Tim Blair

Saddam isn't just any ordinary suckhole; he's Latham's suckhole.

You seriously think the war was due, even in the slightest part, to humanitarian reasons?

The humanitarian aspect has been a positive spin-off, but I highly doubt it was a provoking reason.

The official reason given for going to war was to eliminate WMDs. If no WMDs are found, that creates problems.

Humanitarian reasons were never a major factor until after the event, at least at an official level. They were discussed at length by political commentators and pundits, but if I recall correctly (and I think I do) the vast bulk of official level talk prior to the invasion concentrated on weapons inspectors, WMDs, etc.

For the record, I was (and still am) in favour of the invasion, but the question of WMDs can't be ducked - if none are found, people need to be held accountable.

Latham is revealing that he's just another PO, ie professional onanist.

WMD capability has been found.

A force destabilising the region has been squashed

The links between Al Queada and Sadddam's Iraq have been established

People's lives have been saved

Democracy may now be able to flourish in the rotten middle east

Other nasty regimes are now palying careful

What more could these cheese eating surrender monkeys want?

Latham is revealing that he's just another PO, ie professional onanist.

WMD capability has been found.

A force destabilising the region has been squashed

The links between Al Queada and Sadddam's Iraq have been established

People's lives have been saved

Democracy may now be able to flourish in the rotten middle east

Other nasty regimes are now palying careful

What more could these cheese eating surrender monkeys want?

Other nasty regimes are now palying careful

I see LUNCH has come early today.

> if none are found, people need to be held accountable.

What good will it do to throw Clinton, the UN weapons inspectors, Chirac, the German toady, etc in jail?

The Howard government joined the US-Led coalition? But all my buddies keep screaming that the US went in alone. Somebody must be mistaken.

That person owes me lunch.

Joe

Your memory is not giving you the full picture.

While Iraqi intransigence on WMD was the principal reason stated by the Australian government, the potential link to terrorism, the alliance with the US and humanitarian concerns were all cited by the Prime Minister - see his speech of 14 March 2003

http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech74.html

including: "…. The humanitarian issues at stake in relation to Iraq do occupy my mind. And one key aspect of that that appears to have escaped scrutiny is the enormous humanitarian cost, not least to the people of Iraq, of Saddam Hussein remaining in charge. Even if you believed that the failing policy of containment will continue to protect the world from possible danger from Iraq, and I don't, but even if you did, that policy's continuation would do nothing to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq, it will do nothing to provide them with a more hopeful, happy and peaceful life. Perhaps it's become unpalatable or unfashionable to be reminded that the Iraqi people are oppressed by this current regime. There is no chance of normalcy in a nation where torture and rape and genocide and killing are standard practice." There are several more paragraphs on this line.

I can only repeat; the vast bulk of official level talk prior to the invasion concentrated on weapons inspectors, WMDs, etc. That is not to say 100%.

Joe

Sorry to harp on about this but your claim posted above that "Humanitarian reasons were never a major factor until after the event, at least at an official level" is not supported by the facts, as the link to the PM's speech demonstrates.

Joe

Sorry to harp on about this but your claim posted above that "Humanitarian reasons were never a major factor until after the event, at least at an official level" is not supported by the facts, as the link to the PM's speech demonstrates.

Remember also that attacking an Arab country was called for, as the US had had problems with same ever since the Moroccans bombed Pearl Harbor.

I mean, they did, didn't they? Eleven months after Pearl Harbor began opertion 'Torch', the Anglo-American invasion of.... Morocco and North Africa.

Ergo... it HAD to be the Moroccans bombing Pearl Harbor. Right? I mean, it's not like Roosevelt LIED to us... or tried to divert us from the REAL enemy.. or something.

And of course, it would be beyond all of us to say that we invaded North Africa because Pearl Harbor began (for the US at least) something that was in fact MUCH BIGGER than, I dunno, some Yamamoto fellow hiding in a cave or something. That would be just too much for millions of ever brilliant minds (much smarter than our Prez, of course) to wrap their tiny brains around.

