The Chilcott Inquiry

No, it's not. It's a rebuke to those who believe that the threat isn't imminent. The very next sentence to the one you highlight argues that the there is in fact an imminent threat of a strike.

Your lying might be more creative than Dayton's but lying it remains.

Yep, Bush is clearly saying the threat is already imminent. That's why it's always best to simply disregard a gturner post.

Similarly, one of Blair's cabinet ministers was caught arguing in one sentence that Saddam had WMDs ready to deploy at a moment's notice and that's why we needed to attack, and in the very next sentence when questioned on why he didn't use them against the Coalition forces, said that the attack caught him so off-guard he didn't have time to deploy them.

Only? That's a silly statement. He wasn't really a threat to us, but he was to the region - and that wasn't just because of prior American support.

I'm not attempting to legitimise the whole farce, but there is a tendency for the rabid left to lose sight of who and what Saddam was.

Anyone care to hear the reasons I give my students for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?

No.

Most especially, his students never cared to hear it.

The reasons in no particular order are:

1) Iraq's violation of the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement
2) Iraq's continued opposition to U.S. interests in the region.
3) Iraq's support of terrorism (but NOT the Sept. 11th attacks).
4) Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (note that this turned out to be inaccurate).
5) Saddam Hussein's severe oppression and abuse of his own citizens.

Learn to read for understanding.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.​

He's saying the threat is not imminent and that we should not wait until it is because then we'll get caught flat footed again.

Boring lies are boring.

The position of the US administration was very clearly that there was an imminent threat, as evidenced by the many, many times that they said so.

At the time of his long overdue hanging, no person in the world was responsible for more deaths than Saddam Hussein.

Had he lived he would've been responsible for many, many more undoubtedly.

His overthrow and death was justified. Morally and in every other respect.

Why did you consider it your job to justify the Iraq war to your former students? Since when is it the role of a teacher to impart political opinion?

Former students?

That was part of my history classes.

I give the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq the same as I give the reasons for World War One or Two. Or the U.S. Civil War.
c

You are no longer teaching.

Really? Doesn't sound to me like a history class. Sounds more like you attempting to formulate a list of justification. A history class would reflect the fact that it was a controversial decision. A history class would also recite the opposition to the war from many people and many countries as well as the citing reasons in favour of the conflict. A competent history teacher would provide both to a student to encourage them to explore all aspects and make of their own minds. That's how I was taught history, and that was a quarter of a century ago.

Your "reasons" are highly dubious given the scale of the opposite to the Iraq War and the ever increasing criticism of it in the years since. It's not remotely the same as the major world wars. You're basically teaching your children propaganda that you yourself have been encouraged to treated as indisputable justification.

Opposition to the invasion in the U.S. was minimal at the time. It was hardly controversial in the United States at that time. The invasion of Iraq had more support in a Democratic controlled Congress than Desert Storm in 1991 did. And it is American History class I was talking about.

And why do you bother saying "you are no longer teaching" El Chup?

All my 10 years of teaching has been since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. So naturally it comes up

And "make up their own minds" El Chup?

I once had a student insist the moon landings were faked. Should I present both sides of that and allow the class to "make up their own minds"?

What about the Holocaust? What about slavery?

Higher order thinking doesn't mean giving credence to non facts.

Yes, but only because Ronald Reagan beat him to the grave by two years.

Rubbish.

Here is a comprehensive view of the polling data. Public opinion in January 2003 was 53%-42% in favour.
Then following the hysterical and dishonest propaganda campaign, at the time that the war was launched in March, pro-war opinion peaked at 76% in favour but negative views increased again immediately and within a couple of years a majority was opposed and a majority felt that they had been deliberately misled.

And of course, immediately prior to the war the largest mass protests in human history occurred.

Representing this as minimal opposition is lying. Stop lying.

Opposition "at the time". It was a world event. Not just an American event, and there was a lot of controversy over it, especially here in Britain.

You asked why I used the term Former students". You are jobless. Therefore you are not currently teaching students. Is that factually wrong?

If you don't think there is any hint of controversy and conflicting opinion over Iraq then you're in denial. When I was a history student we were just given the events and factors involved and encouraged to weigh up the arguments for historical events from all perspectives.

Oh please, you're comparing a ridiculous conspiracy theory to substantial dissent and an event that has become increasingly criticised over the years. Tell me, when you teach the facts do you teach that Iraq has become less stable since the war? That the war created the power vacuum that helped groups like ISIS to grab hold of power? That we had little in terms of reconstruction plan and exit strategy? I bet you don't do you? But these are all now accepted fact.

I'm not even going to waste my time on this nonsense.

All pretext, but none of it rises to casus belli.

Dayton just cannot stop lying.

Incorrect. Number 1 is absolutely sufficient. The terms of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War were violated, meaning hostilities would resume.

Wow.

That ceasefire agreement was in relation to a conflict between Kuwait and Iraq, the latter of whom had been an invading force. In no way did it legitimise a full scale regime change in Iraq and it's only a creative application of some of the concluding wording that can even begin to make a argument to the contrary....and even then said text merely refers to doing what is necessary to preserve peace and security in the region. Something that the Iraq invasion not only entirely failed to accomplish, but was one for which we had no clear reconstruction policy or exit strategy - which demonstrates that the notion that the Iraq invasions was about restoring peace and security is highly dubious.

The ceasefire conditions were set by the UN Security Council. It was not up to the US to unilaterally declare Iraq in violation or to choose how to enforce the conditions.

You negged me above for suggesting that some on the left ignore the facts. Well you're doing it here now. The US didn't unilaterally declare Iraq in violation. The UN Security Council did. Indeed, resolution 1441 reinforced this. The debate was only whether or not a failure to comply with 1441 authorised military force and the US didn't care about waiting to see. This was part of the reason Blair begged for another resoltion, but Bush (or rather Rumsfeld and Cheney) gave him the finger.

I negged you for referring to some entity you titled "the rabid left".

It is the argument of @Lanzman, or appears to be, that the US had a right to declare Iraq in violation of the ceasefire and to act to enforce it as they chose. That's not my argument.

Nope, it's exactly as I said, a pretext. It's why you won't ever find a post where I argued the war was illegal. But in itself, that does not justify the decision to engage in a war of aggression.

Which is of no interest at all in American History class.

That said El Chup I think you are somewhat ignorant of some aspects of World War Two history due to your British background.

In the U.S. until the attack on Pearl Harbor largely settled the issue, the debate about the U.S. supporting the British and other allies in World War Two was VERY controversial.

How much?

In 1941 during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck, President Roosevelt who had won three presidential elections by landslides was planning to order U.S. Navy submarines to attack the Bismarck if it approached American waters.

FDR was actually worried though that he might be IMPEACHED for such an action! Entering the war was so controversial in the U.S. at that time that arguably the most popular president in American history worried he might be thrown out of office (by his own party no less) if he sunk a German battleship.

Contrary to how we look at it backwards through rose colored glasses, World War Two was far, far, far from all goodness and light. In the U.S. they had thousands who dodged the draft, and IIRC a staggeringly huge number of courtmartials of American soldiers during the war both in absolute and percentage terms.

Take it from the guy who repeatedly gets fired from his job as a history "professor" you guys.

Ii did amuse me how he totally latched onto WWII to totally avoid the questions put to him on the thread topic...