It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wmd's Aside

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
With weapons of Mass destruction put aside for arguments sake,

What were the 'Right' Reasons for invading Iraq.

Clearly, No WMD's were found, suggesting No evidence OF wmd's exists.

So, for all those people that contend Iraq was a legitimate target, knowing the truth now, what do they perceive as being still reasonable, legitimate points for invading, occupying and altering the natural creation of Iraq.

No Flames, no Anti-BS.. just genuine reasons as to why you believe Iraq deserved to be invaded.

Having hindsight is beautiful,

but having hundereds of thousands of dead bodies,
destroyed buildings,
and diminshed economics deserves atleast SOME sort of justification.

'' we made a mistake '' isnt good enough.




posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Without WMDs there is virtually no case for the war against Saddam's regime.
It is up to the wars supporters to build a creditable case for the war which is something they have utterly failed to do. The reasons for going into Iraq were never clear after WMDs weren't found the reasons behind the war suddenly changed.

This was due to poor communication from the Bush admin and convenience.


History may tell us something we don't know and the wars supporters may appear in a more favourable light but I wouldn't count on it by any means. Its worth noting that even some Neo Cons admit that the war was a mistake.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
There were 3 main reasons for invading Iraq: First was the obvious case of weapons of mass destruction. Although it was known to U.S. intelligence that Iraq was incapable of producing weapons grade nuclear material, the administration still claimed that Iraq had that capability, along with chemical and biological weapons.
The second reason was the so called 'terrorist sponsorship,' which that Pentagon report pretty much admitted was all farce.
Third, humanitarian aid, which is the only legitimate reason out of them all, but when you think about it, there were surely other ways to eliminate Hussein without invading the entire country with 300, 000 men and women.

It's not like the CIA doesn't know how to conduct an assassination.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
It's not like the CIA doesn't know how to conduct an assassination.

Assassinations are bad business. No one wants to assassinate another country's leader because that will open the door and no leader will be safe.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
and WMD's was never it.

The ONLY reason for going to war, was because Saddam abrogated the terms of his 1991 surrender to the coalition forces.

When you agree to surrender terms, and then renege on them, you place yourself back onto a war footing with your antagonists.

Between 1991 and 2003, Saddam stockpiled conventional arms he had agreed not to pursue (AA and radar installations), he flew armed planes in the "no fly zone" he had agreed to, he waged war on the "marsh arabs" in the Basra, he routinely locked onto coalition surveilance jets. Most importantly, he had agreed to UN and USA weapons inspection teams. He also attempted to assassinate the head of the coalition (Bush 41) after that leader had retired from politics.

Bill Clinton thought so, and launched missle strikes into Iran in 1998, to take out some of Saddam's military that was openly defying the surrender terms.

The UN in 2003 supported the U.S.'s invasion, not for WMD's, but because Saddam refused to comply with the surrender terms from 12 years prior. That's why France, Germany, Russia and China approved the action.

That's why.

.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
The dirty secret, poorly kept, was that Iraq was intended to be the first step in stabilizing the Middle East, putting an end to the dangerous conflicts that have raged for years.


The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

...

The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government -- and my personal commitment -- to implement the road map and to reach that goal. Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken, if all concerned will let go of bitterness, hatred, and violence, and get on with the serious work of economic development, and political reform, and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity. (Applause.)

--February 26, 2003

Iraq was much like outposting a knight in chess. It was intended to be used as a strategic position to encourage change throughout the region.

Of course, is it the US's place to do that? To take up that cause? Maybe, maybe not.

If they hadn't screwed it up, then maybe people would answer that question in such a knee-jerk way.

[edit on 2/12/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
for declaring war on a sovereign nation that has not declared war on you, there is never an excuse good enough.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
for declaring war on a sovereign nation that has not declared war on you, there is never an excuse good enough.


I bet Lebanon would agree with you, in regards to both her Israeli and, *cough* Syrian neighbors.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I see it as brinkmanship. Saddam thumbed his nose at the US and UN and thought it would be too soft to follow through. The US in particular was paranoid that not acting was a sign of weakness and every tinpot dictator could go off and do what they liked with impunity. In GWB, well really Cheney, they picked the wrong guy and the US and coalition went in. The mistake was in the execution and priorities. I wasn't in the hot seat at decision time so its hard to make judgement why they had 140K troops rather than 300K to 400K to secure the place and win properly...The US and coalition partners are there now, its one front in the big Jihad and we've got to win or the game is up. So the west better fight hard, smart and good or we'l leave our kids in the s%#t.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I forgot to mention that it was also the opportunit to solve alot of problems in the ME. If Iraq went to plan, as a propserous, peacful democratic country it would be a beacon for all those place on the edge. Pipe dream...perhaps but I truly think that Iraqi's, given the 70% voter turnout, would rather this than being brutaly oppressed by sharia law, especially given their secular history.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   

I bet Lebanon would agree with you, in regards to both her Israeli and, *cough* Syrian neighbors.


Syria never declared war on Lebanon genious. Lebanese government requested aid from an ally which was syria, it wasn't an invasion.


Skippy, your idea is of a utopia is actually a distopia.

Why don't you give us all labotomy's so we can all submit to your idea of a perfect world?

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister


Syria never declared war on Lebanon genious. Lebanese government requested aid from an ally which was syria, it wasn't an invasion.



And the USA never declared war on Vietnam; they were requested by the South, which was an ally of the US . . . it wasn't an invasion.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Syrian Sister I made little judgement on it being right or wrong. Rather I contended how the west, in particular the US ended up there in Iraq wmd's aside.. argue the point.

BTW a free society is no utopia. Lots of places have had them for a while.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join