So with all sincerety, I must again thank the US for caring.

Brotherska, thank you for your posts expressing gratitude for US military assistance. As a US Navy veteran I can say that it feels good to be appreciated.

And welcome to BookTalk.org.

The United States believed Saddam had WMD's because Saddam purposely misled us into believing he had them. It wasn't in Saddam's best interest to reveal the lack of WMD's as his position in the middle east depended on an impression of strength and power. Saddam never believed the US would actually use military force against Iraq and he gambled wrong.

Hi Everyone:
I know that the Iraq war is a contentious issue; however, let us not rewrite history. This is my understanding from the UN documents.

1. The United Nations’ Security Council unanimously passed resolution no. 1441, requiring Iraq to provide documentary evidence of its banned chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic weapons programmes, including the locations of such weapons.

2. In order to determine compliance with the resolution, the United Nations (UN) had directed weapons inspectors comprising the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the evidence provided by Iraq. The inspectors were then to confirm whether Iraq’s banned weapons had been destroyed or rendered harmless.

3. It is very difficult to find weapons if they are well hidden in a country the size of Iraq, which is approximately 1000 times larger in area than Barbados. The UN resolution does not require the UN inspectors to search for weapons, but simply to verify that the information provided by Iraq is complete and accurate.

4. Both the inspectors and Iraq agreed that there were approximately 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for, as well as quantities of the biological agent Anthrax and the nerve agent VX.

5. Iraq asserted that they unilaterally destroyed their remaining chemical and biological agents by pouring them into the ground. However, there was no evidence to confirm whether all or any of the agents were actually destroyed. The inspectors had required that Iraq provide convincing evidence to support their assertion. This evidence can come from documentation, or testimony from those involved in the production and destruction of the chemical and biological agents. Iraq did not provide the UN inspectors with this evidence. That is the essential issue.

6. For 12 years, the inspectors had reported that Iraq had failed to co-operate with them. However, after a mass military build-up outside of Iraq’s border, and the unwavering determination by the US and Britain to disarm Iraq by force if necessary, the UN inspectors reported that Iraq finally appeared to be co-operating. Iraq identified the sites where their remaining weapons were supposedly destroyed, and proposed than an analytical method be used to determine the original quantity from the residues. The inspectors were concerned that such analytical methods are open to misinterpretation and requested the required documents or testimonies. The inspectors also attributed Iraq’s co-operation to the resolute and visible threat of forcible disarmament.

7. The UN inspectors did not receive the necessary evidence to showing that the chemical and biological agents were destroyed and reported such to the UN Security Council.

8. The UN resolution 1441 was intended to give Iraq one final opportunity to destroy their banned weapons peacefully. The responsibilities for complying with this resolution rested entirely with Iraq.

Thanks for detailing the chronological facts.

Frank said:

I am a fighter, I was trained by my government and countless hours of my own time, however am reluctant to engage in combat when not necessary… My reasoning is because it is addictive… it is enjoyable… competitive… the rush is unmatched.

What an honest statement. All too rare. Thank you Frank.

But being addicted to violence is not a 'reason' is it?

Thousands and thousands of people (my children and my friends) in Britain marched to London in protest against our joining the war in Iraq. Mr. Blaire went to war anyway.

It will take some time for us in this country to begin to regain our confidence in our so-called 'democracy'.

I am not a pacifist.....I believe that the last world war was a just war.

But The Falklands War was a shame on us and I don't know what our troops are still doing in Afghanistan......just getting shot at it seems.

And that is the point....when young men and women join the military, they agree to obey orders.....to fight and kill for just or unjust reasons and simpy do as they are told.

Their's is not to reason why, their's is but to do or die.

I can accept that we need to have an army, and arms as deterrents. Soldiers can't hold a ballot about whether they attack. But it can never be right to put your own judgement on hold and just do as your told.

And from what I have read about those in command....they are not 'always' honourable and trustworthy....not 'usually' even.

I don't know what the answer is......but I do know that I would never want my sons to be in the military.

If they want to fight....then set up an arena and let them fight.....but don't let them believe there is any honour attached.

Surely we have enough descriptions of the bitter experience of War, from the Poets - like Elliot's - The Hollow Men......what a good description.

Oh, dear...

Perhaps what we need is to convince Sarkozy to write instead of me.

I think I wrote about the two world wars several times in my posts, and made the difference between those days and the next wars. If I didn't mention it, of course I'm grateful for the help. I grew up with those news reels of GIs liberating towns, giving kids chewing gums. To me they were the liberators, they could do no wrong.
It's sometimes difficult to keep those pictures in my head together with what happened later.

It was very generous of the US, Australia and New Zealand to sort us out of the mess we had created by blowing Europe to parts for the Nth time. The abysmal stupididity of especially the first world war was such that that I would understand it if other nations had left us to our fate.

I don't know the the details about why the Allies fought in Europe but I can imagine saving us from ourselves was not the only reason. Perhaps by that time it had become part of the US' national interest to do something before the planet blew up -- that would be World War II.

