posted
Before the war in Iraq began, we went before the U.N. to ask for approval of the war and, more or less, got rejected. The members of the security council, particularly France, Germany, and Russia, claimed Iraq did not pose the immediate threat that demanded the sort of immediate invasion we were proposing. They suggested that we could wait a few months longer at least, to complete inspections and to see if Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be eliminated by peaceful means. And their inspectors suggested that they could not find the evidence for the sort of weapons of mass destruction program that we had suspected existed.
So how did we react? We gave them the political version of the middle finger.
We claimed their inspectors were not effective, were failing to succeed in their jobs, and were unable to see the weapons program that existed. We claimed we had proof that the weapons were there and that we KNEW they existed. We implied that their refusal to admit Iraq was an imminent threat was a sign of weakness, of unwillingness to accept responsibility on the U.N.'s part, and was an insult to us. Many claimed the nations involved were merely anti-American and were complaining for purely political reasons. We even went so far as to change the name of french fries to 'freedom' fries, as if France had become our enemy because they refused to accept that Iraq is an imminent threat.
Then we failed to find the weapons.
Time passed and administration officials told us that we were merely being impatient, that they were all completely certain weapons would be found. They even implied it was foolishness to even question this. But now over five months have passed and nothing had been found, despite our searching high and low in Iraq. The best we could come up with were a handful of mobile labs that may or may not have been used at some point to experiment with WMDs. We found nothing that could be deployed immediately and no signs of a program that seemed to be very close to producing any sort of atomic, chemical, or biological weapon. In short, no imminent threat was found, unless you are one of those who considers the mere fact that Saddam was in power to be an imminent threat (which was not the argument we gave to the U.N., for sure.)
The fact is that the U.N. was right: We COULD have waited longer. They were not moments away from developing a nuke. They were not days away from giving away chemical weapons to terrorists. We ended up finding exactly what the U.N. inspectors found, after implying they had failed. We went out by ourselves on a limb to say that the U.N. was wrong and being absurd, that Iraq was an immediate threat, and we were flat out wrong.
Doesn't this mean we should apologize? Isn't it at least time to give up this grudge against Europe and recognize that they weren't just being a bunch of wimps? Isn't it time to support this measure to change the name of french fries back to what it should be, if for no other reason other than because we need their help in rebuiding Iraq?
Or are we too stubborn? Perhaps we should just go on forever claiming we're 'confident' we'll find those weapons soon. Or perhaps we should pretend like the WMDs were never the real issue, and hope people don't look back at those videos of those U.N. meetings where we made argument after argument, suggesting the weapons were the reason Iraq was an imminent threat. After all, how could we be patriots if we're willing to admit we were wrong to the likes of Europe?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the way it works is: 1)Nation makes mistake 2)Fifty or more years pass 3)Nation gives often lukewarm, insincere apology, long after most principals involved are dead.
or often: nation makes mistake; never, ever admits to it.
quote: Or perhaps we should pretend like the WMDs were never the real issue
Pretending this is already going on, on this forum.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To top it all off, gas prices are higher than when the war started.
On a more serious question, why do you assume that we are going to be making more than a token effort at building a stable, democratic Iraq? The choice seems clear to me: on one side we have to eat crow, give up some control, and spend lots of money on a long and probably fairly unpopular venture, while on the other we can ignore it almost completely in a few months much as we are now doing to Afghanistan, and continue giving the middle finger to Europe, who admittedly deserves it for daring to question us.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that part of the "freedom fries" stuff was a result of groups of people in France defiling the graves of American soldiers from WWII... *shrugs*
Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If our concerns are all about human rights and saving innocent lives, then by that logic, we should invade China and North Korea tomorrow.
Let's face it. Unless Iraq was developing cloaking technology in addition to WMD's, we owe the world an apology.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well we did "invade" Yugoslavia for its human rights problem and unfortunately its not so easy to invade China or North Korea. Its also impossible to go from country to country taking away oppressive regimes, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a couple of key differences between Bosnia and Iraq.
