Thats it. Honey Bee
Finally the coalition is embrassed.
Printable View
Thats it. Honey Bee
Finally the coalition is embrassed.
The reason as it turned out that some nations came out against the war were bribes. Recently uncovered documents in Iraq’s oil ministry point to Saddam giving bribes to such counties as France, Russia, China, and even your homeland of India. Also to that official in the British parliament who was so against the war? Yep he too was bribed with millions. It is rather amusing that all those countries/individuals just happened to have been vocal pro-Saddam nations, and now we know why.Quote:
Or maybe, just maybe, now that the entire thing is over, and political and military minnows such as India couldn't do anything about it, in fact even the bigger powers like France and Germany couldn't do anything about it, perhaps it's just better to forget it all, try to fight for the sub-contracts in the rebuilding and at most try to not re-elect Bush and Blair, isn't it? There you have it. What's the point debating it all when it's all done? Right? I wish somebody said that to you after 9/11.
X
I don’t think they lied. They were likely misled by faulty intelligence. For years the US and other countries had relied on “people intelligence”, meaning they had their own people on the ground and could confirm intelligence information better. Somewhere in the late 70’s this changed to a policy of buying intelligence from other sources and spy satellites, which are harder to confirm. I guess you get what you pay for.Quote:
In short, did Bush and Blair lie to their respective people in preparing the case for war?
Actually since the UN agreed that Iraq was still in material breech of a UN cease-fire I would say no. While the UN wanted to putz around with 12 more years of inspections the US/UK and other nations decided that 12 years of doing nothing was enough and actually upheld UN Resolutions.Quote:
Did they not commit a breach of the UN by taking unilateral action of invading a country?
Such as ending the reign of a brutal dictator? Ohh wait that’s a good thing.Quote:
Shouldn't they be charged with war crimes?
I don’t think so. I actually think they were upholding it when that very institution lacked the fortitude to back their own Resolutions.Quote:
Didn't the US and the UK breach the very institution they claimed to be upholding?
X
X his arguments go a bit like this : <insert neocon spin doctor yadda yadda flavoured with sideswipes at other countries here>
And all that without bothering to open his posts. Isn't predictability great ?
WMD's were only one of the reasons we went (back) to war with Iraq. Do you understand the concept of a cease-fire agreement. The war in Iraq never ended, an agreement between the UN and Iraq was met that stated among other things.
1) He had to dismantle all illegal weapons.
2) He had to stop his pursuit of WMD's
3) He had to allow UN weapons inspectors back in and give them unprecedented access to all his weapons facilities.
4) He had to allow Red Cross food aid into the country to be delivered to his people.
The UN agreed that these resolutions will be met or there will be serious consequences.
The terms of the cease-fire were never met. Saddam never did the things he agreed to do. Therefore the cease-fire agreement was nullified by Saddam and hostilities resumed.
It wasn't about oil or occupying another country. It was about removing a madman from power, who not only killed his own people, but killed his own family, just to stay in power.
So Honeybee, if you are saying the war on Iraq was wrong, then maybe you would have been happier if Saddam had stayed in power and just kept killing innocent people??
Apparently, that is what you are saying. For all your US and UK bashing. You're missing the point that if we hadn't gone to war, Saddam and his regime would still be in power murdering people and possibly planning an invasion on another country, and possibly trying to get his hand on nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
What do you think would have happened had we not gone to war??? You think Saddam would have stepped down???
You think the Iraqis would have revolted and overthrown the government???
Put your criticism for the US and UK aside for one minute, and think about what the future might be like had we not gone to war and Saddam was still in power.
Did or did not Saddam commit the most notorious crimes against humanity? I just want a Yes/No answerQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Did Bush and Blair have enough evidence and enough justification to invade Iraq? Did Iraq have WMDs? Did it have the readiness to launch any offensive against the US and the UK in "45 minutes"?
In short, did Bush and Blair lie to their respective people in preparing the case for war? Did they not commit a breach of the UN by taking unilateral action of invading a country? Shouldn't they be charged with war crimes? Didn't the US and the UK breach the very institution they claimed to be upholding?
.
Whether our government cheated us is for us to decide and not you.
Last time I checked the UN wasn't the governing body of the United States.
The only people saying Bush knew there were no WMD but invaded anyway are the electoral democrats and supporters who want them elected.
And if you want to compare Saddam to Hitler...
Yes they both are murders, thats a fact, also what is a fact is...
Hitler secretly reassembled the German army from the end of WWI in 1918 to the invasion of Poland in 1939 in total secretly.
So if Germany could secretly build an Army in 20 years that had the potential to take over the world without WMD, what do you think Saddam could do today with WMD?
Saddam's impact on the world could be far deadlier with todays technology of destruction.
If Bush doesn't get re-elected because there were no WMD found then so be it, a president has to do what a president has to do. I bet Lincoln wouldn't have got reelected either but he did what was right not what to would get him reelected.
Sometimes the right choice isn't the popular choice.
How ironic since Bush won the electorial vote but didn't win the popular vote.
Oops, your governments even tried to "cheat" the entire UN into believing that Iraq was dangerous, and when they didn't succeed, they proceeded on a "preemptive" and "unilateral" invasion.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Did or did not Saddam commit the most notorious crimes against humanity? I just want a Yes/No answer
Whether our government cheated us is for us to decide and not you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3054991.stm
About B & B being misled by wrong intelligence, didn't Blair expect a full apology from the BBC over the same matter?
