Was the American led invasion of Iraq right?

[Blacknad]

Was the American led invasion of Iraq right?

Blacknad.

[August]

Yes, absolutely.

[Blacknad]

Yes, absolutely.

On what basis?

Could it have been the because of the WMDs?

The United States is taking steps to determine how it received erroneous intelligence that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was developing and stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Could it have been to stop terrorism?

Despite so much evidence pointing to Iraq 's lack of involvement or lack of links to international terrorism — at least since 1993 — many Americans still believe there is a connection. Clarke estimates this to be 70 percent of the population (Clarke, 2004, p. 268). In a similar vein, Clarke wrote

I suspect that many of the heroic US troops who risked their lives fighting in Iraq thought, because of the misleading statements from the White House and especially from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Wolfowitz (our emphasis), that they were avenging the 3,000 dead from September 11. What a horrible thing it was to give such a false impression to our people and our troops. Only in September 2003, only after (invading) and occupying Iraq , only after Vice-President Cheney had stretched credulity on “Meet the Press,” did the President clearly state that there was 'no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks. [And as Clarke cogently continues] That new clarity might have come as a disappointing shock to American troops being targeted by snipers and blown up by landmines in Iraq . (Clarke, 2004, p. 268)

Well..was it?

Rather than seeking to work with the majority in the Islamic world to mould Muslim opinion against the radical values of the Islamic fundamentalists, we did exactly what Al Qaeda said we would do. We invaded and occupied an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to us while paying scant attention to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. We delivered to Al Qaeda the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable and made it difficult, if not impossible, for friendly governments to be seen to working with us. (Clarke, 2004, p. 264)

Are you sure?

And the world as a safer place? We hardly think so. With the recent announcement by North Korea (confirming what has long been suspected) that it has nuclear weapons and that Iraq's larger and more powerful neighbour, Iran, is developing uranium enrichment facilities that could be used to produce a nuclear deterrent, the constant assertions by George W. that the world is a safer place is somewhat delusional and out of touch with reality. What the invasion of Iraq has accomplished is to send the message clearly to other regimes to arm themselves with nuclear technology and other types of WMD to deter an American military attack. Instead of seeking to reduce the proliferation of WMD, the American attack on Iraq has probably had the opposite effect as a result of deeply flawed foreign policy in the Middle East .

Or was it possibly to make life better for Mr And Mrs Iraqi?

A prominent American journalist writes: "Despite the investment that has undoubtedly taken place, virtually all basic services are in a worse state now than they were before the invasion. There is less clean water, less sewage control, less gas, less petrol, less power. Baghdad now has an average of only 5.8 hours of electricity a day. At present Iraq is producing 1.8 million barrels of oil a day; just before the invasion the figure was 2.5 million barrels a day.

Or was it to win the 'Hearts and Minds' of the Iraqi's?

Britain's ITV showed a small Iraqi boy lying on a stretcher in a Baghdad hospital. He was shrieking from pain caused by burns over more than two-thirds of his tiny body. I could see from the top half of his face, which had escaped the flames, that he had been an exceptionally beautiful infant with huge dark eyes, now stricken with fear.
The reporter said that this angelic looking child was not expected to last the day.

No. We are definitely winning them...

Abu Ghraib
Guantanamo Bay

and 100,000 dead Iraqis - 35,000 of those civilians:

See: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Too many innocent people are dying in Iraq. A recent report, in the medical journal The Lancet, estimates 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the US-led invasion. Half of them are women and children. Almost all were killed by coalition air strikes.

Take a minute to think about the enormity of this human cost. Think of it as September 11, 30 times over.

Though it wildly exceeds all previous figures, The Lancet estimate is credible, and perhaps even conservative, according to independent statisticians who analysed the data and found the report's methodologically sound.

Winning the 'Hearts and Minds'? Yes, I can feel the love and respect coming from the Middle East right now.

See also:

http://www.gig.org/Features/gig_GD_Letter_25.php

Blacknad

[August]

A load of quotes mean little....how many do you want that state the opposite of yours? Who is "Clarke"?

Anyhow, none of those were the basis for the war, although there were some auxillary reasons such as his support for terror groups, his stated intent and programs to develop weapons he was not supposed to have, and his mass-murder, torture and abuse of his own people.

The basis for the war, as unanimously agreed by the Security Council of the UN, and stated in the declaration of war in the US Congress was primarily the 17 ignored resolutions from the UN, not abiding by the ceasefire agreement of 1991, hundreds of incidents of firing on coalition forces in the no-fly zone enforcing the UN ceasefire agreement, and his unwillingness to co-operate with international weapons inspectors.

What is your solution? Let him continue to pay for suicide bombers to kill innocent people in Israel? Let him continue to train terrorists? Let him continue to seek the development of long-range weapons? Let him continue to rape, murder and torture his own people? Let him continue to ignore the demands of the rest of the world, thereby creating the recipe for every two-bit dictator to ignore the reasonable demands of the organization created to ensure there is not another world war? Let him continue to play cat and mouse with weapons inspectors while enriching himself at the expense of his people's food-aid? Do you condone what he was doing?

Do you believe that there is ever justification for war? If so, what are the criteria? If not, why not?

[Blacknad]

A load of quotes mean little....how many do you want that state the opposite of yours? Who is "Clarke"?

Anyhow, none of those were the basis for the war, although there were some auxillary reasons such as his support for terror groups, his stated intent and programs to develop weapons he was not supposed to have, and his mass-murder, torture and abuse of his own people.

The basis for the war, as unanimously agreed by the Security Council of the UN, and stated in the declaration of war in the US Congress was primarily the 17 ignored resolutions from the UN, not abiding by the ceasefire agreement of 1991, hundreds of incidents of firing on coalition forces in the no-fly zone enforcing the UN ceasefire agreement, and his unwillingness to co-operate with international weapons inspectors.

What is your solution? Let him continue to pay for suicide bombers to kill innocent people in Israel? Let him continue to train terrorists? Let him continue to seek the development of long-range weapons? Let him continue to rape, murder and torture his own people? Let him continue to ignore the demands of the rest of the world, thereby creating the recipe for every two-bit dictator to ignore the reasonable demands of the organization created to ensure there is not another world war? Let him continue to play cat and mouse with weapons inspectors while enriching himself at the expense of his people's food-aid? Do you condone what he was doing?

Do you believe that there is ever justification for war? If so, what are the criteria? If not, why not?

Your Government sold the war on WMDs. That's how Blair sold it to us.


You also had no UN approval:

The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed. Thus, the U.S.-led invasion began without the express approval of the United Nations Security Council, and most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the UN Charter.

The US is also very selective about what it gets involved in. Didn't see the US in Rwanda or hundreds of other conflicts and genocides.

It also stands happily by as Israel violates any number of UN resolutions.

The war in Iraq has been a spectacular failure and was driven by Bush, and many think he lied about WMD, certainly it seems Blair did with inflated claims of WMDs deployable in the famous 45 minutes.

What is a Just War? Was Iraq going to invade you?

Are you going to invade every Middle Eastern country that sponsers terrorism. Good luck.

If anyone thinks I am being Anti-American then they are wrong. There is a lot that is good about America. I am disgusted with my own (English) government for going to war in Iraq. I think they have made the world much more dangerous - their unilateral actions are creating an endless supply of Muslim terrorists who are deeply unhappy with the slaughter of so many civilian Iraqis.

Blacknad.

[Canuckster1127]

This is obviously a very emotional subject and one which is subject to a great deal of hind-sight and second-guessing.

I supported the invasion of Iraq at the time it was done and I think it is important to recognize several factors that went into that decision.

1. Iraq had violated many provisions of the agreements it entered into at the end of Desert Storm.

2. Inspection teams were not allowed to work freely, were interfered with and there was a strong appearance of continued hiding of existing weapons as well as the appearance of continued development. In the hands of a regime, that had already used such weapons, there was every reason to believe, that given possession and opportunity, they would be used again.