First, U.S. troops were committed as part of a larger NATO task force. Our peacekeeping efforts were supported by the European Union as well as NATO.
Second, we went in there to stop a war in progress, not to start one. Like Iraq One, American intervention was justified because a war in that region would have destabilized the entire region.
Last, the historical significance of that region, in light of World War I, makes it impossible for us not to participate.
In Bosnia/Kosovo, our intervention was justified by (1) Stabilizing the region, (2) supporting our European allies, and (3) stopping human rights violations.
In Iraq Two, Bush's justifications were (1) WMD's, (2) ties to Al Queda, and AFTER the invasion, he started focusing on (3) human rights violations.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well we did "invade" Yugoslavia for its human rights problem and unfortunately its not so easy to invade China or North Korea. Its also impossible to go from country to country taking away oppressive regimes, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.
Even if this were the case and we were going into Iraq for human rights purposes, don't you think we at least owe an apology to the U.N. for claiming it was all about weapons of mass destruction (and it is a simple fact that we did this) when it was not? Not to mention for claiming their inspectors had failed when we could find nothing more than they could...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And every day we waited longer more Iraqis would have been murdered by Saddam Hussein.
Is it better that they were murdered by us instead?
I dont mean to sound harsh so maybe I should put that another way but I could not think of one. I think there are such things as just wars, in fact im not naive enough to say that wars such as WWII were not just. However, it seems to me that the justification for any war should be clear, concise, and correct. Only in these circumstances, would it seem then that war itself would be justified. I read a thread earlier where a man spoke of the day February 13 1991. On that day a terrible disaster happened at a bomb shelter in Baghdad where over 400 people were brutally killed by US bombs. My only question now is this, is it justifiable that we killed thousands of innocent civilians for one reason, self-defense, when its clear that those citizens did nothing to try and harm us?
posted
Originally, I was going to respond by Jerry with this comment:
"Murder is a little harsh, I would say we killed them but not that we maliciously took Iraqi lives."
However, my girlfriend pointed out to me that there is a legal concept called "Depraved Heart Murder": which basically means when you acted in a grossly negligent way that showed complete disregard for human life, you are a "murderer" despite lack of malice aforethought.
In that sense, Bush is a murderer.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Murder is a little harsh, I would say we killed them but not that we maliciously took Iraqi lives."
I actually thought of changing that too, but I agree that, at least in my humble view, when war is unjustified, it is murder.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so people don't think I am anti-republican, I will point out that I felt the same way about the Democrats when Clinton was flinging cruise missiles every time they found semen on a dress.
Clinton, hiding dress behind his back: "Hey, look over there at those cruise missiles."
Democrats: "Yay, cruise missiles!"
People are such sheep. Put on a nice magic show, and no one ever bothers to look up your sleeves.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already went around saying my apologizes. I supported the war for the reasons given, the WMD. I argued with some of my friends who were dead set against the war because I truely did believe that the governent had the proof that they claimed. If you do a search, you'll probably find some threads where I said stuff like that. So, I had to go around apologizing to people because I trusted my government to not straight out lie to me.
That's a large part of what bothers me about the appologists. Goddammit, I was there. I was thoughtfully supporting the war. I know what the government said it was about and the bulldist that you're trying to sell me now isn't true. My memory isn't that bad. They lied to me (I include Congress here, both D and R) and now you're trying to act like that doesn't matter. It does frigging matter to me. You can let the government act like an abusive boyfriend and forgive it because it said it loved you and bought you some flowers, but I've got more respect for myself than that.
edit: I also supported the war because I thought that Saddam Hussien was a bad guy who was doing awful things to his people and because we totally screwed any chance of internal change after setting up any Iraqis who actually were stupid enough to trust us after the first Gulf War.
posted
For me, it was never about the WMDs. That was an ancillary issue, at best, and wholly irrelavent at worst. Even without WMDs, the invasion of Iraq was justified, at least to me (As I said back in April).
