Is the world a better place now that Saddam...

[EUtopia]

Do you not think that knowing America and inspectors were going to come knocking on your door, and that you wouldn't be willing to use them anyway, that you simply wouldn't make them?

Anyway, the inspectors, both American (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43131-2004Jan23.html) and UN (http://www.rense.com/general46/blixmorecretainthanever.htm) have confirmed they have none. These were the people who knew best, they have all the intel and all the knowledge, if they say they're not there, they really arn't.

And I believe RichfieldMN has hit the nail on the head.

[Lexwolf]

Hear hear richfieldMN!

I believe there will be a civil war in Iraq as soon as all the soldiers depart.
This will have tremendous impact on the world


It will only get worse because the americans will get blamed for pulling out too quickly, and will only stir up more hatred. Let alone the attacks that will happen on that country after it is self-governed. Some muslims dont like the idea of democracy, that the leader is a representative of allah, and they believe that not putting faith in him is a sin.

Once the new iraqi government is in place, with the entire country being built by american companies, the army and police trained by americans, you basically have america junior.

The middle east is not a good place for america junior. There is nothing anyone can do to stop any invasion of Iraq, now that the rest of the middle east knows that there are definetly no weapons of mass destruction to fear.

Unless the UN moves in and stabilizes the region now, it will be a bloodbath for the next decade.

[Jamzland]

What you have got to remember is that Iraq is quite a big place. Some areas are happy that Saddam has gone and some are not. It all depends where you look.
They were saying on the T.V. the other day that they had evidence that the weapons had been moved to Syria a few weeks before the war started. We must also remember the bad things Saddam did like invade Kuwait.

[fozx]

The world has not changed with Saddam gone. Iraq is a better place with him gone but the way in which he was removed was not the greatest. As for his WMDs, if he had any (which he probably didnt) thay would have been found easerly. While it may be easy to hide the actual payload its not easy to hide to hide the missile which carries it. The missile that where found were not cabable of carrying a warhead and had considerably short range.

If Saddam had WMDs why didnt he use do defend against the coalition's attacks? He could delt some serious damage to the force if he did.

Why would Saddam have sent his weapons to another country? They wouldnt want them anyway. It would get the allseeing eye of Americans on them.

CS

[Armorfiend1]

Look, the War in Iraq was not simply to "Find the WMD", it was about removing the threat of WMD and a crazy ass leader who may use them.

Thanks to many UN countries, who were aiding and abeting Saddam in my opinion, we gave him all the time in the world to do whatever he wanted with the WMD, he could have buried them, sent them or away or even made them into gift baskets by the time troops were actually on the ground in Iraq.

Saddam could have stopped the invasion if he had provided the evidence of their (WMD) destruction but he believed (quite rightly) that the UN would be so split up over actually taking action that he didn't need to.

People seem to think that the responsibility was on the Americans to prove they were there, this is the biggest misunderstanding of the numerous resolutions passed by the UN, the responsiblity lay with Saddam to prove that he had gotten rid of them and this he failed to do.

We may never find the WMD, they could be anywhere by now as he (Saddam) had all the time in the world to do what he pleased with them, why didn't he use the WMD in the invasion, we can only speculate but if his capture is anything to go by, he loves his life just a little too much, he was relying on public opinion to push the Americans out of there, then he would have been free to retake the country, he had a similar plan after the first gulf war and that time it worked.

Is the world a safer place, I believe so, it showed other regimes that if flip a birdie everytime the UN tells you do to something, eventually action will be taken, it's all well and good talking about peace but that peace has to be protected.

As for Islamic Extremists/Terrorists, it is not America whom is to blame for them, as was proven when they attacked a peacefull holiday resort in Bali, the Chechnayn attacks or the daily attacks in Israel, they are every free persons enemy and there will be no negotiation with them.

I am not saying that Muslims are the enemy, most Muslims are as peacefull as anyone and are very good people, I am speaking of those who would use terror to gain their ends, with them we can not negotiate, with them we can not comprimise, it's either us or them and the sooner everyone understands that the sooner their (terrorist) kind can be wiped out.

[Mandrill]

Armorfiend said:

People seem to think that the responsibility was on the Americans to prove they were there, this is the biggest misunderstanding of the numerous resolutions passed by the UN, the responsiblity lay with Saddam to prove that he had gotten rid of them and this he failed to do.

Excuse me? Didn't America start the war because Iraq had those weapons, according to America, and because they wanted to find them? That was Bush's excuse, he was going to find those weapons, that was what made Iraq so dangerous and that's why Bush wanted to attack Iraq. So yes, it was the responsibility of America to find prove of those weapons.

[EUtopia]

Armorfiend said:

Look, the War in Iraq was not simply to "Find the WMD", it was about removing the threat of WMD and a crazy ass leader who may use them.

To go to war to remove the threat of WMD goes hand in hand with proving there was a threat in the first place.
Going to war to change a sovergn countries system of government, simply because you disagree with it, is most definately not a legal war.

Thanks to many UN countries, who were aiding and abeting Saddam in my opinion, we gave him all the time in the world to do whatever he wanted with the WMD, he could have buried them, sent them or away or even made them into gift baskets by the time troops were actually on the ground in Iraq.

