What was this war about? (re: Iraq)

[Taem]

I just read in USA Today and the Los Angleas Times that the Bush Administration viewed their victory over Sadams regime as "huge success", and the challenge of conforming Iraq into a Democratic society their ultimate goal.

However, when the US spoke in front of the UN with such zeal and conviction, they stated that their goal was to disarm Sadam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. This being their publically stated goal, it seems more like a failure than a success to me. Perhaps we will never know how many, if any at all, weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, but it seems pretty clear to me that none were used on coalition forces or there would of been a great deal more casulaities. So I pose one question:

Did Iraq have enough weapons of Mass Destruction to be a real threat to America, and if not, what was this war really about anywayws?

[Archon_Wing]

failure to fully disarm, as agreed in the cease-fire in the Gulf War. The Gulf war never actualy ended. Everything else is up for debate.

And turning Iraq into a democratic society would be a side-effect, not the primary goal of the war.

Did they have weapons of mass destruction? that is up to debate.

[Roland]

...it's no longer a debate. Large caches of chemical and biological weapons have been found in numerous places throughout Iraq. Caches of BANNED weapons, I might add, along with weapons delivery systems capable of deploying them. Not to mention equipment and facilities for handling said agents.

No, I don't think that's a debate any longer. For me, it never was. But there's still plenty else to debate.

I haven't been keeping track, so I'm a bit out of the loop (except for the above, which I garnered from my few, brief viewings of the news), but is the war over? I saw brief clips of the statue coming down yesterday, but even that was old news by the time I saw it. So, is the war over?

[Quark]

WMDs is the public reason, but it certainly isn't the only one. Theres:
1) Oil/Economy (never to be discounted, even for those who are against the war)
2) Atrocities committed by Hussein & Co. (yes, against his own people, look up stories about his son and olympics)
3) Failure to comply to Gulf War Treaty (let's face it, no one else did ANYTHING about this)
4) Tied in with #3, failure to comply with the latest U.N. resolution
5) Simple revenge (Hey, wouldn't you try to do something if there was a plot for your father's murder?)

I personally think people would be much less upset if they thought about this like they thought about Kosovo. "There's a tyrant running a country, harming/killing his own citizens, let's deal with it."

[Occhidiangela]

"The U.S. Media is really getting annoying"

That is the title of post 15 in the following post:

What the aims were

Short answer, though, is:

The threats to America are hard to explain to a short attention span audience, like the American people. The threat is actually to the Mid East friends and allies of ours. That one is easy to explain, and to Mid East stability. Mid East instability is bad for the world economy, which includes the US.

The other risk is that he will, or has, put some of the 'stuff' in the hands of Bin Laden or other terrorists who will use it on us. That risk is real, but apparently most people are not convinced, and will only be convinced if something else blows up and some one can play Hawaii Five O and show, in the span of time of a sitcom, how it is all his fault. Real life aint CSI. I don't need that much convincing that he will do it, but I understand those who want more evidence. I don't blame them, on that particular Saddam-Osama score.

The skeptics are correct to point out that Saddam is not the only place that such stuff could come from, and Russia cannot account for all of its 'stuff' in the past 10 years . . . so again, short attention span populations need more, as did the Senate and House.

What was in the classified briefings to the House and Senate I am not sure, but it apparently sold quite a few of them.

The rebuilding of a liberated Iraq is 10 times the job of rebuilding Bosnia, and guess what?

We are STILL in Bosina, 8 years later!

The only advantage Iraq has is a liquidatable asset, oil, that can be an engine for economic health. Bosnia has none of that advantage, and is full of international aid junkies.

[Quark]

Not gonna go into weapons, because last I heard there was nothing definately chemical/biological weapon (they have confirmed banned), so I'm not up to date.

War over? Nope. Baghdad is now under our control, but Northern Iraq still needs to be 'cleaned out' (not the best term, but I can't think of anything else). After that it turns into 'find the rabbit' and 'keep the peace'.

[Taem]

While I do not agree with a first strike policy, I am glad Sadam Hussein is gone - for GOOD! He really was a bad person and commited terrible atrocities on his own people, and that alone is reason to get rid of him IMO.

