Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
First of all, if either Robert Fisk or the UN told me water was wet.....I'd have to go for a swim to reassure myself water still WAS wet....
Secondly, I know they found no WMD.....but the fact they had them, and used them at one point was evidence in itself.
Thirdly, Saddam himself admitted to trying to fool the world into believing he had WMD, because he was more concerned with Iran than the US or UN.
Fourth........it has been a long hard ride, and it may go on for awhile, but Iraq was the FIRST Arab nation to become a real democracy.....and it well might remain the ONLY one.....certainly the only pro-western one.
Fifth....all that said, Bush Jr. was determined to finish the job started....and ended prematurely....by Bush Sr.
And Sixth: If tonight the USA invaded Lybia, tomorrow you would be screaming "No blood for oil!".....and I suspect you know that as well as I do.
Wow you seriously still believe the BS. I'm not even privy to top secret briefings and even I was able to figure out that by 2003 (more likely by 1996) Iraq no longer had any WMDs.
This web page from November 2001 predates the invasion:
MYTH: Iraq "has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD [weapons of mass destruction/ programs" or complied with weapons inspections. Iraqi economic sanctions "prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction" (U.S. State Department, March, 2000).
FACT: Interestingly enough, the State Department fails to address its role in helping Iraq develop its weapons programs. "...throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the government of Iraq, which was the government of the Baath party led by Saddam Hussein, was an ally of the United States. Iraq was a recipient of massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, most notably biological weapons stocks" (May 1999 National Catholic Reporter).
Yet despite this omission of history, the State Department proclaims that "Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear" based mainly on seized shipments of baby milk, baby bottles, and baby powder leaving Iraq. It seems especially unusual to state that if Hussein had greater control of baby products, he would use them to rebuild his weapons programs, especially considering that the seized items were not even directly linked to Hussein.
The truth is that Iraq has been, by and large, disarmed. "Following the Gulf War, Iraq was forced into an unprecedented disarmament process and its military might has been considerably diminished by the work of UNSCOM. Chief Weapons Inspector Richard Butler said that 'if Iraqi disarmament were a 5-lap race, we would be three-quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.'
Iraq's neighbors have said that Iraq no longer poses any threat. Even an Israeli military analyst has said that Iraq's biological weapons program was over-hyped" (Education for Peace in Iraq Center).
As for UNSCOM inspections, the lack of success lies mainly with the United States government's hidden agenda. UNSCOM had eight years of virtually unrestricted inspections. Former UN Weapons Inspector Raymond Zilinskas stated that "95 percent of [UNSCOM's] work proceeds unhindered" ("PBS Newshour" with Jim Lehrer, February 199. But contrary to the UN goal of weapons inspections, the United States government has sought to use the inspections as intelligence gathering missions. Halliday states, "[T]he difficulty with UNSCOM has been the inclusion of espionage, of spies, of various intelligence organizations which, under the UN auspices, is something that is appalling to all of us. Now as it happens, UNSCOM staff, including Butler, are not staff members of the organization. They are hired from other organizations, but nevertheless we expect them to behave in a manner consistent of a civil servant, and that clearly was not done. And the CIA and others have owned up to what they did, in fact, that they used the UN as a cover for espionage, which is a very unfortunate thing and what, of course, the Iraqis had been saying for many years and the UN had denied for many years. They were right; we, obviously, were wrong" (The Fire This Time, April 1999).
Further evidence of this comes directly from former UN Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter. "Fingers point at the United States primarily in using the weapons inspection process not so much as a vehicle for disarming Iraq, but rather as a vehicle for containing Saddam and for gathering information that could be used to remove Saddam. The US perverted the system; not the weapons inspectors" (June 1999 FOR interview). Ritter resigned from UNSCOM because of this perversion.
MYTH: "Saddam retains the capability to inflict significant damage upon Iraq's neighbors and its own civilian population" and "Without sanctions, Saddam would be free to use his resources to rearm and make good on his threats against Kuwait and the region" (U.S. State Department, March 2000).
FACT: Raymond Zilinskas, UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq, states "Although it has been theoretically possible for the Iraqis to regain such weapons since 1991, the duplicity would have been risky and expensive, and the probability of discovery very high" (Chicago Tribune, February 199. Scott Ritter, however, is more blunt. "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is a resounding 'NO.' 'Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale?' 'NO!' It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability" (June 1999 FOR interview).
Iraqi Sanctions: Myth and Fact (external - login to view)
Anyone capable of critical thought was aware, before the invasion, that the US was lying about its motivations for war with Iraq. UNSCOM knew Iraq didn't have any WMDs back in 1998. UNMOVIC had searched Iraq in 2003 and found nothing indicating Iraq had any WMDs.
When did Iraq have free and fair elections? Every Iraq election since the US took control has been tainted by overwhelming undeniable evidence of voter fraud and I'm not talking about statistical analysis indication a probability of voter fraud, but blatant evidence of election fraud on a massive scale.
Libya is another tragedy of the Iraq war. The US and NATO would have seized the opportunity to take control of Libya if they weren't are already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure such an act would be motivated in part by Libya's oil wealth, but intervening in the middle of a popular revolt being suppressed by the Dictator declaring war on the people would be far more acceptable than the Iraq war, which was quiet and peaceful (albeit oppressed) before the invasion. That last serious atrocity committed by Hussein may have been the execution of 1500 officers for treason after a failed 2001 coup attempt or the 100,000 or so people killed during a failed 1993 Shiite uprising that the US said they would support and later changed their mind.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Feb 24th, 2011 at 12:29 AM..