However, bearing in mind subsequent conversations, I concede that the invasion of Iraq could have waited a few months and that immediate action was not needed. There wasn't an imminent threat.
Am I a little irked that the Bush Administration stressed this point so heavily, saying they had proof of such weapons to show an imminent threat? I sure am.
Am I also irked that the American people had to be goaded to act by such extreme claims? Pretty much, yeah.
Am I more irked that the UN is essentially a meaningless paper pushing body? Yeeup.
Do I think it indicative of the uselessness of the UN to have Libya in charge of the council on human rights? Yes indeedy.
Do I think we need to apologize to countries that weren't upholding UN resolutions they supported and stood by an essentially toothless multinational body? Not really, no.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny NewFoundLogic says "too bad we didn't go in 12 years sooner." That was our current President's father's fault, motivated by the 1992 election. Similarly the Iraq War was motivated by the coming election (well, it sure wasn't the WMD).
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do I think we need to apologize to countries that weren't upholding UN resolutions they supported and stood by an essentially toothless multinational body? Not really, no.
You are forgetting that it now seems clear that this supposedly toothless multinational body effectively disarmed Iraq peacefully through resolutions and inspection. After all, there have been no WMDs. This mean that not only did the less hawkish countries uphold UN resolutions, but did so more effectively than we did, doing so without having to start a war.
I mean, you admit that for you it was never about the WMDs. So you can hardly say we were upholding UN resolutions when we attacked, since those resolutions were about WMDs.
posted
Huh? Um, no they weren't. The 1992 War was not ended with resolutions limiting WMDs. The 1992 resolutions called for complete disarmament of long range weapons and an end to all hostilities. Neither happened.
As far as the UN effectively upholding its resolutions, there was no comprehensive report on Iraq's disarmament for 12 years - not until there was a threat of actual military action. Beyond this, American planes (and other UN member planes, I'd have to assume) were taking fire on flyovers over Iraq for several years as well. Not to mention the scud fired into kuwait.
Or is it hunky dory for a nation who has been told to end hostilities by the UN to fire on foreign aircraft and fire a rocket into a neighboring country? Just how "effective" was the enforcement of their resolutions?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if you should apologize to the "Old Europe" but I would have liked to have some apologies from people who treated me bad when all that happenned, because I was an idiot of Frenchie who "didn't know there were WMD in Irak". Hum. And the all "we saved your ass in 1944 so shut up" issue was rather insulting too.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or is it hunky dory for a nation who has been told to end hostilities by the UN to fire on foreign aircraft
When that aircraft is violating its airspace contrary to international law, why not? The no fly-zones and their enforcement was not part of the cease fire agreement nor subseqently authorized by the UN.
quote:and fire a rocket into a neighboring country?
When did Iraq do that? It must be something I've missed.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: there was no comprehensive report on Iraq's disarmament for 12 years
This is a good point. Those of you who claim that the UN successfuly disarmed Iraq: why did they not state that they had done so? The UN itself was the provider of many of the numbers that Bush used in his state-of-the-union address about anthrax, sarin, vx, etc. effectively stating the opposite of what it is claimed that they have done.
Now, those of you who support putting the UN in control of Iraq, and the US leaving: what makes you think they will do a better job, or even do the job at all? Just this last year, when the UN compound was car-bombed and 20 people were killed, they pulled out their entire staff. They let their policy be decided by terrorists. Why would anyone trust these people with the governing of Iraq for even a minute?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Huh? Um, no they weren't. The 1992 War was not ended with resolutions limiting WMDs. The 1992 resolutions called for complete disarmament of long range weapons and an end to all hostilities. Neither happened.
THOSE resolutions we failed to enforce just as much as anyone else. I'm talking about the resolution in 2002 that gave a final warning to Iraq and threatened "serious consequences" - the one the Bush admin. claimed gave us some sort of justification to go into Iraq.
quote:Those of you who claim that the UN successfuly disarmed Iraq: why did they not state that they had done so?
They DID issue a report shortly before we attacked. We claimed they left out incriminating WMD info. Perhaps we should apologize to Iraq for that claim too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The no fly-zones and their enforcement was not part of the cease fire agreement nor subseqently authorized by the UN.
Indeed it was. It was part of resolution 688, and mentioned in 1441 in section 8.
quote: UN Resolution 1441 8. Decided further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution.
With the US being a member state taking action to uphold resolution 688 and 687.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Tristan, Iraq did fire a single scud into kuwait, and, unsurprisingly, it didn't hit anything. Now, I'm not 100% sure on the date, but I'm pretty sure it was after our initial air strikes. The scud was fired in retaliation, I believe. However, it shouldn't have existed in the first place - and it was not declared in their report.
So Tres, when a country blatantly disregards your resolutions, the solution is to pass more resolutions? Where's the sense in that?
And yes they did issue the report shortly before we attacked - but if there had not been an imminent threat of our attack, I don't think we'd even have seen the report yet. Not that it matters, because we have found weapons that were not in the report, anyway - not WMDs, so not a "smoking gun" as the media likes to label them, but items not included in their "full disclosure".
They were not compliant. They were never compliant. The UN was apparently okay with their noncompliance, happy to pass more resolutions with which Iraq could not comply. The problem with a resolution is that it doesn't resolve anything. Saddam Hussein knew the UN would never step up to enforce their resolutions, so there was no need for Iraq to comply with them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:[T]he no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
quote:[C]ritics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.
quote:[T]he US and the UK are now alone in the Security Council in insisting that their frequent bombing of Iraqi targets is covered by international law.
From a more scholarly source (Unity to Polarization: International Law and the Use of Force against Iraq by Christine Gray)
quote:The claim of implied authorization was apparently the initial basis for Operation Provide Comfort by the USA, the UK and France in protection of the Kurds in northern Iraq in April 1991, although they offered little by way of legal justification at the time. Part of the explanation of their action in providing humanitarian aid in 1991 and in subsequently establishing, extending and policing the northern and southern no-fly zones was that these actcions were taken 'in support of Resolution 688'. But Security Council Resolution was not passed under Chaper VII and it did not authorize the use of force; it demanded that Iraq end the repression of its civilian population and allow access to international humanitarian organizations. This did not stop the USA and the UK from claiming that their actions in the continuing clashes with Iraq over the no-fly zones were 'consistent with', 'supportive of', 'in implementation of' and 'pursuant to' Resolution 688 [footnotes omitted]
quote:The UN Secretary-General, responding to calls from Iraq for a condemnation of the US and UK air actions against Iraq, emphasized that only the Security Council was competent to determine whether its resolutions were of such a nature and effect as to provide a lawful basis for the no-fly zones and for the actions that have been taken in their enforcement. This statement by the Secretary-General implicitly rejects any claim of the USA and the UK to justify unilaterally their action on the basis of Resolution 688. The UK has accepted this; although still invoking Resolution 688 as supporting the legitimacy of its actions, it openly acknowledges that: "The legal justification for the patrolling of the no-fly zones does not rest on Security Council Resolution 688. That has not been the governments position. In terms of humanitarian justification, we are entitled to patrol the no-fly zones to prevent a grave humanititarian crisis. That is the legal justification in international law. It does not rest on Resolution 688, although that resolution supports the position that we have adopted. [Footnotes omitted]
quote:The world response to the US and UK operation in February 2001 [a bombing incidence] showed that they were isolated. Only very few states expressed support for the US and UK action. The permanent members of the Security Council were polarized: Russia, China and France all rejected the legality of the USA and UK action. The enforcement of the unilaterally proclaimed no-fly zones has thus come to be seen as illegitimate, despite UK protestation of humanitarian necessity. [Footnotes omitted]
So, though the US and UK referred to resolution 688 to justify the no-fly zones, they are pretty much alone in claiming that it is a sufficient justification. Given the (at best) ambigious legal situation, I do not fault Iraq for defending its air space and consider claiming the occasional Iraqi anti-aircraft missile as an excuse for invasion disingenous in extreme.
