The WMD as the cause of Iraqi war.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Mar 31, 2006.

?
  1. The WMD was only one of the causes

    15.4%
  2. The WMD was the main cause

    7.7%
  3. The WMD was a formal cause

    72.3%
  4. The WMD was a minor cause

    4.6%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Our friend Tricam (hi mate!) asks

    I suppose that Tricam was ironic, however the question was asked.
     
  2. WMD was and always will be a formal cause for the war........TBliar and the Bushy one used it as a pretence, the rest of the world can see that but still these 2 idiots try to convince us otherwise :roll:
     
  3. Had the previous Iraqi govt complied in 92 or 93, or had never developed such weapons in the first place I dont believe the invasion would have happened. So yes I think it can be said that WMD gave the cassus belli and thus allowed the invasion to go ahead, if it were not for them, and Iraq did not make another attempt at Kuwait, or threaten Saudia Arabia I doubt that there would be any remaining UN resolutions past 95.
     
  4. No , maybe we would have negotiated with Saddam to watch our Arrses whilst we dealt with more pressing , and very dangerous issues in the region? Do I think Saddam would have agreed to US bases in his country and a mutual Defence Pact?

    Yes.

    Do I think the idea was actually considered . but Israel had a major attack of the vapours?

    Yes.

    Saddam was going to get invaded once this adminstration came in , regardless . Even if he had been lilywhite , he was still going to get invaded, because the tail that wags the dog , wanted it so.
     
  5. I don't believe the Iraqi Ba'athist regime would have agreed to having US forces stationed in Iraq, he was a Ba'athist and wanted to be seen as the leader of the Arab man on the street, a strong man and strong leader.

    He wouldn't watch or cover anyone's backside other than his own and his own interests, whilst those interests coincided he may have made pretences to appear to be doing so, he would have stabbed anyone in the back as soon as it became expediant, he was not an ally of the Americans, merely someone who was conveniantly anti communist and fighting the Iranians.

    do you actually have any rational logic to support this "theory" ? Do you seriously believe that Israel controls the US?
     
  6. There were many reaons for having a go at Saddam & Co., but WMD was the least compelling. Undoubtedly, Saddam was toying with the whole WMD issue, effectively using it as a stalling or negotiating tool to alternatively threaten, cajole, or bluff the 'international community'. It now seems that the issue was a bottle of smoke, as what WMDs and associated material he did have would now appear to have been disposed of some time ago (though I still leave myself open to the possibility that some of it was spirited out of Iraq prior to March '03, but only time may tell). Tactically, Saddam's bluff was called on the WMD issue by Britain and the United States, but they are now left with an awful lot of morally dubious egg on their faces as a result - furthermore, they are morally and politically hamstrung as regards any further action in the region.
     
  7. And we had covertly supported him before , during the Iran-Iraq unpleasantness. In addition to wanting to be seen as a strong man and leader, I believe he would also want his enemies in the region to see what powerful friends he could call on too.

    Do I believe Saddam would cover our Arrses in the event of having to go and settle Iran's nuclear ambitions? Absolutely. Even if it was only for his selfish self interest in making sure the Persians were never in a position to hold Iraq by the gonads. Look at the current situation in Iraq now , who do you really think we should be getting onside?

    Only an Arab truly understands "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" Didn't TE Lawerence make much of this point in his fight against the Turks?

    http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

    Where did I say that Israel controls the US? I said the tail that wags the dog. Israel holds an inordinate amount of influence with key decision makers on Capitol Hill. That influence I believe , had clouded judgement, and certainly confused prioritising strategic objectives.
     
  8. Its strange how WMD rarely get mentioned now...

    In late 2002/ early 2003 thats all it was... and even then it was thin.

    Question is was all this worth it?? Over 100 Brit deaths, 2300 US, countless other coalition, plus thousands of Iraqi's...

    We are also now seeing how one strong man held a country together... did Tito not do the same with Yugoslavia,?(admittedly without torture or terror).

    We all now know what happened to Yugoslavia,... did the experts or advisers not point this out to Bush and Blair?? Did they not understand the implications of what they were doing. Not every country wants a MacDonalds on every corner... going in without the end in sight or an exit strategy is not the way to do things. Now we have a new generation that is prepared to use Iraq as a banner for their cause.

    Money is not being spent properly, where it is big corporations are the only people to benefit, not the locals.

    Now you have unstable region...

    I would never condone the previous regime... but WMD was a smoke screen for an badly thought out operation that will ultimately cost the UK and US, the world untold problems for decades to come..
     
  9. I have to agree with this statement . We were allies in the same sense that Soviet Union(Russia) was allied with Nazi Germany in the early stages of WWII and We were allies with the Soviet Union (Russia) in the latter part of the war. We had a common enemy but few common interest.


    The triggering incident of the Invasion of Iraqi was the 9/11 bombing.
     
  10. I think that the whole issue is garbage. I further think that the commitment of our forces to a theatre of combat on so loose a concept ought to be a criminal offence. It should also be an offence to send troops to an area of conflict, without sufficient support and equipment. Having been in the forces, I know that it is not possible to choose which orders you choose to obey. It would have thought that the political types would realise that in their commitment of forces to cobat, some of those forces would be injured or killed. I therefore think that there should be a higher burden of proof before they are allowed to commit troops to a conflict.
    Given that "they" are the people who make the laws, I very much doubt that they would enact laws to police themselves, and we will all be told that if the general public thought they had done something worng, then they would not have voted for Tony and the boys at the last election.

