What we have here is a failure to find justification for war

[JoseCuervo]

Interesting view from the other side of the Atlantic.....

What we have here is a failure to find justification for war

By THE INDEPENDENT

Now we finally know what we had long suspected. When U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; he had no biological weapons; he had no nuclear weapons. In fact, he had no banned weapons at all.

That is the considered judgment of the Iraq Survey Group, set up by President Bush to prove his case for removing the Iraqi dictator, and released in Washington this week.

In more than 1,000 pages, the ISG report proves precisely the opposite. The much-maligned international regime of weapons containment had functioned exactly as it was supposed to. After his failed effort to annex Kuwait, Saddam progressively disarmed.

Establishing this truth has required half a dozen top-level inquiries on either side of the Atlantic, spending millions of dollars and pounds, the dispatch of hundreds of United Nations weapons inspectors over the years and -- since Saddam's removal -- the work of 1,200 inspectors who scoured the country under the auspices of the U.S.-directed ISG.

Oh yes, and it took a war, a war in which many thousands of Iraqis, more than 1,000 Americans and more than 100 British and soldiers of other nationalities have died. The injured run into tens of thousands. Iraq is a devastated country that risks sliding into anarchy. And what has it all been for?

After the war officially ended, Bush and his chief ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, kept telling us to wait patiently for the ISG to report. In that time, they have changed their story many times over, editing the words, trimming the sense for the possibility that the threat might not have been as great as they had thought.

Perhaps there were no weapons, Bush said, but it hardly mattered because he would have gone to war anyway. Even if there were no actual stockpiles, Blair and his ministers told us, there were definitely "weapons programs." Last week, the programs themselves evaporated. Blair told us (almost) straight that the intelligence was wrong. "I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," he said, without actually doing so, "but I can't sincerely, at least, apologize for removing Saddam."

Bush's case for war is also unraveling. His defense secretary let slip this week that there was no "hard evidence" for a link between Saddam and terrorism in the shape of al-Qaida. The second U.S. viceroy of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, said the U.S. troop numbers determined had been grossly inadequate for the job they had to do. The number of troops had been an ideological decision.

Now that the Iraq Survey Group has reported, it is clear beyond doubt that Iraq's deadly weapons capacity boiled down to a glint, if that, in Saddam's eye. In one of the more shameless examples of pre-emptive "spinning" we have heard, even from this government so addicted to "spin," the foreign secretary told us "the report highlights the nature of the threat from Saddam in terms of his intentions and capabilities in even starker terms than we have seen before." Try parsing that. Try translating it into plain English.

The ISG report tells us in no uncertain terms that the invasion of Iraq was grounded in little more substantial than figments of a fevered, post-9/11 imagination. The international "consensus" that Saddam constituted a global threat was incorrect. So much for U.N. Resolution 1441 that gave the United States and Britain their spurious excuse for war.

There was a failure of intelligence, on either side of the Atlantic, of historic proportions, the reasons for which need to be identified as a matter of urgency. More gravely, though, there was a historic failure of judgment on the part of a small group of national leaders. Trust us, they told us. They were credulous, they failed to consult broadly enough, they failed to exercise due responsibility -- and they were wrong.

Spanish voters have already given their verdict on the judgment of their former prime minister. Australians have their chance this weekend. Americans should use their vote in less than four weeks' time to express their disgust with a president who rushed their country into so unnecessary and damaging a war. We British will probably have to wait at least until next year.

In the meantime, the very least that Blair should offer is a full apology. An apology for asking us to trust him so unconditionally. An apology for the lives of the British servicemen and the Iraqis who have been so needlessly lost. An apology for his judgment that turned out to be so flawed on a matter so crucial as peace and war. The final verdict will then rest, as it should, with the voters.

 

[IdahoCritterGetter]

What we have here is a failure to find justification for war

out of 100's of reasons would be the Halabja Massacre a little reminder *Reminder pics* and this is one of many reasons which I can gladly list! I respect everyones fews and thoughts but to think a Hitler Idealist does not need to be removed is Insanity! If this was no big deal for his own people what are the possibilities for a country he hates and despises 100 fold. Get over the fact of WMD's he had the resources and people with the knowledge to assemble at any given moment just didn't have any made up (By the way a "weapon of mass destruction" as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of -- (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity") Which can be built in hours not days or months. So was it Justification you guys tell me, one of many I say!

 

[IdahoCritterGetter]

Oh yea look carefully at the Women, Children, and Babies dead and think hard of your (no one specific) own and try to find "justification"!

