Iraq WMD report finnished.......................Follow

Yup. That and the fact that we had a cease fire agreement with Iraq, one of the terms of which that they abandon all current and future WMD research, development, production, and use.

So yeah. All we need is overwhelming evidence that Iraq has failed to meet those terms in order to resume hostilities.

Why is it that so many people fail to include the fact that we were at war with Iraq for 11 years prior to the 2003 invasion when arguing this point? Why do they compare the things that Iraq was doing to what other nations that we were not at war with and did not have cease fire agreements contingent on they not doing those very things?

Leaving out the context of the situation makes for a poor argument. We did not invade Iraq for any one thing. We did it as a consequence of a decade's worth of a whole bunch of things in violation of a cease fire agreement. You are aware that a cease fire agreement means that we agree to not attack as long as they meet the conditions of the terms, right? When it becomes apparent that Iraq will *never* cease to attempt to build WMD in violation of those terms, and will *never* cease to attempt to wipe out Kurds and Shiite, and will *never* cease their human rights violations, you have two choices: Let them get away with it anyway, or invade and replace the government of Iraq.

We chose option number 2. We'll never know for sure if that was the "right" choice (cause we can't see what would have happened if we'd taken a different route), but to argue that the choice itself was invalid is ridiculous. It was completely valid. It was completely justified. And it was completely legal.




I'll say this once again. The War on Terror is *not* about reprisal for 9/11. It's about a doctrine of action intended to prevent such actions in the future. One of the chief tenants of said doctrine is to hold nations accountable for their actions as they relate to terrorist activities, and specifically the manufacturing of weapons that can easily be used for such activities. Out of all the nations with connections to terrorist organizations, Iraq by far had the greatest ability to do damage to the US. Iran is certainly trying to build WMD, but has never had the expertise to do so completely in-country. That's one of the points that also gets lost. It's not just about desire. It's about capability. Iraq, being the most modernized and "western" of the ME nations, also had the most engineering talent generated purely within their own nation. All the other ME nations have to hire scientists from other countries, and purchase materials from other countries. Things that can be tracked easily by intelligence agencies. Iraq did not need to do that. It's one of the reasons why we *didn't* know for sure how much WMD materials they had. They built it all in-country and never disclosed the documents on it (which was yet another violation btw).

That's why Iraq was dangerous. That put them right at the top of the list simply because they could produce chem/bio materials that we'd have no idea had been built, hand them to a terrorist agent, and have that stuff dropped off anywhere, and we'd have pretty much zero warning that it was coming. None of the other nations we're most concerned about in terms of terrorism have that ability, or will have that ability in the near future.


You simply can't paint Iraq with the same brush as all the other nations that are pursuing WMD. Those other nations are trying to get where Iraq was 15 years ago. Huge difference in scale of danger to us.

Not entirely true. No evidence of such existing at the time we invaded. Tons of evidence and "proof" that said existed before hand.


More or less the same as above. None at the time we invaded (not enough to be called a "stockpile" anyway). Certainly tons of evidence that had we not invaded, and had sanctions allowed to be erroded further, Iraq would have rebuilt them


First thing you need to grasp is that "no evidence" does not mean that something didn't happen. It just means that we can't find proof that it happened. You also have to understand that the war really wasn't predicated on the assumption that Iraq currently possessed a stockpile of WMD poised and ready to strike the US. The war was about the fact that if unchecked, Iraq *would* continue to attempt to build such weapons, and UN sanctions were not changing that.

