This is a heated debate and probably not wise to enter. Oh well.
The Americans, British and others had intellegence that suggested that this man had WMDs. This intellengence may have been flawed, but they were still told it. After so many inquiries I am convinced that they beleived it was crediable, even if they spiced it up a little in the delivery, the core intellengence was crediable, as far as they knew (by "they" I mean the Presidents and PMs).
So, armed with this information, should they have gone to war? Yes, they were going against the UN, but as they beleived, time was critical, and they knew that the UN may sit on its hands for weeks, months or possibly years. So armed with this info, then they probably made the right decision. The war, as far as they knew, was almost completly justified (expect that they went outside the UN, but then that was also reasonably justified).
Should they pull out now? Definately not. Leaving the coutry would be far worse than remaing in power for the general population. The obvious course of action is to move towards elections as swiftly as possible, and to transfer as much of the policing power to the Iraqs as possible.
EDIT: After re-reading some of this thread I would like to add some more points.
The Iraq-AlQuida link never seemed crediable, and I don't know what kind of intellegence they had on that, but it just dosn't fit in, a dictator-terroist relationship. That seems to be a large mistake on America's behalf ...
But even if Iraq wasn't going to sell WMDs to terrosists, he still apperntly was ready and willing to use them, and as I said above, this seemed an imminent threat that had to be prevented, so the discovery that their is no bond between Iraq and terrorist is not a good reason to dismiss the war as a bad idea.
The US line now, that Iraq is better off without this "brutal dictator" is not a good sell. This shifts the focus of the reason for war t something that is NOT justifiable. If the reason for war is to remove a dicatator, the you need to wait for the UN. There is no longer the sense of urgency. I believe that this line is just being used to sooth the American public, and so that the media don't keep saying "No WMDs" but even still, it brings into question the motives for the war, and that is not a wise idea in my opinon ...
The Americans, British and others had intellegence that suggested that this man had WMDs. This intellengence may have been flawed, but they were still told it. After so many inquiries I am convinced that they beleived it was crediable, even if they spiced it up a little in the delivery, the core intellengence was crediable, as far as they knew (by "they" I mean the Presidents and PMs).
So, armed with this information, should they have gone to war? Yes, they were going against the UN, but as they beleived, time was critical, and they knew that the UN may sit on its hands for weeks, months or possibly years. So armed with this info, then they probably made the right decision. The war, as far as they knew, was almost completly justified (expect that they went outside the UN, but then that was also reasonably justified).
Should they pull out now? Definately not. Leaving the coutry would be far worse than remaing in power for the general population. The obvious course of action is to move towards elections as swiftly as possible, and to transfer as much of the policing power to the Iraqs as possible.
EDIT: After re-reading some of this thread I would like to add some more points.
The Iraq-AlQuida link never seemed crediable, and I don't know what kind of intellegence they had on that, but it just dosn't fit in, a dictator-terroist relationship. That seems to be a large mistake on America's behalf ...
But even if Iraq wasn't going to sell WMDs to terrosists, he still apperntly was ready and willing to use them, and as I said above, this seemed an imminent threat that had to be prevented, so the discovery that their is no bond between Iraq and terrorist is not a good reason to dismiss the war as a bad idea.
The US line now, that Iraq is better off without this "brutal dictator" is not a good sell. This shifts the focus of the reason for war t something that is NOT justifiable. If the reason for war is to remove a dicatator, the you need to wait for the UN. There is no longer the sense of urgency. I believe that this line is just being used to sooth the American public, and so that the media don't keep saying "No WMDs" but even still, it brings into question the motives for the war, and that is not a wise idea in my opinon ...
Last edited:
