Support NeoGAF

[maharg]

Ok I deserved that =P Its was a stupid attempt at a shot. But I still think that had France and the other signed up Canada would have gone along. Bush ignoring the UN is one of the main reasons we currently have such a low standing with other countries. That had a lot to do with who signed up to help once the war started.

I disagree completely. We've never needed france's involvement to follow the US into a war before. We even sent people to vietnam, I believe, even if we didn't draft for it. That should say something about how rare it is for Canada to dissent with the US militarily.

 

[SickBoy]

This is the same UN who had its strongest members take a moral stand against any action against Saddam while having their corrupt little hands in Iraq’s cookie jar. (Side note: I love how John K said he’d wait until he had a full coalition which would have NEVER happened.)

I think it needs to be restated that many countries wanted to see the inspections go on for a relatively short term before sending troops. Canada lobbied hard for a compromise solution at the UN which would have called on Iraq to offer hard evidence of a disarmament effort and would have called for action in as little as two to three weeks, depending on the version.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079497/
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2003/03/12/41715-cp.html

But with sabre-rattling in full force, the coalition of the willing was beyond compromise, was beyond anything but flexing the muscle. Whether he was right or not, GWB had made a decision, and we know now that a good leader will not waver. What kind of leader reconsiders a decision?

As far as I'm concerned, his opposition to the invasion was the last great thing (on a list that isn't huge) Jean Chretien did as Canada's prime minister.

I'm not saying that it's not good that Saddam was ousted, but three freaking weeks would have given at least a notion of increased legitimacy.

EDIT: I have no comment on the original post, but all I have to say is that the election advertising I've seen coming out at this stage of the campaign has been pretty much despicable across the board.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I'm not sure what three weeks ya'll are talking about, but we (the US) gave him 30 days, and even extended that if I'm not mistaken. All he had to do was release his documents stating his weapons were destroyed and he didn't. This leaves me with three conclusions-

1. Saddam Hussein is a good man and his word can be trusted that his weapons were destroyed after we kicked his ass out of Kuwait in '91. Unfortunately after we went to war in '91 and the entire world was watching him, he accidentally forgot to document or keep track of the documents showing the weapons were destroyed. He really did destroy his weapons because he saw the error of his ways and decided it was wrong to kill people.

2. They really did have the documents and really did destroy their weapons, they just didn't want to show them to us because they didn't think we would really attack them.

3. They had some documents, but most of them were missing. They gave us a few because they knew if we found the WMD or they didn't cooperate, they were getting attacked. So, they gave us some b.s. documents, didn't fully support the weapons inspectors, and didn't fight back when we originally invaded their country. Saddam even said right before the war started that they would not fight back because they wanted the US to look like assholes and Iraq to look like the victim.
We didn't find the weapons there because they're in another country. I know we haven't proven all of this yet, but we will eventually because we're either gonna get hit with WMD or we're gonna find them over there first. We haven't proven this, but our own country couldn't prove that Bill Clinton was having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I'm sure there's little doubt in our minds what the truth is regarding that though. The fact is, we had intelligence as well as our allies and even John Kerry that led us to believe they had WMD.

 

[Axsider]

People forget that Saddam Hussein was paying suicide bombers to kill Israelites. I can't believe people are naive enough to think he actually destroyed his stockpiles and was no longer seeking WMD. He was aiding and embedding terrorists. Osama Bin-Laden even announced himself that Al Queda would use Iraq as their new battle ground for terrorism.
I'm not agreeing that everything we've done in Iraq has been handled in the best way, but they were clearly a threat, and were definately supporting terrorism.

IAWTP

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

We didn't find the weapons there because they're in another country.

If they're in another country now, that would make the war even more of a disaster than if they didn't exist. Fighting a war to give weapons to Syria (or whoever) isn't really in our interest.

 

[Keio]

Massive congnitive dissonance! It's really hard to suss out what parts of this thread are sarcasm and what pro-Bush comments amount to what this post topic discusses

It is amazing what you can accomplish by yammering month after month about Saddam not being co-operative, UN being weak and FEARFEARFEARFEARFEAR .. strongleadermustbefound .. FEARFEARFEAR .. kerrywillnotbestrongbutiam .. FEARFEARFEAR.

What kind of leader reconsiders a decision?

 

[Azih]

All he had to do was release his documents stating his weapons were destroyed and he didn't

The U.N inspectors in the country AT THE TIME went wherever they wanted and had received a ton of documents a few weeks before the declaration of war. The spin in the U.S at the time WASN'T that the inspectors weren't able to do what they wanted, the spin was that 'oh there's a lot of sand, them eyerackis have fancy super mobile biological labs, inspection teams aren't effective, Hans Blix is European, probably gay etc.' to go back and pretend that the U.N inspectors didn't have the run of the place is dishonest to the extreme. Note I'm not saying it was full cooperation, but the inspectors weren't being denied access to any place.

Straw man?

Please, if you think that everyone here is trying to see the whole picture your kidding yourself. I brought up WMDs because it was the main selling point and its the first thing out of people's mouths when they are trying to denonce it. The faulty intelligence is part of the WMD argument.

Nuts to that. There were a huge number of reasons why the war was being opposed and for you to even IMPLY that WMD was the only one is a huge freaking Straw man.

And I'd put faulty intelligence seperate from the WMD argument because the Bush administration CHERRY PICKED the faulty intelligence to make the case that Iraq had WMD s for the war, that Iraq had links to Al-Qaeda.

When we went to war with Iraq no one was saying they were responsible for 9/11.

Oh give me a break. Have you not seen the polls a few months ago where tons of Americans were convinced that Saddam was connected to 9/11. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

This absolute bull did not appear out of thin air, it was the Bush administration's heavy heavy spin in this direction that cemented it in the minds of so many Americans who don't really bother to maybe get a second opinion from a non US news organisaition. SEVENTY PERCENT.

They were saying that if this mission was a success it would be a major victory to help fight terror which is a 100% correct.

See? SEE? You think Iraq was connected to terror before the war! What the hell? The only thing even remotely connecting Saddam to the terror network was him giving money to the families of suicide bombers and THAT IS A FREAKING PR STUNT. Especially in light of interviews with the man himself http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041006/ap/d85i8c002.html that show he was willing to exchange toning down his Pro-Palestenian rhetoric in excahnge for peace. Why the HECK do you think Saddam was connected to terror? And if you don't think he was connected to terror then why the hell was invading Iraq a major victory? Iraq was never a staging point for terrorists, they have that in Afghanistan (STILL), and Pakistan, they were never a source of funds, that's Saudi Arabia, there were few if ANY Iraqis invovled in terrorists organistaions (dominated by Saudis and Egyptians). So what the hell? Al-Qaeda higher ups and operatives are being apprehened by Pakistan, nowhere CLOSE to Iraq


Plus Al-Qaeda recruitment is UP thanks to the war on Iraq.

One effect has almost certainly been the recruiting of potential terrorists linked to al Qaeda, one of its branches or similar organisations. The International Institute of Strategic Studies, not an alarmist or extreme organisation, believes al Qaeda now has 18,000 potential terrorists in 60 countries and that recruiting has been accelerated by Iraq. If the institute is right, the invasion of Iraq, justified publicly as part of the "war on terror," has actually produced more terrorists.

Link to story that I got from the IIS website
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1331362,00.html

I love the looting argument. We cant even stop looting during a simple sporting event. You expect them to do it under all the chaos of war? The only way they could have prevented is by force in which people would get hurt. Then you would say “look they hurt civilians" Its a lose- lose situation. I'd much rather see property damage than people getting killed.

A large force, a large show of troops would have kept people obeying the law. PLUS it turns out that the looting was the exact time when a lot of the Iraqis lost their faith with the Americans. And *THAT* has been one of the biggest obstacles the U.S has faced since then and *THAT* is why the looting is one of their biggest blunders.

I don't know how John Kerry would have done, or Al Gore (the person who might have been president at the time), but I'm certain that Al Gore wouldn't have bought Rumsfelds stupid idea of a small precise force to invade as opposed to Colin Powell (and the other actual GENERALS) who wanted a massive amount of troops to carry out the operation. Hell even Paul BREMER criticised the initial lack of troops.

