bush and blair vindicated

davelerave

innocent people have died but it looks like they did the right thing now.i was kinda against it at the start but
baghdad has fallen quickly and the evil regime has been toppled

Frank Grimes

How exactly are they vindicated? They went in with the supposed intention of disarming the regime. So far the only thing they've found is pesticide.
They'll probably find more dangerous chemicals in a gardening centre.

innocent people have died but it looks like they did the right thing now

Yup. i see your point. actually, no i don't. How have they justified their invasion of another nation, for reasons that haven't been validated?

i was kinda against it at the start but baghdad has fallen quickly and the evil regime has been toppled

why do so many think that just because Baghdad has fallen, that this is the end of it? It isn't. There are still alot of Iraqi's that were truely loyal to the Saddam regime. Do you really think they're going to stop hating the west because Saddam is out of the picture? Hardly.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gwbtbahs

If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

dathi1

bush and blair vindicated

eh..I dont think the real war has even started.

Originally posted by gwbtbahs
If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

Awfull photo, but again, I must say, there weren't many photographers present to depict, the equally horrendous images of what Sadam husseins regime did over the last number of years.

I have BBC news 24 on in the background here, and Ragi Omar is reporting live from a crowd pulling down a huge statue of Sadam in Baghdads central square.
As I type, he has just seen, a kid about ten, kiss one of the marines on the cheek.
These are Iraqi people, some have walked up to the camera, saying thank you america, thank you Bush.

now considering the hospitals are overflowing with casulties and people know this, it speaks volumes for what the locals think as to whether the invasion was illegal or not.
and their opinions carry a lot more weight than ours.
mm

Johnmb

The key test is what way will the Sunnis welcome the US (as they benefited most from Saddam, the Shia have reason to hate his guts and welcome anybody who would overthrow him). Even ignoring that, I doubt very much that the US will be so welcome even by the Shia and the Kurds in about 2-3 months time when they're still there interfering in the decisions the Iraqis want to make for themselves.

The key test will be in abt 3 weeks, when the Coalition garrisons are at a low ebb of security/wariness. If the country erupts with pure guerrilla warfare, then we all know the general feeling of welcome isn't there, since pure g. warfare fails without the suport of the people. However, if it stays quiet, then yes, they have been honestly welcomed. At the moment most people in the cities are still "shell-shocked" and those outside the cities will do/say anything to receive humanitarian aid.

Johnmb

Also, getting back to the topic of vindication, it doesn't matter whether they won easily or not, nor does it matter whether they were welcomed or not, the fact still remains that they broke international law and the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Regardless as to your feelings about Saddam, the international community needs to take steps to ensure that the US cannot get away with doing this type of thing again.

davelerave

Originally posted by gwbtbahs
If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

sad photo ,an innocent child.i agree with your 3 points but
my point is that he killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and the iraqi people have been 'liberated' today by the looks of things,war is bad but the brutal iraqi regime was much worse, much more needs to be done by the west to achieve a lasting peace in the wider world and it remains to be seen if that will happen

Typedef

Right and wrong is a very selective, subjective proposition.

Unless you can 'enforce' your view of what is right, you are but, a powerless opinion.

The USA has the ability to enforce it's view of right and wrong, much like policemen and Europe, (to carry the allegory along) may think it's fine and well to smoke a little grass, but, ultimately until the European's are the police or the Americans agree with Europe, Europe's opinion on what is 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant, so no pot for you.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather there was no war, but, standing up on your soapbox and screaming bloody murder doesn't change that.

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Go, get a lobby group.

davelerave

Originally posted by Typedef
Right and wrong is a very selective, subjective proposition.

Unless you can 'enforce' your view of what is right, you are but, a powerless opinion.

The USA has the ability to enforce it's view of right and wrong, much like policemen and Europe, (to carry the allegory along) may think it's fine and well to smoke a little grass, but, ultimately until the European's are the police or the Americans agree with Europe, Europe's opinion on what is 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant, so no pot for you.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather there was no war, but, standing up on your soapbox and screaming bloody murder doesn't change that.

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Go, get a lobby group.

decode please?convoluted statement

Venom

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

Maybe if the had huge oil feilds the US and UK might be more eager to help them.

The Palestinians have been screaming for years and nobody has interceded. In my view it is right to intercede to help Palestine, but, since I can't make that happen, it really doesn't matter what I think.

