The US gov't certainly should have known how this worked, but actively chose to believe information which was not verifiable and most likely was questionable given the sources providing the information. The lie came in a very, very shaky link between Al-Queda and Saddam.

It sounds like you are the victim of a misinformation campaign yourself. We didn't go to war over any connection to 9/11. Saddam was perceived as only a regional threat, one that could be contained with sanctions and a no-fly zone. Before 9/11, terror attacks against the US were limited to far away places like Africa, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. 9/11 showed that our enemies were willing and capable of attacking on American soil and in a VERY BIG way. In addition, leading up to the war there was a big push by countries benefiting from payoffs (France, Russia, maybe Germany) to end the sanctions on Iraq. Ignoring even the potential threat posed by Saddam and his pursuit of WMDs would have been a MUCH bigger mistake than going to war.

The US got approval from the congress critters to use "force" based on the lies told namely:

1. Saddam has or is developing WMD

2. Saddam has ties with Al Quida

Both have never been proved. War with Iraq was never formally declared.

Therefore we can call this US Iraq issue an illegal intervention and occupation based on lies.

Iraq was a socialized welfare country ruled by a dictator wearing a tie supported previously by the greatest nation on Earth.

I'm not surprised that you would call the USSR " the greatest nation on Earth".

AlexLah: Oh, but Saddam DID have WMD. He used them on Kurds--Halabja for example and the Anfal campaign. Oh, and the Iraqi regime DID have contact with Al-Queda.

The sanctions and the no-fly zones, with UN peace keepers and the US military present, kept Saddam on a pretty tight leash. The chances of him being able to continue with development of WMD was quite remote. His days and nights were spent trying to stay in power and prevent assassination. As he stated before he was executed, he was much more concerned about Iran than the US.

He deliberately led countries to believe that he was up to a lot more than he really was.

After Saddam's troop re-invaded the Kurdish-held area in the North of Iraq, the US government took out around 10,000 Kurds who had worked for the EU and US Humanitarian Aid programs. The very first group to be taken out were local CIA operatives (I don't know the number, but there were a substantial number of them). They were taken to Guam, where a significant number of the CIA operatives remained (what has happened to them I don't know). They were barred from entrance into the US because many had been a part of the Iraqi regime and had been involved in the genocide against the Kurds and other Crimes Against Humanity. These were some of the main informants on the gov't. They were turncoats and their information was, at best, suspect. Without backup it should not have been given much weight. It was. Do you remember the aluminum tubes that the Iraqi's were trying to import? They could be used for some sort of missile that Britain said could reach Cyprus.

How you can make the leap from the WMD and the Al Queda link to "Therefore we can call this US Iraq issue an illegal intervention and occupation based on lies" is totally beyond me.

With regard to Somalia, the oil companies hoping for something and actually getting it are quite different. They may have large deposits of oil; they may not. The Tooth Fairy may also live there.

Look Credo, unless you come up with some kind of evidence that they indeed found WMD or any proof that Saddam did have connections with AQ, both reasons given to congress to invade a sovereign country your reply is just opinion.

The weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq are the thousands of tons of depleted uranium used.

The WMD did exist, it's not an opinion. The question about whether the invasion was justified was whether or not he was continuing to develop WMD. There is no evidence that he was.

I am not trying to justify the Second Gulf War because I don't believe it was justified. I think it was not based on lies, but on the selective use of information from questionable sources. This was done to 'sell' the war. The decision to take Saddam out was made first, then the justification was made.

He was a major pain in the backside of much of the West and he was a drain on resources. He was also a conduit for a lot of sanction-busting activity, including some governments who were involved in some lucrative deals which were basically illegal (under UN sanctions). Some countries were moving toward wanting sanctions lifted, under the guise of humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people. Their reasons were financial and business interests. The coalition was unraveling and the west was becoming divided.

The simple solution was to get rid of Saddam. The country would embrace democracy and sanctions could be lifted and everyone could feel all warm and fuzzy. A big problem would be gone; the western powers would continue to be a mutual admiration society and we could go on to tackle other problems as one united front.

The American public certainly wasn't going to buy into such advanced international intrigue. It also wasn't GW Bush's Texas style.

I won't get into the Al Queda link because it's very shaky. There was communication between Al Queda and Saddam's government. Saddam, however, was very, very unlikely to assist them. He had a strong dislike for religious extremists and his country was one of the more liberal in the area. People like Saddam are particularly evil in the eyes of Al Queda.

So no it's not an opinion.

Saddam developed and used WMDs, but had temporarily stopped his nuclear program because the UN sanctions were making it too difficult to get needed materials. These things are FACTS.

