1. 12 years of Saddam refusing to comply with the terms of his surrender in the Gulf War
2. 12 years of almost daily firing on UN planes in the "no fly zone" (these were British and American)
3. 12 years of refusing to fully dismantle his war machine as ordered by the Gulf War peace accords
4. 12 years of refusing UN inspectors full and unfettered access to inspect Iraqi weapons sites
5. 12 years of intelligence reports from various nations (Great Britain, Germany, Israel, France, the CIA) that Saddam was pursuing nuclear and biological capabilities
6. At the time of the invasion, most of the intelligence communities in the world said that Iraq was pursuing a WMD program
7. At the time of the invasion, the UN assumed he was pursuing a WMD prgram, as why else would he hamper UN weapons inspectors like Hans Blix?
8. At the time of the invasion, the UN didn't say Saddam didn't have WMD's, but instead urged for "more time" to allow inspections
9. Saddam had used WMD's against Iran and the Kurds in Iraq, showing a propensity to use such weapons
10. During the Gulf War, Saddam launched SCUD missles at Israel, hoping to draw them into the fray, and spark an Arab/Israeli conflict
11. Iraq had systematically killed and tortured any who oppossed Saddam
12. Iraq cheated on it's oil for food program, selling contracts for oil to Russian, French, and German concerns (how odd that those nations are the ones who most opposed the UN or US taking actions in Iraq...) while pocketing large sums of money and *not* using the revenue to help Iraq's people.
Basically, what led to the war was Saddam's refusal to abide by UN resolutions, his failure to abide by the terms of his surrender inthe first Gulf War, and the perception (by all intelligence communities, not just the US's) that Saddam was looking to produce WMD's.
In hindsight, we can see that the WMD program was either dismantled, or that WMD's were hidden or shipped to Iran or Syria. The large stores of WMD's had not materialized. So apparently, the US Intelligence community was fooled (as were British, French, German, and other nation's intelligence).
That said, why didn't Saddam just submit to the inspections? Why didn't he abide by the UN resolutions or the surrender agreement? He could have avoided this whole mess, and been living the high life in Bagdad?
Perhaps he liked being viewed as powerful and dangerous? Perhaps he didn't like answering to the UN? But regardless, for 12 years, he thumbed his nose at the rest of the world (yes, Canada, you too), and refused to abide by his own surrender agreement.
Here's a hypothetical situation for you:
What if following WW2, Hitler would have survived, Germany would not have been occupied (let's say the Allies stopped at Germany's borders, and had merely displaced all the occupying German troops from invaded countries, sort of like the Coalition forces did in Kuwait), and the Nazi war machine continued to produce weapons, and worked towards getting a nuclear device? Would you have faulted the US for invading Germany and deposing Hitler?
Like Hitler, Saddam had used WMD in the past, invaded his neighboring nations and occupied them, and basically said to the world "What are you going to do about it?". Would you have felt safe in 1948 if Hitler had been churning out weapons, and refusing to abide by his surrender agreement signed in 1945? Would you fault the US and Britain for wanting to disarm him? Why is the Iraq situation much different?
Consider that for a bit.
*I got this tidbit from another forum, so I am not claiming all this text is mine* However, I couldnt have said it better myself !
2. 12 years of almost daily firing on UN planes in the "no fly zone" (these were British and American)
3. 12 years of refusing to fully dismantle his war machine as ordered by the Gulf War peace accords
4. 12 years of refusing UN inspectors full and unfettered access to inspect Iraqi weapons sites
5. 12 years of intelligence reports from various nations (Great Britain, Germany, Israel, France, the CIA) that Saddam was pursuing nuclear and biological capabilities
6. At the time of the invasion, most of the intelligence communities in the world said that Iraq was pursuing a WMD program
7. At the time of the invasion, the UN assumed he was pursuing a WMD prgram, as why else would he hamper UN weapons inspectors like Hans Blix?
8. At the time of the invasion, the UN didn't say Saddam didn't have WMD's, but instead urged for "more time" to allow inspections
9. Saddam had used WMD's against Iran and the Kurds in Iraq, showing a propensity to use such weapons
10. During the Gulf War, Saddam launched SCUD missles at Israel, hoping to draw them into the fray, and spark an Arab/Israeli conflict
11. Iraq had systematically killed and tortured any who oppossed Saddam
12. Iraq cheated on it's oil for food program, selling contracts for oil to Russian, French, and German concerns (how odd that those nations are the ones who most opposed the UN or US taking actions in Iraq...) while pocketing large sums of money and *not* using the revenue to help Iraq's people.
Basically, what led to the war was Saddam's refusal to abide by UN resolutions, his failure to abide by the terms of his surrender inthe first Gulf War, and the perception (by all intelligence communities, not just the US's) that Saddam was looking to produce WMD's.
In hindsight, we can see that the WMD program was either dismantled, or that WMD's were hidden or shipped to Iran or Syria. The large stores of WMD's had not materialized. So apparently, the US Intelligence community was fooled (as were British, French, German, and other nation's intelligence).
That said, why didn't Saddam just submit to the inspections? Why didn't he abide by the UN resolutions or the surrender agreement? He could have avoided this whole mess, and been living the high life in Bagdad?
Perhaps he liked being viewed as powerful and dangerous? Perhaps he didn't like answering to the UN? But regardless, for 12 years, he thumbed his nose at the rest of the world (yes, Canada, you too), and refused to abide by his own surrender agreement.
Here's a hypothetical situation for you:
What if following WW2, Hitler would have survived, Germany would not have been occupied (let's say the Allies stopped at Germany's borders, and had merely displaced all the occupying German troops from invaded countries, sort of like the Coalition forces did in Kuwait), and the Nazi war machine continued to produce weapons, and worked towards getting a nuclear device? Would you have faulted the US for invading Germany and deposing Hitler?
Like Hitler, Saddam had used WMD in the past, invaded his neighboring nations and occupied them, and basically said to the world "What are you going to do about it?". Would you have felt safe in 1948 if Hitler had been churning out weapons, and refusing to abide by his surrender agreement signed in 1945? Would you fault the US and Britain for wanting to disarm him? Why is the Iraq situation much different?
Consider that for a bit.
*I got this tidbit from another forum, so I am not claiming all this text is mine* However, I couldnt have said it better myself !
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-06-18 14:47:31)