Leave it, I don't have any desire to continue debating, because as someone rightly said, what we discuss here has not the slightest bearing of what happens in the respective governments. I only can take solace in the fact that I don't go out proclaiming that my government's wrong ways are the saviours of the world.
.
lol, I asked you a simple question, is or is not Saddam as brutal as Hitler?
I just want an answer to that question from you. Are you scared to answer it?
You keep on trying to dilute my simple question with your B & B crap.
1) By definition, Unilateral means "done or undertaken by one person or party". Now seeing as there were 3 countries providing combat troops in Iraq and about 40 more providing additional support (medical, intelligence, Chemical cleanup, etc...). I don't believe that qualifies as a "UNILATERAL" invasion.
2) Whether or not WMD's will be found doesn't really matter at this point. Yes, it was one of the reasons for removing Saddam and his regime, but it was by no means the only reason.
Your wrong, anyone reading this could get an insight on the truth and change their vote and perspective on America by reading the facts.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Leave it, I don't have any desire to continue debating, because as someone rightly said, what we discuss here has not the slightest bearing of what happens in the respective governments. I only can take solace in the fact that I don't go out proclaiming that my government's wrong ways are the saviours of the world.
.
I told you it's no use posting here, because you only want to keep talking about how bad Saddam was and how good the world is without him, yet you don't want to take the same argument to Bush and Blair, who have been exposed to have lied about and misused the so called intelligence about Iraq's WMDs. When Hanx Blix told of the same thing, that Iraq didn't have any stockpiles of WMDs ready to be launched in 45 minutes, he was ridiculed as being incompetent. What happened with David Kay? He was one of your own men. But you won't answer these questions because it would then expose the whole Iraq war to have been guided by other motives than self-defence, because there never was any actual threat. These two leaders simply hyped up the fact that Iraq had kicked the UN inspectors out and built up on that to create an atmosphere where many people actually believed there was a threat from Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
lol, I asked you a simple question, is or is not Saddam as brutal as Hitler?
I just want an answer to that question from you. Are you scared to answer it?
You keep on trying to dilute my simple question with your B & B crap.
Just calling Saddam bad won't get rid of these questions. That is why it's pointless to argue about Saddam's virtues and vices, because we need to be sure those who removed him were acting in good faith and with solid intelligence. When you talk about invading a country, you can't just go with uncorroborated evidence, even if it's compiled by the CIA or the MI6.
Talking of putting your army into the backyard of most Muslim nations who are going the militancy way, I am sure we can review the US foreign policy and find out occasions where the US has deliberatey sacrificed other countries' interests to achieve its own. I am sorry to say that your nation has landed in a situation where it has to isolate itself from the world, and rely on its military presence in other countries to feel assured that it might be safe.
.
Here's one more disturbing piece for news. I wonder why nobody, absolutely nobody who was and is in support of the Iraq war ever talks about the grave discrepancies now cropping up in the US and the UK about the way decision to go to war was made.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3460517.stm
Mr. Hoon goes as far as to say that he knew the 45 minutes claim was wrongly published in the media (simply because Blair didn't put the right things out to them), but didn't correct them. Surprise? Surprise??
I can't understand why Mr. Blair couldn't just seek an explanation about the "45 minutes" claim from the intelligence chiefs before he gave his speeches to the Houses to prepare for the Iraq war. Or are the standards of British intelligence so high that the PM doesn't need to even ask for explanations of any specific terms and words? Or is the PM such an irresponsible idiot that he simply can't think of getting clarified what the whole thing was, before he put the entire nation to war?
Read down the page and you will find that Robin Cook has expressed almost the same concern. At no point of time before the war, Mr. Blair felt the need to expand upon the "45 minutes" claim made in the dossier? Or maybe they all decided to just insert it into the dossier, use it for the propaganda, and when no WMDs would turn up, they could always say it didn't mean WMDs but mortars and other battlefield weapons.
At the bottom you find this:
The great spin-politician doesn't even talk about whether the concerns of Dr. Jones were right or wrong. Nope, sir, not a word. When Blair knew of Dr. Jones' concerns, which were actually the concerns of the DIS (a unified view) why these concerns were not made public? Because they didn't suit the policy on war.Quote:
But Dr Brian Jones, a retired senior official in the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS), told the Independent newspaper the DIS' "unified view" was for there to be careful caveats about assessments of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons.
But they had been overruled by the heads of the intelligence agencies.
Mr Blair said Dr Jones' concerns had been considered by the head of defence intelligence, who decided the dossier's wording was correct.
There are only two possible explanations. Either the PM is such a big fool he can't decide anything on his own, and swallows whatever you might feed him, without asking questions.
Or that the PM decided what he was going to swallow and ordered his staff to give him just what he wanted, not what was.
.
You are always juggling my questionQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I told you it's no use posting here, because you only want to keep talking about how bad Saddam was and how good the world is without him, yet you don't want to take the same argument to Bush and Blair, who have been exposed to have lied about and misused the so called intelligence about Iraq's WMDs. When Hanx Blix told of the same thing, that Iraq didn't have any stockpiles of WMDs ready to be launched in 45 minutes, he was ridiculed as being incompetent. What happened with David Kay? He was one of your own men. But you won't answer these questions because it would then expose the whole Iraq war to have been guided by other motives than self-defence, because there never was any actual threat. These two leaders simply hyped up the fact that Iraq had kicked the UN inspectors out and built up on that to create an atmosphere where many people actually believed there was a threat from Iraq.
Just calling Saddam bad won't get rid of these questions. That is why it's pointless to argue about Saddam's virtues and vices, because we need to be sure those who removed him were acting in good faith and with solid intelligence. When you talk about invading a country, you can't just go with uncorroborated evidence, even if it's compiled by the CIA or the MI6.
Talking of putting your army into the backyard of most Muslim nations who are going the militancy way, I am sure we can review the US foreign policy and find out occasions where the US has deliberatey sacrificed other countries' interests to achieve its own. I am sorry to say that your nation has landed in a situation where it has to isolate itself from the world, and rely on its military presence in other countries to feel assured that it might be safe.
.
You answer my question and I'll answer your questions
Has or has not saddam committed the most notorious crimes against humanity?
HB read the whole disclosure of David Kay and what was found in Iraq before making up your mind. As always you are cherry picking your information to what fits nice and neatly into your opinion and avoiding whatever doesnt agree with it. David Kay's complete speech can be found at :
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html
XQuote:
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
Saddam did possess weapons, he has used these weapons and there is consistent evidence that a WMD program existed after the gulf war (intelligence agencies across the world believed this)
There are also numerous finds that were no declared to the UN and shows Iraq's clear intent to develop these weapons
Everything is in black and white. The only thing you are holding up against the US is the ISG's failure to find weapons yet. I'm sure some stock piles will eventually be found
And to top that, mass graves are being dug up every week in Iraq. Have you ever though about the people that were buried alive or had their hands cut by this regime? Have you ever thought about their families? Have you ever thought that all these years they have been waiting for justice? Do you have any humanity within yourself? Or are you blinded by your hatred towards the US?
Yes, innocent civilians were killed by US bombs. I admit that. But this just had to be done. How many more mass graves would pop up if Saddam was left in power? And I'm pretty sure they would have a nuke within 3 or 4 years. Yes and I do admit their is instability in Iraq. But this is just temporary
Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Just calling Saddam bad won't get rid of these questions. That is why it's pointless to argue about Saddam's virtues and vices, because we need to be sure those who removed him were acting in good faith and with solid intelligence. When you talk about invading a country, you can't just go with uncorroborated evidence, even if it's compiled by the CIA or the MI6.
If I recall before the war it was constantly on the news about how Saddam used Bio Weapons against civilians of IRAQ, IRAN and how he offered money to the families of suicide bombers and other horrible acts.
Yes the message of WMD was brought up before the war but so was the message that he was a murderer. I guess since he murdered with bio weapons (WMD), it wasn't about the people that he killed but about the Weapons he used to kill them with. Did you get my sarcasm? If not, reread it with a sarcastic attitude. It will sound much better. Thats like getting rid of Fords because they kill people when the person driving them is drunk.
You don't have to have WMD to murder thousands of people and I got feeling that point wasn't made clearly enough.
Also it was told "Bush knew they didn't have WMD and he had it in for IRAQ from day 1." Then after it was announced that he received information from the CIA that there were WMD, its now "Bush should have had more evidence before he started a War"
I don't know about you but if CIA said they do based on reports from Citizens and Scientists of IRAQ and with their past history of WMD, I think I would believe them but not make that my only reason and it wasn't Bush's only reason for the war. It was stated many times he was a murderer.
Imagine if they did have WMD and we did nothing, it would probably be okay because Saddam isn't the type of character to sell them to any terrorist groups or anything. If you didn't get the sarcasm this time, don't worry about rereading it. Just post your unsupported pathetic reply.
Wether the coalition was right or wrong, at least they acted upon their convictions, while all countries that share your opinion of the corruption of the coaltions motives in invading Iraq, still sat back and did nothing.
You Referance india as a small minnow in terms of power, and cite the UN as haveing tried to stop the coalition. I Submit to you that the UN is all talk, strutting and fretting around the stage of World Politics, but when Push comes to shove, they are full of sound and fury only.
Even a `little minnow` such as India, combined with France and Germany, could have at least actually backed up their opinions with a show of force. Imagine what would have happened, say, if They started mobilizeing their troops to the Iraq Border, while vowing to defend Iraqs innocents from the Ravages that the coalition were bound to inflict. I'm certain this would have altered the coalitions actions immensely.
But, as long as Countries like yours give up your individual power, and let a panel of jabberwokers like the UN determine your policy, then you will stay a minnow, ready to be swollowed by any shark that happens to swim by.
Oh, by the way, 1 more thing.
Since All who Objected to the invasion did absolutely diddly squat in protecting Iraq, then the Death of the Innocents, their blood, is just as much on the hands of those who stood by and did nothing as on the hands of the actual invaders.
:wave:
There is something called autonomy, thats the base of the western thoughtQuote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
You are always juggling my question
You answer my question and I'll answer your questions
Has or has not saddam committed the most notorious crimes against humanity?
And the US has done nasty crimes too, they sold the chemical weapons to Saddam and they trained Bin Laden.
OrdinaryGuy, did you get your question answered, and do you care who answers it? If you can answer no to both of those, I'd like to answer it.
Saddam was nowhere near as bad as Hitler.
