SECURITY: The War in Iraq

Many people are angry about the war. They are upset that we went there, that it has lasted so long, and that it continues still. But many of us forget WHY we are there. They forget the real reason behind the media shield of weapons of mass destruction not found or other negative press. They want to comment about the Foreign Policy and how we have broken trust with various allies. So why are we there? Why does the Republican Party feel it's so important?

To understand the situation we must look at the history. The United States went into the original war, Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait. Period. That was the mission of President George H. Bush. Not to take Iraq. Not to go after Hussein, which is what many people wanted at that time, but to liberate a country taken over by an oppressive nation.

After that war ended, there were certain restrictions placed on Iraq. Restrictions to provide unconditional proof to the United Nations...not the United States, that Iraq would not have the capabilities that they did prior. The United Nations placed sanctions and drafted resolutions. Warnings were given, expectations set. Here is some of what Secretary Powell had to say to the UN on January 27, 2003.

SECRETARY POWELL: We listened carefully as the inspectors reported that Iraq has not provided the active, immediate and unconditional cooperation that the Council demanded in UN Resolution 1441.

As Dr. Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." Let me repeat, because this is the essence of the problem. Dr. Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." 1441 is all about the disarmament demanded of Iraq.

www.state.gov...

During the previous years Saddam Hussein had REFUSED to comply. Refused access to the country and refused to divulge information on weapons of mass destruction. These were WORLD demands, demands of the United Nations, which were similar to the demands placed on Germany and Japan during the second World War.

There was a host of questions that Iraq could have answered quite easily. Where are the deadly materials that they were known to have at one time? The United Nations was being stonewalled. The world was being stonewalled. By reading more of what Secretary Powell stated to the UN, you will see many of the other reasons. Many things that were know to the UN.

Iraq was in material breach of all of its obligations to the world. The resolutions over and over were "one more chance" they had to comply.

From my link listed above
SECRETARY POWELL: It has been clear from the very beginning -- you know, I am one of the principal authors of 1441, and for better or worse, I can take some credit for having been one of its champions as we drove it through the United Nations Security Council process for a period of seven and a half weeks.

And we always insisted on three elements to that: one, Iraq is in material breach; two, this is their last chance; there have to be serious consequences. And those serious consequences meant the use of force. And you've heard me say that repeatedly, repeatedly. And I've also said that if the international community through the UN, when the time comes, does not wish to use force, the United States reserves its right as a sovereign nation to make a judgment within this clear record of violation to use force alongside likeminded nations who might wish to be part of such a coalition.

So I have been consistent throughout this entire process. And as I've watched the process unfold, I have watched Iraq go by every exit ramp -- diplomatic exit ramp -- that was put there for them. They could have made a full, complete and accurate declaration in December, which would have given us some confidence that they were serious about disarmament. Instead, they gave us 12,200 pages of nothing very useful.

The inspectors said that today. There was nothing new. They added nothing to the body of knowledge. They tried to deceive the inspectors. They tried to deceive us. One ramp gone by.

We have watched subsequently as they have kept reconnaissance planes from doing the work that could be helpful to the inspectors. They have done all of the things that I have described and you have heard other of my colleagues describe -- Deputy Secretary Armitage, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, last week. And so we are getting closer and closer to the point where the Security Council is going to have to look at the options that it had anticipated it would have to look at when 1441 was originally passed.

And so hang any label you want on me. I am a great believer in diplomacy and a great believer in finding a peaceful solution. But I also recognize that when somebody will not accept a peaceful solution by doing their part of creating a peaceful solution, one must never rule out the use of force to implement the will of the international community, but more importantly, to protect our people and to protect the world.

This is a great statement from a member of the Republican party that we could not let the inaction of Iraq continue, with or without some of our allies. That is WHY we went to war. That is why we are still there trying to resolve the outcome. Americans do not like long drawn-out battles and many compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war which was entered by John F. Kennedy (a Democratic President).

The Republican party and this current administration believed in setting an expectation and then following through. They believed that Iraq had been given enough opportunities for ELEVEN YEARS to prove to the United Nations they were not a future threat to anyone. The message of the Republicans set is a clear message to those who would do the country harm. We will fight terrorism. We will expect an oppressive contry to comply to the UN, and we will follow through with what we say...even if it isn't popular. What is popular is not always right.

Make no mistake, when the President of the United states speaks, the world does indeed listen. The Democratic position is to say the actions taken thus far would still be supported, but there should have or will be more negotiation with allies, more statesmanship, more understanding, and more talk. Unfortunately the world had been talking for 11 years and they were ready to just continue doing that. The Republican position is one of defense of this great nation and ultimately the world. It is one of meeting the brutality of those who would do us harm, with the cold fact that we are a peaceful nation and a strong nation. We mean what we say and we will follow our words with action, not just more words. President Ronald Reagan was that way and help end the Cold War.

I believe the Republican stance on the Iraq speaks volumes for our position on all threats, such as terrorism. The Democratic stance seems to be more talk and reactionary measures. We did not break from England with talk. We did not stop Germany or Japan with talk. We will not defeat terrorism or oppressive countries with talk.

The Democratic party will not be effective at this current time for the safety of the country. We need to continue under strong leadership that has been one of clearly stating it's purpose, plan, and then following through.

I agree that the first step to extricating ourselves from the mess in Iraq is to understand why the US is there.

However, I cannot agree with your answer to that question. Your interpretation has some holes in it.

The real reasons Bush went to war

I will let the article speak for itself.

Originally posted by Gools
I will let the article speak for itself.

Gools, the article did raise some intersting questions, but articles do not speak for itself. Esp. an Op/Ed piece. I agree with Blair, had OIL been the only objective, it would have been easier to cut a deal with Saddam and just buy the oil. No, the clear goal here was regime change. It is an agressive example of Manifest Destiny perhaps, but to simply chalk the whole war up to Oil is ignoring all of the points that Zeddicus put forth is avoiding the obvious answers. If this was an "oil" grab and the consensus is that we went there just to get it, why did the French who had a vested interest oppose things so aggressivly? The logical choice in that scenario (and we all know the French look out for thier own interests) would be to get a foot in the door to either presserve thier claim or better yet renegotiate with a new government.

To claim this also was an attempt to preserve the dollar is a bit much as well. THe reason the OPEC countries trade in the US dollar is multi faceted. We currently have the longest lasting most stable form of government since the founding of our country. We are the sole remaining superpower in the world and have the military force to protect our interest at home and abroad. We have the worlds biggest economy. The EU no doubt will present another option in the future, but i is still in its infancy.

[edit on 5-8-2004 by FredT]

Originally posted by Gools
I will let the article speak for itself.

The author of the Guardian article seemed to leave out the part about the UN being given the run-around for 11 years. He forgot that the UN didn't want to stand up to Hussein. He forgot that France was Iraq's largest trading partner so of course opposed the use of force.

Imagine if you will that Germany did the same thing in WWII. After ELEVEN years (like it would have gone that long) if they didn't comply, the same thing would have happened. I guess people would say the only reason was for the beer or maybe to control the BMW market.

SECRETARY POWELL: And as I'll say for about the fifth time, in due course those next steps will be announced. Yes, there are disagreements. There are some who are satisfied with passive cooperation at this point. Passive cooperation is not what 1441 was all about.

Dr. Blix, it seems to me, made it rather clear today that he is not getting the kind of cooperation and Iraq has not made the fundamental choice it has to make that it is going to be disarmed.

Also, from a Wall Street Journel editorial in February 2003.

Last November, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq one last chance to disarm peacefully or "face serious consequences." However, instead of disarming, Iraq has responded to Resolution 1441 with empty claims, empty declarations, and empty gestures. Just a week ago, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." Indeed, the Iraqi regime is going to great lengths to conceal its weapons of mass destruction. It has removed material from sites it knew were likely to be inspected. The regime also has an active program of coaching scientists before they talk to inspectors and only permits interviews when minders are present. On top of that, thousands of pages of sensitive weapons-related documents have been found in private homes.