Credo, the alleged links with AQ and Sadaaaaaaam have never been shown/proven. Below from the Wiki.

In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

UG please provide proof of claim.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand........

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

October 07, 2004

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

Next!

UG please provide proof of claim.

I already have - many times.

During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.^[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,^[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked

Please see above.

Linkie here:http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-06/world/iraq.wmd.report_1_nuclear-weapons-charles-duelfer-iraq-s-wmd?_s=PM:WORLD

Saddam developed and used WMDs, but had temporarily stopped his nuclear program because the UN sanctions were making it too difficult to get needed materials. These things are FACTS.

You have not said anything that disputes my statement. Saddam developed and used WMDs and intended to develop more. After the UN destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons, the UN sanctions forced him to put all his WMD programs on hold.

With regard to AQ, your post says: The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship....

So there was contact and that is what I said. It was very shaky grounds for any intervention. AQ and Saddam were diametrically opposed in many ways. Both were anti-American, but that was it.

My reference to WMD was that he DID have them. They were used against the Kurds. Saddam did not cooperate with the UN. Thus there was a question of whether he might be trying. With sanctions in place, however, it would have been very, very difficult to get the chemicals or materials in any usable amount to re-start a program. Even if he did, what would he do with them? He would have a hard time developing a delivery system which would be of much threat to the West.

Please see above.

Linkie here:http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-06/world/iraq.wmd.report_1_nuclear-weapons-charles-duelfer-iraq-s-wmd?_s=PM:WORLD

All this is really ancient history. What would you like to see happen in Iraq now?

Credo, the "contact" could have been OBL telling Saddam to get out of Kuwait. We do not know the contents of these alleged conversations and they have never been disclosed or proved.

concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The words to look at are:

In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States.

Ergo, there was never an imminent threat.

I mentioned the privatization of Iraq earlier and perhaps that could be one of those hidden agenda reasons for the occupation?

Before the US proconsul Paul Bremer left Baghdad, he enacted 100 orders as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq.

Perhaps the most infamous was Order 39 which decreed that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised, that foreign companies

could have complete control of Iraqi banks, factories and mines, and that these companies could transfer all of their profits out of Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article554318.ece

The question is: Are these changes legal?

These laws stand in clear violation of Iraq's constitution, as is openly admitted.

The US department of commerce notes that "the Iraqi constitution prohibits foreign

ownership of immovable (real) property," and "prohibits investment in, and establishment of,

companies in Iraq by foreigners who are not resident citizens of Arab countries."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/07/iraq.comment

I mentioned that this invasion and occupation are in fact illegal not only from the lies being spread but even according to international law.

Iraq war was illegal, top lawyer will tell Chilcot inquiry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/iraq-chilcot-inquiry-michael-wood

The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II.

It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense,

but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force

by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[56][57]

A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.

” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

Why are the minutes of the meeting discussing the legality of the invasion and occupation not released?

The minutes of the cabinet meetings where the legality of the Iraq war was discussed was subjected to a Freedom of Information request in 2007. The request was refused.

What is in there that have to be hided?

Please ask yourself why these minutes of the meetings are not made public?

What is in there that needs to be to hided?

And Mark, I do not think it is relevant to this topic to ask me what I think must be done there or should have been done.

Alex, I think you have out-argued me or exhausted me. I don't and didn't think the war was justified, so we are down to splitting hairs.

Bush & Co. took their eye off the ball (or maybe never had their eye on the ball). It was/is Al Queda that was the enemy. Saddam was a royal pain with little concrete evidence of his ability to cause harm.

I've argued the war with many of my Iraqi friends. Most were very much in favor of the war and disappointed that I wasn't. Was Saddam bad? Yes. Is the country better off? Doubtful. AQ wasn't there, but they are now.

The Kurdish area of Northern Iraq benefited from the War and they moved was conflict between the two main Kurdish factions to relative peace. Jalal Talabani of the PUK became President of Iraq. The economy of the North prospered. The rest of the country deteriorated.

The small Jewish community were the first to come under fire and most left the country. Now, the Christians, who got along well with the Muslim majority are now under fire and leaving the country.

Thanks. It's been an interesting discussion.

There is no oil or economic or stragegic advantage in Somalia.

Nope. I'm talking about this one. Yet another retreat from one more claim with absolutely no facts to back it up.

Not a retreat...unlike you, I am happy to change my stance when new information comes to light. It makes sense, unlike those that doggedly stick to their guns even when shown to be wrong.