3. Continued violations of the no-fly zone were taking place with attacks on allied planes on a regular basis.

4. United Nation resolutions already existed with the authority to respond independent of any further action.

More can be said, but off the top of my head, without a great deal of research, knowing what was known at the time of the decision, I believe the decision was defensible.

Does it look different now in hindsight. Yes. To some degree it does.

In hindsight, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement and "peace in our times" move prior to WWII would likely have been better replaced with some form of pre-emptive or early action. It's the nature of man and history to second guess things.

I think it is too early to completely assess the question of Iraq. I think now committed, to use the arguments brought to bear as a rationale to not complete the task is doubly foolish. We're in. The goal is worthy. The cost of pulling out is greater than the cost of completing.

In hindsight, it might have been better to delay action. However, the intelligence acted upon was international in nature and agreed upon in terms of its importance and possible danger. It is the height of hypocrisy for many of the parties now, who participated and supported the decision at the time, to play against it later on. It's certainly consistent with the less seemly side of politics and human-nature, but in my opinion it lacks integrity.

I don't hold to the philosophy of "My country" right or wrong. The US is not God's special country to bring about world peace to the exclusion of all other countries.

Arguing the needs that the US has not responded to, is ridiculous. The inability to address all injustice is not justification for not addressing some. You can certainly argue that other strategic factors entered into the decision, and you'd be right. Oil, economics, geographical location etc all factored into this decision. It was not simply a crusade of holiness by the US in the name of justice alone.

But, I believe it was a reasonable course of action based on what was known at the time and I think there will always be those who will seize political opportunism rather than show integrity and consistency and following through with an action to the end.

Like him or hate him, and there seems little neutral ground, I supported Bush's decision in this regard at the time when it was popular and I continue to support him now, when it is not.

Despite the fact that other areas of my political beleifs are moderating in some degree, I'm comfortable holding firm in my support of this now. I don't find any element of it inconsistent with my Christian principles.

[bluesman]

The US is not God's special country to bring about world peace to the exclusion of all other countries.

Oh, thats what the USA is trying to do?? Bring about world peace?

United Nation resolutions already existed with the authority to respond independent of any further action.

Notice what you wrote United Nation...........er its United Nations and not
United States resolutions.

There was at least 2 deals (compromise) put on the table at the UN to deal with Iraq with the UN's support. One was put on the table by Canada.
The USA chose to ignore the UN and go it alone and thats where much of the problem began.

Arguing the needs that the US has not responded to, is ridiculous. The inability to address all injustice is not justification for not addressing some.

How is it ridiculous to look at the USA past track record , yet okay to look at that of others like Iraq's. The rest of the world is going to look at the USA's past involvement to judge it wether you like it or not.

What was the big injustice they were responding to??

Where was everybody in 1994 Rwanda?

Whats the past history of the USA in the region?

1953 remove an elected leader to return the Shah of Iran to power.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mi ... index.html

here is one website that gives a lot of history of the USA involvement with Iran and Iraq and the Iran Iraq war.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

You can't understand the present without knowing the past

I don't find any element of it inconsistent with my Christian principles.

The one thing I think about is the fact that we won't see true peace in the Middle East until the return of Jesus as king.

God Bless
Mike the Bluesman

[August]

Your Government sold the war on WMDs. That's how Blair sold it to us.

You also had no UN approval:

The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed. Thus, the U.S.-led invasion began without the express approval of the United Nations Security Council, and most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the UN Charter.

The US is also very selective about what it gets involved in. Didn't see the US in Rwanda or hundreds of other conflicts and genocides.

It also stands happily by as Israel violates any number of UN resolutions.

The war in Iraq has been a spectacular failure and was driven by Bush, and many think he lied about WMD, certainly it seems Blair did with inflated claims of WMDs deployable in the famous 45 minutes.

What is a Just War? Was Iraq going to invade you?

