Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh and i missed the selling them the weaspons to start with bit
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    agreed.

    so they've found some weapons which technically should have been declared. But they were old and decrepit, much like most of Saddam's Iraq I dare say. American FP with regard to the Gulf in the Bush administration (both of them) has been horrendous. So they've found some weapons, kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and now deposed him as leader/ President?Overlord of Iraq. Or have they. Saddam still holds sway with the Iraqi people even now and he is still the President of The Republic of Iraq. Under Iraqi law, he cannot be prosecuted because of this fact, and this is the case because he was overthrown by an illeagal invading force. So his whole trials a shambles.

    So remind me some one, apart from bombing innocent Iraqi people and infrasturcture, turning many terrorists into martyrs and stoking the fires to create more would be terrorists with hate. Oh, and creating some Oil-allies and more Arab (geographical, not racial) enemies, what has Bush and his appauling FP done for Iraq ? Someone tell me please, i'm dying to know - though not as quickly as Brtish troops are dying under American friendly fire, in an unneccesary war. Does Bush know what a negotiating table is ? And can he even spell negotiating ? All questions i'd love answers too.

    Are we really supposed to believe that Saddam's Iraq is any worse than that of Bush's (Iraqi interim government! pah! The Koreans were offered one of those, and look what happened then. Ooh! and so were the Vietnamese)

    Marc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    To be honest the US action towards Iraq has been pretty dispicable in the last decade. The only thing really deserving of credit is there help as part of a coalition in removing Sadam from Kuwait.

    After this they then stand up the Kurds by telling them to rise up and then not backing them, and get massacred. 96 members of the CIA funded Iraqi National Congress were murdered.
    what did the rest of the world do? it appears by this theory its better to do nothing than try and aid the Kurds. no mention of the UN sanctions. no mention of the 12 years of UN resolutions. its hard to have a more one-sided view of external interest in Iraq since the end of the 90s.

    The excuse that there were weapons of mass destruction was a joke:
    1998 the international Atomic Energy Agency reported it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapon "effeciently and effectively" Reported in letter from the Securtary General to the head of the Security Council

    Scott Ritter the UN weapons inspector for UNSCOM said the following things
    "by 1998 the chemical weapon's infrastructure had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM or by Iraq in compliance with our mandate"

    "The biological weapons programme was completely gone, all major facilities eliminated"

    "If I had to quantify the Iraq's treat, I would say [it is] zero"
    From "paying the price: Killing the children of Iraq" shown on ITV March 6 2000
    again and again and again, people talk about the US claims. they were the claims of the UN and the intl.community. how many times. the US was in the majority of nations that believed that Saddam was not being honest, as it turned out he wasnt.

    The only reason the US used this as a reason is that they knew the US public would not support a war that seemingly had no advantage for the US. The weapons of mass destruction excuse meant that the US public felt threaterned and would support the Gov.
    the only reason that the US used this as a reason was because Al-Qaeda was trying to appropriate dirty weaponry. the only reason that the US used this as a reason was because Saddam had the capability to provide parts of, knowledge of, or if our intelligence was accurate, WMDs and such programs in their entirety to Al-Qaeda. the lack of ready-to-fire stockpiles does not detract from the fact that Al-Qaeda could have obtained allsorts from Saddam. the only reason that the US used this as a reason was because Saddam has cooperated with Al-Qaeda and other islamic terrorist groups, be they Shia or Sunni and had practiced reciprocal non-agression and shelter.
    all three reasons have become more credible since the war.

