting like our government are in these countries down to some sense of greater good and a real threat of attack are misguided. This point is particularly ridiculous when it comes to Sadaam as we were so willing to supply and support him for a number of years.
North Korea's situation has been made possible by Chinese intervention, to again secure their foreign interests.