Iraq most definately "had ties" to a number of terrorist organizations. Some of which most certainly have targetted US citizens in the past, and presumably will in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------

gbaji,

what evidence have you seen or herd that supports any of the above statements?

if we had evidence, we would STILL have atleast that evidence we had pryor to invading.

we have NONE. none before the war. none during the campaign to go to war. none during the war itself. and none at this present time.

the U.N. didnt support our actions for this very reason. they were not BLINDED by partisian politics, or FAITH in a politician. France did not see any either. nor Russia, or Germany.

here is a fact you will find hard to swollow. YOU did not see eny evidence EITHER. your position is based solely on your political affiliation and or faith in what the president tells you REGUARDLESS of the FACTS. BLIND FAITH.

all the world was handed was accusations without any evidence to support them. WE believed, because WE are americans and WANT to believe the home team is the GOOD TEAM. the rest of the world, including over 80 percent of the people in britin, our closest allies, do not believe what this addministraition handed to them because they saw no evidence to support it. we belived because we wanted to believe. they did not believe because they DID NOT see any evidence, and have no favortism toward the leader of a FOREIGN government.

list for us any evidence YOU have that leads YOU to believe our actions are just. you have none.

as for this:

First thing you need to grasp is that "no evidence" does not mean that something didn't happen.

OMG, are you an idiot? you do not BUTCHER tens of thousands of human beings, men, women and children, adn totally destroy an entire country infrastructure leaving MILLIONS of people without food adn water WITHOUT ABSOLUTE PROOF it was ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY to prevent IMENANT DAGNER to this country or our allies.

we invaded a defenseless country. we killed tens of thousands of human beings. we have left millions of more without basic necessities to survive...........

and you want to support this position by saying....just because we cant prove they were dangerious doesnt mean they were not......

WAR CRIME. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. WE are guilty of this. our only defense to this FACT is..........just because there is no evidence to justify our actions does not mean they are not just.....

try that in any american court system sometime. jails are full of people who think like this.

Those capitalizations seem totally random... like a random EITHER is capitalized, when clearly there should be no emphasis on that word...

do you think i'm pissing him off yet?

Well Dark in this war the Civilian to Enemy count is about 16,000 civilian dead with 6-8,000 Iraqi military dead.

If you look at the first gulf war there were reports of upwards of 100k iraqi military dead but the official US body counts that seem reliable around 20-50k dead.

The civilian casualties of the first gulf war are hard to count cause they never went in and did it but estimate range from low end 70,000 to high end 300,000 due to bombings, lack of fresh water, lack of power etc




The civilian casualties in both wars either equal or exceed the military casualties, now the US is not doing this on purpose and is going out of there way to minimize it but when you kill tens of thousands of the people you are trying to liberate it tends to build animosity or in some cases a massive anti US civilian insurgency.

Im just saying that its hypocritical for the US to start playing the hero role and the liberator card when the majority of the Iraqi populace dont want you there and when you have managed to kill half as many people as the dictator you were ousting did.

I know its a hard pill to swallow but thems the fact.

You know, no good thing ever came easy.

That's all I'm saying.

The civil war freed a large portion of America and cost ~450,000 young men their lives. WWII cost the world millions of human lives, but stopped the attempted genocide of a people. The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshimo wiped entire families from existence, but ended the war in the Pacific quickly saving perhaps a million more US casualties in taking back the islands or over-running the Japanese mainland.

Because the price was high does it mean that these actions/acts of war were unwarranted or unnecessary? History will tell if the conflict itself was just. Not some bureaucratic report.

Granted, Jophiel.

But in the end, was the world or the US not a better place because of it?

Time will tell.

Perhaps. But dressing up wars in humanitarian guises after the fact doesn't change the fact that we weren't going to war for those reasons. I can't think of any "full scale" conflicts served purely for altrusitic reasons. Bosnia maybe if you want to call that a "war", though I'm sure the Pubbies have their list of ulterior motives Clinton had for sending in the troops (or cruise missiles and sleath bombers as the case may be). For that matter, I never heard any Republicans who claimed Clinton only went to war to divert attention from Lewinsky follow up with "But that's okay because Milosevic was an evil man so the ends jusitifed the means and reasons". Bush would have use believe that from Day One, our only concern was for the poor Iraqi children.

