Big

What about all the posters that don't participate too much on these discussions? Can you give us your rare views?

Spider

Thank you for recognizing that I am not a politically savvy poster. That said, my view of the Iraq war parallels my view of the Vietnam war. At first, I trusted the government and believed that our leaders knew more about the situation than the protesters, and they were doing what was best for everyone. As the war waged on and progress seemed slow or non-existant, I began to doubt the wisdom of our involvement. In the Iraq war, it now seems even more evident that our leaders have made errors in judgment and relied on faulty intelligence. Also, the political/religious situation in Iraq seems much more complex than a conventional war scenario. I still have to believe that people on both sides of this issue are good men and women who are doing what they sincerely feel is the right thing, but I'm now in favor of getting out and not wasting even more American lives and money.

Edit: I'll also add that I don't think the war in Iraq is a war against terrorism. There are many countries that support terrorism, and even if we are victorious in Iraq (Is that possible? What would be a victory anyway?), terrorism will continue, although if we end our involvement there, we may be less likely to antagonize those who would like to intimidate us.

One more edit: I thought then and still think that when Sadaam Hussein denied investigators total access to search for WMD's and thus violated his terms of surrender, that was justification to invade the country.

__________________
"Love never dies." The Beatles

contini

Reply to the commend about Saddam denying access to investigators:

At the time that we declared war, Hans Blix reported that Saddam allowed access to just about everywhere:

The February 2003 report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,895882,00.html

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly.
...
In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

The March 2003 report (which was that last one -- when Bush declared that Saddam was not cooperating and hence we attacked them):
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998.

...

As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks.

Big

American people were sold on the fact that Iraq definitely had those WMD and the only way to resolve the issue was to give them up. Saddam lost right away since he could not give up what he did not have.

Here is what Bush said: "Give up WMD or face war", which essentially means war if one doesn't have those weapons.

Spider

"At the time that we declared war, Hans Blix reported that Saddam allowed access to just about everywhere"

I remember hearing what I thought were reliable news reports to the contrary.

__________________
"Love never dies." The Beatles

contini

From where -- Fox News?

Given the full text of Blix's final two reports (the links I posted), do you think differently now?

Big

This will confirm what I said above. While Blix did not find any WMD in Iraq he never went against Bush dogma that weapons are there:

Hans Blix, executive chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, updated the Security Council on Friday about the searches carried out in Iraq.

Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country, but did not rule out the possibility of some existing.

He said the main problem lay in locating such chemical weapons as the deadly VX nerve agent Iraq was known to have had in 1998, which are not on the Iraqi declaration.

"Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction," Blix said.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm

Spider

"Given the full text of Blix's final two reports (the links I posted), do you think differently now?"

They're very convincing, but I really remember hearing about inspectors being denied access, and the news being generally accepted as true. No, it wasn't Fox News or The Daily Show. Am I the only one suffering from this delusion? If the source of your reports is reliable and no one can offer evidence that refutes them, yes, I'd have to rethink my position.

(With this post, I finally become a World Champion . . . and they said it could never happen.)

__________________
"Love never dies." The Beatles

Big

Spider, Hussein refused letting inspectors in for a while but weeks before the war Saddam let them everywhere. I remember CNN showing inspectors going everywhere. However, Bush kept saying if the weapons are not found, that means they are hidden. At this time American forces were already on their way to Kuwait.

contini

Saddam did put up resistance when the inspections began, but once Bush put the pressure on him, he was proactively cooperating -- that is a fact that you can read from Blix's reports. It's not even debatable -- it is simply a fact. Now given a choice between believing a news report (you dont remember which one) and reading the facts from Blix's report, I'm pretty sure (since you are intelligent and logical) that we can conclude that the claim is not true. Our right wing friends like to talk about liberal media. What does this example make you think of the liberal media claim? Ever wonder why the rest of the world seems to be against America? Maybe it's because Bush's America is living in its own little world, making big decisions that effect others, and making such judgements in a way that has no connection with reality. The level of anti-Americanism in the world today is mainly due to G.W.Bush's politics.

Let me take it a step further. When Bush asked Congress for the right to declare was on Iraq, he promised that he would use war only as a last option. Here's a reminder from the white house homepage:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021016-1.html

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds.

(there are many other speeches where they declared that they would use the powers only as a last resort. For example, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021112-5.html )

Given the facts from Blix's report, do you believe that Bush's declaration of war in March 2003 was indeed a last resort?