DVD Talk
So did Iraq follow the UN resolutions on weapons........... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : So did Iraq follow the UN resolutions on weapons...........


bfrank
01-12-05, 03:21 PM
Were we wrong to invade?

Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=9&u=/washpost/20050112/ts_washpost/a2129_2005jan11

Iraq seemed to be telling the UN the truth all along. So the idea that we had to act because the UN would not is based on US misinformation. The UN did not need to act because no action was required.

What is the reason we invaded this country for again? How many will be killed for this "reason"? How much money will we spend for this "reason"? What will the long term impact be, etc.

Brain Stew
01-12-05, 03:24 PM
What is the reason we invaded this country for again? How many will be killed for this "reason"? How much money will we spend for this "reason"? What will the long term impact be, etc.
I'm sorry, you're asking too many questions and being too critcal. Bush was elected therefore he knows what he's doing. Just as all elected officials do, because otherwise they wouldn't be where they are. Right?

Red Dog
01-12-05, 03:24 PM
I need more proof.

Venusian
01-12-05, 03:24 PM
i thought we knew they didn't follow the resolutions. the oil for food money being used for other things, the rockets that could go beyond the limits set, etc.


i thought the difference is most don't consider those reasons enough for war

Mutley Hyde
01-12-05, 03:30 PM
Were we wrong to invade?

Um, do a search?

And you being a moderator and all. -ohbfrank-

You know the same arguments hold for 'both sides'. Do you honestly think there is a new argument here??

classicman2
01-12-05, 03:33 PM
The answer to the title of the thread is clearly, no.

What is the reason we invaded this country for again?

The Bush administration believed that Iraq possessed WMDs (as did the prior administration). They felt Iraq posed a threat to the region - a vital national interest of the United States.

Questions that I had before the invasion: 1. How serious was the threat; and, 2. How immediate was the threat? I believe the answer of those 2 questions is now apparent. Therefore, IMO, the invasion was unnecessary.

nemein
01-12-05, 03:37 PM
:banana: woo hoo!!! Haven't had one of these threads in awhile...

To answer the question though, no Iraq was not following the UN resolutions. If they were they wouldn't of had to have 17 of them and we wouldn't be in the country now (read had full/unfettered inspections been allowed from the beginning, instead of playing the games they did, we wouldn't have been in the situation we were that made it seem the invasion was justified).

huzefa
01-12-05, 03:40 PM
So now Iraq gets to invade the US; it's the only fair thing to do.

Ranger
01-12-05, 03:44 PM
So now Iraq gets to invade the US; it's the only fair thing to do.

This actually would make things less complicated. :)

bfrank
01-12-05, 04:45 PM
:wave:

I have just been away too long :D

I just heard that the Administration is with holdig the cost of the weapons search because the amount is a security risk :lol:

classicman2
01-12-05, 05:19 PM
The American public doesn't care whether WMDs were found or not. Maybe they should, but they don't.

The reason that more and more Americans are becoming disatisfied (opposed to) with the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the failure to find WMDs. Reason: American service men & women are dying in Iraq; and, (whether it's fair or not) they don't believe the situation there is improving. Therefore, their question is 'why??' I believe that might be a legitimate question.

Goldblum
01-12-05, 07:06 PM
The fact that no weapons were found is not proof that Iraq was following UN resolutions on weapons, although it certainly is not helpful for the administration. I still think it's very likely these weapons were shipped out of the country considering we gave Iraq months "warning" that we were coming for them.

DVD Polizei
01-12-05, 08:58 PM
bfrank,

It's a little late in the game to start winning converts, isn't it?

Cadmium
01-12-05, 11:03 PM
Here's the thing I don't understand about the "the WMD's were shipped out" arguments - wouldn't our satellites have seen this?

X
01-12-05, 11:09 PM
Here's the thing I don't understand about the "the WMD's were shipped out" arguments - wouldn't our satellites have seen this? Yes... Kay alleges Syria connection

Kay also raised the possibility -- one he first discussed in a weekend interview with "The Sunday Telegraph" of London -- that clues about banned weapons programs might reside across Iraq's western border.

"There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue."

