We're all equal online.

Not in my case, I am superior whether face to face with a peasant or online!

Can we please stop pretending the war in Iraq was to do with terrorists. It wasn't, so don't weaken the arguement by suggesting it was.

Saddam funded terrorism. Saddam had meaningful contacts with Al Qaeda. (see this NY Times article, registration required). Link There was a legitimate concern that Saddam was a potential source for WMD for terrorists.

Saddam was not the strongest supporter of terrorists, but he was not completely removed from them either.

How is it any worse that North Korea having nuclear weapons? Given the right incentives I believe that Saddam could have restored Iraq to stability, and that in return he would not offer support to terrorists or developing WMD. It may even have been possible to have agreed gradual conversion to democracy over a period of years. A few billion dollars buys a lot of friendship. Such a solution however would have been politically impossible for the Americans.

I think that the North Korean situation is an unacceptable security risk also, which is why I support the administration's stance for a complete, verifiable, and irreversible disarmament of North Korea's nuclear problem.

Saddam would not even fully comply with resolution 1441, and you think a few billion was all it would take to get him to hand over power? Saddam had over 12 years to cooperate with the international community and demonstrate that he was a responsible leader. He didn't.

Declaring the war over and Saddam removed, and then asking for an immediate UN peace keeping and rebuilding mission would have united the world.

The UN was invited and there were UN workers in Iraq, but they were pulled out after the UN building was bombed. I seem to remember that the sticking point over more widespread UN involvement in Iraq was the Iraqi government. The US wanted Bremer and the Governing Council in charge, countries like France wanted the UN to be in control. Countries like France, Germany, and Russia should share some of the blame for the lack of international cooperation. Those countries haven't done much to help Iraq.

do you seriously think that if America had put the time, effort, resources, and money into reforming sanctions that he ultimately ended up putting into the war, that it couldn't have been done?

The root of the sanctions problem was Saddam Hussein.

Humanitarian concerns, while laudable, cannot *alone* justify the war.

I agree with this, but there is a significant humanitarian component to the Iraq situation that should not be ignored either.

Funny, since Clinton was the one who kept those sanctions in place. Another Democrat, if he was really Clintonesque, would continue doing so.

That post got an insightful from me; good point. Clinton's policy for Iraq was regime change.

Any attempt to link Saddam to extremist islamic terrorists is a pathetic excuse to divert attention from the real issues.

What sort of classification is used to say that terrorists conducting attacks in Israel from Palestine are not Islamic Terrorists?

What worked there could maybe have also worked in Iraq.

Wasn't the Iraq invasion one of the reasons why Libya changed its mind?

Emotional issues like WMD and terrorism were used instead to sway public opinion.

There was serious international concern over Iraq and WMD prior to the invasion. There was disagreement about whether war was the correct course of action, but there was no question that something needed to be done to ensure that Iraq did not have WMD.

1. The sanctions against Iraq needed to end.
2. A Saddam regime without sanctions would pose an unacceptable security risk.
3. The only way to remove Saddam from power was the use of military force.

1. Only if Saddam showed that he was reborn.

2. Removing sanctions did not mean ending the no-fly zone.

3. The other alternative was to let Al Qaeda remove him.

Madine,
to reply to your points.

- Saddam's links to terrorist organisations are very weak. There are far stronger US links to terrorists. The US did sponsor terrorists around the world, and was known to have trained and provided support. Saddam was known to be against Islamic fundamentalism, and that included supporting fundamental terrorists. Even after 12 years of the international community applying sanctions to Iraq and publically stating that they would like Saddam removed, he did not support fundamental terrorists. He was never going to.

- Saddam was not in breach of article 1441. This was the whole point of the French and Russian refusal to endorse a new article allowing the war. To be in breach of 1441 the US needed to proof that Saddam had an active WMD program or stockpiles of these weapons. They couldn't before the war and still can't.

- On conquest of Bagdad the US was formally asked to request a UN peace keeping ands rebuilding mission. They refused. They asked the UN to send troops but for those troops to be under US control. They also wanted to maintain control of Iraqi Oil revenue and reconstruction funds. Those conditions were unacceptable, especially after weeks of the US demonising France and Russia for saying Saddam had no WMD. The UN was therefore NOT invited to run a peace keeping mission. A seperate part of the UN sent a humanitarian mission but this was recalled when security was seen to be non existent.

- Why do you think it is acceptable for the US to fund terrorists fighting against occupation in other countries, but find the Palestinian situation different? Palestinian terrorists are fighting for a homeland. They are not fundamentalists. They are not international terrorists. This is an internal Israeli / Palestinian situation that needs sorting. It's not a terrorist risk to the US and to lump Palestinians in the same boat as Al Queda shows a complete lack of understaning of the Middle East problems.

- Libya offered to remove WMD 10 years before the invasion of Iraq. Indeed it has been working with the UK government for years in reaching agreement on this issue, and a series of steps it could take to rejoin the international community. 10 years of diplomancy led to agree actions, acceptance of responsibility for previous terrorist actions, compensation payments, placing terrorists on trial. Iraq had NOTHING to do with this, though the US government has tried to suggest otherwise and been rebuffed by the UK on this issue. Libya is an excellent example of what can be achieved through diplomancy rather than war as stated by Tony Blair only yesterday in Istanbul.

- Everyone agreed that Iraqi must not have WMD. Countries disagreed about whether it had any. Turns out France, Russia and China were right and the US and UK were wrong on this one. My comment on this is that they should never have turned the war in Iraq into a WMD issue in the first place. It should have been a Saddam issue. They went for the emotional rather than the rational approach. The exact opposite of your post actually.

Paul.

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

This is article 5 from resolution 1441. Iraq was not complying with this directive. Dr. Hans Blix acknowledged that Iraq was not in full compliance with 1441. Iraq did not need to posess WMD to be in violation of 1441.

Pete, you are a legend in your own mind, not mine.

Well no one cares about your inferior mind you stupid, pathetic, disgusting, vile, horrid, intolerable little peasant piece of filth!

There was much discussion as to whether Iraq was complying.

It was generally agreed that Iraq had started complying with allowing the inspectors access to facilityies and records (they initially refused access to imperial palaces). The contenscious point was whther Iraq was allowing full access to individuals. Many individuals refused to talk to the weapon inspectors without Iraqi government officials present. No legal right the UN had could force them to make the inspectors speak. The letter of the article was therefore not broken. Some were suspicious that Saddam was keeping the scientists quiet through threats or some other means.

It was actually a different paragraph requirying Saddam to provide lists of all WMD and weapons that the US claimed was broken! They claimed Saddam failed to account for quantities of WMD that they knew he once had, that his short range missiles could possible travel further than allowed, and that he was trying to process Uranium.

The UN security council did NOT agree that Iraq was in breach of article 1441.

Paul.

Much of the UN security council had made, and stood to make, billions from Hussein. No great wonder then that they opted to ignore situations that might lead to the unseating of the hateful, insane business partner.

This is going to be one of those discussions relegated to the "The US allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked" files. Sour grapes, an argumentative bent, whatever you want to call it, there'll always be someone willing to bloviate for an hour, regardless of the fact that the world is a better place.

Some will always question the means, regardless of the ends. Thank God such paralyzed people aren't relied upon to make decisions, and we should make certian we don't put such folks in positions of power.

Actually US companies made more from the oil for food programme than any other nationality.

Article 1441 was the wrong reason to try to invade Iraq. It was a mistake to try to argue for an invasion based on this. People knew this was just an excuse and were upset with the US for not being honest. They then got even more upset when the US tries to bully others into supporting article 1442. If the US and UK had been honest about their reasons from the start then maybe the UN would have supported action. To demonise France and others for not making a decision to invade based on a flimsy excuse of article 1441 as oppossed to the real reasons is pathetic.

Madine's article above gives good solid reasons for invading Iraq. These are at least reasons that people can seriously debate. These are proper reasons. Indeed, these are believeable reasons. These are the reasons the UN should have been debating, not article 1441.

Paul.

Article 1441 was the wrong reason to try to invade Iraq. It was a mistake to try to argue for an invasion based on this. People knew this was just an excuse and were upset with the US for not being honest. They then got even more upset when the US tries to bully others into supporting article 1442. If the US and UK had been honest about their reasons from the start then maybe the UN would have supported action. To demonise France and others for not making a decision to invade based on a flimsy excuse of article 1441 as oppossed to the real reasons is pathetic. Madine's article above gives good solid reasons for invading Iraq. These are at least reasons that people can seriously debate. These are proper reasons. Indeed, these are believeable reasons. These are the reasons the UN should have been debating, not article 1441.

Exxcellent post. This sums up my feelings on the matter.