According to a high ranking governemtn official (mabye cheney), he said, in the same interview, when asked "Why can't you find WMD?" he repied, "because we gave him so much time to hide them". "Why didn't he use WMD" he replied "because we were so fast he didn't have time to use them". Doesn't sound like they have a clue what's going on.

People seem to think that the responsibility was on the Americans to prove they were there, this is the biggest misunderstanding of the numerous resolutions passed by the UN, the responsiblity lay with Saddam to prove that he had gotten rid of them and this he failed to do.

ou cannot prove you destroted something you don't have, so this put Saddam in a no-win situation. And you can't use the UN to justify the war when the UN has called the war "totally illegal".

Is the world a safer place, I believe so, it showed other regimes that if flip a birdie everytime the UN tells you do to something, eventually action will be taken

Wonder who'll take action against the US suppoted flaunters of UN law and the US themselves.

They were saying on the T.V. the other day that they had evidence that the weapons had been moved to Syria a few weeks before the war started.

Since Syria hates Iraq and has been in a cold war with them for a decade or two. I doubt they would help Saddam out.

[fozx]

Surporting what EU-topia said "because we were so fast he didn't have time to use them". They also said that Iraq could luanch any WMDs within 15 minutes of the command! Unless American forces can mobilize an army that quickly, I'd say their lying

[TheNorthernIsles]

let's all remember that Saddam gave orders but just because he gave orders doesn't mean that they were followed, Iraqi Generals were in fear of being prosecuted for war crimes.

[fozx]

Is defending yourself against an attack a war crime now? Or is using a WMD in war the war crime, cause America is guilty of that.

[Thorn]

Is the world safer?

No for one reason.

Iraq has no become an unstable nation in an already unstable region. This allows fringe elements to enter the counrty due to lack of policing forces. This means local police that know the local communities with local contacts. Without this kind of force and number of groups of people can enter Iraq to create cells of insergents.

This instability creates an environment that allows easy recruiting for any number of political organisations.

The impact on the world comes in the form of unstable oil prices. This alone makes the rmoval of Sadam dangerous for the world due to economic reasons.

Cheers
WM

[Armorfiend1]

Right as we seem to be going very much round in circles I have actually bothered to do some research for you, now I wish for you all to take into account the fact that we know that Iraq had WMD in 1988, when they used them on the Kurds, it is also an almost indisputable fact that they had them in 1991 after the gulf war, as such these resolutions were written up, I encourage everyone to read them careful as they are quite strongly worded.


**An excerpt of UN Resolution 687**
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:
(I) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (I) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above; (iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

And UN Resolution 707

1. Condemns Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687 <unscr-resolution-687.html> (1991) and of its undertakings to cooperate with the Special Commission and the IAEA, which constitutes a material breach of the relevant provisions of resolution 687 <unscr-resolution-687.html> which established a cease-fire and provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the region,

2. Further condemns non-compliance by the Government of Iraq with its obligations under its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as established by the resolution of the Board of Governors of 18 July, which constitutes a violation of its commitments as a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

3. Demands that Iraq
(i) provide full, final and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 <unscr-resolution-687.html> (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 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, without further delay,
(ii) allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect,
(iii) cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment relating to its nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic missile programmes, or material or equipment relating to its other nuclear activities without notification to and prior consent of the Special Commission,
(iv) make available immediately to the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams any items to which they were previously denied access,
(v) allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams to conduct both fixed wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq for all relevant purposes including inspection, surveillance, aerial surveys, transportation and logistics without interference of any kind and upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Special Commission, and to make full use of their own aircraft and such airfields in Iraq as they may determine are most appropriate for the work of the Commission,
(vi) halt all nuclear activities of any kind, except for use of isotopes for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes until the Security Council determines that Iraq is in full compliance with this resolution and paragraphs 12 and 13 of resolution 687 <unscr-resolution-687.html> (1991), and the IAEA determines that Iraq is in full compliance with its safeguards agreement with that Agency,
(vii) ensure the complete implementation of the privileges, immunities and facilities of the representatives of the Special Commission and the IAEA in accordance with its previous undertakings and their complete safety and freedom of movement,
(viii) immediately provide or facilitate the provision of any transportation, medical or logistical support requested by the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams,
(ix) respond fully, completely and promptly to any questions or requests from the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams,
4. Determines that Iraq retains no ownership interest in items to be destroyed, removed or rendered harmless pursuant to paragraph 12 of resolution 687 <unscr-resolution-687.html> (1991),
5. Requires that the Government of Iraq forthwith comply fully and without delay with all its international obligations, including those set out in the present resolution, in resolution 687 <unscr-resolution-687.html> (1991), in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA. "**

Now, we know that Iraq at one point did have WMD (they used them, so they must of had them), we also we know that Iraq did not comply in full with these resolutions as they did not comply fully with the Weapons Inspectors and did not produce the evidence of their (WMD) destruction.

