"Ha Amerika nem ment volna Iraq-ba, Iraq ment volna Amerikába értsd: további komoly terrorakciókat csináltak volna...Persze így is lesznek, de Iraq (mint állam) már nem tudja őket (mostanában) támogatni."
Namost, nem akarom sárba tiporni a mondanivalódat, de muszáj "megtudnod" az igazságot.
Honnan veszed azt, hogy Iraq és a terrorizmus között kapcsolat van? Megmondom, a főmajom bushjuniortól ered eredetileg. Ő terjesztette el hogy Iraq-Al-qaeda kapcsolatban állnak, méghozzá a tömegpusztító fegyverekre hivatkozva. Miután Duelfer publikálta, hogy soha nem is volt tömegpusztító fegyvere Husseinnek, ez az érv is megdőlt.
Akkor az angol:
"Today was the day that the long-awaited and much heralded Duelfer report was released. The US Chief Weapons Inspector's report is what we've been told to wait for, before making a judgement on the Iraq war. Now it has arrived, and what's the result ?
I'd like to take people back to early-2003. War with Iraq was mandated on two basic premises. Firstly, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in contravention of UN Security Council Resolutions, and; Secondly, that Iraq had links with Al-Qaeda and was therefore a valid target in the recently initiated 'war against terrorism'. Subsequently, other justifications for the war were provided, including references to democratisation of the middle-East.
The absence of links between Hussein and Al-Qaeda have been demonstrated quite conclusively. While a brutal dictatorship, there is no evidence that Hussein governed Iraq with ideals of an Islamic State. It would be fair to say that Hussein governed for Hussein's supremacy, and not for Allah's. On a more basic level, Hussein ruled to ensure complicity through violence and intimidation, because he could not guarantee popular support on religious grounds. The Bush Administration cannot sustain an argument that there is a link between Hussein and the Al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. If anything the evidence suggests that Hussein was despised by such organisations for his brutal methods, and lack of religious conviction. I find no justification for launching a global conflict in this reasoning.
We come to the topic of the most recent weapons inspection report, and that is the Duelfer report, released today. The report is alleged to find that there were no weapons in Iraq at the time the US forces arrived in Iraq. But the report apparently goes further, and states that there had been no weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. It is hard to envisage how this report could aid any suggestion that the war was necessary to disarm Hussein, because he was already disarmed. The report is from very similar US government sources to those who presented evidence of the 'smoking gun' to the international community in late-2002, early-2003. Again, I see no support for the position adopted in 2003, and mandating an invasion force.
With both of these substantive reasons dissmissed, it seems to indicate that the initiation of a war with Iraq was not based on fact, but on some other motive. I wouldn't presume to know, or to guess that motive, but I will simply add that it is concerning that the facts do not stack up in favour of the position adopted by the Bush Administration.
I am sure some will find support for the Bush Administration's position on Iraq within the report. Particular attention has been drawn to the capacity and intention of Iraq to resume its WMD ambitions, once the United Nations sanctions and the United Nations pressure had disappeared. This part of the report has been cited by several commentators to support their stance that Hussein was a dictator that had to be brought down - because no-one else would do anything about it. The democratisation argument has been well argued on this forum, usually as a salve to any thread in which the substantive reasons for the conflict are challenged. Without re-gurgitating a large portion of my position, and re-constituting that particular discussion, I feel that a nation's sovereignty should remain paramount. But I would ask that people leave this argument alone, and accept that we disagree fundamentally on the point.
Curiously the same people who argue for democratisation of the middle-East condemn the UN as an ineffective, waste of time and resources, often suggest that the UN is an attempt for other nations to damage the US. If the United Nations is so ineffectual, why was it able to halt Iraqi weapons programs, and how can it be so ineffective if Iraq were waiting for pressure to cease before re-commencing weapons production ? The report concludes that since the UN resolutions on WMDs, Iraq had complied. Further, it suggests that if these sanctions were removed that weapons production would recommence. Clearly, the UN had halted Iraqi weapons programs, and as long as international pressure continued, Iraq would have been forced by international pressure to remain compliant.
I then pose some simple questions, that require a complex, multi-faced response:
Considering the Duelfer Report, and the Kay Report, and the Blix Reports, and the Butler Reports, was the invasion of Iraq justified on the basis of suspected WMDs ?
and;
What impact do you think the Bush Administration's position, that is to wait for the Duelfer Report when it refused to let UN weapons inspectors complete their report (by commencing air-strikes before it was completed, and forcing them out of the country for safety reasons), will have on the international community ?"
Ezt egy nemzetközi jogban járatos jogász ismerősöm írta egy külfőldi fórumon, csak azok kedvéért másoltam be akik nem "hiszik" el a rövidített érvelésemet...
100szónak is 1 a vége: soha nem is volt semmi tömegpusztító fegyver és Alkaida kapcsolata Husseinnek...
#29
angol szoveg is lesz!