    The issue of WMD was most certainly a very big spin, based in no way on facts or freely availible information. The prep, support and equipment provided prior to the invasion shows that the planning types did not expect that there would be any major threat from NBC weapon systems. There was no effective planning for any period longer than 48-hours after the invasion. There was no thought or planning for what would happen when Sadam and his mates were no longer there. The whole thing was a total c.ck-up.

    There was a real threat from Afghanistan, Taliban, AQ. But Rummie decided that it would be a good idea to commit minimal forces to that theatre in order to keep as many reserves as possible for the primary objective of Iraq. There were therefore far to few resources commited to the threat from Afghanistan. We are begining to see this now as elements of the Taliban return to Afghanistan to establish control. In the meantime, the very limited resources availible in that country has ensured that the economic development is focused towards the production of Heroin. Since the Taliban left power, there has been a massive resurgence in exports from Afghanistan. Sadly, those exports are harmful drugs that end up being sold to our children.
    I think that the Americans should have stuck to the tried and tested methods of engagement that they had previously employed. Fire off a few cruise missiles and go back home in time for tea.
    I don't know that we will ever know what Tony's love affair with the Yanks will have cost us. I am sure that the tax revenue could have been used more effectively here in the UK, fighting crime and diseases in our hospitals.
    The Yanks themselves have pumped some billions of Dollars into Iraq. Very little of which has been used to "rebuild" Iraq, and most of which has been funneled back into companies where key individuals from the White House are members of the boards.

    I think that the most effective thing to do would be to pack up and leave; en-masse, this Saturday, without telling anyone.
    I particularly think that we should not tell Tony or George.

    It would seem that Iraq is now self sufficient:
    Rummie:- Success

    It would further seem that the Yanks have already been thinking about this:
    Yankies Domus Eunt
     
  11. Especially when it became a strong possibility that he could lose and Iran would end up on the Iraq/Saudi border .. that is a concept that would have given the Saudi's and Gulf States nightmares (and did, which is why they bank rolled him).

    Oddly enough during the same time frame we (the west) covertly supplied Iran with weapons as well.

    Any non-Ba'athist regime that isn't pro Syrian, Iranian. Preferably one that had some semblence of democracy and human rights. Shouldn't be too hard given the last regime.

    And Churchill, in regards to the Russians in WW2.

    Very good, you found a private think tank. Based on a paper written during Netanyahu's administation, as the paper refers to the "new administration" it would suggest that the paper is 10 years old. Yes I noticed Richard Perle's name.

    Now, I ask again, can you provide a rational and logical thesis behind your theory that Israel has enough "influence" in the US Govt to the point where it could convince it to invade Iraq no matter what the Iraqi Govt did? When the past 24 years, of which 11 where spent as combatants against the deposed regime show plenty reason to take an anti-Ba'athist stance that are not based on Israel.


    They were unable to prevent the US Govt from preventing them selling Phalcon technology to the Chinese, they were unable to prevent US pressure on them to withdraw from the Gaza strip
     
  12. 78% (2 April) think that the WMD was a formal cause. It is much above my expectations (I haven't vote myself).
     
  13. In the lead up to war, the feeling in my grey box was ‘what the fcuk are we doing here?’. Those old and bold with the Falklands under their belts thought the Falklands a worthwhile fight and risk. The coming one was not. However, most of us didn’t believe Iraq had any WMD so we weren’t crapping it. We were relatively safe in the NAG from conventional threats (stand fast friendly fire).

    Like the SAS bloke who ‘came out’ against the war the other week, I don’t want to be used to support American foreign policy. Nor do I feel it appropriate to topple Saddam but not Mugabe. Our Government's priorities are arrse about face. Iraq was not/is not about the United Kingdom’s interests, it’s about Bliar’s place on the world stage and his place in history. The Armed Forces are being abused. The X factor doesn’t cover that.

    As for the new 'reason' for going to war 'bringing democracy to Iraq' I hope Bliar never fancies bringing democracy to China.
     
  14. Hmmm... Is this bit really true? I agree it looks like the government lied about WMD but I think the Army assumed there would be a NBC threat. To be honest it would be fairly stupid of the government to tell everyone Iraq has about WMD and then tell the Army not to bother preparing to be attacked by them --- a story like that would almost certainly get out.


    On the main point of the cause of the Iraq war I still think it had to happen. Certainly we were lied to about WMD... and we made a mess of the aftermath of the war... But what was the alternative to invading Iraq? Everyone agrees Saddam was a bad man but how else could we have gotten rid of him? We had tried 11 years of sanctions which got us nowhere and had a terrible impact on the Iraqi people.

    The invasion wasn't a good idea - but it was certainly the best of a number of crappy options.

    Tricam.
     

  15. Why was it the west’s responsibility to get rid of Saddam? Was the neo-con vision of American hegemony in the region that important to the Iraqi people?
    I think your love for Victoria Beckham is really being to affect you! Fake tan if ingested can be bad for the brain! :twisted: