Panel: Agencies "Dead Wrong" on Iraq WMD

[Seven of Nine]

OK... my personal opinion is that the war was a complete shambles, and now we're just trying to make the best of a bad job. If it had been planned properly, then not only do I feel there would have been less caualties, but there possibly would have been less resentment by the world against the coalition. The reasons given to Britain were proven to be incorrect, and the government here is refusing to prove that the war was legal (therefore they're opening themselves up to being accused it was illegal). I also feel that Saddam was less of a threat than many other dictators, and I also feel that Iraq cannot be considered free until the troops have left. Was going to war a good idea? Well, depends on how you look at it. The Iraqi's are now in worse poverty than they were before the war, and the statistics are horrible. Iraq is being run by mainly US companies, who are only out to make as much money as they can. However, Saddam has been ousted. I'm pretty sure there would have been a better way of doing it, but presidents are only in for 4 years (and prime ministers for 5... General Election coming up!).

Is it about oil? Possibly. The oil is being looked after by the US. It is becoming more and more obvious there is going to be an oil shortage soon, probably within a few years. Having control of Iraq's oil (or at least being in a favoured position to get it) will suit the US very much, since they consume 1/4 of the world's oil, and even with Alaska they cannot produce enough oil for themselves.

Was it about getting rid of Saddam? Not according to Tony Blair. He specifically stated he was not going in for Regime change. Therefore Blair lied the the British people. I am aware that Bush didn't make that promise, therefore the people of the US were not lied to in the same way, but I think somehow that the US would have been slightly more reluctant to go into Iraq without Britain (because our support made it seem less unilateral). That's not to say they wouldn't have gone in, just that it would have been harder to convince the world that it was a good idea.

Was the war illegal? It certainly appears so. A large army going into a less powerful country is an invasion. Don't try and make out that Saddam was powerful- he's nothing compared to the US. As for the weapons of mass destruction- who's the US to say who can have them? Until they get rid of their own they can't say anything about other countries. Also, it has yet to be proved that since ordered to destroy them Saddam actually had any real weapons of mass destruction. Why doesn't the US invade North Korea? They're the biggest threat, by most measures. They do have weapons of mass destruction.

OK, I've now finished my ramble. If you want to dissect it and point out everything I've got wrong- fine. My medication is on standby

[Jeremy]

[madlilnerd]

[Republican_Man]

^No Fly Zone for HIM. The agreement was that our planes could fly there, etc, but his couldn't. However, he fired at our troops--ATTACKED America. THAT in and of itself is enough of a reason for war.

And you know what? We ARE helping the world in spreading freedom and democracy. Bush's foreign policy is turning out to be one of the BEST foreign policy successes EVER. You can't just look at how things are "bad." You have to look at what predictions people made, like unsuccessful elections, civil war, and Sunnis with no say, and say, "Hey, good really IS coming from this foreign policy."

[Jeremy]

It wasn't just American planes that were shot at, it was NATO planes that were patroling the zone, not just American ones. Also before the US was created the British had most of the control of the US. Then the settlers there decided not to be run from thousands of miles away and rebeled. They attacked soldiers there, killed people, destroyed buildings etc. But this was fighting the big power at the time, and would have been considered as awful by the British at home. Yet it is now considered right. So was it? ((I'm not drawing direct comparisons with Iraq to early America, as there is a big number of differences, just it could be viewed as a similar case))

You also have to lok at the rest of the world saying Bush and his leadership is built on power, taking over and is thus the biggest threat to world peace. I'm not saying I believe this, just that a HUGE amount of people do. They can't just be ignored.

[Republican_Man]

Actually, you are incorrect. There were AMERICAN planes patrolling the zone, too. They were fired at. That's a fact

[Jeremy]

[Republican_Man]

Sorry, I only read the NATO part, as I was rushing and skimming through. Okay, yeah, that's true, but keep in mind the US planes.