Are you going to invade every Middle Eastern country that sponsers terrorism. Good luck.

If anyone thinks I am being Anti-American then they are wrong. There is a lot that is good about America. I am disgusted with my own (English) government for going to war in Iraq. I think they have made the world much more dangerous - their unilateral actions are creating an endless supply of Muslim terrorists who are deeply unhappy with the slaughter of so many civilian Iraqis.

Blacknad.

C'mon Blacknad, who is Clarke you keep on quoting? Where are all these nameless quotes coming from? I cannot respond to them if you don't give the source. You did not answer any of my questions. What is your solution?

Have you personally read any of the source documents?

Here is the final UN resolution before the war. (Please tell us what "serious consequences" in paragraph 13 means). Also note, Iraq had 30 days to respond, and they chose not to. What do you think should have happened?

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq

Friday, November 8, 2002 Posted: 2:17 PM EST (1917 GMT)
U.N. Security Council votes Friday to approve the Iraq resolution

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

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;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

We know now that France, Germany and Russia opposed the immediate use of force because they were deeply involved in supporting Saddam's murderous reign through their fraudulent actions in the "oil-for-food" program, and they knew they would get exposed, and that is what happened. If you are so concerned about the truth, not anti-American, and against deception like you claim when you say that the US lied, why are you not outraged about the flagrant misuse of this program which enabled Saddam to enrich himself, and use the money to support terror and his own murderous government?

Do you want the US Congress War resolution too? I can also post the translated transcripts of Saddam's cabinet meetings where he describes purposely how they are seeking to build WMD's, how they were purposely defrauding the UN inspectors and the details of his chemical military units. How about the minutes of the meeting between a senior government official and Osama bin Laden?

You started this asking about the invasion of Iraq, and now you want to talk about other countries? What does that have to do with the specific situation in Iraq? Each situation is unique and requires treatment on it's own merit. But none of the other countries you mentioned have used chemical weapons, and have invaded other countries, and have broken the resulting UN brokered ceasefire agreements, and have continued to purposely mislead the UN and the world, and given state sponsorship to terrorism, and shot at coalition forces enforcing the ceasefire rules on a regular basis. That is a pretty unique combination, found only with Iraq.

I will agree though, that world stood by and did nothing in Rwanda, and is now doing nothing in Sudan, is absolutely shameful.

As for your question on a "just war", how do you reconcile your reference to a possible invasion with your statement about Rwanda? Would an intervention there have been justified?

For further information, here is a summary of the "Jus Ad Bellem" convention, aka the "just war" principles:
Having just cause,
being declared by a proper authority,
possessing right intention,
having a reasonable chance of success,
and the end being proportional to the means used.

I guess "just cause" is the thing we will continue to differ about in the case of Iraq.

[August]

Where was everybody in 1994 Rwanda?

Would you have supported an invasion of Rwanda in 1994? If so, on what grounds?

[Locker]

Was the American led invasion of Iraq right?

Blacknad.

From a tactical aspect, you need a base of operations in which to fight Islamic Terrorism and smoke them out. Wars are won by bloody attrition.

That is a cold hard fact. You would need a place in which Islamic srewballs can have easy access into an kill zone - Iraq. It is easier to travel there than Afganhanstan.

We in the USA really have no choice. We were attacked and many a lives were lost during these attacks from the 1980's to 9/11/2001.

Should we be like Europe and do nothing - hoping it will go away?

I guess we in the USA, for the sake of world peace - the whole population of the USA should all drink poison Cool Aid and die.

Then there would be such glorious world peace that all of Europe and Islam would rejoice together as they join to slaughter the population of Israel in celebration.

It is funny how the USA is the Bad Guy when the real ones burn, kill, and destroy over stupid cartoons. Or fly jets into building to kill thousands. Develop a super torpedo. Sponsor homicide bombings world wide. Blow up trains, and buses in England and Spain and have a bent toward wanton killing for mere pleasure.

Yes, the USA sure is the bad guy and must be destroyed so the peaceful funloving, cartoon lampooning Islamic's can have their peaceful righteous way with the entire world!