Edited to remove article included twice... (And grammar.)
quote:Yes, Tristan, Iraq did fire a single scud into kuwait, and, unsurprisingly, it didn't hit anything. Now, I'm not 100% sure on the date, but I'm pretty sure it was after our initial air strikes. The scud was fired in retaliation, I believe. However, it shouldn't have existed in the first place - and it was not declared in their report.
1) The initial claim of a "scud" attack has been widely reported to have been false; it was an "ordinary" missile that, IIRC, Iraq was allowed to possess. 2) Claiming a missile attack initiated AFTER hostilities have been commenced as part of the reason for said hostilities is kind of circular, no?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Tres, when a country blatantly disregards your resolutions, the solution is to pass more resolutions?
But it's clear now that Iraq did not blatantly disregard the resolutions. The supposed noncompliance you are talking about is just minor detailss, and there's nothing remotely 'blatant' about any of it. The bottom line is that the U.N. enforced their resolutions enough to stop Iraq from producing WMDs and from being an immediate threat to the world.
Now, if you're arguing that the U.N. should have invaded Iraq, killing thousands, just because they fired on U.S. planes in THEIR territory a few times, or just because they had one scud missile hidden away from their previous arsenal, I think you are talking about EXCESSIVE enforcement of resolutions. You don't give the death penalty for traffic violations.
posted
Sigh. Twelve years ago, the war started. Iraq attacked Kuwait, we defended Kuwait, Iraq said "whoa, whoa, our bad, we want peace".
So, the UN essentially said "no harm, no foul" and told Iraq to ditch its long range weapons, stop oppressing its people, yadda, yadda. We have passed a resolution, therefore the problem is resolved.
Did Iraq comply? Well, they first restricted where inspectors could look. Then they shut them out entirely in 1998. They never disclosed any information detailing what happened to their weapons for twelve years, even after resolution 1441 was passed which specifically stated Iraq had been in noncompliance for 12 years. Not until there were US troops knocking on the door was a report disclosed, and even that was incorrect.
After the war, when the UN forces withdrew, the Iraqi regime crushed the kurds who had supported the UN forces, along with hundreds of civilians, and dumped them in mass graves. More disregard for resolutions.
Resolution 1441 was passed because Iraq disregarded all the previous ones! I don't see the logic in passing another resolution, when the previous ones had no effect. Especially if by doing so you show your unwillingness to support former resolutions or enforce them in any meaningful way.
As to the no-fly zones, thank you for the links and info. It seems as though they were not expressly created by the UN resolutions. Though it begs the question, just how was resolution 688 to be enforced? If there is no presence by outside agencies (other than humanitarian ones not allowed to engage with Iraqi troops in any violation) just what is the point of passing the resolution?
US and UK forces patrolled the areas described in resolution 688 in an effort to enforce its mandate. They were fired upon repeatedly. Moreso, there was constant conflict over the last 12 years between planes and anti-aircraft installations, radar sites, SAM sites, and the like. The fighting never really stopped, just as it hasn't stopped right now.
The core content of Resolution 1441 should have been passed in a resolution in, say, 1993. But it wasn't. If nothing else, it certainly should have come about in 1998 when Iraq expelled the inspectors. But it didn't.
If Iraq didn't comply with 1441, should they have passed resolution 1520 saying "We really, really mean it this time"? When is the UN going to actually walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk?
It's a meaningless body. It has no international muscle, no international authority, and no respect among the "deviant" nations that disobey its resolutions (it even appoints them to chairs on the human rights council!). It is an elderly cat with no teeth, no claws and only one good eye - hardly anything for anyone to take seriously.
