Might as well start this one here as it will almsot assuredly end up here. We keep hearing that there were no WMDs in Iraq, if that were the case how were US service men there exposed to chemical weapons? See the article at: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/31/army-denies-it-sought-to-hide-troops-chemical-exposure-in-iraq.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1
saddam used wmds before, and had the ability to produce them...it doesn't take much to hide wmds....that is a threat right there....my coworker, who was in PG1, says he has to get tested for wmd symptoms...he's spent mucho money trying to find out what's wrong with him...no one could find anything...been having headaches, etc...about 3 months ago, he contacted the VA....of course, he had problems communicating, etc with them......
Depleted uranium may play a part in some complaints. Would that be considered a chemical. Perhaps some have bad reactions to any one of the injections given. Malcolm Brabant (BBC) says he had a reaction to Stamaril: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/10076221/Malcolm-Brabant-I-suffered-psychosis-after-a-routine-injection.html
IIRC there were indeed a couple of bunkers filled with gas munitions found about three years after the invasion, in such bad condition due to inept storage that it was very dangerous to handle them in preparation for destruction. The balance of Saddam's war gasses were actually transferred overland to Syria! They're among Assad's war gasses being destroyed at the minute
I never saw or heard of any being found when I was there. What I can say though is when I heard the CBRN alarms activate on the Forming Up Points in the Kuwait desert I believed the Iraqi's had the capability and wished I had paid more attention during CBRN training oop: oop: oop: :lol:
Politically, what was there or not changes nothing, and it appears there is still far from enough evidence here to justify the claims made at the time anyway. Very specific claims of readiness & threat. The dossier/s were sexed up. They were dodgy. I could make up a story that I saw a dinosaur today, whistled up from nonsense and a hope to sell a story to the Sunday sport. If dinosaur's were discovered next week, independent of my claims, that does not legitimise the methodology I used to make those claims. Regardless of the above though, the '2003 memo' confirms that war was all about 'regime change' anyway. To be honest, I couldn't care less either way (sticking with my moderate & reasonable policy of 'lets turn vast swathes of the earth into sheets of radioactive glass'), but Blair & Bush were full of it in the smoke & mirrors they used to get the war they wanted.
Would you mind posting just what claims you are talking about? Some of the analysis was biased with a defintite tendency not to take into account or at least give enough weight to contrary information. I wouldn't call that "sexed up" but it did produce something less that the best analysis and the term "dodgy" is appropriate for some of it. On the otherhand the opponents were just as if not more guilty of the same behavior. Indeed but I reject the applicablity of your analogy. To make it closer to the trooth one would have to include recent sightings of dinosaurs as well as say foot prints of recent origin. Not to mention some pranksters intentionally leaving false evidence to mislead you. Not sure what "2003 memo" you are talking about but I didn't think there was ever a question about that in any case. They didn't need "smoke & mirrors" to get that war. Those only helped them get a little more buy in from the international comunity.
One of the 'dossiers' used by Blair was lifted from the internet complete with spelling mistakes.It was written by a Californian student Dr Ibrahim al-Marashi in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_al-Marashi
Who cared about "WMD´s" that was only a pretext... like so many other war´s.... good old friend Saddam, was then later the new bad guy. He had to go (from US/UK standpoint).But you can not say, Saddam sucks we wanna kick his ass, it sounds better to say: Iraq has WMDs and wants to poison half the world, right? Btw: I am pretty sure there were left over poison gases in Iraq (which the West delivered years ago)
Actually Sadam had commited more than enough acts of war to fully justify the actions taken. I personally thought the whole WMD focus was a mistake in any case. There wasn't anything close to an international law against having them (except for nukes) although Sadam had violated international laws about using them. It also turned out that Sadam was hiding just how thoroughly he had divested himself of chemical weapons and indeed Iraq was probably more thoroughly divested than even he realized.