So, since the idea that there was much more at stake than one admiral who planned an attack, that it is immoral to wage war on murderous foes without utterly ceding the initiative to them by refusing to do a damn thing unless the French agree, etc, since all of this is just to much for morality or even intelligence to bear, then it is only obvious that the Moroccans bombed Pearl Harbor.

'Bout time we got some payback.

The Right seems to be avoiding the subject of the logisitics & fiscs of fighting the war on Terrorism in an era when the military is busy nation building in Iraq and the budget is overflowing with red ink.

The question is NOT to the Left - will Latham can restore Sadddam? The main gain of regime change was deposing the Tikrit faction from power - and this laudable goal might have been attained without war.

The question IS to the Right - can Bush restore the US military to fight a two-wars-at-once" capacity? The main cost of regime change has been to bog the better part of the Army in Iraq for the better part of this decade. Yet the Islamacists and North Koreans are still making Big Trouble.

Time to make some hard choices, folks.

Both Howard and Bush said Saddam could remain in power if he got rid of his WMDs'.

The reasons for the Invasion were the WMDs threatened the US & UK and there was a chance they would get into terrorist's hands.

Quite clearly only a woodduck of the first order would now believe Saddam had WMDs that could threaten even his neighbours let alone the US & UK.

As for the chance of them getting into AQ's hands this has two problems.
First AQ only buys (according to CIA) thus far PROVEN weapons. Saddam had no proven WMDs.
secondly even if AQ bought wmds that threatened the US how could they use them.
They didn't have the resources to fire them (ie missile plus warhead) from another country.

This is why Timbo, howard and George are all on the regime change train.

Unfortunately whrn you champion regime change you must then explain why Iraq was so special that it had to be first instead of Noth Korea, pick your country in Africa or the Middle East and then why have you stopped otherwise you will be seen as hypocritical.

Sorry to harp on about this but your claim posted above that "Humanitarian reasons were never a major factor until after the event, at least at an official level" is not supported by the facts, as the link to the PM's speech demonstrates.

Depends what you consider a "major factor", I suppose. There were certainly other factors cited as justification for going to war (and you have provided an example of one), but they were never pushed to the same extent as the WMD argument.

hey Dick Flopphi and friends. you clicked the wrong link in your 'favourites' menu. this isnt indymedia.

Mr. Paxton, please tell that to the 50,000 plus Kurds Saddam gassed in the 80s and early 90s.

Homer Paxton

No mater how many time its pointed out to you that WMD can be deployed by other means other then " missile". You trot it out month after month like it will become reality if you keep on saying it.

Did you or UN,France and Russia have some special incite Saddam had no WMD pre GW2 if so prove it.

"why have you stopped otherwise you will be seen as hypocritical"

Are you advocating taking out North Korea? I'm not because they already have operational WMD's.

The Tikrit faction might have been deposed without war? Sure -- anything's possible. We might stop chlorinating urban water supplies and not suffer enteric disease outbreaks .... it's possible. Not the least bit likely -- but possible. The Tikrit faction and its hired help are still, even out of power and under the US boot, able to cause some short-lived trouble -- imagining that they could have been displaced except by invasion isn't serious.

Speaking of short-lived problems, it's most unlikely any large part of US ground forces will be stuck in Iraq "for the better part of the decade." Most likely their combat role will diminish to almost nothing over the next year, fairly soon if present trends continue. It's likely that a substantial force will be based there indefinitely -- but this will be in effect a relocation of Europe-based units to a more useful location. As for other commitments, even the 25th Division based in Hawaii is no longer slated to go to Korea in a contingency -- the US role in any dust-up would be strategic and primarily air and naval. As for "Islamicists," a good chunk of them are located in places that make Iraq a good base for special operations against them -- several of which have already quietly been completed.

Andrew X, brilliant execution. You may have even understated your point; after all, in this case Afghanistan (source of the surprise attack) was in fact dealt with first, unlike Japan after Pearl Harbor -- making the simplistic bit about Iraq not being part of the problem even sillier. It would be hilarious to see Howard Dean grapple with an interviewer who would ask him to explain not just Torch but the whole "Germany first" strategic approach following Pearl Harbor, in light of his peculiar strategic assertions about Iraq.