Hence, they were in violation of resolution 687 and 707, which calls upon 661 for action to be taken, now, the US and UK governments wanted another resolution because it would increase the popularity of the war effort but in my opinion, this was not necessary

Oh and a side note, Resolution 687 goes on to say

**H 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;**

We also know that he was in violation of this part of the resolution as the Fayedeen have proven.

[grmsr]

Not only the world is a better place, but also Iraq is as well. There are significant problems and challeneges facing us ahead, but nothing worthwhile comes without sacrifice.

[Alfonia]

I believe that the world is much better, and safer, at least for the USA and Israel (and a bunch of other nations)... Imagine if that mad bastard got his hands on nuclear weapons!

[Chelodia]

The American population are not as intelligent as they think their media report what they are told.

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

Chelodia, can you elaborate?

[Chelodia]

Now I know my comments would have caused offense and I do apologies for that. I have spent a lot of time among various American Families and I have found that especially the Families I stayed with but also to a degree just the random people I interacted with all had woefully knowledge toward the current state of affair outside America. I also found the Fox network to be verging on Republican propaganda at times. With every family I stayed at they all failed to know where my country was - no it is not part of Europe. and when I offered to show them on an atlas they all offered me an American road directory.

[Enigmatic]

Wait, wait, people don't know where New Zealand is and don't own a world atlas? I find that amazing. New Zealand is that small little island right below Australia, right? =)

[Anime Daisuki]

Well you can't blame them, because American media is very inward looking (for lack of a better word).

If you flip open any newspaper, even relatively "good" ones like the NY Times, international news is extremely limited. Especially in the last 3 years all that's "international" is middle east and Iraq. There is little to no news from Europe, Asia and the other continents.

TV is worse. All they show is american politics and the Iraq war. With the news media like that, its little wonder Americans know very little of the world at large.

[Chelodia]

Well done. It is not really that they don't own a world atlas or know where New Zealand is, these are symtoms of a larger problem. The fact that they bring me back an American road atlas when I offer to show them where my country is. (it actually consists of two islands and it is to the south east of Australia)

Now I have nothing against American's in general I have alot of American family that I love and I have made many friends while there, but the media needs a fix up. Maybe start watching BBC that has good international news or SBS.

Also not content at having a limitd amount of international news, the international news seems to be tainted and with a few details being changed or manipulated, so the American international news seems different from the rest of the country.

[Enigmatic]

I was actually speaking of Tasmania in my post. It was a joke, maybe a bad one. I like to learn, I like different places, and I want to travel so maybe I'm a little different than most Americans when it comes to geography. It could be that the media is the way it is because the majority don't care about whats going on. Of course if that's the case then the chance of it changing is slim as the whole thing would just feed itself. I must confess I don't watch the news much. I try to, but I usually end up arguing with the television. I get most from the internet off the internet from varied sources. Oh and NPR, that's pretty good. I was just listening to that today. Burj Dubai and the Bulgarians released from Libya are the stories that spring to mind. Oh and the Democratic debate in Charleston, though I didn't catch all that. And using ice to cool a building, what building was that...Oh well.

[repaxan]

No, it is not.

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

For anyone not to know where New Zealand is located is embarrassing.

[The Candy Lane]

I sympathize with u Chelodia,
A Canadian company did a broadcast in the US telling people that 67% of Canadian children didnt know what the capital of there State was. Sadly the only person who caught on was probly in the 6th grade.

[Chelodia]

Now I am not trying to make a big deal about the New Zealand part of my argument and I believe things are getting better. There are of course some people in New Zealand who pay no attention to worldly affairs. I have spent my life so far have living in both New Zealand and Australia, and traveling to Bangkok, Greece, USA, London and a few other places so I suppose I am more traveled than the average 17 year old so I suppose that I why I take a bigger interest in what is happening globally.

New Zealand's location is not important, but for some American's to confuse NZ's location with that of Great Britain is a bit shocking.

Australia are actually trying to make New Zealand another state of Australia and as you can imaging that is going down really well........not!

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

Chelodia, what do you think of Flight of the Conchords?

[Chelodia]

well I think that they are Formerly New Zealand's fourth most popular folk-parody duo. I like them. Sadly only listened to a little of thier stuff. but yeah, I still like them, especially their songs that are aimed for robots in the year 2000. Do you like them?

[Govindia (Denivogar)]

Yes the world is a better place. It's rumoured that Moamma Qaddafi eventually revealed to the US and UK about his weapons programmes and stuff because he feared that what happened in Iraq might happen to him.

[Chelodia]

It is also rumored that Elvis and Big foot live on this crazy party island in the middle of the pacific. But I can give you some facts. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an 'Axis of Evil.' Two of these countries, were, and are, actively developing nuclear weapons. President Bush attacked the third.

And I have another fact for you.

President Bush has proposed a record defense budget of $439 billion for fiscal year 2007. This budget does not include funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (another $252 billion, which are dealt with through supplemental appropriations bills. By the end of September 2006, the military cost of the Iraq war will have been $182 billion, with a projected future annual cost of $80-100 billion a year.

[Noyzistan]

@ Chelodia and others with a world atlas at hand. Check out the video of Miss Teen South Carolina. *grin*
''...some people out there, in our nation (ie. the US), don't have maps.'' Muwahahahaha.