I think Mr Bush isn't to blame for the Iraq War

The only person responsible for the Iraq war was Saddam Hussein for all the crimes he did like attacking Iran, invading Kuwait, refusing to quit Iraq when told to by the international community, supportting international terrorism (he was well known to give active support to the PLO and evidence has emerged of other terrorist links) and refusing to fully co-operate with UN weapons inspectors.


Saddam was originally given just two months at the end of Gulf War One to declare and destroy all long range, chemical and biological weapons infront of a team of UN weapons inspectors. But he consistantly, tried to hide such weapons and lied and intimidated the weapons inspectors. The Iraq survey team while they didn't find actual weapons of mass destruction did find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes, meaning Saddam was still trying to produce banned weapons in breach of UN resolutions. While he was in power he was a constant threat to both the Iraqi people and neighbouring countries.

Saddam's regimes' human rights abuses were also among the worst in the world. His jails were full of political prisoners and torture and execution for critising the regime was very common place right up until the war to oust him. He also had no respect for international law or the UN and had disobeyed every UN resolution put to Iraq.

The world really is a better place with Saddam in prison and not in power. The war has also sent a clear message to other dictators that they will not be allowed to flowt international law and do as they like. The renouncing of terrorism by Lybias' Colonel Gadaffi and his joining of the war on terrorism proves this point.

OK so the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium amunition was wrong but not the war in itself.

 

No the inspectors did an excellent job which, it has turned out, was completely successful. Iraq was largely disarmed of WMDs by bombing during the first gulf war itself and the remaining materiel banned under resolution 687 (1991) - medium range ballistic missiles, WMD material and chemical precursors, as well as Saddam's nascent nuclear programme - were all subsequently destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in the following years, despite infiltration, spying and dirty tricks by the CIA, undermining the independent work of the UN and resulting in the inspectors' expulsion from Iraq in 1998. By the estimates of ex-weapons inspectors themselves Iraq was provably disarmed of 95% of materiel banned under 687. The remaining violations of resolution 687 were technical violations; the material could not be found (and actually did not exist), but there was not adequate documentation proving it had been destroyed. Iraq posed no threat and was under constant monitoring; this was obvious at the time to anyone who read Blix's UNMOVIC reports. It was obvious enough for Rice and Powell both to publicly state as much in mid-2001 (before US foreign policy U-turned).

This is why the UN did not authorise a second gulf war. And for that reason alone this war was by definition illegal, fought on a false prospectus, based on exaggerated political propaganda. This makes Tony Blair a war criminal by the standards of Nuremberg and the UN Charter.

That's reason enough for us to require an apology. In fact I require his trial for war crimes alongside Saddam Hussein.

 

Well said. To call saddam a threat was an, at best, misinformed. If misinformation was the problem, why not apologise? A threat consists of two parts, the means (which saddam obviously had none) and the motive. Why would saddam do anything which would cause so much suspicion, it is obvious that the western world would jump on him for anything suspicious or threatening and he wanted to hold on to power. He was no threat, this war was not for human rights reasons, (just look at americas relationship with saudi arabia!) this seems like a war purely to feed the greed of the british and american econemies

 

Yes but their job was made extremley difficult by the Iraqi authorities and instead of two months which they expected their job to take it took years! Not only that but the Iraq survey group found evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes which meant Saddam was trying to get around UN sanctions to produce WMDs once more.

Saddam was given every chance in the book since 1991 to comply with UN resolutions about comming clean about his WMD capabilities but refused. All he had to do to avoid war was thrown open his country to the UN inspectors and give them permission to search ever square inch of Iraq unhindered.

As Tony Blair said before the 2003 war. "When people accuse us of rushing into war I would like to say that we have given Saddam Hussein 12 years of chances and even now we are prepared to give him one last chance to comply with UN resolutions."

Bollocks, the only reason Bush and Blair didn't get UN authorisation to oust Saddam was because France and Germany threatened to use their veto to block UN permission. Why? Because they had lucrative oil contracts with the Iraqi regime. That my friend is blood for oil as while Saddam stayed in power people in Iraq were being tortured and murdered by the regime on a daily basis for merely critising the regime. Ending such a brutal murderous regime in itself would have been enough justification for war.

 

This is what the Iraq Survey Group said:

"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted."

"Fragmentary", "circumstantial" ... "pursued a strategy" ... "once sanctions were lifted"? This is NOT evidence of active WMD programmes. This is at best over-ambitious inference, probably politically motivated. Iraq was not a threat as regards banned weapons. Anyone who says he was is lying. This is proven. Documented fact. You believe a lie.