I love you crazy right wingers.
But we were always caring about 'the kids' in Iraq! Honest, we were! 'The kids,' people, it was all about 'the kids!.'
Because us 'righties' just love 'the kids.' Especially if they are muslims, yeah....

.... and on another point raised above.

Al Qaeda uses only "proven" weapons? Hmm, I suppose that I missed the earlier "weapons" tests using Boeing 757s prior to 9/11.

A Boghammer stuffed with semtex or C-4 as an anti-ship weapon (USS Cole attack)? Guess I missed all the prior uses of explosive boats, too.

And of course Richard Reid's shoe-bomb was old hat, right?

Contrary to the bizarre assertion made in a comment above, AQ has attempted to use anything it can gets its hands on, and had most luck with extremely novel, totally unproven "weapons". Its Afghanistan labs showed evidence of investigation of every unconventional and exotic weapon concept imaginable.

Iraq had no proven WMDs? Huh? That will come as a shock to the Kurds, the Iranians, and the staff of UNSCOM, all of whom had extensive first-hand experience with "proven" WMDs.

Did Iraq still retain WMDs, and might they have transferred some of them to a group like AQ? The burden was on Iraq to offer proof on the first point, and as it refused to do so for over a decade, the very prudent decision was made that it was too risky to see how the second point turned out. Thus the war. Both issues resolved, from the point of view of our security.

>and this laudable goal might have been attained without war.

And winged monkeys might fly out of my ...

Please, all you righties....
Scratch 'humanitarian reasons' for one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
I mean, do you think anyone believes that the same people who supported the Tampa decision give a FLYING FUCK about what goes on in some oppressed mid-east country?
No. You don't. You might think you do, but really, you don't. You want to feel safe and secure, that's all.
And because righties are usually, let's say, a bit more 'simple' then other folks, then you lap up the BS put out there by Bullshitler, and then stand behind him, beacuse he really 'cares' about you, in about the same way as you guys 'care' about all the little kiddies in Iraq, ie not at all.

Haven't you WMD deniers been watching the weekend news? A cache of 200 mortars has been found containing what is strongly suspected to be a lethal liquid blister agent. The fact that the NYT has ignored it means it's highly likely that WMD's have been discovered.

The left cared so much about Iraq's kids that they wanted Saddam to keep killing them.

Oh gee, Jack. I blow my nose on the flag and keep refugees in my chicken coop, so surely I'm not a righty! But I did hear that Saddam had a cache of Phil Collins CDs and that's enough reason for going in as far as I'm concerned.

Jack - don't start with that bullshit line of "righties are usually, let's say, a bit more 'simple' then other folks". Obviously, both of my wife's two degrees and my two degrees were obtained by fraud, eh!

It's the peacenik lefties who lack the intelligence to deal with the truth :-

Socialism is a failure.
The use of force as a tool of government policy is reasonable when diplomacy fails.
Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions for 12 years, had previously made and used chemical weapons and had links to terrorist organisations (such as Abu Nidal).

The fact that parts of a centrifuge for enriching uranium were buried in a scientists back garden in ordr to wait for a future opportunity to develop nuclear weapons is evidence of his intentions to again possess WMD.

Jeesus, not that old crap again. To go with it, we now have weapons dredged up from the Iran/Iraq war that "prove the case" for war.

Just find some damn evidence already. And I don't mean "programs". I mean "evidence".

IceCold & John Nowak,

You need to take a reality check before you make statements about reality.

Before the war, many pro-war persons were certain that Hussein has lots of WMDs.
I theorised that, being a survivor, Hussein "does not have any substantial or effective caches of WMDs". I was right about that, as were senior US military officers, from Powell downwards.
If you care to dispute that fact, take it up with the Pentagon.

