Elonka wrote:
] ] If you remember, Bush gave Suddaam a 3 day ultimatum to
] ] surrender the weapons of mass destruction he *knew* had to
] be
] ] in Iraq.
]
] Well, yes, I remember the circumstances extremely well, as I
] was heavily involved in researching Iraq's history and WMD
] programs during the time before we went to war. BTW, the
] final ultimatum was not a 3-day deadline to surrender WMD, it
] was a 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to leave the
] country:
] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2857789.stm
You're right. I confused that ultimatum with this one:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=231

] Also, it's worth pointing out that this was not a "U.S v Iraq"
] situation that boiled over into a war. This was a situation
] where the *entire world* was against Saddam. There wasn't a
] single one of his neighbor countries who wanted him to stay in
] power. They were all calling for him to resign. Further,
] every country's intelligence service believed Iraq to possess
] WMD stockpiles. Even France believed this. The only country
] that said Iraq didn't have WMD, was Iraq.

Thats interesting. Here are the reactions right after the ultimatum from the rest of the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2859485.stm
Its a mixed bag. Most other countries intelligence was still based on the same evidence(or lack of) which was still in question before we attacked. ( http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_march_17_let.pdf)
Not that it really made a difference. We're hesitant about going after North Korea precisely because they DO have WMD. Most of the world didn't see Suddaam as a serious threat to even his neigboring countries anymore. If Suddaam was released from the UN weapons inspectors, would he rebuild? Probably. Was he compliant with the UN inspectors? Yes- They were asking him to provide info for something which apparently doesn't exist. Thats not reasonable. Would we be able to continue the inspections indefinately? More than likely, if thats what we chose to do.

] ] Blatently, the reasons we're in Iraq were not publicised by
] ] those who made the decision
]
] I beg to differ. The world's unhappiness with Iraq was
] extremely well publicized and debated. The U.N. passed
] resolution after resolution condemning Iraq. Iraq wasn't a
] country that we were worried *might* use chemical weapons,
] Iraq was a country that verifiably *had* used chemical
] weapons, on multiple occasions, against a variety of targets
] including people in its own country. Iraq verifiably had
] already killed or wounded *thousands* of people with chemical
] weapons. It wasn't a suspicion of something that Saddam
] *might* be capable of, it was a proven fact. And anyone who'd
] try to argue, "Oh, he'd learned his lesson, he wouldn't have
] done that anymore," is seriously deluded.

He did those things while he had our support. The sanctions imposed meant he really couldnt use even chemical weapons in the open (maybe in his bedroom then). He would have used them if he thought it wouldnt bring the sky crashing down on his head. Speaking of which, when it was crashing down, why the hell didn't he use thes famed weapons? Was he saving them for a special occasion?

] I supported the war in Iraq not just because I thought there
] were stockpiles of WMD there.

There wasn't. It would only have been possible if we let suddaam out of check.

I supported the war because
] there was a long history of Iraqi deception, U.N. resolutions
] were being blatantly ignored, and it was clear that Saddam had
] no intention of cooperating with the international community.
] I felt sure then, and I still feel confident now, that if left
] alone, Saddam would have continued to defy the international
] community, continued to build arsenals, would have done his
] best to build his empire by violent means, and things would
] have gotten *much* uglier than they did. We already had
] military in Iraq from the last time he had invaded a
] neighboring country, Iraqis were regularly shooting at us over
] the no-fly zones, and I saw no circumstances on the horizon
] that would have allowed us to say, "Okay, things are better
] now, we can leave."

That's still no indication that they were a present threat.

] Now having said that, I will also agree that some of our
] intelligence was flawed, some things were said by Bush, and
] Blair, and Powell, and others, that later analysis has now
] shown was probably incorrect. I do not think that this means
] that they "lied", I think it means that they got their hands
] on some bad info.

It was questionable even at the time. That is not evidence to bet lives on.

] I do agree with Kay that it's worthwhile for us to re-examine
] our intelligence-gathering procedures and analysis. But there
] were still plenty of things that were said by Bush, and Blair,
] and Powell, and countless news agencies, that *were* correct,
] and there were things that we had suspicions of, which have
] since been verified a hundred times over. Saddam really did
] have WMD at one point, and he was doing his level best to get
] more. Secrets really were being kept from U.N. Inspectors and
] from the world. Saddam had *not* given up on the idea of
] building an empire... He was just waiting for world scrutiny
] to go away.

He would if he could get away with it. There was no indication of that.

] So, I continue to stand by my original belief:
]
] - The world's demand for the last many years, including in
] early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to
] disarm.

He had no arms.

] - Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.

He had no arms.

] - Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have
] the balls to do it.
] - We did.
] - The war was justified.

By what? We come off looking like the real menace in the end. Did the end justify the means somehow?

] - And the world is a better place without Saddam.

True... I don't think that Bush's goal is to make the world a great place(if it is, he's fucking up). I also don't think the deMOCKracy we're putting in place puts the people of Iraq that much closer to liberation.

RE: Blair Defends War Decision