Howard's position on the Iraq war is, apparently, that he would have supported, and had the UK participate in, it even if he had known there were no WMD's.

I don't think even the Bush team goes this far - prefering to change the subject, or point out how many others thought there were WMD.

Is Howard's position legally defensible? Does anyone agree with it?

WMDs were used to sell the war and, apparently, the majority of our leadership believed the intelligence about them. However, I remain convinced that overthrowing a murderous tyrant was sufficient to justify our actions; I just wish the administration had made its case for this from the start.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
WMDs were used to sell the war and, apparently, the majority of our leadership believed the intelligence about them. However, I remain convinced that overthrowing a murderous tyrant was sufficient to justify our actions; I just wish the administration had made its case for this from the start.

Of course, owing to our overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are dying at a faster rate than at any time during his rule.

Among our other acheivements in Iraq: An increase in infant mortality, an increase in deformed births, an increase in the rates of disease, reductions in the availability of power, gas, clean water, and other essential services. Even with the sanctions in place, Iraq was able to export almost twice as much oil before the invasion as it is exporting now.

And in todays news, Turkey is responding to terrorists encouraged by the Bush administration's Iraq policy: Aljazeera.com

Alan Moore

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

quote:

Originally posted by AMoore:
Of course, owing to our overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are dying at a faster rate than at any time during his rule.

Are you certain of this? If I recall, we have discussed this before and Iraqi deaths are about level with the average of his reign. The average during his reign is skewed due to exterminations in the 1980s...something on the order of a million people. Unfortunately I haven't the time to rediscover our data this morning.

Perhaps we should have finished our business during Gulf I. The timing was certainly better then, insofar as Iraq is concerned. I am not convinced that the intervening time gave Hussein a free pass.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:

quote:

Originally posted by AMoore:
Of course, owing to our overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqis are dying at a faster rate than at any time during his rule.

Are you certain of this? If I recall, we have discussed this before and Iraqi deaths are about level with the average of his reign. The average during his reign is skewed due to exterminations in the 1980s...something on the order of a million people. Unfortunately I haven't the time to rediscover our data this morning.

Perhaps we should have finished our business during Gulf I. The timing was certainly better then, insofar as Iraq is concerned. I am not convinced that the intervening time gave Hussein a free pass.

I've seen the claim that we aren't doing worse, but said claim blamed on Saddam all of the fatailities of his war with Iran, all the fatalities during Gulf War I, all the fatalities of a couple of insurrections. Many of those would have occurred regardless of what flavor of government was present in Baghdad. The Kurds, for example, have also been killed in large numbers in Turkey, where they also had a separatist movement, and in Iran under the Shah, and probably since.

I'm also uncertain of what claims regarding current Iraqi death rates were being used. The Lancet study is the only large scale one I'd trust. As the our own officials said: "We don't do body counts."

Alan Moore