Paul.L (#120633, 8Aug08),

You have selectively made use of facts which support your own predetermined position whilst ignoring facts which I have put to you which don't sit comfortably with that position.

If the invasion was supposedly because of the events which occurred up to December 2002, then what do you suppose was the point of having UN weapons inspectors go into Iraq after that date?

In the opinion of the UN General Assembly, the UN security council and the weapons inspectors themselves, the purpose of the inspections process was to prevent the necessity of an invasion. As I have shown, in the opinion of the inspectors themselves, the Iraqi Government was cooperating sufficiently as to allow them to complete the task.

However, George Bush, together with Tony Blair and John Howard took it upon themselves to ignore the opinions of the inspectors as well as the UN and world opinion. Clearly they intended to invade all along, regardless of the outcome of the inspections.

You have supplied a quote from Scott Ritter in 1999 in which he was critical of the Iraqi Government. So why have you disregarded what he subsequently said in 2002, PRIOR TO THE INVASION?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Commentary_on_Iraq.27s_lack_of_WMDs
There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)[7]

For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Commentary_on_Iraq.27s_lack_of_WMDs
Pitt, William R. War On Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know 2002, Context Books, New York. ISBN 1-893956-38-5
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh: Iraq Confidential Edited transcript of an October 19 public conversation at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter

Blah, Blah, Blah . . . .

Regardless of their lack of academic qualifications, every hayseed who just fell off a turnip truck, along with his second cousin, thinks of themselves as "experts" on history and political science . . . after reading a few books from authors whose rants simply reinforce the pre-existing biases of their readers.

Pathetic.

So, I guess I can declare myself an "expert" on rocket science because I read "Popular Mechanics" magazine?

How many of Noam Chomsky's unctuous sycophants ever bother to check the veracity of all of HIS alleged sources and "documentation"?

Anyone who believes that Chomsky is "balanced" and "objective" has been living in Disneyland too long.

It is always fascinating to me that the whiny, tofu-eating, nit-picking "idealists" and "peaceniks", who would mess their pants if they ever found themselves in a war zone, nevertheless demand that ONLY the troops of the western democratic allies must be absolutely meticulous about abiding by the "rules of war" . . . regardless of what barbarities our troops themselves are subjected to. However, NO such demands for stringent adherence to the dictates of "international law" are made of those who openly declare that democratic government is "evil" because it violates "God's Law", who cut off the heads of hostages with a dull knife while those hostages are still breathing, and who DELIBERATELY target unarmed women and children with hidden bombs in marketplaces.
Somehow I find it difficult to empathize with people who are more outraged by the sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib than they are by the slow DECAPITATION . . . without trial . . . of Daniel Pearl.
Yeah, I know . . . maybe it's just me, being a "corrupt decadent infidel" and all, but, I can't get over the idea that witnessing my head being ripped off . . . without even being granted the courtesy of receiving a merciful bullet first . . . is a bit more gruesome than being forced to get naked and watch a dog growl at me in front of a strange woman.

Dagget,

You say >> “You have selectively made use of facts which support your own predetermined position whilst ignoring facts which I have put to you which don't sit comfortably with that position.”

No mate. You made the preposterous claim that Saddam’s Iraq was cooperating effectively with the inspectors. I merely provided the obvious rebuttal to that statement. Iraq under Saddam spent 12 years trying to hide their programs and impede inspections. Even Hans Blix concluded that Iraq was being obstructive.

As you note in your post, Scott Ritter, who has a different opinion depending on who he’s talking to, said in 2002 “There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction..”

I think this is all the information you need. It clearly shows that Saddam had not given up on his weapons programs. Do you REALLY believe that if the war hadn’t gone ahead Saddam would have peacefully ruled his kingdom without renewing his WMD programs? Considering the support of the Russians, French and Chinese who Saddam bought off with his oil, sanctions would have been scrapped and Saddam would have been free to start again, no punishment for his mass genocide of his own people.

And how much harder would it have been to contain Saddam after he had seen off the concerted attention of the world’s only superpower? He could rightly claim victory for the Arab world and it would have given the Iranians the idea that they too could thumb their noses at the world and get away with it.

Paul.L,

I note that you have dodged answering my question:

"If the invasion was supposedly (necessary) because of the events which occurred up to December 2002, then what do you suppose was the point of having UN weapons inspectors go into Iraq after that date?" (The word 'necessary' was mistakenly omitted, but the meaning of the question should still have been clear.)

(... and this is not the only one of many you have dodged. Because I don't have all week, I will have to leave it to other readers to go through the posts and see for themselves what other facts, inconvenient to your case, you have ignored.)

Also, Paul.L, how many countries has Iraq successfully conquered in the last few decades? By my count, zero, unless you include Kuwait which was briefly occupied in 1991 and 1992.

If elimination of any potential threat is a justification for invasion, then there wouldn't be too many countries left in the world that the US would not be entitled to invade, would there?

It seems that "thumb(ing) (one's) nose at world public opinion" can be very much in the eye of the beholder.

The US never had any intention of introducing democracy. As Naomi Klein has shown, they could easily have done so in the immediate aftermath of the invasion when Iraqi public opinion was still strongly in support of secular democracy. I can only conclude that ongoing conflict in Iraq was, to Rumsfeld, Bremmer et al, preferable to allowing the Iraqis a say in running their country in 2003. Had they allowed Iraqis to run their country in 2003, the US corporations would not have been able to plunder Iraq's economy whilst impoverishing its people.

Dagget,

I took issue with something you said. So I showed you where you were wrong.

On this point at least we should be in agreement. Saddam NEVER cooperated EFFECTIVELY with the Inspectors.

As for your myriad other points I’ll deal with them methodically and in the same manner as your previous mistakes.

So,

I don’t think there was ANY point in inspectors going back into Iraq in 2002. Saddam was always going to rearm with WMD if he had been able to get a clean bill of health from the watered down inspector teams. 12 years of evasion, subterfuge and deliberate interference should have been enough to convince anyone Saddam was not the type to learn his lesson. He was a danger to everyone.

I notice you dodged most of my questions.

So I’ll ask you again? Do you REALLY believe that if the war hadn’t gone ahead Saddam would have peacefully ruled his kingdom without renewing his WMD programs?

You say >> If elimination of any potential threat is a justification for invasion, then there wouldn't be too many countries left in the world that the US would not be entitled to invade”

This is unadulterated rubbish. The UN specifically granted a dozen or more resolutions concerning Iraq including the backing for a war (the first gulf war) in which many Arab countries participated. Remember Iran attacked Kuwait and was looking mighty hard at underdefended Saudi Arabia. Iraq also attacked Iran, provided funds and training for Palestinian suicide bombers and their militant organizations and I have ZERO trouble believing that Saddam would not have made his WMD available to other parties.

Naomi Klein hasn’t SHOWN anything. Naomi Klein pontificates, she opines and she polemicizes but she SHOWS NOTHING. The conclusion that Bremmer and Rumsfeld didn’t want democracy is specious. Iraqi democracy was always going to be a nebulous concept because the Shia had the numbers to choose their own leaders. This doesn’t mean they aren’t democratic. The situation isn’t perfect but the Iraqis now have the chance to determine their own future. Messy, complicated but hopefully democratic.