The conflict from 1991 never ended. A paper was signed, a resolution passed, Iraq withdrew back within its borders, but nothing meaningful changed. There were still human rights violations, there was still armed military conflict, and the inspectors were first restricted then thrown out.
quote:A paper was signed, a resolution passed, Iraq withdrew back within its borders, but nothing meaningful changed.
Except for the fact that they had a WMD program and 1991 and then stopped it as requested, and the fact that after that point Iraq showed no signs of attempting or desiring to attack anyone (except perhaps our troops in their territory). In short, Iraq ceased to be an immediate threat to the world. Are you calling that not meaningful?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe not an immediate threat, but definitely a festering one. Perhaps once in a while, it is a good idea to clean out the world's cesspit and let in a bit of free air and sunshine.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: they had a WMD program and 1991 and then stopped it as requested
Are you serious? The inspectors were thrown out in '98 because they were on the trail of the WMD's. They found many, destroyed few, then were forced out. If they had no WMD's, what was Clinton doing when he sent US troops to kuwait and threatened to invade Iraq? Was it some ploy for popularity? Did he think that Saddam wasn't really a threat like he said he was?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose I really could go off on this a great deal, but no I don't believe we should apologize for our actions. Why apologize for something you meant to do? The fact is the American public , election craziness and what not, elected George Bush through our voting system. They knew what sort of person they were putting into office. I simply find it hard to tell the man on the street of the Mosul that no he should still be under Saddams rule or not.
So people would say that America is imperialistic, well in reality yes we are imperialistic in the "modern" sense I suppose. Yes we assert our demands a great deal, but then thats rather common throughout humanity as a whole. We tend to do a lot more things because we CAN, not because we have some sort of bent evil scheme going on. Its something most others try to do, or simply would most likely do if they had the choice. Should we give the bird to Europe? Why not? If you don't want that to happen anymore well then don't vote for Bush, don't vote for the politicians who want that sort of thing.
Also on a side note here many a person has told me that America is biased against Islamic nations etc. Well if you think about it, it is rather understandable for America to be so biased when there is a rather vocal militant islamic presence in the world that is so biased against us. Hate is generally received with hate. Though perhaps not the correct most morally right thing, or the most efficient ( which to me is honestly more important) It is the one that occurs. So I suppose the best thing to do is to complain on if you find issues with this. Though I do ask you this, are you honestly prepared to live a poorer life with less materialistic things to enhance a part of the world you have not and probably will never see or experience in your life? I have to admit that I would, and in a sense I suppose I have. To me think about what action you can do to better understand the situation, not just your own side, but both sides. I can understand why Bin Laden wanted planes driven into the twin towers, I can understand why millions of jews and gypsies were killed, I can understand why we were so predjudiced against blacks, Japanese, communists, etc. I suppose thats why I can't think of anyone as truely evil as in general people live their lives in that which they believe is correct. Sometimes peoples minds are simply a bit different than that of the mainstream.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you serious? The inspectors were thrown out in '98 because they were on the trail of the WMD's.
As I recall, the inspectors were thrown out ostensibly because the Iraqis believed they were US spies.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Undercover U.S. agents working with the U.N. teams secretly planted a high-tech "black box" device in Baghdad that year to eavesdrop on Saddam Hussein's phone calls, among other Iraqi communications, former inspectors say.
quote:Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, argues that U.N. credibility was badly hurt by disclosures about covert CIA, British MI6 and Israeli Mossad operations with the former U.N. inspection teams.
posted
I don't accept the LA Times as a credible source. Its not impossible that something happened, but it is beside the point. The UN inspectors found WMD's up until '98, when they were booted.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The source seems to be Hans Blix, but then you seem not to accept him as credible either, even after his worries about the war have been well confirmed.
Black Fox, it sounds to me like you and the other troops are doing a lot of good in Iraq. Can't argue with that. But I wonder whether the US could've done a lot more good with much less collateral harm by taking the money spent on the war and using it to reconstruct Afghanistan. Or construct it, as the case may be, since that country was never too cool in the first place.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
