Page 1 of No WMD in Iraq?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3160186.stm

So - no "smoking gun", but plenty of evidence of proscribed activity. What are your views? Were we right to go to war?

This item was edited on Friday, 3rd October 2003, 13:43

never understood this `smoking gun` nonsense anyway, as this really describes something after it has happened rather than the preparation...but I digress. It seems odd that the emphasis on these WMD was stressed so loudly as the reason for going to war (weren`t the UN resolutions about these weapons?) Mr S Hussain claimed he didn`t have them any more and that he would willingly keep the weapons inspectors in to look for them....Mr Bush and Mr Blair said that the weapons inspectors had had enough time to look and we were going to war anyway as these weapons could be let loose within 45 minutes. Had the war, the country is in chaos, and no weapons have been found. The war was justified cos Mr Hussain was a very naughty boy anyway, and even though weapons weren`t found, God is, in fact, on OUR side and every Iraqi is happy we invaded their country, as we can tell by all the assassinations and increasing death count of the occupying forces.

My view is that we were lied to, but then I have always thought that, but have no sense of smugness as I think that the world is a more dangerous place since `we` went in. There are many other countries (N.Korea, anyone?) which pose a greater threat, but which already have nuclear weapons developed and I can`t see our government being all holier than thou in this case, as there`s a probability it won`t go so `smoothly`.

Right..back to work :-)

It`s Friday guys!! let`s not get too serious and start a flame war.

This item was edited on Friday, 3rd October 2003, 14:42

I can`t say I`m surprised. Told you it`d end in tears.

J Mark Oates

The administration claimed that Saddam had used WMDs in the past, had hidden materials from the United Nations, was hiding a continued program for weapons of mass destruction, and that we should act before the threat was imminent. The argument was that it was impossible to restrain Saddam Hussein unless he were removed from power and disarmed. The war was legally based on the premise that Saddam had clearly violated U.N. resolutions, was in open breach of such resolutions and was continuing to conceal his programs with the intent of restarting them in earnest once sanctions were lifted. Having read the report carefully, I`d say that the administration is vindicated in every single respect of that argument. This war wasn`t just moral; it wasn`t just prudent; it was justified on the very terms the administration laid out. And we don`t know the half of it yet.
Saddam was lying to the U.N. as late as 2002. He was required by the U.N. to fully cooperate. He didn`t. The war was justified on those grounds alone. Case closed. Some of the physical evidence still remains, despite what was clearly a deliberate, coordinated and thorough attempt to destroy evidence before during and after the war. Among the discoveries:
* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist`s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists` homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
Would you be happy, after 9/11, if Bush and Blair had allowed such capabilities to remain at large, and be reinvigorated, with French and Russian help, after sanctions were removed? I wouldn`t.

Quote:
This war wasn`t just moral; it wasn`t just prudent; it was justified on the very terms the administration laid out. And we don`t know the half of it yet.

I`m not convinced of the morality of killing 30,000 Iraqis, nor am I convinced of the prudence of making the world a more dangerous place.

And what we don`t know, we shouldn`t be invading people over.

Quote:
There are many other countries (N.Korea, anyone?) which pose a greater threat, but which already have nuclear weapons developed and I can`t see our government being all holier than thou in this case, as there`s a probability it won`t go so `smoothly`.

So true. :/

The big problem with the war on Iraq is that this has been a watershed, the first time the west has pre-emptively invaded a country in order to prevent an attack. It is this action that N. Korea saw as such a worry that it decided to accelerate its nuclear weapons programs.

You can argue over the legality of the war as much as you like, it is basically all just arguments over the interpretation of legal documents which are meaningless until tried in a court of law.

The fact remains we were told (although many didn`t believe) that Iraq posed an iminent threat and had WMDs ready to go. In a country where inspectors have had free access for months now, nothing has been found.


Editor
DVD REVIEWER

The defence of Bush and Blair that Saddam is a very bad man no longer in business will no doubt be used when it comes to their inactions on N Korea, Tibet-China, various African civil wars and skirmishes.

One rule for one - not for all?

The War was right, it was won so rejoice and how anyone reckons the world is not safer since saddam insane was removed is just talking bollox.

And as for Korea they will do jack s***,they will talk and strike a deal with America it`s called self intrest, imagine if saddam was in charge of Korea now thats a scary thought.

Also if the Americans did find weapons of mass destruction how many of you would say that they had planted them...come on be honest!!

Oscar.

This item was edited on Friday, 3rd October 2003, 23:07

Quote:
The War was right, it was won so rejoice

Oscar = Margaret Thatcher "glorifying in slaughter" (to quote Dennis Healey I believe)

:/

Quote:
Oscar = Margaret Thatcher "glorifying in slaughter" (to quote Dennis Healey I
believe)

What did He want Her to do cry?

Margaret Thatcher , the statue can never be big enough!

Neil Kinnock , could a Man ever be smaller?

Oscar.












Oscar.

The rest of the world will now see us as the bad guys. We have lost our moral high ground. A nice bit of extra impetus for all those fledgling terrorists in their training camps to justify their `war` on the self-serving, decadent west.

An average of 6 American troops is being killed every week in Iraq. The war ain`t over yet.

I am not a pacifist. I supported the action in Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq was an un-justified step too far. Unfortunately, it is too late for us to back out, that would make a bad situation even worse.