If SH was truthful about not having WMDs why is it such a stretch to argue that he was being truthful about his last-minute step-down offer?
Regarding the likelihood of dictatorial step-downs without main-force war, there are precedents:
- Charles Taylor was deposed from Liberia.
- Milosevic withdrew from Kosovo, and was deposed.

Like I said, it is time for some of you folks out there in war-blogger land to stick to the facts, and learn some humility.

Oh fer cryin' outta loud, Jack, with the Tampa thing. Can't you see that being against the Tampa folks coming in is consistent with being pro-war. I reckon it makes support of the war an imperative - if you're not gonna help the folks when they arrive in Oz on the Tampa, then you gotta be prepared to help 'em at home - to stop the problem that's making them flee in the first place.
The lefties like you want to help the Tampa folks but you don't wanna fix the problem that's makin' 'em flee in the first place.
The left likes wogs grateful and dependent, not free to set up their own consitutions and run their own countries and such.
You're a racist, Jack (not Strocchi).

Ice Cold,

Whilst I am beating the facts into your hide, be aware that it is official US Army policy is to have 100,000 troops in Iraq till 2006.
Or is the US Brass behind your curve on logistics as well?

And another thing. The idea that the US army has moved into Mesopotamia to encourage terrorists to break cover, the so-called Flypaper strategy is renounced in military deed by, queue drum-roll...the Pentagon again.

Isn't it time that war-bloggers actually payed some attention to people who actually wage war for a living.

Duh!

Hey W.
So the left 'want to help the Tampa folks but don't want to fix the problem in the first place.'
The problem that America created by installing the Baathists in the 1960's, probably helped along by Bush Sr. who was a CIA big wheel at the time, and head of it in the 70's just the time when the infamous 'School of the Americas' popped up, (famous graduate - one Pinochet character)?
The problem of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, created, funded by the CIA in the late 70's/early 80's as a means of ousting the Soviets in Afghanistan?
Well, it worked, but now you've got another problem, don't you.
None of you guys seem to be aware of 'blowback.' The CIA is. The FBI is. Lots of people are, but not you guys. Therefore, I made the comment that you guys are simple - either dumb or in complete denial that YOU are the ones who have helped create these problems, these dictators, by supporting the Reagans and the Bushes and so forth.
I'm a racist? Then what does that make war mongering oil syphoners like yourself?

Strochi yo fool!!
of course the pentagon isnt going to come out and admit its using the 'flypaper stategy'. People like you would whinge so hard youd implode. Now now, what a terrible humanitarian situation that would be.

Clinton lied - semen died.

Jack Strocchi

Read the link that you claim "senior US military officers, " backed up your theory Saddam "does not have any substantial or effective caches of WMDs".

"In their Tank sessions, the chiefs focused on two specific concerns about the conduct of any offensive. One was that Hussein, if faced with losing power and likely being killed, would no longer feel the constraints that during the Persian Gulf War apparently kept him from using his stores of chemical and biological weapons."

Its would be nice if you payed attention and not glossed over things that are inconvenient.

Jack

"America created by installing the Baathists in the 1960's"

HA-HA your a funny guy.

Hey Jack Strocchi-
You rule. Keep sticking it to these guys. Maybe, just maybe, one day, they will wake up and indeed pay attention to the people who are 'pulling the strings' as it were.
For the most, probably not. The culture of denial within the right is so strong it is very well likely that, should America indeed turn fascist, these guys will support it.
It'll be like Iraq - the argument will change:
"Well, yes, we believed in free speech and democracy once, but now we must put that on hold, and fight for it, and then go back to democracy."
Yeah. Right.

Hey Gary
Are you saying that America didn't install the Baathists?
I have some more hilarious info for you - if Saddam hadn't had been installed then you would have had both Iran and Iraq as Shiite dominated states. Not good for America. So the US took sides, gave Saddam some stuff to make chemical gas, turned a blind eye, and then got all 'compassionate' when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
And the same guys, Rummy, Powell, etc, now, they want to help 'the kids' in Iraq. Seriously. They do.
Now THAT's sarcasm.