Resolution 1441 established two key tests: a full and accurate disclosure of Iraq's weaponry and a requirement to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the inspectors. Iraq has failed both tests. Iraq's declaration of its weapons holdings is incomplete and inaccurate and provides no substantive information on the disposition of its weapons of mass destruction. Not surprisingly, the UN inspectors have found it woefully deficient. In his report to the Security Council, Mr. Blix noted that Iraq has failed to account for its production of the deadly nerve agent VX, some 6,500 chemical bombs, and about 1,000 metric tons of chemical agent. Iraq also previously acquired the materials to make much more anthrax than it declared.

In their inspections, Mr. Blix's team discovered a number of chemical warheads not previously acknowledged by Iraq. Iraq also continues to acquire banned equipment, with proscribed imports arriving as recently as last month. The inspectors also reported that Iraqi activity is severely hampering their work. For example, Iraq has refused the inspectors' request to use a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, a critical tool for inspections. Inspectors are accompanied everywhere by Iraqi minders, are slandered by Iraqi officials as spies, and face harassment and disturbing protests that would be unlikely to occur without the encouragement of the authorities.

www.state.gov...

I suppost your right. Perhaps the Democratic party, or another party, would have gotten us through a few more years of talk with Iraq, but I believe it was right to not let Iraq continue to defy the UN Declarations. This current administration made the correct choice. Hussein was unwilling to follow through with what was RIGHTFULLY demanded of him by the world. It is a shame that by enforcing those demands, many would rather look at the police as corrupt and the criminals as victims.

Although the Coalition has not found huge caches of WMD, they are somewhere out there. Saddam Hussein can't work magic and make his WMD disapear. In a UN press release dated January 27th, 2003 the following was said.

At the same time, he drew attention to some outstanding issues and questions. On the nerve agent VX -- one of the most toxic ever developed -- he recalled Iraq had declared that it had produced VX only on a pilot scale and, with poor quality, had never weaponized it. But, UNMOVIC had conflicting information, including indications that the agent had been weaponized. A number of chemical bombs containing some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were unaccounted for, and several thousand chemical rockets were unaccounted for.

On biological agents, he said Iraq had provided little evidence for its declared production of 8,500 litres of anthrax and no convincing evidence of its destruction, which it stated it had unilaterally done in 1991. There were strong indications that Iraq had produced more anthrax than it had declared, and that at least some of that had been retained after the declared destruction date. A significant quantity of imported bacterial growth media sufficient to produce about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax had not been declared.

Full press release

So the UN, which was opposed to the war, admitted that Hussein still had WMD unaccounted for. So those WMD must be somewhere out there.

Now the coalition has also found small portions of WMD here is one example

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An artillery shell used in a roadside bomb in Baghdad did contain the nerve agent sarin as originally thought, U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday.

Full story

Now whether or not these shells were in use prior to the invasion last year is unknown. But it does prove that there are some WMD in Iraq, that were suppose to have been destroyed.

Sorry Zed, I'm with Gools on this. You seem to have taken the bait; hook, line, and sinker. Check out this link:home1.gte.net...
It would appear that it was in fact Henry Kisinger who first proposed the invasion/occupation of Iraq back in '73! Every other excuse is just that, an excuse to hide the real reasons. Global hegemony of our own, so-called, "benevolent" superiority. Try reading The PNAC mission statement:www.newamericancentury.org...
These are the clowns running the show. I just hope it's not too late to derail thier doomed scheme.

The War in Iraq has a benefit that is not quantifiable because it is the prevention of terrorist attacks. How many times do you hear on the news of terrorist attacks in Iraq and not in the United States? The war in Iraq has been successful in containing most terrorist activity to Iraq and keeping the focus off the United States. Could this have been one of the reasons for the war? I for one think that it was and even though you will never see a report entitled �NUMBER OF TERRORIST ATTACKS PREVENTED ON AMERICAN SOIL BY WAR IN IRAQ� you will have to ponder it.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
The War in Iraq has a benefit that is not quantifiable because it is the prevention of terrorist attacks. How many times do you hear on the news of terrorist attacks in Iraq and not in the United States? The war in Iraq has been successful in containing most terrorist activity to Iraq and keeping the focus off the United States. Could this have been one of the reasons for the war? I for one think that it was and even though you will never see a report entitled �NUMBER OF TERRORIST ATTACKS PREVENTED ON AMERICAN SOIL BY WAR IN IRAQ� you will have to ponder it.

