US Ends WMD search

[Relbeek Einre]

Partha - the northern nofly zone was the second zone. The southern one was first. So there was one.

[Partha]

The southern one was second, created in August of '92. However, it was not used the way the northern one was - violations of the southern one were not punished.

[Rsak]

Narith,

Well you are right on one point, Iraq HAD the weapons, the UN told Saddam to destroy them or be invaded, Saddam did, the UN said let us inspect your country to make sure, which of course he objected to

Your problem is that you are assuming that Saddam was telling the truth. Regardless of the whether we could find the weapons or not, Iraq was obligated by the cease fire agreement to prove that they had been destroyed.

They did not and there is no debating that point, it is a fact.

There is no question about the legality of the war because of these actions.

In the aftermath of September 11th and repeated lies and obfuscations by Saddam we just could not simply take the chance. I can respect that decision whether you can not, but don't try to push your political agenda by trying to claim the president lied when no such thing can be proven.

[Relbeek Einre]

It was an impossible task. "Here -- look at the weapons we don't have!"

[Rsak]

Bullshit

They could have instead of kicking the inspectors out had them present when they supposedly destoryed the weapons.

End of story.

[Ddrak]

There's no question that Saddam was acting like he had something to hide. That doesn't necessarily mean that he really did have something to hide though. I believe there's a good chance he was playing some sort of retarded mind game to make people think he had WMD and didn't count on the US actually invading on that premise, or something. I do think he was enjoying yanking the world's chain though...

The statement that he was probably going to start programs again when we stopped watching is particularly stupid though - that just means that stopping watching is bad. After all, if you decide that your kid might start taking drugs if you stop watching them then the best course of action is to keep vigilant, not to shoot the kid.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

They did, for many of their weapons. Others, however, were destroyed by Allied forces and they couldn't exacly do much about that.

[Kulaf]

"The statement that he was probably going to start programs again when we stopped watching is particularly stupid though - that just means that stopping watching is bad. After all, if you decide that your kid might start taking drugs if you stop watching them then the best course of action is to keep vigilant, not to shoot the kid. "

Really? And how exactly would you "keep watching"? You are convinced that the U.S. could have convinced to inspections forever? Is that what you are saying? Or are you suggesting that we were to wait around until he did in fact rebuld his programs and then attack him?

What exactly are you suggesting should have been done?

[Partha]

How about continuing what OBVIOUSLY WORKED? Is that too much to ask?

Well, from this batch of chickenhawks, it is.

[Kulaf]

The question is would the UN agree to permanent inspections? If not then you are just relying on the same intelligence services that said he had them to determine whether or not he had them.

See the catch 22 there?

[Ddrak]

The UN conducts inspections on a *lot* of nations on a permanent basis. Why should Iraq be any different? There is no catch-22 because your initial premise that the UN wouldn't continue inspections is faulty.

Of course, with someone like Saddam you'd probably have to send in armed teams to force their way into places he decided to play silly with but none of that is even going to approach the staggering cost of the current Iraq occupation in either dollars or US lives.

The fact that is emerging is the inspections worked and were continuing to work. There is no "waiting for him to build a program" - that's just circular reasoning that could be applied to pretty much anywhere: We must invade XXX before they do YYY, even though we have no evidence of it now they may do it in the future!!!

Dd

[Kulaf]

I've heard your "armed teams" reasoning before too Dd and the simple fact is that was tried and rejected by members of the SC. And you know it.

I would have loved to just have the status quo go on and have armed inspectors that would have kept Iraq compliant. But the simple fact is certain members of the UNSC had a vested interest that such inspections eventually would come to an end.

[Eidolon Faer]

Haven't we been bickering over this for a year now? Didn't we have a 9-11 Commission for the express purpose of settling this particular hash?

This changes nothing. This doesn't change the fact that everyone in the world, including John F. Kerry, believed that Saddam had WMD's at the time the invasion was initiated. This doesn't change the reality of the weapons' existence or nonexistence. And clearly this doesn't change the fact that some people are desperate to attack Bush in any way possible, regardless of how petulant it makes them appear.

Frankly, we HAD to stop searching for the weapons eventually. The sovreignty of the Iraqi Intirim Government...and of the elected government that is to come...makes such a conclusion inescapable. How can we say "Grats New Iraqis, we're leaving you now to govern yourselves in peace and with warm fuzzy feelings, just like we promised!" while we're still sifting the desert for Saddam's missing WMD's?

By officially announcing the end of the search, we not only reassure Iraq that the results of their election will be meaningful and that we WILL give them their country back, but it also allows us to reallocate resources devoted to the search. And as I said, it changes nothing.

[Narith]

Narith,

Well you are right on one point, Iraq HAD the weapons, the UN told Saddam to destroy them or be invaded, Saddam did, the UN said let us inspect your country to make sure, which of course he objected to

Your problem is that you are assuming that Saddam was telling the truth. Regardless of the whether we could find the weapons or not, Iraq was obligated by the cease fire agreement to prove that they had been destroyed.