I think its right to help both Israel, and Palestine. Currently they're locked in a death grip, and it will take a foreign power/organisation to help them. I'm not saying that Israel is innocent, however, i'm definetly going to argue if someone says the Palestinians are innocent.

aine

Originally posted by davelerave
innocent people have died but it looks like they did the right thing now.i was kinda against it at the start but
baghdad has fallen quickly and the evil regime has been toppled

hmmmm werent they looking for Weapons of Mass destruction? isnt that why they were able to go in there under Resolution 1441?

I hardly think they are vindicated! I actually think we are facing into a very serious period in world history where the US an Britain now have precident to go after regimes they consider evil....they have 'succeeded' this time...so whats next?

gandalf

Yep as Aine says "SHOW ME THE WEAPONS". Because if there are none, then 1441 was complied with fully and the only valid excuse the Axis of Diesel had to "Regime Topple" is gone (and pesticides buired in the grown don't count!).

Therefore this will be a illegal invasion of a sovereign (with a nasty government) country.

Gandalf.

Shorty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2934651.stm

Baghdad :: Andrew Gilligan :: 0530GMT

It's still pretty restrained here today - the euphoria of yesterday hasn't been repeated yet. I drove round the city centre as the statue was being toppled yesterday, and mostly people are reserving judgement, it's mostly the Shia areas that are celebrating.

But there's no question people are glad to see the end of the regime.

One of my close Iraqi friends went up to an American marine and said to him: "I'm going to exercise my right of free speech for the first time in my life - we want you out of here as soon as possible."

---

Baghdad :: Paul Wood :: 0521GMT

We've just learned from the US marines that the US flag that was put on the face of Saddam yesterday - it was replaced by an Iraqi flag when the people shouted for that - was the flag that was flying over the Pentagon on September 11.

For a lot of the American marines, they think this war is all about defeating terrorism, they will tell you that over and over again. There is also a connection in the minds of the American public between the regime of Saddam and what happened on September 11, and apparently the flag that was draped over this face was flying over the pentagon when the plane crashed into it.

---

Anti-War does not equal Pro-Saddam. Where has this idea come from? Here

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Yep as Aine says "SHOW ME THE WEAPONS". Because if there are none, then 1441 was complied with fully

Since the start of the hostilities, when have you ever seen the US say that this was about WMDs? They answered questions about them, they brought up the issue when it leant emotive strength to their propaganda, and they made frequent announcements that they "might" have found stuff, so that some would be fooled into believing that they still care.

Just like Afghanistan, the mission changed once the idea for the war was sold. Sell it as "get one man", then carry it out it as "regime change".

The US wont care if there are no WMDs. If anyone is brave enough to ask them how they can justify the war in retrospect, given its failure to prove its allegations, you will get a caring, almost pitying smile and a return question asking if you think it would have been better to leave the poor Iraqi's suffering under Saddam Hussein.

Why answer the question when you can simply dodge it by putting the questioner in a moral no-win situation.

jc

de5p0i1er

They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

Saddam fried more skud missiles then he was supposed to have under UN weapon sanctions, so he had some hidden weapons as no one could get suppleys in without the US knowing about it, so he was in violation of the weapon sanction imposed upon his regime and if had the extra squds whats there to say he didn't have any other weapons hidden as some of the Republician guard has not been found yet and they could be hiding anywhere with some anthrex rockets for all we know.

Shorty

Originally posted by de5p0i1er
Saddam fried more skud missiles

Mmmmm, fried scud missiles.

gandalf

Nope your wrong there were no Scud missiles fired. As usual with this misadventure they were quick to claim there were and slow to admit they were wrong.

The missile that hit Kuwait was actually a silkworm anti shipping missile.

Some of the others fired were Al Samouds (spl) which the Iraqis were destroying before the war.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by de5p0i1er
Saddam fried more skud missiles then he was supposed to have under UN weapon sanctions, so he had some hidden weapons as no one could get suppleys in without the US knowing about

For a start, Saddam was supposed to have a grand total of 0 scud missiles. He fired - surprise surprise - a grand total of 0 scud missiles.

What he did have, was known to have, and was destroying prior to hostilities was Al Samoud 2 missiles. He also had a collection of shorter-range missiles. These were used during the conflict, but I havent seen a single report anywhere which has been able to make any type of estimate of how many of each were fired, and how many of each he was supposed to have had.