Sadly, a good number of people do think that we went to war to free the slaves, save the Jews and now to rescue the Iraqi children.

Edited, Wed Jan 19 12:28:51 2005 by Jophiel

62 million Bush - 59 million Kerry

Sigh... Why do the uniformed insist on arguing this point?

Here's the joint resolution which includes the full justification Congress gave the president for going to war

Read the freaking thing people! This is like the 20th time I've linked it on this forum, yet some people seem to pretend that what their local newscaster told them is more accurate then what the US Congress actually wrote, voted on, and signed.

The *conclusion* of the resolution is that Iraq does represent not an "imminent threat", but a "continuing threat" (that's a threat that's here today, will be here tomorrow, and will continue to be there until we do something aboout it). They also gave many reasons for this conclusion (22 in fact). Not all of which had anything to do with WMD.

But for the supremely lazy, let's look at them all and see how many are right and wrong based on today's information:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

That's obviously true.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

That's true as well. Those were part of the terms of the cease fire.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Also absolutely true. Iraq had concealed how far along they were in those programs prior to the gulf war. Note that these are pretty much here to establish a past history with Iraq. No one is stating *anything* about what is currently in Iraq at the time this resolution was written.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

True. Another statement of historical fact.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

True. Another statement of historical fact.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Another statement of fact. Note the use of the phrase "continuing threat". Not "imminent".

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

More facts.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Another fact.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Hey look! More facts. They're still just laying the groundwork and listing the grievances against Iraq here...

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

True at the time, and verified to be true later. Note, that Congress at no time made *any* claim as to how friendly Iraq was to Al-queda. Thus, there's no requirement for that to be the case for this part to be legitimate.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Also true. Note they specifically say "other international terrorist organizations". They do *not* once say that Iraq worked with Al-queda in any way at all. That's something you got from your evening news. Not from Congress. And not from the White House.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

See. This is where we tie in Iraq to the War on Terror. The fact that a nation with such a horrible track record and with ties to various terrorist organizations, and a history of developing WMD in secret and a willingness to use those weapons and a willingness to attack us becomes a pretty major threat in terms of the War on Terror and it's goals. Note, this is all stuff established in the previous points in the resolution (that's why they went through the trouble to list all those past actions).

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

See my point above (and arguments I've made in posts over the last year). We did not attack Iraq because we thought they had weapons ready to go, nor did we attack them because they'd already attacked us. Congress is saying that the risk of an attack from Iraq via terrorist is high enough to justify action in the context of all the other grievances against Iraq.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Mostly boring (and true!) stuff establishing the legality of an attack against Iraq.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

More legalities

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

More legal stuff, and reminders that Congress has already stated the use of military force is justified against Iraq.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

More legal stuff, and a note that Congress has already determined that removing Saddam from power should be a US policy goal (and that they'd approve of such an action if it became available and needed).

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'

More legal stuff. We're referring to 1441 I believe. Basically saying we gave Iraq one more shot, and they've still failed to adequately assuage our concerns about their weapons programs and future intentions.

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

More legalease. Specifically, more justification for use of military force.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

More legal stuff. In this case, tying it in to the War on Terror. Not making any claims here, but simply adding it in because earlier in the document, they've already established Iraq's ties with terrorist organizations.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

This is just a statement of fact. They are not claiming that anyone in Iraq was behind that attack, but merely playing off the fact that there are members of Al-queda in Iraq, and some of them *may* have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, so if attacking Iraq allows us to bring them to justice, then that falls under the War on Terror. Um. Interestingly enough, we *did* capture some Al-queda operatives in Iraq as a result of the invasion, so this connection was justified after the fact.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

More legalese. Basically saying that he's already authorized to take some military action, but we're going to do more...