As for the WoMD found, I was unaware. I have not been fully involved in the news as of late.

[Mithrandir]

As for the WoMD found, I was unaware.  I have not been fully involved in the news as of late.

Perhaps most unsettling of all, tonight MSNBC was discussing news from an embedded reporter that the Marines have found a huge underground complex in a recently "liberated" area to have an extremely high radiation count.

They're still investigating it obviously, but 14 (I believe that was the number) rooms were "cooking" with radiation.

You know, everyone knows Saddam had made attempts to purchase weapons grade plutonium and I doubt it will turn out to be as serious as it has the possibility of being, but... sheesh...

It'll be interesting to see how that unfolds, to say the least.


Plus, the argument that the US had no justification to go into Iraq due to breaches in UN Resolutions on disarmament were silly since the beginning. The very first night Saddam launched some SCUDs (which were banned by the UN and Saddam claimed not to posses) into Kuwait!

[WarBlade]

You know, everyone knows Saddam had made attempts to purchase weapons grade plutonium and I doubt it will turn out to be as serious as it has the possibility of being, but... sheesh...

Plutonium? I thought it was Uranium.

Plus, the argument that the US had no justification to go into Iraq due to breaches in UN Resolutions on disarmament were silly since the beginning. The very first night Saddam launched some SCUDs (which were banned by the UN and Saddam claimed not to posses) into Kuwait!

The media, or at least the news that I was watching said "missiles thought to be SCUDs" which only lasted very briefly until they actually knew what the missiles were.

They turned out to be Ababil-100s and proved to be an easier 'kill' for the Patriot missiles. :P

[Chaerophon]

They turned out to be Ababil-100s and proved to be an easier 'kill' for the Patriot missiles

Exactly. They have found some Al-Samoud's, but only one missile has actually hit Kuwait and it was, if I remember correctly, not a banned munition as it only has a radius of approx. 60-80 miles. (?) Unlike what some posters have contended, they have yet to confirm a SINGLE "WMD". They have, however, found a large cache of... pesticide. That being said, I'm sure that there must be SOME of this stuff out there. However, the argument of the U.S. at the outset of the war has yet to be confirmed through factual evidence. (That being that they represented a serious threat to America and its allies in the Middle East.) At this point, I'm thinking that the US either vastly overestimated Hussein, made it all up, or are in store for worse things to come in Tikrit.

Whatever you think, (and who knows what to think at this point) you've got to agree that putting an American flag on Saddam's concrete head was probably not the best message that they could have sent :D The damage control was pretty funny, though. For some reason, I had images of Albion Child at the top of that ladder in all his glory.

[Quark]

nt

[Jester]

The one and only justification that has a chance, for me, of holding water is the WMD argument.

The reason I find it to be insufficient is as follows: If he had any weapons that are technically banned (small scale chemical or biological weapons, as opposed to large scale bio or nuclear; missiles slightly longer range than allowed; etc...) the UN Security Council has the right to impose its will, as per the cease fire at the end of the first Gulf war.

Since the UN Security Council did NOT authorize a war, a much larger violation would be necessary to justify unilateral action against the will of the Security Council. It's one thing to say they're not quite living up to the terms of their agreement; it's quite another to justify "vigilante" action to rectify the situation.

It's up to the US administration to prove he has broken the terms of the cease fire in a manner so flagrant.

I doubt this is going to happen. It might. We shall see. This radiation thing might pan out, or it might not.

Jester

[kandrathe]

Yes, I agree. It is too early to tell if their were WMD, but I hope the US military gets Hans Blix and company back in there, and supervises their "discovery". I'd like to see what the UN can do without the Iraqi secret service and minders getting in their way.

[Haider]

...it's no longer a debate. Large caches of chemical and biological weapons have been found in numerous places throughout Iraq. Caches of BANNED weapons, I might add, along with weapons delivery systems capable of deploying them. Not to mention equipment and facilities for handling said agents.

Sporry, but all this caches turned out as wrong until today. Up until now none forbidden weapons were found. Even the now found Uranium deposits seem to be waste from the abadoned nuclear program. Not even forbidden missiles were used. The suspected SCUDS on Kuwait were all short-range missiles.

[kandrathe]

Well, you are wrong. The SCUD, especially Iraq's re-engineered types which clearly violate the UN's limitation of 150KM. Even the Al-Samoud (one of their smallest) missiles were being dismantled by Hans Blix and company as the latest Iraqi designs are in violation of the 1991 armistice.

Federation of American Scientists - Iraqi Missles

[Jarulf]

...it's no longer a debate. Large caches of chemical and biological weapons have been found in numerous places throughout Iraq. Caches of BANNED weapons, I might add, along with weapons delivery systems capable of deploying them. Not to mention equipment and facilities for handling said agents.

Huh???!?!!

I have absolutely no idea where you get your news from (perhaps some rumourmonger who never check the information). I have yet to see any news, report or information that indictae ANY weapons of mass destruction found at all.

[Haider]

Well, you are wrong.   The SCUD, especially Iraq's re-engineered types which clearly violate the UN's limitation of 150KM.  Even the Al-Samoud (one of their smallest) missiles were being dismantled by Hans Blix and company as the latest Iraqi designs are in violation of the 1991 armistice.

Federation of American Scientists - Iraqi Missles

Which SCUDs? AFAIK there weren't SCUDs found (while I am quite sure there are about a dozen left). The half of the Samuds were destroyed by the UN, and probably all would have been destroyed if the invasion would not have started. Since the UN abadoned the destruction program you cannot blame the Iraqi for not destroying the rest of this missiles while figthing a war. The Samuds weren't a reason to start the war for the US/UK, so why should they be used now as such?

[kandrathe]

Yeah, all it takes is one insensitive American soldier, and a frenetic world press corp to muck up the entire socio-political environment for the next 5 years. I heard this morning that orders went out from the top that NO flags will be displayed by American soldiers, period.

"I was just trying my best to get the chain around his neck and put the flag on his head," Cpl. Edward Chin, 23, said Thursday on ABC-TV's Good Morning America.

Chin said he had second thoughts about what message the use of the flag might send the Iraqi people. Some said later it suggested U.S. occupation.

"At the moment, I was just doing what I was told to do by my commanding officer," Chin said. "... I had to get the job done just like we've been doing out here in Iraq."

Chin was quickly ordered to take the U.S. flag down and replace it with an Iraqi flag. Moments later, the towering bronze statue was pulled down, and cheering Iraqis tore it to pieces.

Cpl Edward Chin from New York of the 3rd battalion, 4th Marines regiment, set up the star and stripes flag on the face of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's statue before told to tear down it, in downtown Bagdad, Wednesday, April 9, 2003. (AP Photo/Laurent Rebours)

It didn't seem to make the headlines on Al Jazeera, though.

[Haider]

I found it an amazing coincidence that it was the flag which flow over the Pentagon on the 11th Sept. 2001. And quite stupid, since it implies a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, which - according to the British secret service, the CIA, even GWB and about any credible source does not exist. The flag was only taken down, when the Iraqi (the few who were there) protested against the US flag.

[kandrathe]

First, I do not believe that anyone has stopped to analyze or inform you in detail information from the missile fragments and trajectories enough to determine exactly which type they are. What is a SCUD B? A Soviet SS-1? No, for Iraq it is an Al Samoud. Do you think all those missiles were launched from the Iraqi border? No, from what I saw they originated from near Baghdad, or the western desert.

I don't think they have uncovered everything yet, and even if they did find it, no one has had time to do anything more that to insure it isn't going to be used. Yesterday, I saw live video of troops and reporters in a "bicycle factory" in Baghdad that was the site of manufacture for Al Samoud, and other missiles, and it was full of all types. Anyway, as I said, you and I are only speculating on things that will get far more analysis and scrutiny in the days to come.

The Samuds weren't a reason to start the war for the US/UK, so why should they be used now as such?

I never claimed they were a reason to start a war.