So, assuming that you simply made a mistake about the missile type, maybe you could point us all at the evidence backing this allegation....


As to this "they still could have chemical weapons for all we know" line.....when are people gonna give it a rest?

Day 1 of the invasion, every incoming shot was "potentially" a chemical weapon.

Approaching Basra, it was the first likely spot that Saddam would use chemical weapons.

Approaching Baghdad, there was a line in the sand. When the coalition crossed it, Saddam was goign to authorise the use of WMDs.

Once across that line, it was probable that the WMDs were being held until the troops were actually engaged in urban warfare.

Now, that the capital has been taken, the army decimated (or worse more likely), the ruling structure removed, and all "serious" fighting appearing to be over, you want us to believe that there "could be" some republican Guard hiding out with Anthrax "for all we know"?

There could be, but then again, there could be some Iraqi's hiding in a seekrit bunker under the oilfields with nuclear weapons, and they're going to turn the entire middle eastern oilfields into an unuseable radioactive nightmare once its clear that Saddam has lost.

"Could be" means that there is a probability which is neither 0 or 1. Thats all. The likelihood of what your are describing is infintessimal. It makes no sense - strategically or tactically - for any Iraqi unit to have held WMDs until this point and yet to still intend to use them.

Come on. The US line that the Iraqi government have run away to Syria, possibly bringing their WMDs with them is a more credible argument, and even that is a joke.

jc

While we are on the subject and in relation to this…
I was listening to an interview on radio 4 on last Tuesday morning. with chris James, the deputy head of the last inspection team ( that left in 1998 ) talking about the whole wmd thing.
He said that he had” absolutely no doubt that they were hiding something” as the inspectors back then before they left had too many obstacles and hindrances placed before them when ever they wanted to check some place.
It’s impossible to be categorical yet as to whether they had anything or not.
But one thing is for sure; the downfall of the regime should make it easier for some of those that are in the know so to speak to talk.
Given how terrified, the Iraqi minders of western journalists were to criticise the regime until yesterday, one could only imagine , how terrified anyone involved in an illegal weapons programme might be to let the cat out of the bag.

The previous evening, I saw a repeat of a “warzone” programme on BBC2 “A profile of Sadam” presented by John simpson, which interviewed many exiles who had known Sadam.
One of them described how he heard Sadam talk of what he was going to do to the Iranian army during the Iran Iraq war, the phrase was chilling, " we are going to spray them like insects”.

If there is anything there, I’d not have expected, too much to be found until Sadam had fallen and Tony Blair remains confident that something will be found.
My worry is though, if anything is found, how much of it has got into terrorist hands already, money speaks a universal language and all that.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DeVore

Originally posted by gwbtbahs
If you think they were vindicated then tell me again when you check the photo below


They have found nothing!

They have killed thousands!

They invaded illegally

They cannot be vindicated

Your emotive stridency says more then any real debate could.

</brasseye>

DeV.

Sparks

[nitpick]
daveirl,
Scott Ritter headed UNSCOM, not UNMOVIC - that was Hans Blix
[/nitpick]

DeVore,
Emotional reactions to death are rather commonplace amongst sane humans, especially to needless deaths. Lack of emotional reaction is often referred to as sociopathy...
How about you show how the invasion was legal, how the US are not in breach of the Hague and Geneva conventions and the UN charter, how they have found weapons of mass destruction or some other thing that could be classed as a clear and present danger to people outside Iraq?

Gordon

Incidentally has any tear gas been used by the US? Apparently they brought some over to Iraq with them even under UN frownings because it is in breach of the Geneva convention.

Sparks

We don't know if it was used, but we do know Bush gave the authorisation for it to be used. Which is why I said they broke the Hague convention...

Originally posted by daveirl
Scott Ritter who was the head of that inspection organisation holds the opposite opinion.

Yeah, he was asked about that and didn't want to comment, saying he had a lot of respect for his boss or words to that effect.
It's interesting though that the two main people can have different views based on see'ing the same information...very like here actually:p

Also whats very interesting is didn't the US have specific intelligence as to the location of the weapons but couldn't tell the UN where they were because their operatives would be comprimised. But when they went to these sites they found nothing.

That *could* just mean, that they were quick enough to remove any evidence.
mm