Read Blix's final UNMOVIC reports. Saddam was doing this. All the inspectors needed was more time and they would have been able to prove what we now know - Iraq was in compliance with the weapons ban of UNSCR687. Just as he said he was. The rush to war was for reasons other than WMD, the inspectors were not permitted to complete their job because the US wanted war.

No, we were happy with a policy of containment for 12 years. American foreign policy u-turned in late 2001 and suddenly the non-existent threat of a crippled and contained Iraq was talked up for political reasons.

Right so we end a brutal murderous regime by killing tens of thousands of civilians, tens of thousands of military conscripts, creating a civil war, ruining the infrastructure of the country (again), inviting al-Qaeda into the country, violating the charter of the UN, and using DU and cluster weapons in populated areas of a country whose population is half children? The USA and Britain have probably been responsible for about as many Iraqi deaths as Saddam was. Over the past 13 years I have no doubt the death toll inflicted on Iraq by the West vastly surpasses that inflicted by Saddam's "brutal murderous regime". He's not the only brutal one - the war you support was and still is pretty brutal and murderous. He is not the only war criminal.

 

At the end of the day we attacked a country pre emptively ..This is illegal...The last major invasion of this illegal kind by a European nation was Poland...and we all know what that led to...Blair lied about why we went to war...and because of this thousands of innocent people are dead (sorry just let me repeat that in case you missed the point THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE ARE DEAD AND BLAIR HASN'T EVEN FUCKING APOLOGISED!!!!)....Of course he is fucking responsible!!! Yeah we got rid of Saddam, but that is NOT why we went to war...If it was to get rid on an evil dictator then Saudi Arabia should have been first on our list.....Oh but I forgot..sorry they sell us cheap oil!..Not responsible I don't know how he can fucking sleep at night!!

 

The United States has used its veto more times than any other UN nation.

And I'll say what needs to be said more often: Sadam was at best attempting to procure materials which could possibly be used to make WMDs. America has shitloads of WMDs, and has showed no will or intention to disarm them.

 

simply, FALSE

Only five members of the Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — can veto the body's resolutions. Thursday's veto is the United States' 79th and the latest in a long string of vetoes regarding Israel.

The Soviet Union and Russia have cast the most Security Council vetoes over the years, 121. Britain has cast 32, France 18 and China, 5.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/26/content_318213.htm

 

So it is OK to let a murderous, tyrannical regime terrorise its own people as long as it doesn't pose an immediate threat to us? And who is to say Saddam wont pose a threat in the future? Look at his track record :- invading Iran in 1980, using chemical weapons against both Iranian troops and his own people The Kurds. Invading Kuwait in 1990 and ransacking the country. Pouring crude oil into the Persian Gulf after the first Gulf War. Massacring tens of thousands who rose up against him after the end of Gulf War one and attacking and draining the land of the Marsh Arabs. Who was to say he would behave from now on with a record as bad as that?

If Britain had stood up to Hitler in 1933 no doubt it would have caused thousands of deaths, but it would have removed a threat which eventually led to a much more destructive and dangerous war which killed many millions! Every war causes death and destruction we know that. The question is would greater death and destruction occur if we did nothing in the face of a serious threat.

 

Stephen Hayes defends his book here: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/hayes200406020847.asp Strongly denying that the connection is just a neo-conservative myth. I suggest you take some time to read it, then decide if there was or was not a connection!

I also strongly reject that the war has brought more harm than good. Leaving Saddam in power would have left his regime free to continue torturing, murdering and imprisoning political prisoners. Aswell as squandering oil revenues on Palaces for himself while his people lived in squalar. The people of Iraq are now free and can now enjoy the things we take for granted such as free speech, the right to join a trade union, the right to a fair trial, the right to openly critise politicians, the right to vote, a free press. The Kurds for one were fully in support of war to oust Saddam as they had suffered most under his rule. And the general mood of the Iraqi people now is that they are better off than under Saddam despite all the difficulties.

There are major problems, but these are caused by terrorist insurgents, who will eventually be defeated.

By the way I would also reccomend you read this Daily Mirror article by Christopher Hitchens last year : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12650508&method=full&siteid=50143

 

its only wrong for americans and israelis to kill people. Everyone else can have a free go at it.

 

Trolling again, Megara? Does it stretch your brain cells too much to actually try and understand the arguments?

 

Actually, i believe NATO attacking kosovo would have been an illegal war also.


Did tens of thousands of innocent people NOT die while the west sat on their ass and did nothing about saddam hussein? Where were you defending their right to live? It seems only when America/britain kills people it becomes a problem in iraq.

 

I don't think anyone would argue with you about our western governments letting saddam (and others) do as they wish for years until it suited us to stop them.

 

He wasnt in compliance with resolution 1441. He put forth an incomplete document of his weapons program, thats non compliance. He possessed weapons which he DID not admit in said document(oh yeah, dug up as bush threatened war with saddam, how coincidental!)

Yeah, we were happy with containment, to the cost of hundreds of thousands of iraqi lives. We're such humanitarians. We complain about 11k iraqi deaths now, and couldnt give a shit when 100's of thousands died due to starvation and a corrupt oil for foodprogram/UN.

All deaths from the iran war, gulf war, and sanctions are on saddams hands, not ours.

 

I was talking more about our 'containment' approach of saddam after the gulf war and not forcing saddam to disarm faster. It took libya and south africa a fraction of the time to disarm/prove they disarmed than it did with saddam hussein. How many more lives could have been saved if we ensured saddam hussein was disarmed and could then remove the sanctions?

 

That is correct. In the lefts' newspapers are always full of articles about deaths caused by American foreign intervention or Israels' retalitary strikes, but hardly ever if at all reports on the vast number of dead caused by rogue states such as North Korea where to my knowledge about two million have died from starvation due to Kim Sums' squandering of western aid of one billion dollars on military spending while his people starve from famine. Appalling human rights abuses in Iran. Or the destruction of the Marsh Arabs marsh land which forced them off their land into destitution which was ongoing up until the 2003 war. Or the fact that the Kurds were already literaly at war with Saddam's forces in Northern Iraq and required western help.

OK the west was very wrong to ever have supportted Saddam and any other brutal dictator. But that does not make it wrong when they do finally take brutal dictators on and overthrow them.

 

And what newspapers would these be? I have yet to find a widely published leftwing newspaper anywhere.

It is wrong for Americans and Israelis to kill just like it is wrong for anybody else to kill. But with all the "wars" going on in the world, they have been started by both Americans and Israelis. We claim to be killing terrorists, but thats just not true. America and Israel are the two biggest terrorist nations in the world and are the only two nations occupying other nations at this time. The Muslims are not terrorists, they are fighting back, defending themselves. Years of sanctions killed nearly half a million Iraqi children; numbers of Palestinians are killed every day by "self-defense" strikes by Israel. Well do you know what? They are all pre-emptive attacks. That is the "reason" for why we went to war against Afghanistan. Iraq didn't do a single thing to America, I doubt Al-Queda did anything also, and Palestinians didn't do anything to Israel until their country was invaded. By America's definition of terrorist, the only terrorist countries fighting in wars are Israel and the U.S.

America supported Saddam when he gassed the Kurds, and mounting evidence is showing that America provided the gas to the Iraqis.....and then people wonder why there is so much hate for America. This isn't about freeing Iraqis or getting a brutal leader out of office, the war is about America trying to take control of the world's oil for its own personal gains. If America fought wars to get brutal leaders out of office, Ariel Sharon would be in jail now also.

 

Since when is palestine a nation? And if you remember, the UN gave the US a 1 year mandate, which has since lapsed. We are in iraq at the behest of the iraqi government, like our military is in every other country.

Mounting evidence shows the whole entire west gave saddam nasty shit, yes, it was wrong for us to do that, no one denies that. Now that we are trying to clean up shit, we take crap for doing it?

As for ariel sharon? We're not the world police, remember? You can remove him.

edit: its amazing how much negative rep i can get for pointing out saddam was a bad dude too.

 

Wrong every war that Israel has fought was started by arab countries. There is also a great deal of difference between accidently killing civilians in the crossfire during the heat of battle or accidently bombing civilian homes while trying to hit a terrorist base, than someone strapping explosives to themselves and deliberatly trying to kill and maim as many people as possible as Palestinian terrorists do. Yes Israel has committed some atrocites for which it should be rightly condemned, but not without enormous provocation on the part of the arabs. Provocation which has inlcuded aeroplane hijackings, assasinations, kidnappings, bombings and suicide bombings. You are right to condemn Israel for its excesses, but please also condemn Palestinian terrorists too!

We all know America was very wrong to support Saddam in the past! We also suspect America has ulterior motives even those of us who were for regime change. But does it matter to the long suffering Iraqi people like the Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Iraqis who have been imprisoned and tortured or had family members killed by the regime what reason America is overthrowing Saddam for? As one plea from the Kurds said before the war; "let oil which has long been our cause of suffering, now be our cause of liberation".