Whenever we try to demonize some dictator, be it Saddam, or Bush, we liken them to Hitler. Interesting isn't it? Our measuring stick is Hitler. The measure will never be Saddam, and for very good reasons. Hitler's acts were unusual in their ruthlessness, and he was unusual in his reach. He said "kill these groups", and they were killed by the millions. He said "conquer these countries", and many countries were conquered.
In contrast, Saddam attacked Iran and got his ass kicked. He attacked Kuwait (ooh, tough guy), and got his ass kicked. He tried to build a reactor, and Israel bombed it out of existence. He killed thousands, but probably not millions, and it was largely in a clumsy "they are in my way" fashion, rather than a pre-meditated persecution.
In short, Saddam was bad, but comparing him to Hitler is an exercise in pure hyperbole.
Yeah ah I think OrdinaryGuy is just trying to get the point across that Saddam was as brutal as Hitler not who was a better murder or conquerer and I don't really think it matters.
You don't judge a mans sadistic nature by how many people they murder, its judged on your actions against humanity.
It don't matter if he murdered 10 inocent people, a 1,000 or 5,044,000 for example. He was a brutal and sadistic dictator and a threat to humanity, and that threat was put in his place and justice will be served.
Well lets get a few facts straight.Quote:
Originally posted by Xcoder
There is something called autonomy, thats the base of the western thought
And the US has done nasty crimes too, they sold the chemical weapons to Saddam and they trained Bin Laden.
1st off we gave weapons to IRAQ to fight IRAN for a good cause.
2nd we have strong policies against bio weapons and thats why we don't have them ourselves. *** would we give them to IRAQ?
3nd we didn't train Bin Laden... We trained and helped Afganistan fight the Russians.
What it sounds like your saying is that we gave weapons to IRAQ so they could kill the kurds and attack isreal and Kuwait and we also trained Bil Laden so he could then start his own training camps and train people to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of americans. Are you serious?
So you mean you'd prefer to be burried alive rather than gassed?Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
OrdinaryGuy, did you get your question answered, and do you care who answers it? If you can answer no to both of those, I'd like to answer it.
Saddam was nowhere near as bad as Hitler.
Whenever we try to demonize some dictator, be it Saddam, or Bush, we liken them to Hitler. Interesting isn't it? Our measuring stick is Hitler. The measure will never be Saddam, and for very good reasons. Hitler's acts were unusual in their ruthlessness, and he was unusual in his reach. He said "kill these groups", and they were killed by the millions. He said "conquer these countries", and many countries were conquered.
In contrast, Saddam attacked Iran and got his ass kicked. He attacked Kuwait (ooh, tough guy), and got his ass kicked. He tried to build a reactor, and Israel bombed it out of existence. He killed thousands, but probably not millions, and it was largely in a clumsy "they are in my way" fashion, rather than a pre-meditated persecution.
In short, Saddam was bad, but comparing him to Hitler is an exercise in pure hyperbole.
I was reading how Saddam's son Uday use to torture atheletes if they didn't perform well in international events.
My point is that his regime committed acts that were no less brutal that hitler's. I personally feel sick when I read about his crimes against his people.
are you mad? *** are you talking about the 'GOOD CAUSE', Im now worried of the kind of answers Im getting here...Quote:
Originally posted by OberCanober
Well lets get a few facts straight.
1st off we gave weapons to IRAQ to fight IRAN for a good cause.
2nd we have strong policies against bio weapons and thats why we don't have them ourselves. *** would we give them to IRAQ?
3nd we didn't train Bin Laden... We trained and helped Afganistan fight the Russians.
What it sounds like your saying is that we gave weapons to IRAQ so they could kill the kurds and attack isreal and Kuwait and we also trained Bil Laden so he could then start his own training camps and train people to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of americans. Are you serious?
Regarding the second point, in the 80's the US was in fact supporting Saddam's regime. US provided the chemical weapons to fight Iran, which Saddam used against, not to forget he also used them against the shiites.
'US trained and helped Afghanistan', of course! this is just another thing that blows in US face, now this training is used against US, I know Bin Laden is saudi, but he was part of the resistance against the Russians.
Bullsheit! You need to do some research. The US did not give Saddam Chemical weapons to fight anyone dumarse. Know what you are talking about before you start spewing garbage. Chemical weapons are very easy to make. Saddam didn't need any help from the US. The only thing he needed was a delivery system for his chemicals. If you think SCUD rockets are made in the USA you are an idiot. (BTW he used Mustard Gas on the Kurds and Shiites) Mustard Gas has been around for almost 100 years and is very simple for any Chemist worth his weight to make.Quote:
Originally posted by Xcoder
Regarding the second point, in the 80's the US was in fact supporting Saddam's regime. US provided the chemical weapons to fight Iran, which Saddam used against, not to forget he also used them against the shiites.
Again, know *** you are talking about before you open you mouth. Bin Laden was still in Saudi Arabia and didn't have the balls to tangle with the Soviets when they were invading Afghanastan. The only thing Bin Laden did was send some of his daddys money to Afghanastan. Wow, mabe the next time Russia decides to invade someone, the US shouldn't teach them how to defend themselvs. Training the freedom fighters in Afghanastan didn't cause us any greif. They can be trained all they want and they can tell that to the next cruise missle that falls on their well trained arses. Besides, The remenants of the US trained Afghan freedom fighters are not the problem. AlQaeda is.Quote:
'US trained and helped Afghanistan', of course! this is just another thing that blows in US face, now this training is used against US, I know Bin Laden is saudi, but he was part of the resistance against the Russians. [/B]
Well for your information the Geneva Protocal of 1925 condemned the use of Chemical Weapons. The United States ratified this protocol in 1974. The United States didn't become involved in the IRAN-IRAW war until 1987. The IRAQ-IRAN war started off as a dispute over a waterway initiated by a first strike from IRAQ. After the first strike IRAN retaliated and said they will never stop until IRAQ is toppled. Durring the war both IRAQ and IRAN were killing each other citizens in attacks thats why we got involved.Quote:
Originally posted by Xcoder
are you mad? *** are you talking about the 'GOOD CAUSE', Im now worried of the kind of answers Im getting here...
Regarding the second point, in the 80's the US was in fact supporting Saddam's regime. US provided the chemical weapons to fight Iran, which Saddam used against, not to forget he also used them against the shiites.
'US trained and helped Afghanistan', of course! this is just another thing that blows in US face, now this training is used against US, I know Bin Laden is saudi, but he was part of the resistance against the Russians.
As for the Afghannistan war we supported the mujahidin who lead the resistance against Russia. Al Qaeda even at that time was a known terrorist organization. Bin Laden was in Pakistan durring the AfganWar helping finance and train soldiers to fight in the war for the mujahidin. So yes he was part of the resistance but he didn't become opposed to the US until the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
So before you speak on issues you know nothing about, you might want to get your facts straight.
We assisted Iraq to some extent, and turned a blind eye on their use of chemical weapons. We are currently ignoring other ruthless dictators that we find helpful.
I read about some of the stuff Saddam's sons did. I have also read extensively about the Russo-German war. It always amazes me that people like that exist, but they do. In fact, they are out there now, all over the world. The real difference with Iraq is neither the scope, nor the severity of the atrocities committed by Saddam. The difference is that we are hearing about them. Of course people are appalled, who wouldn't be....ok, maybe Saddam wouldn't be, but among decent folks. We are told about his atrocities because Bush wanted his war. We are not told about others, like Uzbekistan, because Bush currently needs them. He can count on us to be outraged at outrageous acts, but I would argue that he is cynically manipulating that to back his desired actions.
On the other hand, I doubt this country can long afford even the wars we have, let alone go after the dictators we currently ignore. Afghanistan is returning to the state it was in before the war. The training camps are coming back, the Taliban is becoming stronger, and our influence is waning. We shouldn't have gotten into Iraq until we had won in Afghanistan.
And where did you obtain this information?Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Afghanistan is returning to the state it was in before the war. The training camps are coming back, the Taliban is becoming stronger, and our influence is waning. We shouldn't have gotten into Iraq until we had won in Afghanistan.
The reason we take action now is because we finally have a president with balls to take down a tyrant instead of a president who was just getting laid by his overwhieght secratary :DQuote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
How many people did Saddam kill in those 12 years? Yet the US, and UK (and indeed most of the other states of the world) stood back a wrote more bits of paper. It's a bit rich to rely on those bits of paper, now; and definately a lot ironic. Even to state that 'We went in to make the world a safer place, so we're right' Well you didn't make it safer for the thousands of Iraqis who died in those 12 years did you? I have say that you speak very clearly for someone sitting down . . .
I didn’t know the US was the only country in the world. This should read the UN turned a blind eye much the same way they did in Rwanda as they sat on their hands and watched 500,000 people die.Quote:
We assisted Iraq to some extent, and turned a blind eye on their use of chemical weapons. We are currently ignoring other ruthless dictators that we find helpful.
You should read more about history maybe you will learn something from it, there is evil in the world and you can be like a Winston Churchill and want to confront it or like Neville Chamberlain and use appeasement and containment and hope it all goes away.Quote:
I read about some of the stuff Saddam's sons did. I have also read extensively about the Russo-German war. It always amazes me that people like that exist, but they do. In fact, they are out there now, all over the world. The real difference with Iraq is neither the scope, nor the severity of the atrocities committed by Saddam. The difference is that we are hearing about them. Of course people are appalled, who wouldn't be....ok, maybe Saddam wouldn't be, but among decent folks. We are told about his atrocities because Bush wanted his war. We are not told about others, like Uzbekistan, because Bush currently needs them. He can count on us to be outraged at outrageous acts, but I would argue that he is cynically manipulating that to back his desired actions.
And what were Bush’s desired actions? You seem to know a great deal of the Presidents motivation in going to war. Why not share what you think. I sure hope you have something better than wanting to control the oil or finish what his father started.
I don’t know how many other dictators out there in the world currently have 17+ UN Resolutions passed against them and were in violation of a cease-fire maybe you can provide a list? I don’t know where you are getting your information about Afghanistan either. Also I cannot believe someone can be so naive as to think change in Afghanistan, a country that was essentially in ruins, could be changed in a short amount of time without any problems.Quote:
On the other hand, I doubt this country can long afford even the wars we have, let alone go after the dictators we currently ignore. Afghanistan is returning to the state it was in before the war. The training camps are coming back, the Taliban is becoming stronger, and our influence is waning. We shouldn't have gotten into Iraq until we had won in Afghanistan.
X
Sharron for a start.Quote:
I don’t know how many other dictators out there in the world currently have 17+ UN Resolutions passed against them
Discombobulating again Xanith? What a surprise :(
And here I thought Israel was a democracy. I didn’t realize it had changed to a dictatorship. And what cease-fire are they in violation of? The whole quote was " I don’t know how many other dictators out there in the world currently have 17+ UN Resolutions passed against them and were in violation of a cease-fire "Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Sharron for a start.