Jack

Yeah the US installed the Baathists in Iraq, thats why they became a Soviet client state in the 70's and 80's, as evidenced by all the almost exclusive Soviet and Chinese hardware in their military.

'...gave saddam stuff to make chemical gas...' What stuff would that be? The same basic precursor chemicals that are used to make dyes, pesticides ect?

Pull yer head out of your arse mate

Ummmmm...
Antipodean..... The US installed Baathists is not exactly a conspiracy theory. I outlined why they wanted Saddam in one of my previous posts.
If you bother to ever look at congressional records and such, you'd see a whole bunch of nasty stuff.
Like the stuff they gave Iraq to make chemical gases-I'm not a scientist- but it's there. On the congressional record.
What about the CIA manual found on the drug plane that crashed in S. America in 1986? Arew you aware of that and what tasty tidbits are in there?
No? Then you, my friend, should pull your head out of your arse.
Mate.
And please, would some of you PLEASE pick up a book and read one?

Jack
If Saddam hadnt been "installed" so craftilly by the US then we would have had to have had this war 20 years ago agaisnt a bigger meaner Iraqi-Iranian ayatolla army.
Its allways tough to choose a lesser of the two evil but I'm glad that there were some people back then who had the balls to make that choice and ignore the dickheads like you. You are going to complain no matter what happens so why do you think we give a shit about what you have curse about today.

My advice to you is to hate the game not the player.

Jack,

Exercise a little critical thinking mate.
Why would the US install a regime that became a Soviet client state, that was essentially hostile to it?
You don't have to be a scientist to appreciate the fact that common chemicals can be converted to nerve agents with a little know how, as evidenced by certain Japanese religous cults. And like I posted previously there is nothing special about these precursor chemicals as they have many other lawful uses besides manufacturing chemical weapons.

Jack

Saddam came to power in the 70's the things you are alluding to happened in the 80's. Dispelling your "America created Saddam" chant. Details and facts as simple as following a time would make your rhetoric less easy to dismiss.

"Bullshitler," "war mongering oil syphoners," "we believed in free speech and democracy once..." Mmmm. I love the smell of clichés in the morning. Oh wait -- no I don't.

Tim, why are your trolls nowhere near as fun as the old ones?

Remember crock o tim, Miranda Divide, Sphincter, Nemesis, Analogue Voter....and lets not forget Big Hawk.

Those were trolls you could call your own.

Incomprehensible, extreme, babbling.

Now we get silly old Last One Speaks and a few "War-for-Oil-US-Supported-Saddamm" tools and its just not as fun anymore.

Tim, have a big lunch. For old times sake.

And please, would some of you PLEASE pick up a book and read one?

You first, big boy.

"Bullshitler," "war mongering oil syphoners," "we believed in free speech and democracy once..." Mmmm. I love the smell of clichés in the morning. Oh wait -- no I don't.

Ahh...thatta girl.

I think Glenn Reynolds said it all about the war: "...I never regarded WMD as the main reason to go to war. The real reason to go to war was (1) to establish a military and democratic presence in the Arab world (which we've done); (2) to make an example of Saddam to intimidate other Arab leaders (which we've done); and (3) to cut off Saddam as a source of support -- both existing and potential -- for terrorists, which we've also done. The WMD was a nontrivial issue, and required for playing the UN game (which I always regarded as a mistake) but not, to me, the most important issue.

The WMD was an alligator, but the point of the exercise is to drain the swamp."

Couldn't have put it better.

Bullshitler

Wow - contains "Bush", "Bull****" and "Hitler" - triple word score!

It also contains the full gamut of thought of some of Bush's critics, ie:

1) "Bush = Hitler"
2) "Bush lied, people died"

...but the question of WMDs can't be ducked - if none are found, people need to be held accountable.

Excellent point. Clinton, Albright, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspectors, and relevant French, German, and Russian authorities need to be hauled before the Hague to be held accountable for their outrageous conspiracy of lies and deceptions that led President Bush and the U.S. Congress to continue the policy of Iraqi regime change initiated in 1998 when who was U.S. president...?