 

[1_pointer]

ICG- Where to next then? Sudan? What about some of the countries in S. America? Why not there? If the US is to remove any/everyone that we feel 'deserves' it, it will be a never-ending cycle.

BTW, could a coalition of countries been justified doing this to America a couple hundred years ago for our treatment of Amerindians?

 

[danr55]

I will only ask a couple of questions, then I will move on..

1. Did the leaders of the Democratic party, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards, call for the removal of Saddam Hussien because he was an evil dictator with weapons of mass destruction and a threat to the free world, in the period between 1998 and mid 2000? (be careful how you answer this because it's all a matter of public record.)

2. Was it generally believed among the leaders of the free world, that Saddam Hussien had chemical and biological weapons prior to the US launching it assualt on Iraq? (Was France and Germany in fact, selling the components of equipment to manufacture chemical and biological weapons to Iraq?)

3. Was Saddam a nice guy who should have remained in power and would never pose a threat to the US or any other free country?

1Pointer, the answer to your question is NO. No more justified than we would have been for invading England for their perpetuation of the opium trade during that same period. What is right and wrong frequently changes during the course of history as the nature of civilizations evolve and what is customarily acceptable changes with the times. Case in point.. Mo's Tatoo.. 35 years ago, that would have been unthinkable..

 

[1_pointer]

Dan- Do hindsight is can not only be accurate, but justification as well? I do believe that many Iraqis are better off with SH out of power. However, I'd like to know the 'real' reasons we went in, I don't like being lied to. I realize the lies came from both sides of the aisle. My point with my first post is that I think we are getting on a slippery slope of sorts. If we start going around taking every 'bad' person out I see an endless cycle as a new one is born everyday. What I would rather see is us spending more time, money, and effort on domestic problems/issues. That's just me. These countries need us way more than we need them.

 

[JoseCuervo]

DanR,

YOu aren't making any sense with your questions. What is it that you are struggling to say???

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy to his own people, and on occasion, toward Iran and Kuwait. But at any given time, there are 10 other "hotspots" where people are brutalizing other countries/ethnic groups/ and religions.

Given that he ended his programs in 1991, how can you use bad intelligence to justify the US creating a Terrorist State now???

How is Saddam worse than any other dictator? Is he worse than Putin??? Than the guy in China?

 

[danr55]

EG, You just don't get it, do you? I am not saying that Saddam was any worse than any other dictator. It's not about Saddam. It's about the claim that Bush Lied. Not too many years ago, John Kerry, who now says it's the wrong war.. etc. etc, was as much a supporter of invading Iraq as anyone. Had he been President then, he would have done exactly the same thing. He was operating off of the same intel that Bush operated off of. No presidential decision is any better or any worse than the intel that supports it. Regan began the degradation of our "on ground" intelligence gathering capability and Clinton perpetuated it. No one lied to anyone. Why is it so difficult for people to believe that an honest decision was made based on bad information? It wasn't about anyone telling anyone a lie.

This failure to find justification is the kind of crap that Kerry would cater to. He would have you believe that we needed France's agreement to invade Iraq when France was making millions selling weapons to Iraq in direct opposition to international sanctions. Germany, while not selling weapons, was certainly selling the machinery to manufacture weapons. So with both of these countries beholden to Iraq financially, why would either of them agree to any military action? They were both too busy gleening the profit of their treachery.

So, to go back to original questions. Answer those questions and then reassess your position on the Iraq war based on the facts that were avialable at the time the decision was made and not on conjecture presented by a political rival. No one is saying that it's a nice thing. No one is claiming that it's a good thing. It was the action that was dictated as correct when the decision was made.

 

[Hangar18]

Gunner,

Can you find any evidence of someone saying there were no WMD's in Iraq before the invasion? I can only find one person saying so.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by danr55:
This failure to find justification is the kind of crap that Kerry would cater to. He would have you believe that we needed France's agreement to invade Iraq when France was making millions selling weapons to Iraq in direct opposition to international sanctions. Germany, while not selling weapons, was certainly selling the machinery to manufacture weapons. So with both of these countries beholden to Iraq financially, why would either of them agree to any military action? They were both too busy gleening the profit of their treachery.

That is hilarious that ol' DanR is thinking the French and German economies were "beholden" to sales to Iraq....

You might want to break out an Economics book, and blow the dust off of it....

 

[Hangar18]

Gunner,

Can you find any evidence of someone saying there were no WMD's in Iraq before the invasion? I can only find one person saying so.

