I know I am going to regret this post but....

September 4, 2003

The US on their way to the war against Irag declared the UN as a bunch of incompetents who could not find the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq had hidden. Because of this the US and their two allies went to war. Months later the US and their 2 allies have yet to uncover one WOMD. Now, the US, who appear to have never established any sort of control in Iraq, want the UN members to send in troops etc. to help out. GO FIGURE!!!!

Southshore · September 4, 2003

nincompoop jackaninnis springs to mind. No No wonder Powell wants out.

Southshore · September 4, 2003

nincompoop jackaninnis springs to mind. No wonder Powell wants out.

September 4, 2003

I can't vouch for the response you'll get, but you should never regret pointing out the stupidity of war.

neo

September 4, 2003

The sad thing is, it was never about womd at all. That was only the excuse. The whole thing was about the US debt. They finance their debt by trading the value of goods.. IE oil, gold etc. on the world market against the supposed value of the US dollar. Iraq was going to sell their oil for Euros. Now can you imagine what would happen to the US if everyone on the Middle East said as of today oil is no longer xUSD per barrel,it's x Euros per barrel. The US economy would collapse. Thats what it's all about in MHO.... Slimey Bastriches... Follow the money and you'll always find the answer.

Don Hudson · September 4, 2003

Malcolm...When was there ever any doubt about the US lying to justify their invasion of Iraq?

Hopefully what Tony Blair is now experiencing, Bush has yet in store. And Blair is having to come to terms with the Hutton Inquiry, (http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/).

Think anything like that will ever happen in the US?

WMD? If that were the truth, under the same justification, the US would have invaded N.Korea by now. They were already making noises about Syria, (thus completing the horseshoe of control).

QED.

September 4, 2003

The reasons for invading Iraq are many and varied. The justification for an invasion is also wide and varied. There simply isn't the room, disk space or forum large enough to get to the bottom of this one.

Did the US have justification?

We are led to believe that WMD is the reason. There can be no single reason when any country takes on the responsibility for liberating millions of people. Can there?

Iraq has a history of using Mustard Gas and other gases against it's (perceived) enemies. It is also willing to provide 'allies' with this WMD.

The world watched for the best part of 10 years as UN Inspectors documented WMD in Iraq. The world watched as Iraq turned the process into a joke by waffling, relocating, and denial. But, Canadians sat in the comfort of their homes and sided with this regime as thousand of Iraqis (over the last 35 years) were killed, tortured, kidnapped, inprisonned, you name it.

How convenient?

The UN Inspectors documented the stuff. Asked for additional clout from the UN and didn't get it. Didn't get what they needed to do the job.

Iraq summarily threw them out.

AND NO ONE DID ANYTHING.

9/11 changed the rules of the game. Forever.

When given a final, and deafning ultimatum, Iraq presented the UN with a some 12,000 page document confirming not only their WMD programs but the quantity and location.

When told to get rid of and destroy they merely scoffed at the US.

This gave them the opportunity to bury, remove, relocate and/or destroy.

Neuclear Physisists with files and documents in their homes? Are you kidding? As if.

Justification for an invasion? I guess.

Justification for staying? You betcha.

Justification for calling the shots in Iraq? Absolutely.

So, where is the world community?

Sh*tscared in the comfort of their homes calling the yanks 'bullies' when they should be called saviours.

What's wrong with this picture?

Who's the biggest pre-invasion 'offenders' of the UN Sanctions against post Gulf War Iraq?

Germany and France. No wonder they didn't support the Yanks. Why jeopardize jobs and bank loans? Pathetic.

jkavafian · September 4, 2003

Do you actually believe the pathetic crap you wrote?

September 4, 2003

Absolutely.

Mitch Cronin · September 4, 2003

....I reckon y'u done swallo'd a whole heap-full-a horse plop there pardner.

You seem to be placing an awfull lot of faith in the information you've been fed, and a freighteningly small amount of value in the sanctity of soveriegnty.

The question that seems pertinent to me is, did anyone have the right to "invade"?

I can't imagine any situations that give anyone that right without absolute knowledge of a plan, and the ability, to use WMD. If that knowledge had existed, it would surely have been shared by now.

Steam Driven · September 4, 2003

I too agree and couldn't have stated it better my self.

Steam Driven · September 4, 2003

You're putting too much emphasis on the WMD. Look at the other atrocities that have been perpetrated by this regime. That Saddam used Mustard Gas against his own people is not at issue.

He did that.

He killed religious factions who disagreed with his views en-masse. That can not be denied.

He had and fomented a hatred of the West, not just the US, Canada is in the West too, that raised the hysteria that I would argue lead to the Sept. 11 attacks.

He siphoned UN Oil for food/medicine money into his own coffers while letting the sick die parading them on TV to show how "Evil the West was" and how hard done by he was.

He had been PAYING the families of martyr's who went to Israel and blew themselves up, killing innocent bystander's.

Your position is that no WMD, no justification for an invasion or occupying force.

My position is that Saddam and his regime had the where with all and desire to inflict irreparable damage to the West not only physically through terror, but economically with oil.

Yes, this comes down to Oil. The engine of the economy of the West. Without oil how many jobs would disappear? What kind of economic havoc would that entail? Just imagine a black out like the recent one all over the West...

Cargo Agent · September 4, 2003

Great heading for your post Gino. You know the kind of responses you'll get from the bleeding hearts. Rest assured that there are many that agree with you. A taste of the repression many in Iraq suffered through for many years would likely change the minds of some of your detractors.