They did not and there is no debating that point, it is a fact.

There is no question about the legality of the war because of these actions.

In the aftermath of September 11th and repeated lies and obfuscations by Saddam we just could not simply take the chance. I can respect that decision whether you can not, but don't try to push your political agenda by trying to claim the president lied when no such thing can be proven.

True, before the war I would not have just assumed he was telling the truth, but now that we have covered the entire country and still found no WMDs and now officially calling our own search off we can be pretty sure he was telling the truth.

Claiming the president lied can be proven just as much as Saddam having WMDs after he was ordered to get rid of them, and geuss what happened in that case, and geuss the outcome.

Fact of the matter is on 9/11 we were attacked, not by Saddam, but by another group, we in turn spend less than 6 months going after the person who attacked us then turn the majority of our attention twords Saddam (yes I know we haven't completly given up on Osma, however the majority of our forces were taken off the job). They tried to say that Saddam had WMDs, when that proved not to be true they tried to claim Saddam had ties to Osama, it took an entire commision to prove that wrong, now they just gave up on giving out excuses and just say it was the right thing to do which we know is BS because if it was right to get rid of a dictator who commited crimes against his own people Bush wouldn't be in office! (Ok cheap shot *snicker*), seriously though we would be at war against the majority of African and parts of Asia so that arguement just does not hold water.

Trying to link Saddam to 9/11 works just as well as proving Saddam had WMDs left after he was told to destroy them, it is just a lie you tell yourself to feel better about doing something you know was wrong.

[Kulaf]

Nice to see your hindsight is 20/20 there Narith, hehe.

[Ddrak]

I don't believe it was ever put to the UNSC, Kula. There was a strong team in the US that developed the most firm proposal along those lines but it never really got a look from anyone that I heard of. The US didn't want it - they'd be poo-pooing inspectors and to do so would be a huge about face. I think France/Germany/Russia couldn't have cared. WMD inspections don't preclude trade but in the end nothing was talked over because France and the US were too pig headed to even discuss compromises.

The purpose of the 9/11 commission was never to determine if we did the "right" thing going into Iraq. I still believe the invasion was premature, lacked planning of the occupation and lacked a decent exit strategy. I don't believe the US government did what was best for Americans with their actions in Iraq.

"Everyone in the world" may have thought Saddam may have WMDs, but very few believed the quantities that Bush parrotted in his SotU address and even fewer believed Saddam had them in any fit state to use. What the more objective people were saying was exactly what I said before - that more intelligence was needed to make a determination and there was no immediate urgency. They were saying rushing to war would be an expensive and relatively worthless exercise. They were right.

Dd

[Kulaf]

"I don't believe it was ever put to the UNSC, Kula. There was a strong team in the US that developed the most firm proposal along those lines but it never really got a look from anyone that I heard of. "

It was never tabled to the UNSC Dd because France came right out and said it would veto any such proposal no matter what. They did not want any troops in Iraq UN or otherwise.

I never really cared what Iraq may or may not have had at the time of the invasion. The simple matter was the regime has every intention of resuming said programs asap.

[Klast Brell]

Many people did not believe Saddam had WMD before the invasion. I was one of them. Unfortunately this board does not archive 2 year old threads or I could point to posts I made saying just that.

[Kulaf]

Then you are wiser than former President Clinton.....who also believed he had them and stated so publically.

[Rsak]

Narith,

Claiming the president lied can be proven

Amazing that we are still waiting for that proof!

they tried to claim Saddam had ties to Osama, it took an entire commision to prove that wrong

Have you read the report? It in fact said the exact opposite, that there were ties between Saddam and Al Queda (Note that does not mean that Iraq was involved in 9/11 since it is a seperate issue).

Trying to link Saddam to 9/11 works just as well as proving Saddam had WMDs left after he was told to destroy them, it is just a lie you tell yourself to feel better about doing something you know was wrong.

The President and the administration never made such claims so you should take your sanctimonious lies elsewhere.

The real problem is that a large number of people have never understood what the President has been trying to do and then instead latch on to one motive and only one motive and when that does not end up being valid they feel that the attention has been shifted away. The reality however is that the President and our Allies (Prime Minister Tony Blair) gave numerous reasons from the very begining of why Saddam was a risk that the free world could not ignore or take a chance on.

You may not have agreed with that reason, but regardless they are the individuals voted into power by their respective countries and they went through the steps to authorize the action by your voted representatives. They made that call whether it is right or wrong and the only thing you can do is say you would have done it differently as you vote against them in the next election. The problem however is that very clearly the majority of the citizens support the President for this reason or another.

Your continued attempts to slander the President by claiming he is a liar show that you don't care about the well being of our country but only the fall of the President. If you cannot enter into the discussion with civility then you are unable of using any kind of objectivity while looking at the facts.