.......I agree LWD....for both wars..I think a lot of people don't understand your point, because they don.t understand history. thought I saw a documentary, on how they refused to let inspectors inspect, . I couldn't get a message through, LWD...
Over and aside from whether there was an active nuclear or chemical program, there is a salient point that everybody forgets. Especially the media, that pointedly ignores this fact. WE WERE ALREADY AT WAR WITH IRAQ. The first Gulf war didn't end with a surrender. It ended with a cease-fire. We were still in a state of war. The cease-fire was wholly dependent on Hussein abiding by a host of conditions, including inspections of his entire military apparatus, military purchases, oil sales, humanitarian behavior, etc, etc. The agreement is voluminous, but violation of any single aspect of the agreement legally justified resumption of hostilities. That agreement was judged by an independent body - the UN. They, over a ten year span, slapped him with 16 major violations and hundreds of minor violations. Any one of which could or should have triggered a resumption of hostilities. Bush's mistake was to try and create a scenario, a justification based on the existence or manufacture of WMD's alone. He had some bad intel. And maybe (probably) he weighted that intel too boldly, to justify the action. He had no reason to do that. Under International Law, he had every right to invade just because Hussein had booted out the inspectors or denied access to certain places. Or any other of the violations documented by the UN. Those violations alone were legal justification to resume hostilities. Hussein had been dealing with Clinton for most of that intervening time period with little fear of a resumption of hostilities. He got cocky about pushing the envelope of the agreement. And even with Bush, the US was embroiled with Afghanistan, so he felt emboldened even more because the US certainly wouldn't roll armies into Iraq while at war someplace else. And this is important - everybody should understand this: Saddam Hussein WANTED the world, especially Iran, to think he had chemical and perhaps nuclear capabilities. He pushed those inspectors around and leaked info hinting that he did have such programs and weapons. He was playing poker and bluffing because he, paranoid nut that he was, wanted Iran and his own people to fear him. He was giving the US the middle finger (power - respect) and keeping his old enemy, Iran from starting anything while the rest of the world was embroiled in Afghanistan. He bluffed, and Bush called his bluff. Again though, Bush will always be remembered because he put all his eggs in one basket - those WMD's that Hussein kept hinting he had. That's too bad for Bush. Call it hubris, or call it stupidity, but it was a mistake. The other thing that I personally find incredibly stupid, is that once we won, we started this "nation building" idiocy. Iraq is not a nation. It's three nations artificially created by lines drawn seventy years ago by the British. It's Kurdistan in the north, a Sunni area in the center and a Shia area in the south. And that is exactly what we are seeing now. These ethnic and religious groups have drawn apart and created these de facto autonomous zones. And they're killing each other on a wholesale basis to keep this autonomy. The central government has almost no control. I don't think the war was a mistake. Hussein was a despot and a dangerous leader. The real mistake was repeating the British mistake of seventy years ago - Iraq is three groups of people who cannot live together unless a ruthless murderer is in charge. >>>Rant Off<<<
Kody and LWD, absolutely! it reminds me of hitler and the Germans...hitler invaded Poland, saddam invaded Kuwait....hitler violated the the Versailles Treaty, saddam violated the cease fire.. saddam gassed women and children, hitler also..... if he had the power, saddam would've done anything.. he was a danger to the world, and all the crap he did reminded me of hitler...[ and this goes back to my thread--Total War, unless you overwhelmingly defeat an enemy, problems linger ]