Yep, we should never have gone to war and have committed national suicide for the sake of world peace.

NOT!!!

[puritan lad]

Blacknad,

First, a little correction. WMD's were one of MANY reasons listed for going to war (and I wouldn't be surprised if they still turned up in Syria somewhere). In reality, Iraq violated the terms of their cease fire agreement from the first war.

Second, a little reminder. If it wasn't for the US "bringing world peace" as you put it, you would probably be speaking German and singing the "Horst Wessel Song".

[Blacknad]

C'mon Blacknad, who is Clarke you keep on quoting? Where are all these nameless quotes coming from? I cannot respond to them if you don't give the source. You did not answer any of my questions. What is your solution?

August, Google it. Put the first ten or so words of a quote in and voila...

http://hnn.us/articles/4354.html amongst many others dealing with the same quote.

But a second point. Why so eager to understand who Clarke is? That's right, do a demolition job on someone and you need never have to engage with what they say. Am I right

I'll respond to your questions when I have some time - I'm enjoying the debate.

Look everyone, I know the debate is a touch heated and passions run high, and I come across abit harsh at times too. But I hope we can all remember that we are brothers in Christ.

I have read so many posts on this site and there is not one person engaging in this debate, or the other robust one on Socialism, that I have not found some respect for. Please accept my apologies if anyone has felt slighted by any of my comments, for I am as human as the next idiot

And please don't think I'm Anti-American - I have a lot of love for America, I'm just talking about one aspect of America - foreign policy. We just see things differently and Americans take politics more to heart. If someone wants to slap down the British government then I may defend them, but I may agree - I just wouldn't get worked up about it and think it was an all out attack on the British way of life.

Love in Christ to you all,

Blacknad.

[Blacknad]

Woah, Locker, relax a tad.

No one is hating America here - we would probably all be Commies under Global Tzar Putin if it weren't for you.

Take it easy.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[August]

C'mon Blacknad, who is Clarke you keep on quoting? Where are all these nameless quotes coming from? I cannot respond to them if you don't give the source. You did not answer any of my questions. What is your solution?

August, Google it. Put the first ten or so words of a quote in and voila...

http://hnn.us/articles/4354.html amongst many others dealing with the same quote.

But a second point. Why so eager to understand who Clarke is? That's right, do a demolition job on someone and you need never have to engage with what they say. Am I right

I am eager to understand which Clarke you are quoting because there are three possibilities: Richard Clarke, the ex-security advisor, whom I believe now that is the guy you quoted, probably from his book, "Against All Enemies". Also there is Ramsey Clark, the ex-attorney general who now defends Saddam, and Wesley Clarke, the ex general/presidential candidate.

I believe I already engaged the points directly from the source documents, i.e. the resolutions, direct translations of captured documents etc, so there is no need to do a demolition job on anyone. But it is easier to understand and put into perspective the commentary made by someone for or against the war if you know their agenda. Every one of the Clarke's I mentioned had a vested interest in portraying the war as unjust or a failure, due to their political motivations. If you don't believe me, then go see for yourself, since you are such a Google genius

I can respond in one of two ways, I can post my own "experts" which refute the commentary, and we have an endless go-around on whose commentator is right, or we can simply present the facts and we discuss that. I believe I presented the facts here, and not second-hand, politically motivated commentary. If you have some facts which show me to be in error, I'll be glad to look at it.

[Blacknad]

August,

Yeah you're right. We can go around for ever with this one and it's not productive. I need to think hard about what threads I start.

I think the war is an unmitigated disaster from start to... well no finish in sight. I think we will be dealing with this legacy for decades and we will be lucky if Iraq doesn't eventually implode into civil war.

You and many others obviously think otherwise.

There is no profit in keeping at it, and every profit in humbly agreeing to disagree and realise that we are all on the same side here in a hostile atheistic world.

Thanks for the debate my American friends. It was unwise of me to raise it.

Regards,

Blacknad.