Discombobulating again Xanith? What a surprise :(
Maybe saying it 2 times will allow you to fully understand my question. Sounds as if you are the one who is "discombobulated".
X
So let's get this right then:
In order to go to war you must
(i) have a significant number of UN resolutions against you
(ii) you must be arbitrarily determined to be a dictator as ascertained by Xanith of VBForums.com; that being determined being a function of your political status, not your actions on the international stage
?
So let's get this right then:
In order to go to war you must
(i) have a significant number of UN resolutions against you
(ii) you must be arbitrarily determined to be a dictator as ascertained by Xanith of VBForums.com; that being determined being a function of your political status, not your actions on the international stage
?
( I thought I'd say it twice so you don't get too confused with what we're actually talking about here)
If you read the resolutions against Iraq I think it will explain everything. All of them continue to state that Iraq has been in violation of a cease-fire for the 1991 Gulf War. This includes the last resolution passed against Iraq 1441. That resolution also mentions “serious consequences” will take place if Iraq still continues to not fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
So let's get this right then:
In order to go to war you must
(i) have a significant number of UN resolutions against you
(ii) you must be arbitrarily determined to be a dictator as ascertained by Xanith of VBForums.com; that being determined being a function of your political status, not your actions on the international stage
?
( I thought I'd say it twice so you don't get too confused with what we're actually talking about here)
My assertions have nothing to do with it nor do the number of UN resolutions, it is what is contained within those resolutions that is relevant. I would think backing what is stated in those resolutions would be the logical thing to do or people might begin to think the UN and their resolutions mean nothing. So what do you think?
If you can point out Resolutions passed against Israel that state they are in violation of a cease-fire and that serious consequences will occur if they don’t comply then yes I would be in favor of using force be it Israel or any other country.
X
Man, I'm not around enough to participate in this. I have never been to Afghanistan, and I don't expect to get there (long bloody walk, and a bit wet on the way). My news sources are whatever I read in the magazines (Time, mostly, for news), and whatever I hear on NPR.Quote:
And where did you obtain this information?
The first and last sentences were opinion. The middle (and only substantive) sentence comes from those sources. I deliberately avoided mentioning al whatever, for the simple reason that I can't spell the foolish thing. There isn't a great deal of reporting on Afghanistan, but the reports are consistent. The Taliban is resurgent in the south, with aid organizations pulling back. I have heard reports that al whatever is rebuilding training camps (smaller scale, and perhaps mobile) along the Pakistan border. How credible is this? Reasonably, since it is internally consistent.
I feel that we shouldn't allow this to happen. Iraq should have waited. As bad as Saddam was, we could deal with him diplomatically. At worst, we could have dealt with him the same way we have dealt with Castro. However, that may not be true in Afghanistan. If we lose the hearts and minds of that country, we will lose the hearts and minds of Pakistan as well. Some might say that we already have, but I feel the game is still afoot there. Losing Pakistan to radical forces would be far more severe a threat (they have existing nukes) than Saddam ever would have been (he basically attacked two neighbors and lost). Our interests lie more in a healthy and stable Afghanistan than in a friendly Iraq.
Just two words... Bad Intelligence. HeheheeeQuote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
I feel that we shouldn't allow this to happen. Iraq should have waited. As bad as Saddam was, we could deal with him diplomatically.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/edi...04/021104.html
Actually, no intelligence at all, unfortunately.
I've always been amused when people talk about faulty intelligence used by Bush. Isn't that what people have been saying about him all along? I wonder that they can all say it with a straight face.
Saddam was a dictator. He would not touch Democra*y with a barge pole. He killed his own people. He lied. He is pure EVIL.
Agreed. Except the evil part. Lucifer is a little more intelligent, being the fallen one and all that.
The point is the world is not one big famiy. Not yet. There is no such thing as a Political "Church of the Believers", at least not yet. Invasion/Violence/War is acceptable only when directly threatened with physical violence, against either oneself or one's loved ones. That is what any democratic national constitution, bill of rights, etc., says.
The U S of A is a Democracy, or so it claims, and I have no reason to doubt her on that. Iraq/Saddam did not pose any direct violent threat to either her or any of her loved ones. Not in 2003. And therefore invading Iraq and/or deposing Saddam is unacceptable.
And to all of you who argue the Churchill/Chamberlain angle, Sir Winston took upon himself to protect his motherland and her friends and allies, only and only when Hitler decided to go after "peace". That is "a piece of Poland, a piece of Holland, a piece of France", not during the years before when Hitler was campaigning or when when he was in power and building Gas Chambers and making the Jews pariah in their own homes. Only when a direct danger was seen to the Kingdom and its estates as well as its allies, was there a motivated and spirited attack on Hitler and Germany and the other Axis powers. So much the better.
Bring every single piece of earth under one Flag and then we'll be one against the Ferengi. Until then, you and I are individuals and separate legal and political entities with each having no claim over the "Right" and the "Good" any more than the other.
Regards
KayJay
Actually, we're a republic.
Ferengi? Hehehe... I'm a non-fanatical fan as well. Hey, maybe we can all get together and start a new religion?