As for the US-bashing in my posts, I'll think about it. Perhaps I don't need to write everything I think if the result is to annoy my readers.

However, i'll take the chance to write that this is cultural-- the love-hate relationship the French have for the US.
Also we are a country that criticizes everything all the time, so criticizing the US is not an exclusivity. 8 years of Bush certainly made the habit worse.
When I was in the States we (the French) kept getting into trouble for this. We got this feeling that criticizing was "not done", and we were surprised that we hardly heard any (of the government for example). This was unsettling for us, as if people could not imagine not being pleased with what they had . So two very opposite ways of seeing life.


To limit the US- bashing, perhaps i'll keep to what has been my main activity at Booktalk for the last six months or so: welcoming newbies.
Very easy for self-censorship, and restful for all concerned.

As for the US-bashing in my posts, I'll think about it. Perhaps I don't need to write everything I think if the result is to annoy my readers.

I'm probably the only one annoyed so don't change your writing for me.

However, i'll take the chance to write that this is cultural-- the love-hate relationship the French have for the US.

What do you mean?

Also we are a country that criticizes everything all the time, so criticizing the US is not an exclusivity. 8 years of Bush certainly made the habit worse.

When I was in the States we (the French) kept getting into trouble for this. We got this feeling that criticizing was "not done", and we were surprised that we hardly heard any (of the government for example). This was unsettling for us, as if people could not imagine not being pleased with what they had . So two very opposite ways of seeing life.

Where did you spend your time in the United States? I hear criticism of the US and the US government almost non-stop so I'm perplexed as to where you spent your time while here in the United States, because I have yet to visit the place that doesn't criticize that which they have.

To limit the US- bashing, perhaps i'll keep to what has been my main activity at Booktalk for the last six months or so: welcoming newbies. Very easy for self-censorship, and restful for all concerned.

Nobody wants you to be censored here on BookTalk.org. Speak your mind freely. I just wish you didn't have such a negative view of my country because I don't think the US deserves such continuous criticism.

Chris:

Speak your mind freely. I just wish you didn't have such a negative view of my country because I don't think the US deserves such continuous criticism.

Being British, I have an appreciation of what the US have done for us, helped us monetarily after the second world war. And as far as I can glean from my reading....out of goodness, and altruism. Shock!!

Apart from the fact that I don't believe in lumping 'people' into one big 'nationality', I also think that Americans are really Europeans, because, let's face it, this is where most you came from.

We can dislike your administration, but then, most of the time, we dislike our own.

But the US is the World Power - like the Romans were once. And furthermore, they didn't deal with us so badly either.

But as the World Power....you are bound to get some heckling....

We like the people.....the people are just as great (or as horrible) as the rest of us. But, as a World Power, you can be seen as 'Uncle Sam' or 'The Big Fist'.

You have been 'Uncle Sam' for many years. In recent years, it seems that you have become more of a fist....There is a lot of propaganda around and manipulation of peoples' perception of your power.

Which is why, I am hoping to read Noam Chomsky's book - Manufacturing Consent, with the help of Interbane, so that I might be more aware of this manipulation......which, I feel, has to be worth considering at least.

Quote:
However, i'll take the chance to write that this is cultural-- the love-hate relationship the French have for the US.


What do you mean?

There is an attraction for the US, especially on the part of the young, even a fascination, and at the same time we think they 're crazy, they do everyhting wrong [...censored].
For the first time since I can remember Obama is making unaninimity. French people admire him and do not hesitate to say so.

I spent a year in California in 1990. Perhaps things have changed. I had French colleagues in many different states, and none of us heard a word of criticism for a year!. Or perhaps they criticized when the foreigners weren't listening. But they did look very convincingly pleased with everything in their lives.
What we did hear was things like "Poor Russians, they're not free!"
And that would leave the Europeans non-plussed, because for us the Americans didn't behave like free people either.

Chris OConnor wrote:The United States believed Saddam had WMD's because Saddam purposely misled us into believing he had them. It wasn't in Saddam's best interest to reveal the lack of WMD's as his position in the middle east depended on an impression of strength and power. Saddam never believed the US would actually use military force against Iraq and he gambled wrong.

I do agree with you that Saddam pushed the boundaries (entering no fly-zones and interfering with weapons inspections) since Desert Storm. I would also agree with you that legally we probably did have the right to enforce the cease fire agreement. I would never say anything in defense of that regime. That saber rattling was more of a show for the Iranians. We didn't invade Iraq for those reasons. Still on alert from the 9/11 attacks the public was told Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S. We know now from the intelligence that Iraq was not a threat, immediate or otherwise. Now we can say that Saddam was a terror to his people and no one will argue on that point. The world is better off without people like that in power. But something just doesn't seem right about waging preemptive war and then making the justifications after the fact, especially when the original reasons didn't pan out. Please don't think because I am criticizing a policy I am unappreciative of the service our soldiers are doing. My opinions on the war are motivated primarily by compassion for the grieving families and the suffering of the wounded and to a lesser degree by my opinion of Bush. Most people who are for the withdraw from Iraq want to honor their service by bringing them home.