General discussion

Locked

Justifications for the invasion of Iraq

By jardinier ·
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything here. I am merely posting for your consideration a number of articles which question or examine the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

11 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It gives a view on the why's

by rob mekel In reply to Justifications for the in ...

of the Iraqi war.

Special mis-representation/interpretation of info is bad for political decisions.
Not only for political decisions but for any decision; wrong, or colored (one sided), information is always bad for decision-making.

As I am not saying that all info on the decision-making are false, some are right, it is a good that Saddam is of his Iraqi throne. Hope it stays that way.

Rob

Collapse -

one quick note

by jdclyde In reply to Justifications for the in ...

I have heard repeatedly about the "selective" use of intellegence.

Isn't it the REVERSE "selective" use of intellegence that is being used? Instead of spending all the time on the intellegence that wasn't used, prove wrong the reports that were used.

Not finding weapons that were a known fact to exist just means someone still has them somewhere, but the many people of questionable integrity don't seem too worried about that. That actually makes me more nervious than ANYTHING about the whole situation, that we have no idea where these weapons are now.

But politics as usual, it is more important to jump on the feeding frenzy of political chum than to address the real problems.

A note about your source as well. "GPF receives more than half its annual funding from individuals. " so this group has to keep individuals happy to keep getting their funding to keep telling the world how to exist? Who are the individuals that are controlling the GPF?

Collapse -

Funding

by jardinier In reply to one quick note

NOWHERE have I suggested that GPF doesn't have an agenda or bias.

US presidential elections are also funded by individuals and corporations.

I would place more trust in a source that is funded voluntarily by individuals, than one that is funded by a government or corporation.

GPF does, however, address in great detail topical issues of international importance.

I find it a particularly good source for my own website, because it goes into so much detail about "The news behind the news."

Collapse -

This goes back to the last discussion

by jdclyde In reply to Funding

about crediblity.

If you put an idea on the table, and back it up with data from a place you recognise has an agenda, this taints your premise and makes it suspect.

It was easy to tell right off the bat the direction the link was going from the intentional choosing of lanuguage they used.

If you are going to preach to the choir, then an objective source is not needed as you won't need to convince anyone.

If you would like to put forward an idea that challenges what people already think, you have to provide a source that is recognised as being close to impartial and fair.

As for funding for presidential elections, you may not have heard it over there, but a hot ticket item is "campain reform" to try to limit the money they can get from any one source to keep people from buying influince, which is exactly what is happening with the GPF, buying influince.

Collapse -

Who's credibility?

by jardinier In reply to This goes back to the las ...

Firstly I DID NOT SAY that I recognised whether GPF had an agenda or not. I merely allowed for the possibility of such:

"NOWHERE have I suggested that GPF doesn't have an agenda or bias."

Secondly, where on the planet would you find a source that was impartial and fair about this very emotive issue? If there were such a source, we wouldn't still be discussing the issue.

Thirdly How on earth could a small organisation like this "buy influence" on anyone who was in a position to change the policy of any government or the UN?

Fourthly The views of persons who fully support all the actions and statements of the current US administration are obviously biased -- that is to say heavily weighted in favour of the Bush administration.

If nothing else, perhaps GPF provides a counterbalance to those views. Possibly the truth lies somewhere in between. Do you personally know what the truth is with regard to Iraq?

I am very pleased to learn that the US is at least attempting to limit presidential election funding. The view from down under is that the guy with the most money wins.

Money is not, nor ever has been a factor in choosing our Prime Minister.

[Post edited to correct typo]

Collapse -

There were two justifications - the legal and the general public

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Justifications for the in ...

1. The legal justification of the most recent Iraqi invasion is based in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Sadam invaded Kuwait and then the international treaties (signatories involved USA, UK, Australia and tohers) kicked in and a coalition was organised to deal with the situation. Just when Sadam was about to have is arse closely mowed he asked for a cease fire. Please note cease fire not surrender or peace.

A cease fire agreement was drawn up which stated that once the Iraqi govt proved certian things the declared conflict would end and a peace treaty would come into existence. The terms of that cease fire agreement included a number of things like inspections, cooperation with same, and prove the destruction of certain chemicals and materials for bio weapons that he had previously purchase and not yet used all of them up. This agreement was signed by Sadam.

Within a few months Sadam started violating the terms of the cease fire agreement. At that point any of the coalition partners who signed the agreement could have lawfully started shooting again in any manner that they wished. They chose to try sanctions and diplomatic processes. In this manner they messed around for over a decade and all they did was allow Sadam time to kill off large sections of the Iraqi population that disagreed with him and tell him that they did not really have the balls to take him down.

Eventually the USA decided to enforce the terms of the cease fire agreement.

2. The general public justification was aimed to making it easier for the people to understand and support what was happening as most people get bored with legal arguements, few really understand most.

3. Personally I believe that there were other additional factors involved in the timing of the most recent invasion, some being internal USA politics, some being external USA politics and some being economic. Regardless of why the USA finally got tired of behaving like a scared rabbit they were legally justified in the actions taken. However, the political leaders of several nations should be hounded for not taking the offensive back to Sadam sometime in those first 18 to 24 months when he started to tromp all over the terms of the cease fire agreement. By refusing to knock the bully down they are implicated in all the people he murdered in the time between then and the latest invasion (damn I can't remember which year that was - must be getting oldtimers disease).

Collapse -

Don't you even TRY

by jdclyde In reply to There were two justificat ...

to use the real facts of the case to justify this! You are suppose to be like the mindless masses and run around saying that "inspections were working"!

Collapse -

Sorry - but I was brought up to be truthful most of the time

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Don't you even TRY

and I try to do that. Also facts are easier to handle than lies as they get mixed up too easily.

I have never heard of any inspection every working for anything - even car inspections, they have to be followed with some service maintenance or repairs to be of any value.

What I do find interesting is the number of companies in different countries, and some governments, that were dealing (at great profit) with Sadam through the backdoor in violation of the sanctions etc. Ugh enough said about profiteers etc, from both sides.

Collapse -

all a distraction

by john.a.wills In reply to Justifications for the in ...

The war startted just as the Free Palestine movement was getting going in the U.S. AIPAC wanted the war so that the Free Palestine movement would be drowned out by a new discussion. If the Free Palestine movement had got a bit bigger AIPAC would no longer have been able to dictate to the US government.

Collapse -

you forgot

by jdclyde In reply to all a distraction

the smiley emoicon to show you were joking.

That or your insane and actually believed something crazy like that? Yeah, AIPAC made the US and UK go into Iraq......

Back to Community Forum
11 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums