Why is fox news the only one reporting WMD's found in Iraq?
- Thread starter Kowboy
- Start date
TonyElTigre
Veteran XX
Boomyguy said:
Let the fonz do the shark jumping, anybody with a brain knows why we went to iraq and how little it had to do with WMD's.
RJ_ said:
Which I not only agreed with but clearly stated. Depending upon the time frame of thier manufacture they may shed some light on what plans Iraq had for the design and production of WMD leading up to the Gulf War.
The capabilities of the Iraqi WMD program at the start of the Gulf War as well as the intent of Saddam's regime at the same time can help in the search for any remaining WMD from the 80s as well as any WMD created after the Gulf War ended (if any WERE created).
Also, if these WMD were produced by the Iraqis (rather than being imported) then it demonstrates the ability (sans sanctions and an inspection program) to produce WMD.
At the time of the invasion there was a strong push to have the sanctions removed which would have resulted in Saddam once again having the economic power to make massive expenditures on his military.
Since the inspections have been shown to have been only partially effective and there is evidence (such as these pre Gulf War munitions which were hidden from the inspectors and probably even from Saddam's regime) that Iraq was able to outsmart and evade the inspectors it seems reasonable that the most powerful force in preventing an active WMD program during the post Gulf War era was the sanctions themselves.
Correction noted.
Even ignoring the issue of whether or not victors have the right to impose terms upon the defeated that still leaves the violation of the sanctions and the terms of the treaty as a point of argument. Not to mention violating the U.N. food for oil program or any of the other incidents that, while not justification for an invasion, signify Saddam's willingness to defy the international community.
Last edited:
Madness said:
I don't quite remember, but I thought the push to remove sanctions were civilian in nature only while military sanctions would remain. Iraq would still have had great difficulty importing more than second-hand from Syria, which already uses mostly second-hand Soviet-era junk. During the sanctions Saddam had large discrentionary cash reserves from illict oil sales. But they still couldn't get their hands on much. That's why the Iraqis were domestically producing a number of weapons that they would ordinarily just be purchased on the cheap.
Oh and let's be clear about something with respect to bypassing sanctions - the West was fully aware this was going on but did nothing to stop it. I guess another 1.x million BPD of oil on the market was worth sacrificing their credibility.
The US wields veto power in the UNSC. They've vetoed a large number of resolutions where they were the only vote against (primarily with resolutions involving Israel). I don't believe the sanctions were in danger of being lifted or that the US was in danger of bowing to pressure. The political umbrella they provide Israel speaks for itself.
Fair enough, but I'm more interested in whether or not the the violations justified a war. I'm really not a fan of bombing people into democracy. I've seen too many failed democracies (who did not have open violence to contend with) to believe Iraq 2003 is going to work.
Makasuro said:
FDR intentionally misled the public leading up to WW2 and both the media and the majority of history books have willingly gone along with that deception because the results proved that FDR was right to want to get involved in the war and that justified his decision to say or do whatever it took to gain the support of the nation.
Not exactly saying that what Bush did is the same as what FDR did (the outcome of the decision hasn't been determined yet and there is no definitive historical perspective) but there are plenty of examples in history of societies being too stupid or short-sighted to act in thier own best interest and of certain leaders forcing them into taking the logical actions by a variety of different methods (many of which would have resulted in a hanging had they failed).
The Civil War was not completely about slavery (perhaps not even primarily about slavery) but ending slavery was a far better rallying cry and a far better motivator for the Union than was the concept of federalism (which isn't so different from Pax Americana, in spirit) and national unity.
Maybe Bush wanted to invade Iraq to make his buddies rich or to overthrow the guy who threatened his father. Maybe Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he knew that radical and violent change was needed in the middle east and Iraq provided a viable target and 9/11 provided a powerful motivational force and he chose to act while he had the opportunity.
History will decide I guess.