A lot of those opposed to your views are simply against anything the US does, and have been parroting the "evil USA" mantra for so long they believe it. No wonder the Liberals get elected over and over again in this country.

Mitch Cronin · September 4, 2003

"Without oil how many jobs would disappear? What kind of economic havoc would that entail? Just imagine a black out like the recent one all over the West..."

All that looks pretty darned pale in the face of the terror of invasion.

Yep, we've all gotta have our toaster's and micro-wave's and 2 car's and boats and airplanes and the machinery that makes it all and gets us all to work so we can make money to buy it all, while the Iraqi people languish in the freedom from oppression and tyranny Bush has just provided for them.

If the US had been in the habit of saving people's from oppression by invasion, out of some sense of righteousness, that'd be something else...

All about oil and economics is right. And I hate it.

Why not just employ their usual oust-the-evil-dictator methods, or even use the smart-stuff weapons to put out his lights... Or better yet, let the UN rein him in?

911 changed everything alright. It provoked the US into a sense of justification for hard aggression... and that won't serve them, nor anyone, including us, very well. I think.

Seeker · September 4, 2003

Mitch, I don't know about your preference in music but I think this song pretty much sums up what you've been saying.

www.billybragg.co.uk/multimedia/price_of_oil.mp3

Mitch Cronin · September 4, 2003

I can think of a few other singers I'd rather hear singing that, in a few other styles...

But yep, that pretty much says it.

Cheers,

September 4, 2003

Here are the original claims made by the Bush/Blair propaganda machine:

1. Saddam Hussein supported Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and had a direct hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Fact: The CIA determined early on that NO connection between Saddam and bin Laden existed. Indeed, bin Laden called for the overthrow of the Hussein regime for being too secularist. Iraq was one of the more progressive Islamic countries in the region. It provided full rights for women and public education for its citizens.

2. Iraq was close to completing development of nuclear weapons and the means to use them to attack America and their allies (Israel).

Fact: Iraq had NO nuclear weapons program, which the Bush regime knew conclusively before making this false claim. George W. cited a report from The International Atomic Energy Agency saying that that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon - the IAEA's chief spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said: "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency." In other words, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, et.al. flat out lied to the American people and the rest of the world.

3. Iraq possessed massive arsenals of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam was prepared to unleash upon America and Israel.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said of Iraq's alleged WMD, "We know where they are."

Fact: Four months after conquering Iraq, the U.S. military still cannot find any evidence of such arsenals; just as the U.N. inspectors could not find them before US and British tanks rushed into Baghdad.

4. When all other rationale were proven false, Bush trotted out the "liberation of an oppressed people" excuse.

FACT: It is certainly true that Saddam was a cruel and murderous tyrant. But, he was no more cruel and murderous than other regimes in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Israel and their new friend, the formerly designated terrorist state of Pakistan.

Let's be HONEST about Hussein. Every 'evil' cited about him was enacted with American support, including the weapons that he used. Let us acknowledge that Baghdad WAS a teeming, modern city, and that Hussein used oil revenue not just for his personal greedy purposes (as American privately owned oil IS used); let us acknowledge that Hussein built the schools, the libraries, the museums, the canal systems, the electrical systems, the best hospital care he could create (while under embargoes that classified much medical equipment as potential weapons) and the media systems. He insisted that women be educated. All this while his nation bore the health burdens of having been poisoned from depleted uranium radioactivity that was dropped on it in the first 'Gulf War.'

More than 200 American soldiers have been killed and thousands more wounded to rid the world of an imminent threat that wasn't. To say nothing of the countless Iraqis who have lost their lives. President Clinton was impeached for seven words he should never have uttered: "I never had sex with that woman." What price will President Bush have to pay for his scam?

September 4, 2003

Probably the best post in the thread, IMO - thanks.

And (to the chest-thumping types), no, I am not a "Yankee hater". Just a tad cynical watching the American tanks rush up to place protective troops around the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad, while leaving the hospitals and libraries defenseless against total destruction and looting..."where oh where could those WMD beeeeeee?!?"

Steam Driven · September 4, 2003

You and I agree on more points than not Mitch. But on this we are destined to disagree. C'est la vie.

I'll put the question to you. What would you have done different? Keep the sanctions? Write and angry letter to Saddam? Increase the boycott? Stand back and allow events to play out and be reactive?

It's not an easy situation. Many poster's, myself included, simplify the situation just to get our brains around the whole idea.

I speak from the outrage that someone, a bully for lack of a better term, is left alone to do as he wishes and many suffer.

Yes, oil is the reason that we in the West got involved. How do you or others feel about gas hitting $1 a litre? Natural gas bills this winter 3 times or more what we paid last year? The price of groceries climbing because of the increased costs of the producers and retailers?

The truth is Oil is the life blood of our economy in the West. A stable, reasonable priced commodity benefits all of us.

If fundamentalism can be put aside and the Iraqi people can use the wealth that we in the west will pump in as the oil comes out we will all be better off.

There is a need to organize and put in place a structure that the Iraqi people can call their own. Then the Soldiers can leave and the "people" can for the first time choose their destiny. That however is the problem. You can not thrust democracy upon a nation that has never known it and walk away. An "occupying" force is a necessary evil until cooler heads prevail.

The U.S. in no paragon of Sainthood. I think you and I agree on that point, but with no one else willing or able for that matter, to step up to the plate, I think they are doing what has to be done.

As the saying goes, "It's a dirty job, but some's gotta do it."

Steam Driven · September 4, 2003