The case for war

[mellomeh]

When america and britain went to war, they claimed saddam had WoMD. Now it's obvious there were never any weapons, they reckon they were 'liberating' iraq (not that they did a very good job of it), it's odd because i don't see them packing off to liberia or any other african country thats over-run by people many times worse than saddam the same way they did a few months ago, no-one else I know seemed to recognise this fact, did anyone else?

[Toglet]

Don't worry, you're not alone in noticing this. Yes, Saddam needed getting rid of, but by lying as they did, Bush and Blair have proved themselves untrustworthy, and should be voted out of power asap. When they go and compound the evil by allowing Mugabe (among others) onto European territory, they show how hypocritical they truly are.

[Quizmonster]

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security..." These are the words of Paragraph 3 of the preamble to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - the November 2002 one Bush and Blair used as justification for action against Saddam Hussein. (Click on http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm for confirmation.) It is important to realise that this resolution was not drafted - or "sexed up" - by Alastair Campbell! It is equally important to grasp that the resolution was signed-up-to by all 15 member-countries on the Council. Most of these - and certainly France, Russia and China - have their own intelligence services. Do you imagine they all just took Blair's word for the existence of WMD? Of course they didn't. They and everybody else in the world - including Clare Short and Robin Cook (as well as you and me probably) - as earlier resolutions make perfectly clear, believed in the existence of Iraqi WMD, not least because there was ample evidence that Saddam had actually often used the damned things! Yet, now, we are supposed to believe that all this was just concocted out of thin air by a couple of leaders determined to go to war. That is so patently absurd that I am amazed that otherwise sane people even give the idea credence.

[3s_a_crowd]

It is obvious that the claims of WMD were based on intelligence reports from sources in a number of countries which most of the world believed.
I used the word *obvious* to illustrate the questioners use of that word by claiming that it is now *obvious* that there were never any WMD.
It is not so obvious to me and I'm prepared to wait for those with greater access to information to provide the answers.
In the same way I find it hard to accept that there are *people many times worse than Saddam*. There's big problems in many African countries, Liberia is but one example, but does anyone have enough information about deaths, torture, asset stripping etc to make a comparison with Saddams regime ?

[3s_a_crowd]

Having WMD is not in itself a problem. It's what you intend to do with them that creates the problem. Couple that with all the other despicable things going on in somewhere like Iraq, for example, and you create a situation that I believe needs a bit of sorting out.

[Toglet]

3s_a_Crowd, I think you have to concede that Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe is crtainly on a par with Saddam's for corruption, torture, brutality and government-licenced murder.

[answerbok]

on a par, Toglet? Times by 10 for Mugabe and subtract the number you first thought of for the propaganda bulls-hit spouted about liberating Iraq when the Iraqi's were better with the devil they knew.. than badgered by Yanks..

[3s_a_crowd]

True. Saddam, his sons and other cronies were just quietly torturing, killing, raping, thieving etc. I don't know why we didn't just leave them to it. I'm sure that there must be other nations more deserving of the coalition forces weaponry.
All said with tongue in cheek.

[simon_says]

I just love the "right-on" attitude of some people. If they had their way Saddam would still be in power and his sons would still be overseeing the torture and murder of Iraqi civillians. Remember a guy called Adolf Hitler? In the thirties, people were advocating leaving him alone to do his thing and looked what ended up happening! Yes there are other tyrannical rulers about, and given time they will be dealt with I am sure, but going after Saddam was a good place to start. He had used WMD in the past, and would no doubt have used them again. The hysteria being whipped up by the BBC and the Guardian ( to name but two ) is incredible. Remember they were predicting hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing Iraq. This has not happened. When WMD are found I hope Bush and Blair stick two proverbial fingers up at these people!

[Toglet]

Absolutely right, Einstein. And which sucker believes anything they say now? If they lie once, they'll lie over and over and over again..........

[football]

The chemical weapons he had, turned out to be a Chemical Toilet. If he had used that, we would all be in the S.H.

[Quizmonster]

Einstein, there are resolutions and resolutions...specifically United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The former are basically 'advisory'..ie the UN is saying to the offending country: "We'd like it if you'd give some consideration to doing/stopping doing whatever." The latter are 'mandatory'...ie: "Do what we say or else!" Iraq is the only country to have been the recipient of those. The many against Israel - for whom I have no axe to grind, by the way, far from it - are advisories only.

I don't know if you read my earlier answer here, but it is made perfectly clear there that - if Bush and Blair lied about WMD - then so did the Presidents of France, Russia, China and the ten rotating member-countries of the Security Council. Why? because they all signed up to Resolution 1441 which specifically said Iraq had WMD and the means to deliver them! It seems that you - like many - have been misled by yet another media feeding-frenzy. (Incidentally, Hitler was clearly a disaster waiting to happen long before he invaded anywhere.)

[Quizmonster]

Einstein, You have actually conceded the point I was making! The leaders were all, quote: "supporting an erroneous position". This is not at all the same thing as "lying" or "deluding their peoples", as any really logical person will assure you. (If I truly believe that Lagos - rather than Abuja - is the name of the capital city of Nigeria and someone asks me what it is and I tell him it's Lagos...am I lying or just wrong?) My whole point is that the press hoo-haa here now is based on a belief that Bush and Blair were "lying", which is manifestly absurd, unless all the other leaders were lying, too.

Re the US and anti-Israeli UN resolutions, you seem to have missed the point there, too. When the US wants to protect Israel from these, they simply veto them - ie have them thrown out in their entirety - they do not accept a watered-down version.

Apart from that, I am totally with you on the Palestine question. As the crippled Sheikh who is the figurehead of Hamas says: "All I want is my family's house back." That's all most Palestinians who occupied that territory for millennia really wanted originally.

Two questions for you...a.) Are you glad Saddam Hussein is gone? b.) Other than the method that was used, how do you suppose that wonderful end might have been achieved?

[Quizmonster]

Dear Einstein, Do you dispute that France, Russia and China have major worldwide intelligence services at least on a par with Britain's and the USA's? These three countries were the major contributors to Iraq's arsenal throughout the 80s and 90s. Do you suppose, then, that they had no weapons-information gleaned by their own intelligence services, all of whom must have been in-country and involved in its weapons-trade for over a decade?

Are you seriously contending that Chirac, Putin and Company were led blindly by an evil, conniving Blair/Bush duumvir into signing Resolution 1441 - which stated categorically that WMD existed - even though they did not believe that? That the Dastardly Duo misled not only their own peoples but also - by proxy of all these other lamb-like Presidents' ignoring their own security information - the peoples of over half the world? Don't you imagine it might have occurred to the Bush/Blair mind that - if they really were lying - they'd have some awkward explaining to do once WMD failed to appear? They'd need to be cretins to overlook something that obvious, surely. Now, I can't swear for Bush, but Blair is no cretin.

If anybody deluded anybody, it was the various intelligence services which deluded their all the various governments...accidentally, one would hope. (I really can't be bothered to explain again the difference between lying and just being wrong.)

This remains just another media hoo-haa about nothing as any rational exposition of the facts - as above - makes plain. You mustn't feel obliged to answer any of my questions here, as this - for me - is the end of this story.