    An unstated link with 9/11 futhered this feeling, despite the fact that no parties in Iraq took any part in planning Al Queda.
    unstated? so wheres the link?

    im saddened by the lack of any reference to the activities of the UN.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Oh and i missed the selling them the weaspons to start with bit
    irrelevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what did the rest of the world do? it appears by this theory its better to do nothing than try and aid the Kurds. no mention of the UN sanctions. no mention of the 12 years of UN resolutions. its hard to have a more one-sided view of external interest in Iraq since the end of the 90s.
    Oh yes that great food for oil programme that was so full of corruption, the death of half a million children, the withholding of medical equipment. The time to invade if ever was after the first gulf war, it would of saved so much suffering and pain and the reasons would of been legitamate.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    again and again and again, people talk about the US claims. they were the claims of the UN and the intl.community. how many times. the US was in the majority of nations that believed that Saddam was not being honest, as it turned out he wasnt.
    he wasnt honest but that doesnt mean he had WMDs
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the only reason that the US used this as a reason was because Al-Qaeda was trying to appropriate dirty weaponry. the only reason that the US used this as a reason was because Saddam had the capability to provide parts of, knowledge of, or if our intelligence was accurate, WMDs and such programs in their entirety to Al-Qaeda. the lack of ready-to-fire stockpiles does not detract from the fact that Al-Qaeda could have obtained allsorts from Saddam. the only reason that the US used this as a reason was because Saddam has cooperated with Al-Qaeda and other islamic terrorist groups, be they Shia or Sunni and had practiced reciprocal non-agression and shelter.
    all three reasons have become more credible since the war.
    could of obtained? what kinda reason is that? And I would love to hear more about this network of terror between Al Qaeda, Sadam and other islamic terrorist groups (who ever they are?) you seem to have uncovered here, have you told george?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    unstated? so wheres the link?

    im saddened by the lack of any reference to the activities of the UN.
    thats why i said unstated
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    irrelevant.
    hardly
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    could of obtained? what kinda reason is that?
    one that would protect lives. unless you prefer the Spanish way.

    And I would love to hear more about this network of terror between Al Qaeda, Sadam and other islamic terrorist groups (who ever they are?) you seem to have uncovered here, have you told george?
    the same link that i went to lengths to describe, following the release of Staff Statement 15 from the 9/11 Commission a fortnight ago.


    thats why i said unstated
    so therefore cannot be charged against the US admin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    hardly
    whether the US or sold the weapons to him or not is irrelevant as to whether there was legitimate grounds to remove him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    whether the US or sold the weapons to him or not is irrelevant as to whether there was legitimate grounds to remove him.
    but my post was a in the main a critism of the whole policy of iraq, irrelevant to the debate maybe but proof that sometimes short term gain does not make great FP
    (Original post by vienna95)
    one that would protect lives. unless you prefer the Spanish way.
    I would say its all about risk of something happening. The risk of Sadam leaking secrets to sadam did not warrent the invasion of Iraq. On a moral level there were better ways to spend the money if the US was really worried about saving people.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the same link that i went to lengths to describe, following the release of Staff Statement 15 from the 9/11 Commission a fortnight ago.
    which thread? and roughtly where on it?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so therefore cannot be charged against the US admin.
    They were hardly unhappy about it being propagated, must of brought quite a glem to bush's face
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    but my post was a in the main a critism of the whole policy of iraq, irrelevant to the debate maybe but proof that sometimes short term gain does not make great FP

    I would say its all about risk of something happening. The risk of Sadam leaking secrets to sadam did not warrent the invasion of Iraq. On a moral level there were better ways to spend the money if the US was really worried about saving people.

    which thread? and roughtly where on it?

    They were hardly unhappy about it being propagated, must of brought quite a glem to bush's face
    fair enough. i cant remember which thread, probably one relating to Bush!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Oh and i missed the selling them the weaspons to start with bit
    Have you heard that joke?

    How can the US be so certain Saddam got WMDs ?

    Answer: They must have saved the receits...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hes a clown. funny, but not to be taken seriously.

    I agree, he does seem to be a bit of a comic figure - a bit of political and satirical light relief
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    and didnt he hide them well Because there was no forewarnng of the invasion?
    As I said before, the inspectors were at his throats all the time until the US invaded.

    (Original post by Cossack)
    Are you sayng that Sadamns strategy was too lose the war really badly to discredit Bush?
    He would lose anyways. Saddams strategy was to bring forward a new vietnam. Hiding and launching strikes against US forces until the domestic american population wanted to "bring the boys home". Setting of a granade with Sarin would only show that the US was right about the WMDs and hence justify the invasion.