Good post KB, I agree mostly with it. However the UN thing isn´t so clear. Matthew Happold, PhD, LLM, Reader at the University of Hull Law School, wrote in a Mar. 13, 2003 Guardian article titled "The Legal Case for War with Iraq": "Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal. Resolution 1441 finds Iraq to be in 'material breach' of its disarmament obligations under earlier security council resolutions. It gives Iraq a 'final opportunity' to comply with its obligations and, to that end, establishes an onerous and rigidly-timetabled programme of Iraqi disclosures and UN inspections... But the resolution does not authorise the use of force. The term 'serious consequences' is not UN code for enforcement action (the term used is 'all necessary measures'). And, in their explanations of their votes adopting resolution 1441, council members were careful to say that the resolution did not provide such an authorisation." [SIZE=7.5pt]Mar. 13, 2003 - Matthew Happold, PhD, LLM [/SIZE] Kofi Annan, MS, UN Secretary-General at the time of the quote, stated in a Sep. 16, 2004 interview titled "Excerpts: Annan Interview" with BBC journalist Owen Bennett-Jones on news.bbc.co.uk: "[Owen Bennett-Jones] (Q): Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done? Kofi Annan (A): Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be. Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war? A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter. Q: It was illegal? A: Yes, if you wish. Q: It was illegal? A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal." [SIZE=7.5pt]Sep. 16, 2004 - Kofi Annan, MS [/SIZE] Harold Hongju Koh, JD, MA, Legal Advisor to the US Department of State, in a May 1, 2003 Stanford Law Review article titled "Foreword: On American Exceptionalism," wrote: "In my view, the Iraq invasion was illegal under international law. While justifying the war through narrow parsing of U.N. Security Council resolutions is far preferable to unmoored claims of 'preemptive self-defense,' the legal arguments based on 'revived force' under resolution 678 and 'serious consequences' under resolution 1441 still strike me as unpersuasive... [R]esolution 1441 gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations' and warned Iraq of 'serious consequences' if it did not comply. But by choosing the words 'serious consequences,' not authorizing the member states to use 'all necessary means'- the term of art used to authorize the use of force under Security Council resolutions authorizing intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq itself- resolution 1441 deliberately avoided authorizing force, apparently hoping that, when the time came, there would be a clearer political consensus to do so." [SIZE=7.5pt]May 1, 2003 - Harold Hongju Koh, JD [/SIZE] US Senate Resolution 28, passed on Jan. 29, 2003, included the following: "United Nations Security Resolution 1441 (2002) does not authorize the use of force but instead stipulates that the Security Council will convene immediately to consider any failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the Resolution." [SIZE=7.5pt]Jan. 29, 2003 - US Senate Resolution 28 (28 KB) [/SIZE] The Arab League / League of Arab States, stated in Resolution 243, adopted on Mar. 1, 2003: "Its satisfaction at the assurances given by the Syrian Arab Republic, the Arab member of the Security Council, concerning resolution 1441 (2002), the fact that the aforesaid resolution does not constitute a pretext for waging war on Iraq and the fact that the resolution does not provide for automatic recourse to military action, thereby expressing the Arab position of support for the international legitimacy represented by the Security Council and its mission of investigating weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000875 And eg. German & French leaders at that time clearly indicated they were in line with above stance...
The UN is a legal morass and and Kofi Annan's opinion or not: Security Council Resolution 1441: [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]
Ah the brave US&UK leaders......: I might use a German which fits.... legal, illegal, scheissegal... Follow your leaders !
I don't recognize any binding legality of the UN. It's not a world government, merely an arbitration board. A board made up of nations who are mostly ruled by corrupt despots who tend to protect each other. Going to the UN is merely a nicety, a polite fiction. Still, that board gave the nod to a coalition to go in and whack Saddam Hussein. It was the right thing to do. The mistake was in thinking a nation like Iraq could be converted to a democracy that represented three groups of people who hate each other. We won the war and lost the peace simply because Iraq is three nations, not one.
Ough! This topic is one big bunch of propaganda. Let me explain everything here with just one statement: The US government uses money of the US taxpayers to finance wars all across the globe to put the whole world into the pockets of the US oligarchs. In the USA there is no real information and no freedom of choice only an echo of propaganda. The “truth” is dictated. There is just a flood of single-minded propaganda echoing from every “media”. People are taught what to think. Therefore, it is easier for Average Joe to parrot propaganda. This is the ultimate stage of Orwellian visions.