Kay acknowledged that the truth might never be revealed. Widespread looting in Baghdad after the invasion destroyed many government records. "There's always going to be unresolved ambiguity here."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/

eXcentris
01-13-05, 12:34 AM
The Bush admin wanted a foothold in the middle east and chose the most convenient target. Since you can't sell a war to the public based on geo-political reasons they had to build a case using the most convincing tool at their disposition, i.e. WMD's and terrorism, AKA fear of an outside threat. Did the Bush admin really believe that Iraq had WMD's? Maybe, or maybe not, but this was irrelevant then and is irrelevant now. What was relevant was to convince people, the media and (some) allies that Iraq did.

But I wasn't fooled. :)

Venusian
01-13-05, 06:54 AM
The Bush admin wanted a foothold in the middle east and chose the most convenient target. Since you can't sell a war to the public based on geo-political reasons they had to build a case using the most convincing tool at their disposition, i.e. WMD's and terrorism, AKA fear of an outside threat. Did the Bush admin really believe that Iraq had WMD's? Maybe, or maybe not, but this was irrelevant then and is irrelevant now. What was relevant was to convince people, the media and (some) allies that Iraq did.

But I wasn't fooled. :)
don't we have a foothold in Kuwait and now Qatar?

nemein
01-13-05, 07:08 AM
Here's the thing I don't understand about the "the WMD's were shipped out" arguments - wouldn't our satellites have seen this?

As I understand it they did catch a lot of truck traffic moving throughout and out of the country that I don't believe has been adequately explained yet.

VinVega
01-13-05, 08:01 AM
don't we have a foothold in Kuwait and now Qatar?
Yes, SO, the foothold thing is not a great arguement. I think there could be some truth in the theory that the Administration/Pentagon wanted a country/base where we could move around more freely and have more say in the deployment of troops than we had been receiving from Saudi Arabia. As many have said, there were multiple reasons for invading (spreading Democracy, finishing off a long time "problem", putting pressure on Iran and Syria, consolidating the terrorist threat in a hittable target, attacking a target that our military could actually destroy, keeping terrorists attacking us overseas instead of in the US, etc). None of them really justified a pre-emptive invasion in my mind. The only thing that could justify a pre-emptive invasion and toppling of a soverign nation would be if that nation posed an imminent threat to the US. I think the WMD arguement was the closest to proving a real need for a pre-emptive invasion, but now we can see that it was a hollow arguement. I don't think we'll ever know who knew what before the invasion, but I have my own opinions on that matter.

I honestly don't think I'd have such an intense dislike for Bush had he not invaded Iraq. I didn't hate Bush I or Reagan, but I really don't like this man, mainly because of Iraq.

That being said, I'm trying to move on and focus on the now, rather than the woulda, coulda, shoulda. What can we do now to put our best foot forward and get our troops home? And they will come home eventually. Iraq is not going to be a Germany/Japan style fortress of US troops in a few years.

classicman2
01-13-05, 08:14 AM
I believe the 'forward base' argument has some merit, but that's not the major reason. The major reason - you know what it is. It's the stuff that comes out of the ground over there - not too deep as a matter of fact. ;)

VinVega
01-13-05, 08:27 AM
I believe the 'forward base' argument has some merit, but that's not the major reason. The major reason - you know what it is. It's the stuff that comes out of the ground over there - not too deep as a matter of fact. ;)
Good point, I did forget that one. That is taboo though for anyone to talk about though since the "no blood for oil" folks got so much coverage back in Gulf I. :)

eXcentris
01-13-05, 09:20 AM
Note that I didn't mean "foothold" to equate to military base. Foothold to watch over free-flow of oil, foothold for democracy, foothold to keep a closer eye on Iran and Syria, it's all of these things. My point is that the REAL reasons are geo-political.

Cptkirk
01-13-05, 09:49 AM
This may seem silly at first glance, but I'll present it any way. I wouldn't over look the importance of Iraq's control of water in the middle east. I've heard it said that every drop of water in Israel came first through Iraq. Water was the main purpose for their war with Iran. Controlling the water could play major role inthe mideast peace process.

I doesn't bother me that WMD were not found, but it does bother me that the powers that be didn't consider what kind of force was actually needed for an effective and occupation.