BF2S Forums Without WMD we would have found another excuse to invade Iraq

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.

He actually admitted to nothing of the sort.

I bet the Iranians and Kuwaitis (and Saudis) would probably disagree.

It's good that you have strong feelings that aren't based on fact and you still have them in spite of plenty of facts to the contrary.

Yet you say people who believe in religion are nuts...ironic.

Sh!fty wrote:

This made my day. Dilbert getting smashed

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Except the FACT that for 10 years Iraq failed to comply with the cease fire agreement. It was this point and not specifically the "WMD issue", that sent the coalition back in to finish the job.

Get back with me when Blair admits that we went to Iraq for no reason at all, except fo rthe fun of it, and so the evil rich had a project to invest in.

It was the WMD issue. That was the central issue. Period. Peter Goldsmith, the UK Attorney General, in deliberating on the legality of this farce stated that he believed a resumption of hostilities to be legal given that resolution 687 imposed upon Iraq the necessity to eliminate its WMD. Them's the facts. Like them or lump them. There was no ceasefire breach anywhere - Iraq didn't fire any shots. All they did was stop inspections aimed at preventing WMD. If you can't grasp that reality then I suggest we part ways on this one. Paul Wolfowitz himself stated the WMD issue to be the primary reason for action.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-14 11:22:54)

Mekstizzle wrote:

Personally I think the best way to rule a multi-ethnic/lingual country is to have a good federal representative democracy. Dictatorships don't work in multi ethnic countries because one ethnic group always comes out on top which pisses everyone else off. So then you have shit like what you saw in the USSR, or Yugoslavia and now Iraq.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

You just argued Blair said the WMD's didn't matter, and now you argue this guy says they did. Make up your mind so I know which direction to take my argument.

Also, there was a breach of the cease fire. Who says you need to fire a shot to breach a cease fire. NON-COMPLIENCE was the breach in the cease fire. 

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewresource.a … 670#kuwait

THe timeline straight from 90 to 2003

The war started in 91 is the same war of 2003. Iraq disabeyed the treaty and he got thumped for it.

a) The British government, led by Blair, used WMD as the legal pretext to allow them to enter into a war with an ally they sought favour with, the US. That is a fact. Blair didn't actually care about the WMD issue, he just wanted to walk lockstep with the US, he just needed it as an excuse for such an irrational act. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the WMD issue and the UN resolution non-compliance are both one and the same thing and that the United Nations Security Council made it clear that following UN Resolution 1441 the US and others did not have legal authority to invade Iraq. If Saddam was found in breach of said resolution the matter had then to be reverted to the UNSC to discuss the matter of military action. Bush and Blair signed UN 1441 and assured everyone it contained 'no hidden triggers'.

b) Non-compliance did not warrant military action. Saddam had been completely emasculated through the largely successful application of sanctions (check the state of his shitty military at the end) and the imposition of the no-fly zone. Arms inspections were carried out for a period of 7 years commencing in 1991. The non-compliance may have been used as the excuse but it certainly was not defensively necessary for any western nation to waste blood on it. It was simply carried out because he sat on top of a shit load of oil and with sanctions applied they found themselves completely hamstrung in terms of freeing up those resources.

c) The very fact that a tribunal is currently raking British politicians over the coals over the WMD issue speaks volumes about the reality of the then situation. Can't you remember the ludicrous theatre of Colin Powell's presentation of a vial of anthrax to those assembled at the UN?

At the end of the day there was no sufficiently worthwhile or decent reason to drag the west through the muck again as devious overlord of the world, spilling countless gallons of blood both western and Iraqi, and funnelling taxpayers money into the pockets of the already rich. The US and friends didn't honestly care about UN resolutions, as evident in there ignorance of the provisions of UN Resolution 1441. Play the UN card if you want, but at the end of the day it's a smokescreen for an immoral, irrational, wasteful, destructive and pointless act. It's funny to watch those that lambast the UN so much cling to the ink on papers they hold in their vaults...

Dilbert_X wrote:

It doesn't matter, Blair and Bush have made it clear.
Without a single UN resolution they would have found some excuse, any excuse, to invade Iraq.

Iraq was going to be invaded whatever happened.

I don't think our leaders should be lying to us, breaking international law or taking us into wars only PNAC and Israel think are worth fighting.

Dilbert_X wrote:

US acted in the best interests of the majority of the world and herself.

How so? Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone and the US knew it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

We kinda back Israel.

There we are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And, honestly it was never about WMDs.  Just another selling point.

So your President lied to Congress and the American people? Thats nice.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I just find it so amusing that this guy you describe so often as a complete idiot was somehow smart enough to pull one over on everyone. That gigantic, gaping, hole in your theory just won't go away.

Americans just aren't that smart I guess.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Another selling point. Therefore, not a lie.

It was THE selling point AND a lie.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you're President of the US and lie convincingly, some people might believe you, for a while.

The WMD stuff doesn't matter any more, without it Blair and Bush would have found another excuse, so its moot.
Regime change was the objective, and thats not a legal justification for war.

Spark wrote:

curious. does us/international law distinguish between the two, because they often come out to be the same thing?

Cybargs wrote:

Spark wrote:

curious. does us/international law distinguish between the two, because they often come out to be the same thing?

Ratification of said international law is legally binded within US law afaik.

Last edited by Spark (2009-12-16 06:08:29)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Regime change may have been an objective, but that doesn't make it the legal justification. They are two separate and distinct issues--objective and causus belli.

You should be a politician.

Regime change was THE objective, Blair has made that clear.

Since Iraq did not affect the US or Britain I'd like to know why.

Dilbert_X wrote:

1441 Was a pretext, not a reason or 'causus belli'.
That there was no actual evidence to back up the use of 1441 makes the whole business clear - Iraq was going to be invaded no matter what.
That Blair has now admitted it is proof.