There is always a problem in the soundness of argument when one pulls supporting ideas from Star Trek, Lucifer, Demoracy, "Bill of Rights", Iraq-Saddam, WWII, Jews' pariah, the philosophical disparity of goodness in reality within the frame of an A4 page.
What is the premise of the whole argument. Invasion of Irag is bad? President Bush is bad? His deputies and support staff are Morons? America is bad and walks in the borderline of her own Evilness? May be i'm insane and unable to comprehend issues?
This is a highly complex issues where facts are often clouded with opinions. It is too easy to wrap the Iraq issue into a tight ball.
The point i am making is:
--------------------------------
If we are arguing the validity of the invasion of Iraq while entitling ourselves to believe in our opinions, how do we know we are making any sound reasoning?
It goes something like this - because i used a reference to "Ferengi" in my argument, i am much able (and logical) in analyzing the issues surrounding Iraq and America's problem juxtaposition to folks in whitehouse, the intelligence communities around the world and professional analysists in various international think tanks.
This is my contention:
----------------------------
In the absence of concrete facts, it is too easy assume and steadfast believe in our own ideas. It is like because i can't see what is in that dark alley, there must be something there.
My positions are these:
------------------------------
- I disagree with President Bush's policy because unilateralism is dangerous, the formulation of their policies is potentially flawed, and Bush Doctrine - Preemptive Measure is potentially more dangerous than Saddam or any WMD.
- Is the recent Iraq War detrimental for the Iraqis? The transitional Short-term: yes, Medium and Long-term have the potential to be more good than bad but i'll leave that for the historians in years to come.
- I believe Wars are fundamentally bad (life, materially, economically, philosophically) but i also believe that the Iraq problem is not about Pax Americana because the world has moved beyond periods of colonisation in our fabric of history.
- Do i hate and throw rocks at "America" for the Administration's action. NO because i believe there are FEW other places in this world that has governing systems that makes career politicians and leaders more accountable and has the most peaceful ways to remove them. How many books on governments have we studied in order to truly understand systems of government, the dynamism of domestic politics in formulating policies and diplomacies?
It is always too easy to read opinions from the pages of books and magazines and pawn them as our own if not as supporting elements. How certain are we in the correctness of our views and beliefs?
WHAT do i know of the world? I'm just a programmer in a programmer's forum. We don't have to be accountable in what we speak-of because we're not on the stage being scrutinized by intelligentias, erudites and smartasses.
The greatest danger to humanity is her ignorance and depth of arrogance. Sometimes, brilliant people wears a coat of intellectual arrogance in what looks like commoner's cloth in other fields of studies. Our brilliance in one area does not translate to others. Take AQ Khan and scientists who sold secrets to the Soviets in the Varona Project as examples of people who mistook technical brilliance for political wisdom. Sometimes, it just seems more reasonable to me to ask what i don't know than declaring what i know (even though they might be full of taradiddles)
God! Ferengi?! Just don't get me started on Star Trek. :bigyello:
"I don't know what I may seem to the world, but, as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
"Ferangi" is from Hindi, yes its an Indian word, which literally means "white colour" and/or "other colour" which means "foreigner".
My point is simple, and you have just skipped past it. Yes, your points are valid. no doubt. My point is equally valid. You, the US of A, are not us. Not yet. We, the rest of the world, are not you, Not yet. Therefore, even if we are a hemmeoraging Oedipal discomfort in the fundament, you have no right and/or duty to invade/kill/use violence, etc. as long as any of us do not pluck so much as a single hair off your head. Al Qaeda? Ok. Afghanistan/Taliban? Explicit support and statements to the detriment of the US of A. Ok. Iraq/Saddam Huessein in 2003? Absolutely not Ok.
Simple. I am not harming you. I do not say I will harm you. You stay out of my way.
And as far as "the Administration" vis-a-vis the "the Population" goes, it's a moot point. The US of A is a democracy and a republic. The people are responsible for choosing the "Administration" or its Leader. Therefore the people are accountable for their choice. You chose GWB, even if you did not vote for him. That's the ballot box for you. You live, out of choice, in such a society. Good for you.
But you cannot wash your hands off the "Administration's" actions. Its done in your name and you have sanctioned it. You are culpabable.
Regards
KayJay
Indeed it does! But what does the phrase 'serious consequences' actually mean?Quote:
That resolution also mentions “serious consequences” will take place if Iraq still continues to not fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.
Well, as you're the expert, Xanith, on the UN resolutions :rolleyes: then you will know that the original wording was 'all necessary means'
This change (surprise, surprise) was demanded by France, and Russia specifically to avoid a conclusion of war. Furthermore, your own ambassador to the UN (John Negroponte) was against the change because it wasn't enought to sanction war.
How can you continue to misrepresent recent history?
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/03.../16_legal.html
If you guys want a good place to debate politcs you should try this forum.
http://www.americanforum.net
I never said I was an expert on UN Resolutions the only special thing I did was actually read them. It was agreed by all nations that Iraq was still in violation of the cease-fire signed in 1991. As you point out the only difference was in how to deal with Iraq’s non-compliance. France and Russia wanted to maintain Saddam’s regime due to extensive oil and defense contracts afforded to those two countries so its no surprise they didn’t want a war to remove him.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Indeed it does! But what does the phrase 'serious consequences' actually mean?
Well, as you're the expert, Xanith, on the UN resolutions :rolleyes: then you will know that the original wording was 'all necessary means'
This change (surprise, surprise) was demanded by France, and Russia specifically to avoid a conclusion of war. Furthermore, your own ambassador to the UN (John Negroponte) was against the change because it wasn't enought to sanction war.
