President Trump 'to pull thousands of troops' from Afghanistan

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,720
Portugal
I'm not so sure it was "bollocks."

C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons

As to the reason(s) for the US invasion, there were myriad reasons, goals, agendas and objectives that were touted at any given time.

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

George W. Bush – Mission Accomplished Speech | Genius

My point is that it is never absolutely clear as to why governments get involved/start conflicts, it's murky. The same goes for Afghanistan: initially, all the US wanted was to get Osmama, right? Well, they got him in 2011, yet, here we are, eight years later and we're still there.
That Bush speech was after the invasion. Before the invasion the discourse was centred in the Atomic Weapons, later changed to Massive Destruction Weapons (to include chemical), later to something else, since there was no WMD. The Casus Belli for Iraq was one of the biggest forgeries of the last 100 years. But now, since Iraq was invaded there is no need to maintain the forgery anymore. What is curious is that it was a lie repeated so many times that many people begun to believe in it. Anyway after the mess was done, currently the West, and not just the USA and the UK, needs to find a solution for the chaos that was installed after the invasion.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
3,814
Australia
From the source:

"An insider exposes plans to destroy Israel, hide WMD's and control the Arab world."[1] Sada, the former Air Vice-Marshal under Hussein, appeared the following day on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, where he discussed his book and reported that other pilots told him that Hussein had ordered them to fly portions of the WMD stockpiles to Damascus in Syria just prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq."
Saddam thought he still had WMDs when he didn't. His underlings were lying to him about the effectiveness of the UN program and how thoroughly he had been disarmed. He ordered his pilots to move stockpiles that never existed.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,608
Sydney
The UN do not recognize NATO , or any other organization as being authorized to act under its resolutions
that's only for member states , because they have a recognized permanent existence and can be called to account
the states within NATO are considered as sovereign independent countries by the UN
should they choose to group themselves under a resolution is their problem
what NATO Member do is purely NATO business , decision have to be unanimous which restrict any adventure
 
Feb 2011
6,156
Saddam thought he still had WMDs when he didn't. His underlings were lying to him about the effectiveness of the UN program and how thoroughly he had been disarmed. He ordered his pilots to move stockpiles that never existed.
I don't know where you got that information. The most likely scenario is that the interview had an incentive to lie. Everything Saddam had was at stake, including his life. What's the point of having nuclear weapons if he wasn't going to use them for things like, a US invasion? If Saddam merely wanted to hide WMDs in Syria (his enemy's land) during a time in which the US was trying to put his head on a platter, then in what type of scenario would Saddam even choose use WMDs? What's the point of having them?
 
Likes: Futurist

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
3,814
Australia
Saddam's underlings were lying to him about the effectiveness of the disarmament regime. He thought he still had stockpiles when he didn't. It doesn't matter whether he ordered his pilots to move chemical weapons to Syria because he had none to move.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
6,156
The link is about Naji Sabri's account of how Saddam wanted WMDs but didn't have any. Wrong link?

My edit in response to your edit: I'm not trying to imply that Sada was saying his underlyings were lying to him. I'm saying that Sada wasn't a reliable source when he was being interviewed (source from Hellcat) considering his background of working for the US government starting from when the invasion of Iraq happened. Probably because if he didn't he would have stood trial along with Saddam.
 
Last edited:

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,945
here
That Bush speech was after the invasion. Before the invasion the discourse was centred in the Atomic Weapons, later changed to Massive Destruction Weapons (to include chemical), later to something else, since there was no WMD. The Casus Belli for Iraq was one of the biggest forgeries of the last 100 years. But now, since Iraq was invaded there is no need to maintain the forgery anymore. What is curious is that it was a lie repeated so many times that many people begun to believe in it. Anyway after the mess was done, currently the West, and not just the USA and the UK, needs to find a solution for the chaos that was installed after the invasion.
The above was said AFTER the invasion. Look up what was said before. They made it very clear that regime change was not a goal.
Here's a speech from BEFORE:

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Full text: Bush's speech

It's clear that regime change was at least one of the reasons (made prior to the invasion) for the invasion.

Tulius, I've already posted a link showing that there were WMDs. Now support your claim that there weren't.