That is hilarious that ol' DanR is thinking the French and German economies were "beholden" to sales to Iraq....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1323967,00.html

France's Saddam deals revealed

Antony Barnett and Martin Bright
Sunday October 10, 2004
The Observer

Dramatic new details of France's secret dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime have emerged as part of a fresh corruption investigation into alleged illicit oil deals.

Three executives of France's largest oil corporation have been charged in Paris over claims that they funnelled millions of dollars through a Swiss company in order to bribe officials to gain oil deals in Iraq and Russia.

The disclosure will embarrass President Jacques Chirac as it follows on from claims last week by the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam indirectly paid French politicians and individuals to gain support for lifting UN sanctions and influencing French policy. The ISG's claims were dismissed by Chirac as politically motivated.

In the Nineties, French oil companies Total and Elf-Aquitaine won the rights to develop the $3.4 billion Bin Umar project and the vast Majnoon field in southern Iraq. Total, which acquired Elf, had been unable to exploit these fields while the UN trade embargo against Iraq was still in place. US hawks have accused France of opposing the Iraq war in order to protect its vast oil interests in the country. The three Total executives, arrested after raids on the firm's French headquarters on 29 September, have all been charged with complicity in the improper use of corporate funds.

French investigating magistrate Philippe Courroye, who has been probing these payments since 2002, is examining the movements of funds between a Total subsidiary in Bermuda and a Swiss company, Teliac SA. The Swiss firm is alleged to have served as an intermediary for some $20 million in payments by the oil group into offshore accounts in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands between 1996 and 2001. Courroye has not given any details of what oil deals the alleged bribes were linked to. Total's former head of operations, Jean-Michel Tournier, is alleged to have told the French authorities the company used the Geneva-based firm to pay bribes to 'certain beneficiaries' in return for gaining access to reserves in Iraq and Russia.

Total is known to have carried out a sustained lobbying campaign with the Saddam regime with a view to putting itself in prime position to gain from any lifting of UN sanctions. Total confirmed that certain past and present employees had been questioned but said this had been part of an investigation into money laundering which was not aimed against Total itself.

Among the alleged beneficiaries of the money paid out by Teliac is a Lebanese lawyer close to Saddam's former deputy, Tariq Aziz. The lawyer has strong connections with Charles Pasqua, the former French Interior Minister who was named last week in the Iraq Survey Group as an alleged beneficiary of the UN's oil-for-food programme which Saddam used to pay for favours.

Patrick Maugein, whom the Iraqis considered a conduit to Chirac, is also accused of receiving oil through a Dutch-registered company. The report claims a 1992 Iraqi intelligence service report said Iraq had paid the French Socialist party $1m in 1988.

This weekend it emerged that US oil companies and three American businessmen also benefited from the UN oil-for-food programme. These included Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil. The fact that these companies and individuals received oil from Iraq does not mean they did anything illegal if the individuals and companies received appropriate UN authorisation.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hangar,

As a percentage of French GNP, and German GNP?

 

[Hangar18]

This failure to find justification is the kind of crap that Kerry would cater to. He would have you believe that we needed France's agreement to invade Iraq when France was making millions selling weapons to Iraq in direct opposition to international sanctions. Germany, while not selling weapons, was certainly selling the machinery to manufacture weapons. So with both of these countries beholden to Iraq financially, why would either of them agree to any military action? They were both too busy gleening the profit of their treachery.

be·hold·en adj. - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted

I fail to see what assertion is made here by DANR55 that economies or GNP's have any dependance on illegal sales to Iraq. You made the point, so back it up.

 

[JoseCuervo]

To quote DanR....

So with both of these countries beholden to Iraq financially, why would either of them agree to any military action? They were both too busy gleening the profit of their treachery.

[ 10-12-2004, 10:26: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]

 

[Hangar18]

Originally posted by ElkGunner:
So with both of these countries beholden to Iraq financially, why would either of them agree to any military action? They were both too busy gleening the profit of their treachery.

You're learning.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Both countries thought they would plummet into economic uncertainty, due to the large amount of the GNP tied to Iraqi sales???

 

[Hangar18]

Uh-oh, you just regressed.

Originally posted by Hangar18:
be·hold·en adj. - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted

I fail to see what assertion is made here by DANR55 that economies or GNP's have any dependance on illegal sales to Iraq. You made the point, so back it up.

Again, you are asserting this where no one else is.

 

[JoseCuervo]

So with both of these countries beholden to Iraq financially

 

[Hangar18]

There you go, you said it, no one else did.

be·hold·en adj. - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted

 

[JoseCuervo]

Uhhh....

That is a quote from Danr.....