No ploblem Credo,

I agree that it was most likely a good thing to oust Saddam. They couldn't get the locals strong enough to topple him so they send in the army as the last option. Surely they had to find a few "believable" reasons and at that time they did that successfully.

We can only hope that in the end something good will come out of it.

There is no oil or economic or stragegic advantage in Somalia.

Nope. I'm talking about this one. Yet another retreat from one more claim with absolutely no facts to back it up.

Not a retreat...unlike you, I am happy to change my stance when new information comes to light. It makes sense, unlike those that doggedly stick to their guns even when shown to be wrong.

That is interesting considering the fact that you did not admit that I was correct. In fact, you tried to spin the correct information into another yet attack on the US .

Ahhhh...so THAT'S why they were there.

Saddam developed and used WMDs, but had temporarily stopped his nuclear program because the UN sanctions were making it too difficult to get needed materials. These things are FACTS.

You have not said anything that disputes my statement. Saddam developed and used WMDs and intended to develop more. After the UN destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons, the UN sanctions forced him to put all his WMD programs on hold.

So you know for a fact Saddam's intentions?

During the McCarthy years, that would have been an admission of very close ties with "the enemy".

If you want to give opinions, then don't portray them as facts.

So you know for a fact Saddam's intentions?

"Saddam clearly stated that it would be his goal to reconstitute his WMD, especially his nuclear, to reassert Iraq's place in the region"

George Piro (The FBI Agent who interviewed Saddam Hussein after he was captured)

http://content.usato...01P7ehha7PbL3/2

Hearsay, not allowed in court.

If you have some other (read better) link that would be very much appreciated.

Hearsay, not allowed in court.

An official interview with a federal law enforcement officer certainly IS allowed in court. Cut the Perry Mason routine.

Probably the groups with the most information pertaining to the subject matter would be the various Israeli intelligence branches. There have been some interesting books written about their involvement through out most the world, for those who have a real interest.

If it was all so clear UG why don't they just release the transcripts of those interviews? I have tried to find something credible but so far not really successful.

I did say hearsay as it seems that it is a quote from T. Bliar from his memoir?

It was the second week in June when Piro came to me, beaming. He related a thoughtful discussion on WMD by Saddam. Saddam clearly stated that it would be his goal to reconstitute his WMD, especially his nuclear, to reassert Iraq's place in the region

09/14/2010 06:25 AM BBC News

'I may have been right'

09/14/2010 06:25 AM BBC News

14 September 2010 Last updated at 02:25 ET Hopes and intentions' Saddam interviews 'What is necessary' In his memoir Tony Blair argues that Saddam remained a threat because he intended to.

What would a recommended book be on those issues Slap?

Just a quick search and apparently it was Mr. Piro suggesting this.

However, the report of the Piro-Saddam interview, released under freedom of information laws, is not quite so clear.

The report unfortunately is not a verbatim account. It simply quotes Mr Piro as suggesting to Saddam that, if sanctions had been lifted, and Iran remained a threat, then "it would appear that Iraq would have needed to reconstitute its own weapons programme in response".

The reports goes on: "Hussein replied that Iraq would have done what was necessary and agreed that Iraq's technical and scientific abilities exceeded others in the region."

Have a read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11285071

And adding to this discussion, this is the actual transcript from the interview which is filed under : Casual conversation.

You can find it here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/24.pdf

UG, I really hope you read those transcripts and the other evidence I provided into consideration and review your position on this matter.

Why would I review my position? Do you actually think that he did not plan to revive these programs or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

There is lots of other information out there that suggests very strongly that he had no intention of abandoning his plan - some of which I have already posted numerous times - but since he admitted it, why argue about something that is so obvious anyway?

What plan?

From the interview it seems that he worried about Iran and did not like how Isgrahel was influencing the US.

If you have any additional reliable information (no USA today please) that would be highly appreciated.

The US removed Iran's two biggest enemies from power(Saddam and the Taliban) in the last decade.

Makes you wonder who was pulling the US's strings?

The only winner here has been Iran.

What plan?

His Chemical and Nuclear weapons program.

Nerve Gas: Sarin and Tabun

Iraq moved up to producing the nerve gases sarin (GB) and tabun (GA) in 1984. These gases are highly toxic compounds that can penetrate the body either through contact with skin or eyes, or by inhalation. Just a few droplets will kill within minutes if inhaled or within hours if absorbed through the skin. The initial effects depend on the amount of contact with the agent and are almost immediate. Chemical nerve agents tend to have little or no incubation or latent period in the body. These agents act by attacking the central nervous system, causing rapid paralysis, respiratory failure and death by asphyxiation.

http://www.iraqwatch...es/chemical.htm