Peter,
the invasion of iraq was not about terrorism. The US has never had a problem with supporting madmen or dictators in power and helping them with state terrorism of their own people. Saddam may have practiced state terrorism on his people (and Iran and Kuwait if hecould get away with it), but he was not known to support islamic terrorism. State terrorism and Islamic terrorism are two distinct things. Any links Saddam had with terrorists were tenuous at best. Even his offer of 10k+ to families of suicide bombers was merely supporting the Palestinian cause. Any attempt to link Saddam to extremist islamic terrorists is a pathetic excuse to divert attention from the real issues. And no I have no intention of blaming the war on oil either. It was about pride, revenge, and most of all, a desired end to the whole Iraq issue. Terrorism, like WMD, was just another excuse.

Paul.

DarkHawke,
please don't be so dismissive of the idea. Yes North Korea has been a screw up, and yes leaving Saddam in charge would indeed have been a risk. But that exact tactic worked well in Libya. Indeed Libya have been trying to get back into the international fold and renounce terrorism for over a decade. There is a country that DID sponsor extremist terrorists, and also tried to acquired WMD. International prestige and power though were enough to convince Gadaffi to renounce terrorism though. What worked there could maybe have also worked in Iraq. Sanctions against Iraq were never going to work because they were never going to achieve what the US was hoping for ... a removal of Saddam. Stick didn't work, time for the carrot. The US was not interested in such a solution though.

As for US handling of the situation post capture of Bagdad, you must admit the US screwed up badly. In those early days when they were still seen as liberators by most of the population, they should have cemented that with a legal mandate. But they were too bitter with the UN over WMD (something the UN has since been vindicated on) and refused to agree hand over to a UN peace keeping mission. How many US soldiers have now died due to that stupidity? The US may have been the only country willing to remove Saddam, but once that stage was reached, most of the planet were willing to help rebuild the country IF it was under a legal UN mission. The US bears full responsibility for refusing to let them. NOW the US is busy running round like a lap dog begging the EU, Nato and the UN to all help with the transition, because it screwed up and Iraq is in a state of anarchy.

Paul.

People always talk about how the U.S. was not justified in overthrowing Hussein because the U.S. has supported Hussein and other terrorists before, which makes me think... no organization, from the U.S. to France to the E.U. to the U.N. is justified in any war whatsoever, because they've tolerated all sorts of atrocities and still do (i.e. genocide in Africa), so in reality, the only valid reason for a war (including every war fought in the last decade or two) against any other country that is not an immediate and direct threat is... oil.

I believe there was plenty of justification for removing Saddam from power. Was there a right though?

Proper justification was just not presented and debated. Emotional issues like WMD and terrorism were used instead to sway public opinion.

I believe Madine gives a very strong US justification for invasion in this article.

The problem is that justification does not confer the right to invade. Unacceptability of Saddam in power is not a right, just a justification. Therefore WMD and terrorism were discussed as these issue were seen as giving the right to invade (WMD due to article 1441, and terrorism jsut due to public opinion).

Paul.

Solitair differs with people who say Hussein supported terrorism, so it just gets redefined as a "Palestinian cause". If blowing yourself up to kill innocents is political expression then I guess a ton of anthrax would probably be "population control agents". Anti-war people have winnowed the definition so far down that if you can't find a picture of bin Laden posing with Hussein holding a bag of Anthrax, there was no threat.

It really, really doesn't matter. This is an election year. No amount of justification will appease people who hate Bush and and want to smear him as much as possible before November. I have wasted *hours* trying to reason with people.

Look at Gore's speech the other day. Bush's opponents have decided that it doesn't matter if what they put out there is false or misleading, if it defeats Bush it is worth the sin. Don't waste your time trying to explain anything to them, they already know, they just don't care. I don't think the majority of people are fooled, just the moveon.org fans, Palestinian sympathists, and conspiracy theorists.

I guess we'll see in November.

Paul (a.k.a 'Solitair'), address me by my correct title of Sir Peter. I gave up being just Peter over a decade ago when I was knighted.

How do we know if a nation has a "right" to go to war or not? Who decides that?

"How do we know if a nation has a "right" to go to war or not? Who decides that?"

Duh, the French. Or maybe the Robot Overlords... or... I dunno...

I think a great indication of the apathy of those opposed to the US was the fact that no one tried to stop us with anything but words. If France or anyone else had made even the most symbolic show of antagonism we would have backed off. Had an "ally" protected Iraq with rowboats and dirigibles, we'd have cringed to do anything. No way we would have risked that press.

We could have been threatened with sanctions, people could have cur off diplomatic ties. There was any number of things that could have swayed us.

SirPeter,
I do apologise if calling you Peter offends, but I don't use titles on the internet. Likewise I don't expect anyone to address me by my title. In my opinion, titles are for official occasions and when work requires it. We're all equal online. I hope you don't have a serious issue with this.

Paul.

Bakerstreet,
I do indeed seperate state terror from state sponsored terrorism. I condemn all killing of civilians, whether by Palestinian suicide bombers or Israeli gunships. But there is a huge difference between the Palestinian situation and groups like Al Queda. Don't try to join the two. They are in completely different leagues and not even the US attempts to link them. Saddam's offer of financial support to the families is a far cry from Iran or Libya. Both countries who actively supported foreign terrorists to attack worldwide targets. Yet the US was willing to try diplomancy with them.
I think you also missed the line above (and stated many times before) when I said I supported the war in Iraq. Please don't look silly by calling me an anti war person. This arguement for me has nothing to do with an American election. Just because your life revolves about this does not mean that other peoples lives do. This is purely about debating Madine's points.

Paul.

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.