    (Original post by Cossack)
    i dont see how but, okay
    Heres how. Saddam cant just walk around collecting the weapons himself. He needs to rely on his executive generals. If the one in charge of teh WMDs is killed or surrenders there Saddam effectively loses controll of his weapons. Remember that the early bombings in the war was in particular aimed at destroying Iraqi communications.

    (Original post by Cossack)
    define quick access? 45 minutes? I think you're suggesting that they're stored in a bunker somewhere, why couldnt he have gone and got them after the weapons inspectors left?
    45 minutes is rather a short time to deploy a Scud missile dont you think? Iraqi comminications were down very quickly. Remember the bombings of Baghdad in teh start of the war? Also bringing the weapons out in the light would be risky as it would leave them in open sight to US spies and sattelites. I think you underestimate the complexity of both hiding the Weapons so that inspectors cant hide them, and also have them closely ready.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    agreed.

    so they've found some weapons which technically should have been declared. But they were old and decrepit, much like most of Saddam's Iraq I dare say.
    A failure to declare this is more than just a technical problem. Resolution 1441 demanded Saddam to document the disarming process and to show they had gotn rid of their weapons. SAtill they failed to declare what they had done with , among other things, seven tons of VX. 0.0003 grams of VX is enough to kill a human being. Imagine what seven tons coudl do. Failure to declare what has happened to this is more than just a slight glitch. It is a serious breach of those restrictions that were placed on him during the peace treaty after the Kuwait war.

    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    American FP with regard to the Gulf in the Bush administration (both of them) has been horrendous. So they've found some weapons, kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and now deposed him as leader/ President?Overlord of Iraq. Or have they. Saddam still holds sway with the Iraqi people even now and he is still the President of The Republic of Iraq. Under Iraqi law, he cannot be prosecuted because of this fact, and this is the case because he was overthrown by an illeagal invading force. So his whole trials a shambles.
    Were you nto teh one who complained about things being technical. Really, If you dont find it a problem that saddam failed to declare 16 grenades of Sarin, then I hardly see it as a problem that the Old Iraqi law (put down by saddam himself) gives him amnesty to trial.

    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    So remind me some one, apart from bombing innocent Iraqi people and infrasturcture, turning many terrorists into martyrs and stoking the fires to create more would be terrorists with hate. Oh, and creating some Oil-allies and more Arab (geographical, not racial) enemies, what has Bush and his appauling FP done for Iraq ? Someone tell me please, i'm dying to know - though not as quickly as Brtish troops are dying under American friendly fire, in an unneccesary war. Does Bush know what a negotiating table is ? And can he even spell negotiating ? All questions i'd love answers too..
    Firstly the water distribution system is working again. The coalition has set up more schools than Saddam did in a few decades and for the first time in many many years Healthcare is prioritised in front of wrapping the dictator's walls in gold.

    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Are we really supposed to believe that Saddam's Iraq is any worse than that of Bush's (Iraqi interim government! pah! The Koreans were offered one of those, and look what happened then. Ooh! and so were the Vietnamese)

    Marc
    Yes by all means do look at Korea. Do compare the US backed South Korean government with the dictatorial north. It is not a coincidence that wages health care education and income distribution has improved dramatically in the US backed south Korean government whereas the communistic north is in a state of famine and virtually lacks everything on the human rights charter. Furthermore you may ask yourself what Iraq's greatest problem is today. The presence of the transitional government or the Saddam loyalists blowing up civilian Iraqi's in order to prevent any development into a democracy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    whether the US or sold the weapons to him or not is irrelevant as to whether there was legitimate grounds to remove him.
    Well it's hard to see the two facts as being decorelated.
    Weren't the WMDs the reason the US exposed to justify the war? The government tried to wriggle themself out of that one but it really doesn't make them credible.

    As far as I'm concerned, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a great thing. As for the justifications used, I think the US government really could have done better.