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

And hey. Let's see if we can put a nice spin on this while we're at it... ;)



Read each point. Read them again. Congress does not use the current existence of WMD in Iraq as a justification for war. They use the fact that there have been stockpiles in the past, and a history of concealment of those stockpiles, and a lack of evidence from Iraq that they *aren't* working on producing more. Remember that the burden of proof was on Iraq, not us.

Congress also does not use any tie between Iraq and 9/11 as justification for war.

Congress does not even use the term "imminent threat" in any way in the resolution. Not once.



So. Can you see why when you guys argue that the war wasn't justified because Iraq wasn't an imminent threat to the US, and didn't have stockpiles of WMD, and didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, I don't see that as anything wrong?

You're arguing a strawman. None of those reasons were why we wen to war. You may *think* that, but you are mistaken. How about you actually learn something about why we went to war instead of arguing that the facts of the world don't support your incorrect assumptions?

There is not a single point in this resolution that has since been determined to be incorrect. Not one. Since these were the reasons Congress voted to send us to war, then the war was justified within that context. No "new information" has changed that.

You can certainly choose to disagree with the war, but nothing that has come to light since this resolution was written has changed the factual truths contained within. Congress decided that the things listed in the resolution justified war. Congress legally has that power and right. None of the reasons have changed or been found to be incorrect. Therefore you *can't* argue that there's anything wrong or illegal about it.

HA HA HA

gbaji wins my vote for the position of Factmeister.

shadow, he just produced more facts in one post than everything you've written up to this point.

Pwned much?

shadow, he just produced more facts in one post than everything you've written up to this point.
----------------------------------------------------------------


Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

--------------------------------------------------------------

i guess you didnt actually READ the resolution either? must be a republican too.......

You make this statement but offer no resolution? What should we do about the current situation, now that we are in it?
----------------------------------------------------------------

enguage the U.N., NATO, the League of Arab Nations in putting together a large peacekeeping force of MUSLIM troops to secure peace in Iraq.

include Iraq,s neibhors, Syeria, Jordan, and Iran. if we can "negotiate" with that murdering biotch in Lybia, it shouldnt be so degrading to go to Iran.

without the support of Iraq,s neibhors, no govern,ment we set up will stand....in peace. with the support of her neibhors, Iraq will flourish.

give the Iraqi people more controll over the type of government they will have. instead of dictating to them a western style democracy, let them have an Islamic based government with open elections, giving democracy a chance to moderate their beliefs, without totally defiling everything they have grown up to believe in up untill this time.

the middle east feels we are trying to grab an oil field. the people of the middle east see crusaders trying to destroy their beliefs, not liberators.

putting muslim troops on the ground will lessen the flood of people bent on killing the crusaders, mabe even to the point of eliminating it alltogether.

pulling christian forces out will dispell any beliefs it is a land grab for oil, thus lessoning the support the insurgents get from outside of the country.

these two together would go a long way to lessoning the tensions between us and the middle east, not to mention the rest of the world at this point.

the people of Iraq will be policed by their own. people who speak THEIR language, people who share THEIR values. the laws they will be expected to abide by will be laws they have know all their lives and are comfortable with. the people asking to search their vehicals will be people THEY RESPECT.

they will be less liekly to turn on other muslims than they will in trying to force US out of THEIR country.

putting religion INTO this conflict is the only way left to take it out of the conflict.

take out the religion factor. eliminate the fear of an oil grab. eliminate the threat to their beliefs......and all you have left is civil war for controll. but if you can put 400 to 500,000 muslim troops on the ground, even that is controllable.

peace can be won in Iraq. but not with american troops on the ground. this should be painfully obvious to all of you by now, reguardless of your political affiliation.
it was obvious to everyone who studied any history already before we invaded.

Bush has burned every political bridge behind him in his wake. there is no chance in hell he will be able to do this even if he WANTED to do it. he has no creadability with the muslim world, nor any other major power short of brition.

sooooo, NOTHING can be done while Bush is in office, other than to abandon them in the caos WE created alltogether.

on with the blood letting......wooohaaaaa