I'll even address the why didn't we finish Afghanistan, first. Because, it had no chance of becoming a self sustaining nation in the next 10 years. Due to its oil and infrastructure, Iraq can.

Nuts to that, you don't need much to become a self sustaining nation. Poor Ahmed Karzai is screamint out for more money and more troops, and nobody (INCLUDING the Americans) is responding.

Its just as bad to say no WMD = unjustified war and Bush is a evil man.

STRAW MAN STRAW MAN STRAW MAN

 

[Hitokage]

Just an aside, but there are now reports on how the war in Iraq has set back democratic reforms in neighbooring countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4117235

 

[worldrunover]

Cognitive Dissonance? Sounds like the tagline to a new Castlevania game.

That's all I got.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Straw man?

Please, if you think that everyone here is trying to see the whole picture your kidding yourself. I brought up WMDs because it was the main selling point and its the first thing out of people's mouths when they are trying to denonce it.

Well, when their stated biggest reason turned out to be dead wrong, I think it's earned a place at the top of the denouncement list.

As far as failures in planning I agree things were handled poorly. But how do you know under Kerry things would have been any better?

Of course I can't say for certain that it would've been better. But I do know Bush doesn't even acknowledge that things have been handled poorly.

One of the main problems I have with Kerry is how his public distain for the war has grown in the last 6 months matching the public outcry.

I'd call that "Agreeing with the public that the situation is getting shittier."

 

[Zaptruder]

As opposed to Australians that believe that intrest rates are soley dependant on Government Policy?
As opposed to Australians that believe that the 'Free Trade Agreement' was 'just' rewards for involvment in Iraq.
As opposed to Australians that believe that short term Economics outweigh the long term Enviromental needs for Australia?
Etc etc....

Yeah. it's pretty sad here too; but luckily our current parliament is all relatively moderate (the two parties don't seem to have a huge divide in issues; with perhaps the privatization of government companies been one of the most prominent ones)... and the decisions they make don't tend to have world ranging consequences.

 

[videogamer]

Yeah. it's pretty sad here too; but luckily our current parliament is all relatively moderate (the two parties don't seem to have a huge divide in issues; with perhaps the privatization of government companies been one of the most prominent ones)... and the decisions they make don't tend to have world ranging consequences.

Isn't Howard against gay people adopting and marrying?

 

[Che]

...and we all know that USA has never aided, helped, financed, trained mass murderers and blood-thirsty dictators, that they felt so disgusted by such -unknown to them- attrocities and that's why they invaded Iraq ... *shakes head*

 

[Zaptruder]

Isn't Howard against gay people adopting and marrying?

Probably. I dunno how the other party stands tho. Probably similarly.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Yes they're both against Gay Marraige and Adoption. However The National and Liberal Party follow more of a conservative ideology and the Labour party says anything it can to try and win votes.

The thing is within our sphere of influence (Oceania and some of our more 'friendly' Asian neighbors) we could be seen as some more than an America Rubber Stamp.

 

[DCharlie]

Iraq didn't provide documentation? I'm either going mad, or everyone else is because i recall them sending out a huge document on it on the day of the deadline , but then it being slammed by cockmaster Bush because it was missing data about the WMDs they didn't have and was dismissed as a delay tactic because someone had to translate the docs.

 

[Keio]

At the end of 2002 Iraq delivered a very substantial Declaration in purported compliance with its obligation under Resolution 1441. The IAEA issued a statement on the nuclear weapons part of the document. The full text is on the IAEA Press Centre Web Site.

Iraq's Declaration was only seen in full by the USA. In a strange episode, 800 pages were removed by the USA from the version given to the UN Security Council. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why the declaration was given by the UN to the USA, nor what the removed pages contained.

It is suspected by many that this was motivated by a Bush Administration desire to expurgate pages dealing with the part the USA had played in the provision of WMD to the Saddam Hussein regime during the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations.

Text from Eurolegal.org

 

[DCharlie]

Can any sane population sit back and watch this bullshit go on much longer?

 

[iyox]

Can any sane population sit back and watch this bullshit go on much longer?

Yes, while there are gay people to hate and moral vilification left unfulfilled.