Be very careful in making "if-then" statements or using the much defamed ethos of "the ends justify the means" arguments. Neither is considered legitimate in my school of debate.

Unfortunaltely in the world in which we live today "if then" situations are the way of life.

We live today by what if situations. We are screened at airports, buildings are surrounded by police and miltiary, locations are put on lockdown not for hard proof but for what if situations. The FBI, CIA, and the Dept of Homeland Security all plan by what if situations so I don�t understand why the argument is not valid.

Today What If and If Then Situations are the way of life.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by BlackJackal]

The War in Iraq has a benefit that is not quantifiable because it is the prevention of terrorist attacks. How many times do you hear on the news of terrorist attacks in Iraq and not in the United States? The war in Iraq has been successful in containing most terrorist activity to Iraq and keeping the focus off the United States. Could this have been one of the reasons for the war? I for one think that it was and even though you will never see a report entitled �NUMBER OF TERRORIST ATTACKS PREVENTED ON AMERICAN SOIL BY WAR IN IRAQ� you will have to ponder it.

That's a really easy thing to say, but its a lot harder to prove. How many attacks have we had on US soil? Let's see...9/11. And I'll give you another reason why we won't see such a report, because the answer is 0. I've heard so many people say that, but....we can't predict the future.

Another thing, why should we force Iraq to disarm in the first place?

WMDs? Well, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector had this to say about the WMDs in Iraq:

"UNMOVIC did not find evidence of continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed weapons."

www.newsmax.com...

Hans Blix has been very vocal that the US and Britain had exaggerated.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's a really easy thing to say, but its a lot harder to prove. How many attacks have we had on US soil? Let's see...9/11. And I'll give you another reason why we won't see such a report, because the answer is 0. I've heard so many people say that, but....we can't predict the future.

Another thing, why should we force Iraq to disarm in the first place?

WMDs? Well, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector had this to say about the WMDs in Iraq:

"UNMOVIC did not find evidence of continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed weapons."

www.newsmax.com...

Hans Blix has been very vocal that the US and Britain had exaggerated.

Yes Hans Blix has been vocal, but the fact that many WMD's are still unaccounted for raises the question, where are these WMD's?

Originally posted by scottsquared
Every other excuse is just that, an excuse to hide the real reasons. Global hegemony of our own, so-called, "benevolent" superiority. These are the clowns running the show. I just hope it's not too late to derail thier doomed scheme.

LOL! Well I guess this is a conspiracy site and at the end of the day, you have to believe what you believe. As for myself, I would rather look at the real issues here in this forum and not speculate on "hidden" real reasons. But I appreciate the input.

I also don't think I would label the current administration as circus performers. Has everything gone perfectly? No. But, I don't quite believe the Democratic vote is the "magic bullet" either that is going to solve the issue.

We went there to enforce something that had been back-handed off by the past Democratic administration for a number of years. Yes, Han Blix stated there was an exaggeration on WMDs. Bad intel. I don't deny that, but wanted to point out that we went there to enfore a UN Resolution. WMDs were also a concern and it seems thus far...an untrue concern (except for the missing stuff). Still, Iraq had used them in the past, had invaded another county and looted it, and was defying the world after being pushed back out of Kuwait.

So now we are there, and I have heard all the speeches. I believe the Republican party has said what they were going to do, and followed through. Hard roads? Yes, the WMDs, the prison scandal, etc...but like I said, the Democratic party states they will support the troops but also go back to talk, which I don't believe will truly help our National Security.

Originally posted by f16falcon
....
but the fact that many WMD's are still unaccounted for raises the question, where are these WMD's?

Well the way I see it there is 3 possibilities and mind you they are only my personal opinion but here they are.

1. Saddam moved out of Iraq when France warned them about US invasion plans, suspected countries Syria and Iran. Maybe both...

2. Saddam did destroy all weapons but did so secretly so his enemies would think it was a ruse, because an Iraq without WMDs isn't so intimidating as one with them.

3. Saddam hid them really well inside Iraq, and the US need more time to find them.

The most likely scenario is #1 IMO.

Regards,
Chris

ZZ, I really hope you have read the PNAC. You will see the Administrations plans outlined before Bush was even elected.

