One More Time

[Busyman]

There's the point. He refused to comply with an order, made by the UN. Bearing in mind that this was after he had invaded another country. Not to depose it's leader, to steal it's resources.

Had he allowed proper access then there would have been no reason to invade. I'm glad he didn't in a way, because it allowed for him to be taken from power. The man was and is a murderous butcher.

So the fuck what?

Not complying with an order does not justify an entire ground war.

"Why did your son lose his life"

"Well he didn't let the inspectors in."



"Oh well now that we are in there was nothing there. Sorry, you have other kids don't you?"

Amazing.

If I had a hair for every butcher................

Iraqi's are alot better off though.

[vidcc]

no, again this is out of context. International laws state that countrys have to let inspectors in in order to ensure that there are whatever weapons we have to declare we have. The US, undoubtably has WMD of its own, but we (governments) know about them - other countries too have them, but they are relatively open about this. this ensures that noone is harbouring enough to blow the earth from the solar system.

I disagree with so much of your post but we have done the deed to death, however this one is reasonably untouched.

The USA has weapons programs as you suggest...but we don't even allow inspections of our power plants for "security" reasons.

do you think if Saddam had said he has these weapons the need for war would vanish?...as you said other countries have to declare them.

btw. china and the usa do have enough to blow up the earth.

[manker]

To me this whole situation reeks of double standards.

It has been suggested that because of a UN resolution to check to see if any WMD were being produced wasn't complied with, the invasion is justified. Yet there was not a resolution made to invade. The coalition did it anyway and ignored the UN while using it to justify the actual invasion. That strikes me as odd.

Also if this obstruction to inspect is a legitimate reason for invasion then, as Busyman says, why isn't the coalition invading N. Korea - who have practically jumped up and down like a petulant child to tell the world that they want, and allude to already having, nukes.

I do agree with the initial point of this thread, it is conceivable that they didn't look in the right places. However to use this as a basis to justify the invasion of Iraq is nonsense.

[vidcc]

I'm sure if Saddam was the kind of man that felt he needed to pass a "world test" in his actions he could come up with a few reasons for kuwait. The question is would we accept them ?

[manker]

I don't think I'm missing that point. To invade Kuwait was wrong and he was dealt with appropriately at that time. I do not have an argument there.

Perhaps he was a threat because he wouldn't let the inspectors do their job, maybe he did have WMD. Perhaps he was hiding something. I can see that point of view.

What I fail to understand is why it was considered necessary to invade there and not to invade other countries where more overt threats are in evidence.

As a side note, I believe I do, in fact, understand the political and logistic reasons for not invading Iran and N. Korea, however to invade one threatening country because it's a 'soft target' and to let the others carry on as they were because they might put up more of a fight doesn't sit well with me. It's double standards.

[vivitron 15]

wow - JP, i have never before agreed with you on a subject such as this!

anyhow, the point that there are other countries who are also a threat is true - though we don't know entirely what is going on - we may have intelligence one way or another. and when someone mentioned overt plans of weapons, then thats what im saying, it makes life much easier when you know what someone has - if they tell you, then its likely you know, whereas somone keeps it all schtum, then you just never know...

[vidcc]

All this debate about why we went in is all well and good but the fact remains that we have so far been proven to have made a mistake on the reasons we gave..... please don't use the reasons thought up after the event, they don't count.

[vivitron 15]

but at the end of the day, was it a mistake?

in that, given the choice over, would it be repeated? - im sure anyone here would make the same choice, based upon the info GBush had. at the end of the day, he would have wanted to avoid war, but the threat was clearly too strong.

[ruthie]

I believe Bush knew alot more then he will ever admit. He has had an Iraq agenda for a long time.

[Rat Faced]

He never stopped the original Inspectors doing their Jobs, although he did make it difficult for them... Im sure any other Government would too. I mean the US, for example, wont allow Inspections at all...

When the American Spy was discovered, he also stated that he would allow no Americans to be amongst the inspectors.. perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

The UN (under pressure from the US and UK) then withdrew the other Inspectors... he didnt throw them out. His only condition was "No more Americans".. The only Inspectors he "Threw Out" were the Americans.. for spying. He would have been within his rights to execute them for spying, yet gets fucked for letting them go... Guy just cant win, can he?