The WMD as the cause of Iraqi war.

The WMD as the cause of Iraqi war.

  • The WMD was only one of the causes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The WMD was the main cause

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The WMD was a formal cause

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The WMD was a minor cause

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Our friend Tricam (hi mate!) asks

tricam said:
Anyway, I thought everyone agreed Iraq was due to Saddam's WMD?

Tricam.
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
KGB_resident said:
Our friend Tricam (hi mate!) asks

tricam said:
Anyway, I thought everyone agreed Iraq was due to Saddam's WMD?

Tricam.
I suppose that Tricam was ironic, however the question was asked.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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?

he was not an ally of the Americans, merely someone who was conveniantly anti communist and fighting the Iranians
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?

do you actually have any rational logic to support this "theory" ? Do you seriously believe that Israel controls the US?
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions
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
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.
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
PartTimePongo said:
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.
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.
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.

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?
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.

he was not an ally of the Americans, merely someone who was conveniantly anti communist and fighting the Iranians
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?
And Churchill, in regards to the Russians in WW2.

do you actually have any rational logic to support this "theory" ? Do you seriously believe that Israel controls the US?
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — a?n important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions
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.

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.

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
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.
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
tricam said:
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.

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:
 
#16
Avatar is NOT Victoria Beckham!!! Its the lovely Frankie Wedge as well you know.... You get rid of the Robbie avatar and I'll see what I can do as regards Frankie - I'm actually getting a little bored of her now... I'm on the lookout for a nice shot of Hilary Clinton - MILF!



As regards Iraq - I think getting rid of Saddam was both good for the West and for the Iraqi people...

For the West he was a source of instability and a threat to oil supplies. I don't feel guilty about a war partially motivated by oil either - we don't rob it - the Iraqis get wealth for the oil and get to build schools, hospitals etc. Also, although he didn't have WMD - there was a risk he'd get them in the future and do something stupid with them (stupid me though I did buy the whole WMD story at the time).

To answer your question its the West responsibility to get rid of Saddam cause we are nice chaps. I do think we should be more active in the Rwandas and Darfurs of the world. While we are not directly responsible for Rwanda/Darfur etc we were responsible for the sanctions against Iraq which were destroying the country. So we made the mess we have to fix it.

Tricam.
 
#17
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.
Troops in theatre did not have adequate individual protection equipment for a chemical threat or for operating in a chemical environment. A colleague of mine in this exposed position told me that he was shocked and that there would be uproar in the press if the story got out. Despite the supposed threat to Cyprus, NBC equipment was stripped from personnel there in order to supply troops going to Iraq.
 
#18
tricam said:
The invasion wasn't a good idea - but it was certainly the best of a number of crappy options.
was not doing it one of the crappy reasons?
 
#19
It was hailed at the time as proof positive by Right Wing American boards , blogs and Newsmax and the like.

Not sure what happened after that , either the traces were a false positive or the samples proved they were 'best before 1990' or some such. The story died quite quickly.
 
#20
tricam said:
Avatar is NOT Victoria Beckham!!! Its the lovely Frankie Wedge as well you know.... You get rid of the Robbie avatar and I'll see what I can do as regards Frankie - I'm actually getting a little bored of her now... I'm on the lookout for a nice shot of Hilary Clinton - MILF!

Did you hit your head really badly on your last climb?

As regards Iraq - I think getting rid of Saddam was both good for the West and for the Iraqi people...

For the West he was a source of instability and a threat to oil supplies. I don't feel guilty about a war partially motivated by oil either - we don't rob it - the Iraqis get wealth for the oil and get to build schools, hospitals etc. Also, although he didn't have WMD - there was a risk he'd get them in the future and do something stupid with them (stupid me though I did buy the whole WMD story at the time).
How was Saddam a source of western instability? Is it because he made the western powers argue amongst themselves? Other can you name one thing that Saddam did post the inavsion of Kuwait which threatened Middle East Stability? Yes, the west may not rob the Iraqis directly but what fcuk are PSAs - If not a wonderful way to divest Iraqis of their own oil wealth? The only reason that Iraq was able to be a modern country before the 1990s was because the Iraqi government had complete control of oil revenue. Also I think its plain that any move to the PSA system would deny the Iraqis the right to control their own revenues, maybe its just me but I think colonial exploitation (as it is certain that any PSA is going to be with American companies on American terms) is just wrong and recipe for future instability.

ON the WMD, didn't have them then and because of the invasion we will never know if he would have re-started any program.

To answer your question its the West responsibility to get rid of Saddam cause we are nice chaps. I do think we should be more active in the Rwandas and Darfurs of the world. While we are not directly responsible for Rwanda/Darfur etc we were responsible for the sanctions against Iraq which were destroying the country. So we made the mess we have to fix it.

Tricam.
Ah bless Liberal idealism at its worst!
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top