And yes, there are hidden real reasons outlined in that document. You can call it a conspiracy, but they are very overt in why we should go to Iraq. The number 1 reason being we need to revolutionize our military for the 21st century, Iraq was the easiest little guy to pick on.

They also give a list of who they want to attack, Iraq and Afghanistan are on there as well as Iran, Saudia Arabia and others. They want to establish an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Iraq, one that will go straight up to...yep...you guess it, Israel.

Iraq used weapons and then we went in there during the Golf War. And, as I recall weapons inspectors took many trips to Iraq throughout the years after the Gulf, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Also, we respect the UN when we want to go to war, but we don't respect them when they expect us to follow the geneva convention, I call that gross hypocrisy.

Also sardian, maybe I'm just optimistic, but I like #2, Saddam was very keen on embarassing the opposition. And I fairly confident we still would have gone to war with Iraq if it werent for WMDs and I'm sure Saddam knew that too.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
ZZ, I really hope you have read the PNAC. You will see the Administrations plans outlined before Bush was even elected.

Yep. They have plans for just about every country in the world, including Canada. I don't think that really proves intent...just planning. Maybe not though. All I have to say is watch out Canada.

As of December 2002, established Canadian Oil recoverable reserves stood at 174 billion barrels, with ultimate recoverable reserves at an estimated 315 billion barrels, according to EUB (and my father who heads who is CFO of the largest oil company in Canada). They have more oil than Saudi Arabia.

LOL, attack Canada. I don't think that would go over really well. That would be a very stupid move, you got to give the Adminstration some credit, look how they got us arguing over whether we should have gone to Iraq. I think you know it would have been a clear cut no with Canada.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Unfortunaltely in the world in which we live today "if then" situations are the way of life.

We live today by what if situations. We are screened at airports, buildings are surrounded by police and miltiary, locations are put on lockdown not for hard proof but for what if situations. The FBI, CIA, and the Dept of Homeland Security all plan by what if situations so I don�t understand why the argument is not valid.

Today What If and If Then Situations are the way of life.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by BlackJackal]

Kind Sir,
I was actually pointing out an error of logic, I most certainly empathize with the plight of real-world defense organizations needing to hypothesize. By concluding that our invasion and occupation of Iraq has precluded subsequent attacks is unsupported.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's a really easy thing to say, but its a lot harder to prove.

Not really all the difficult to prove. Condoleezza Rice outlined the reasons for the Iraq war in a speech to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.

She noted that the Terrorist declared war on the United States in 1983 with an attack on Military Barracks in Lebanon. Condoleezza Rice stated "It is now undeniable that the terrorists declared war on America -- and on the civilized world -- many years before September 11."

Rice clearly stated that September 11th changed America�s response to the terrorism changed after 9-11 to take the fight to the terrorists. Mrs. Rice comments confirming my above listed reason are below.

We are taking the fight to the enemy. And as President Bush said to the nation last month, we are finally rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power[1].

Although an exact number of terrorists killed in Iraq is uncertain the estimates place that number in the several thousand.[2] Logically one would summarize that if the terrorists are being killed in Iraq that there would be fewer to attack the United States.

[1] www.talonnews.com...
[2] www.historyguy.com...

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by Jamuhn
ZZ, I really hope you have read the PNAC. You will see the Administrations plans outlined before Bush was even elected.

Yep. They have plans for just about every country in the world, including Canada. I don't think that really proves intent...just planning. Maybe not though. All I have to say is watch out Canada.

As of December 2002, established Canadian Oil recoverable reserves stood at 174 billion barrels, with ultimate recoverable reserves at an estimated 315 billion barrels, according to EUB (and my father who heads who is CFO of the largest oil company in Canada). They have more oil than Saudi Arabia.

I claim no Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, but I think planning does indeed prove intent.

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Although an exact number of terrorists killed in Iraq is uncertain the estimates place that number in the several thousand.[2] Logically one would summarize that if the terrorists are being killed in Iraq that there would be fewer to attack the United States.

[1] www.talonnews.com...
[2] www.historyguy.com...

Another error of logic. You must include the statement: All else remaining the same.
It may be argued that our invasion/occupation has actually increased the number of terrorists/potential terrorists.