"America can fight a war on ten fronts, if it needs to... but eight of those fronts will be nuclear." - Steven den Beste

Mr. Strogchhi is wrong on all counts -- including the personals ones. I'm quite humble, and have worked with the subject and people involved in these matters for over 20 years. He'll have trouble "beating facts into my hide" if the Washington Post is his level of understanding of these matters.

I'm assuming the ludicrous suggestion about just making nice and taking Saddam's veracity into account was humorous. As was the idea that his "offer" to step aside should be taken seriously.
Iraq precisely refused to document the status of its WMD or allow free interrogation of its personnel -- common sense requirements also enshrined specifically in UN resolutions on the matter.

The article cited on ground forces plans might be considered in the same light that initial plans for Afghanistan and pre-war arguments for Iraq were: the Army has consistently argued for and failed to get much, much larger force numbers into the game than were actually used and proved adequate. This is not unrelated to internal political struggles that the Army is consistently losing. If some major conventional force requirement appears -- there isn't any visible now -- elsewhere on the planet, the US will be able to respond.

Not sure why "flypaper" entered the picture, but I was referring to regional ops conducted out of Iraqi bases, not the same topic really.

All in all, these folks shouldn't take the demise of a self-created loathsome and dangerous genocidal maniac so hard. Even if it was accomplished in a masterful way by forces demonstrating great concern for the humanitarian implications of the situation. Sore winners are always hard to watch.

An interim UN report lists the destruction of
-38,000 chemical and biological weapons
-690 tons of CW and BW agents
-48 long range missiles
-30 BW missile warheads
-the production equipment for Sarin, Tabun, Mustard and weaponized anthrax, butulinum and aflatoxin.
The Iraqis refused to produce records or account for known amounts of precursor chemicals and growth mediums. (IE the infamous 8500 litres of growth medium delivered to the anthrax production facility.)

Records of dispersion tests for weaponized anthrax on sheep were found recently, so there was production of anthrax the Iraqis would not account for.

Proof of WMDs -- Saddam would not comply with inspections.

Period.

End of story.

Whether he had them or not is irrelevant to the justification for invasion. Yes, we need to figure out why there may have been intelligence failures, but this has nothing to do with justification for invasion. France said it, Germany said it, Clinton said it, Gore said it, Edwards said it, Gephardt said it -- and Saddam left us no choice but to believe it. He's had them before, used them, wanted more of them, and would not convincingly demonstrate that he had disposed of them. END OF STORY.

No compliance with inspections = justification for invasion.

I'm with Quentin. I miss 'em too. I especially liked the series of scatalogically-signed contributions. You could give a little prod from any direction and always be guarranteed an excellent reaction involving rage, bile and attempts at personal abuse (always a laugh, particularly when the object of their abuse is a fabricated name and persona).

Sometimes there was guilt involved, however. Like dropping an enraged, wounded bull in a ring and taunting it by waving flags. But it's not as bad as the real thing, is it?

Tim should put them back on the payroll.

Remember when all of the fucktards in the media were bitching about "shifting reasons" for going to war with Irag? They moaned that President Bush would not stick to the same story. Terrorism, humanitarian, and regime change, and WMD were all used as supportive of war with Iraq. Now the leftist pantywastes refuse to consider more than one reason at the same time, when all are valid alone anyways.

Tongue Boy: Excellent point

Which you appear to have missed. There's little doubt that Iraq had WMDs at some point, but if years of searching fail to discover any, or at least a significant number of them, then where are they?

One of the reasons given for invading that it was important to stop them falling into terrorist hands. If none are found, how can we be sure that they haven't already? Are they in Syria? Were they destroyed? If so, why didn't we know about it? And so on.

Look, I think WMDs was an OK pretext for invading. And if none turn up, it doesn't imply Bush lied, or the invasion was a mistake, or whatever. But it does imply problems with military intelligence.

Yeah, you're right -- the trolls have gotten boring. Miranda must be on holiday, or maybe that last sex-change procedure went bad.