    What annoys me, is the way a lot of Europeans have criticized the war because of it not being legitimate. Since when are normal people preoccupied by the fact a war is legitimate or not? Do you think they'd sleep better at night if they knew the war was justified. It's just pure anti-americanism, anti-Bush sentiment. The US is the only world superpower, let's find a way of criticizing what they do: if we can criticize the fact the war is illegitimate, let's do that, if we find out a US soldier has peed on a prisoner, if we find out oil contracts have been given to US companies, if we find out Rumsfeld likes to dress up as a woman, let's show that.
    The fact that the Iraqi government had an animal at its head doesn't interest that many people.
    When people think that it's more important to know the UN sanctioned the war than it is to know thousands of kurds were massacred, then people aren't thinking straight and are just blinded by their anti-americanism

    When I hear people say they'd rather live in a world ruled by Osama Ben Laden than one ruled by George Bush, I realise that a lot of people aren't thinking straight any longer and don't really have the ability to interpret the media.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    A failure to declare this is more than just a technical problem. Resolution 1441 demanded Saddam to document the disarming process and to show they had gotn rid of their weapons. SAtill they failed to declare what they had done with , among other things, seven tons of VX. 0.0003 grams of VX is enough to kill a human being. Imagine what seven tons coudl do. Failure to declare what has happened to this is more than just a slight glitch. It is a serious breach of those restrictions that were placed on him during the peace treaty after the Kuwait war.


    Were you nto teh one who complained about things being technical. Really, If you dont find it a problem that saddam failed to declare 16 grenades of Sarin, then I hardly see it as a problem that the Old Iraqi law (put down by saddam himself) gives him amnesty to trial.


    Firstly the water distribution system is working again. The coalition has set up more schools than Saddam did in a few decades and for the first time in many many years Healthcare is prioritised in front of wrapping the dictator's walls in gold.



    Yes by all means do look at Korea. Do compare the US backed South Korean government with the dictatorial north. It is not a coincidence that wages health care education and income distribution has improved dramatically in the US backed south Korean government whereas the communistic north is in a state of famine and virtually lacks everything on the human rights charter. Furthermore you may ask yourself what Iraq's greatest problem is today. The presence of the transitional government or the Saddam loyalists blowing up civilian Iraqi's in order to prevent any development into a democracy.
    need one say more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Well it's hard to see the two facts as being decorelated.
    Weren't the WMDs the reason the US exposed to justify the war? The government tried to wriggle themself out of that one but it really doesn't make them credible.
    The point si that whereas the US made a bad one giving him those weapons, that doesnt justify letting him keep them (btw he got the Nuclear program from France and Germany ). Also, after the Kuwait war and Saddam's use of nervegass against the civilian population, the UN sanctioned coalition included the disarment of WMDs as a demand in the peace treaty Saddam signed. By not giving up the information about his WMD programs Saddam effectively violated this peace treaty. Now explain why the free world should keep their part of the treaty when Saddam did not ? In my opinion signing that peace treaty was a stupid thing of the west to do in the first place. They should have disarmed Iraq themselves back in 1991 rather than trusting Saddam to do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    back to the topic,

    micheal moore is biased, he uses his books and films to put across his views, his new film is the most controvertial yet and you should all definatley go n see if.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In answer to the original question .... (tongue firmly in cheek) No!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The point si that whereas the US made a bad one giving him those weapons, that doesnt justify letting him keep them (btw he got the Nuclear program from France and Germany ). Also, after the Kuwait war and Saddam's use of nervegass against the civilian population, the UN sanctioned coalition included the disarment of WMDs as a demand in the peace treaty Saddam signed. By not giving up the information about his WMD programs Saddam effectively violated this peace treaty. Now explain why the free world should keep their part of the treaty when Saddam did not ? In my opinion signing that peace treaty was a stupid thing of the west to do in the first place. They should have disarmed Iraq themselves back in 1991 rather than trusting Saddam to do it.
    im on vacation if anyones interested
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.