Now officially recognised; “Iraq led to London bombings”

[HeiGou]

Considering that, at the moment, there is no such war taking place, it is hard to work out just how silly this is. Eric was not speaking of hypothetical wars, I believe.

Actually there is such a war going on - in Iraq and at the UN. There may be one in Iran soon too.

 

[Light Of Life]

Actually there is such a war going on - in Iraq and at the UN. There may be one in Iran soon too.

At the UN?

As for Iraq, the prior claims of WMD are no longer a motive for the war. As of now, the war in Iraq signifies the war against terrorism. It has also evolved to become a war for spreading the vision of democracy to the Middle East.

 

[HeiGou]

At the UN?

Well perhaps struggle is better than war.

As for Iraq, the prior claims of WMD are no longer a motive for the war. As of now, the war in Iraq signifies the war against terrorism. It has also evolved to become a war for spreading the vision of democracy to the Middle East.

Claims that Iraq had WMD are no longer part of the motives for fighting on. But the war has neatly stopped the Iraqi WMD program and guaranteed that Saddam could not restart it once sanctions were gone. I think they have given up on that vision thing, but of course that too would have restricted the spread of WMDs.

 

[Skillganon]

So while recognising the double standards that apply here, does anyone think that it is not in the entire world's best interests to restrict nuclear weapons in particular but WMDs in general to as few states as possible, preferably those that have good track records on not using them, and especially out of the hands of human rights abusers with records of mass murder? Anyone dispute that?

So in so far as any war to restrict the spread of WMDs is by definition a war to prevent the likely use of WMDs, how can such a war be unjust? If my colleague Eric here opposes American efforts to restrict WMDs, he will bear the responsibility when those weapons spread and are inevitably used. No matter how many people have died in Iraq so far, orders of magnitude more would die if Iran and Iraq squared off with nuclear weapons. It is utterly irresponsible not to support efforts to restrict such technology and the people who do oppose such efforts will bear the responsibility when it is used on civilians.

Is one cross eyed, to miss the fact that those state, that are lobbying the restriction of WMD are the very one over the History responsible for the worse atrocities, the use of those weapon on civilian and people, and the worse abuser of human right!

America effort is not to restrict WMD, but to keep in power over the world. Is one suffering from cataract?:?

Hey, and not to mention the fact the whole war on IRAQ was over a LIE, the biggest hoax pulled over the mass population of the world.

And you are speculating over Iran and Iraq! One that in the past been spurred on notably by America, your biggest hope of democracy, or is it demonizing.

Peace!

 

[Light Of Life]

Claims that Iraq had WMD are no longer part of the motives for fighting on. But the war has neatly stopped the Iraqi WMD program and guaranteed that Saddam could not restart it once sanctions were gone. I think they have given up on that vision thing, but of course that too would have restricted the spread of WMDs.

This is a genuine question and I don't mean to sound hostile. I apologise if it comes off that way, however: Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that Saddam was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction? I'm curious because the general consensus appears to be that, since nothing significant was found until now, he was not in possession of any WMD.

 

[HeiGou]

This is a genuine question and I don't mean to sound hostile. I apologise if it comes off that way, however: Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that Saddam was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction? I'm curious because the general consensus appears to be that, since nothing significant was found until now, he was not in possession of any WMD.

I didn't think you sounded hostile and I apologise if I gave that impression.

I think we are all agreed that he was not in possession of WMDs at the time of the invasion. But he had a history of building them and using them. He wanted other people to think he had them. No doubt had the sanctions been lifted he would have gone back to making them if not using them. No he can't. With a bit of luck any new government won't either but that is, I am afraid, a little too optimistic.