Umm wasn't resolution 1441 about disarming Saddam of WMD's? For the public at least this war was clearly made out to be about WMD's.
The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced.
posted by Tassadar
The means did justify the ends. Get over it.
Some people here really need to get a sense of perspective concerning Iraq.
Iraq has, was and is made out to be the international bogeyman concerning terrorism. I can tell you that if you look at countries like Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan, and reports on those countries you will find extremely easily accessible chemical and biological weapons than were even alluded to in
Iraq. Some recent reports Ive read from investigative journalists found many biological weapons from botulism to anthrax stored in nothing more than
a common kitchen fridge in many sites across Uzbekistan. The report by the weapons commission in Iraq said that they have found one vial. I repeat,
of a banned biological substance in the home of a scientist. As for the program to create missiles 100km or so over the U.N remit,
don't make me laugh. That would have been a threat to the west? There is no doubt that Iraq once
possessed forms of WMD, but there is little
evidence to suggest there existence in any large numbers since 1991. (*sticks on old record*) Yes Saddam was evil etc etc, but that is precisely the
point. They knew that the publics perception of Iraq was unequivocally of an evil regime, something that tells them that resistance to an Iraq
invasion would be low. We have 9/11, which in itself creates a feeling and need for revenge amongst Americans which needs to be sated. We have a
Government only too willing to please and appease. We have a motion written up ten years ago by the top members of the current admin advocating
invasion and regime change in Iraq, where WMD's is not given as a major consideration. (We also have regime change being against international law as
a reason for war, one of the main reasons why the invasion is being so staunchly defended) We have senior members of the Admin outside of those who
penned this motion
who state that the policy of containment was working in Iraq and that there WMD's and threat to anyone outside Iraq was
We also have this from Paul Wolfowitz:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on
which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."
The main reason was the OPEC Issue, appeasement of American hurt and the Psychological base need for revenge.
We had the run up to war where we were told that Iraq possessed the capability to be a direct threat to the west. We were told that Iraq had huge
stockpiles of WMDs and were prepared to use them. It was also alluded to, (and taken up by no less than 70% of the American public), that Iraq had a
major part to play in 9/11. We were told that a major reason for the wars importance was to prevent WMD's falling into terrorists hands; Such an
important reason was this that after occupation the known toxic and nuclear storage sites of Iraq were left with absolutely no guard and no
protection. Looting of these sites soon commenced. It is now far easier for toxic or nuclear materials to fall into terrorists hands than it ever was
under Saddam. The U.S states that it does not have enough manpower to protect these sites.
We had lots of presentations with lots of lovely graphs and images of the exact
sites of Saddams alleged toys. Anyone remember those? Donald
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north somewhat."
We had a country with unreliable oil reserves for the next half century or so, and therefore a threat to national security. We had an admin made up of
millionaires, mostly with large ties to oil companies and big business with much to gain from the 'stabilisation' and reconstruction of Iraq.
We had a son with reason to complete his father's unfinished business.
We had the U.N that would have been prepared to sanction forceful action against Iraq if Hans Blix's weapons inspections had been allowed to
complete, no least in light of the changed political climate after 9/11 despite all the '12 year' guff.. We had the U.S refuting this for reasons of
pure logistics, too much of the ball had already been started rolling, and the temperature would have too great if they'd waited any longer. Not the
mention the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with wither Saddam possessed WMD's or not.
We had the international community refuting America's reasons for war, and a three country poodle squad 'coalition' created.
We had reports of weapons. Then we had reports of Programs. Now we have reports of capability to create a program to create weapons. What country
We now have a mess.
And now we have, by anyones standards, a pathetic WMD report on Iraq's weapons capability. You may think that is an over simplification given
Iraq's history, but take a look at the lawless dictatorial countries in the region and their biological and chemical capabilities in a totally
insecure environment and then tell me this war had the slightest thing to do with WMD's.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out
of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship
or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same way in any country."