How can you continue to misrepresent recent history?
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/03.../16_legal.html
My argument is rather a simple one to understand and not based on whether my country is going to get cheap oil, lucrative defense contracts, money from skimming off the oil for food program, or payoffs in the form of oil stipends. Iraq was in violation of a cease-fire for 12 years, Iraq was given a final chance to comply with that cease-fire with Resolution 1441, Iraq decided not to fully comply with the cease-fire hence the resumption of hostilities.
France and Russia (and Germany) opposition to the war had nothing to do with wanting peace and stability in Iraq. It was all about money and how to oppose (create a counter to) the dominance of US power in the world. Many fell into line with this kind of thinking not because they actually cared about the Iraqi people or peace in the Middle East but because if the US wanted it, it must be bad so we must oppose it.
X
This, to me, strongly implies reasoning for war; especially taking into account the context of your other posts.Quote:
If you read the resolutions against Iraq I think it will explain everything. All of them continue to state that Iraq has been in violation of a cease-fire for the 1991 Gulf War. This includes the last resolution passed against Iraq 1441. That resolution also mentions “serious consequences” will take place if Iraq still continues to not fully comply with the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.
I have simply pointed out that the resolution was watered down specifically to avoid the path to war
Do you disagree with this?
I will agree that wording was deliberately changed to a vague “serious consequences” in Resolution 1441 rather than putting in something that specifically called for war. As I have mentioned in my last post this was because France and Russia did not want to remove Saddam due to the economic and political value.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
This, to me, strongly implies reasoning for war; especially taking into account the context of your other posts.
I have simply pointed out that the resolution was watered down specifically to avoid the path to war
Do you disagree with this?
However Resolution 1441 did affirm that Iraq was still in non-compliance with previous resolutions including the cease-fire agreement. If you read the cease-fire agreement you will find that the cease-fire hinged upon compliance with all conditions less resumption of hostilities would continue. Because Resolution 1441 still affirmed this non-compliance a case for resumption of hostilities could be made based on the cease-fire agreement.
I am sorry if you misunderstood. My point was not that Resolution 1441 called for war, but rather the reaffirmation of non-compliance with the cease-fire contained within Resolution 1441 made the case for war after 12 years of doing nothing.
X
But the US, UK et al were all signatories to a resolution that was watered down specifically to avoid the consequence of war.Quote:
I am sorry if you misunderstood. My point was not that Resolution 1441 called for war, but rather the reaffirmation of non-compliance with the cease-fire contained within Resolution 1441 made the case for war after 12 years of doing nothing.
Even if this does not specifically prevent war, it is a fact that these nations agreed to a resolution that originally failed to ratify when war was guarenteed under it's original draft, and was only ratified if the signatories agreed that the consequenc of Iraqi non-compliance was not necessarily war; therein only after a full security council meeting.
I find it hard to stomach that some nations seek to underpin their aggressive foreign policies claiming that it was 'all agreed in the UN, anyway' when in fact it's all mistruth, misdirection, and complete unpalatable crap.
I don’t think you understand my point, if you read all successive resolutions after the cease-fire they ALL state (including the last one 1441) that Iraq was still in non-compliance with that case-fire. The cease-fire hinged on Iraq FULLY complying with what was contained within the agreement. The WORLD agreed that Iraq was still in non-compliance (cite all resolutions passed against Iraq after the cease-fire). The UN also failed to do anything in Rwanda and 500,000 people were slaughtered, does that mean that because the UN didn’t intervene it was the correct thing to do? The UN dragged its feet on Bosnia as well and it took NATO to do something about it. Was the UN right to let the slaughter there happen as well?Quote:
But the US, UK et al were all signatories to a resolution that was watered down specifically to avoid the consequence of war.
Even if this does not specifically prevent war, it is a fact that these nations agreed to a resolution that originally failed to ratify when war was guarenteed under it's original draft, and was only ratified if the signatories agreed that the consequenc of Iraqi non-compliance was not necessarily war; therein only after a full security council meeting.
The only disagreement was how to deal with Iraqi non-compliance. One side wanted inspections in perpetuity with nothing to back it up while the other wanted to give Iraq a final chance to comply under the threat of force. It’s funny how Iraq with troops on their borders still did not fully comply with the original cease-fire, one has to wonder how Iraq would ever come into compliance with inspections without anything to back it up if they didn’t comply even under the threat of force.Quote:
I find it hard to stomach that some nations seek to underpin their aggressive foreign policies claiming that it was 'all agreed in the UN, anyway' when in fact it's all mistruth, misdirection, and complete unpalatable crap.
I find it hard to stomach as you put it that other nations hinge their foreign policies by propping up mass murdering dictators all for the sake of cheap oil, defense contracts, and building up their own power base to counter another country.
My point is clear.
1441 specifically avoided a path to war which is what the signatories agreed to. 1441, as you say, did point out that non-compliance was an issue; but the summary is that 1441 did not litigate for war.
As 1441 summarised 12 years of non-comliance one would expect 1441 to be an overall statement of the stance of the signatories.
So what about the previous resolutions? In my opinion, and apparently the world legal opinion: in the context of issuing a declaration of war against Iraq: irrelevant - even your UN ambasador complained that 1441 closed the legal reason for war.
Which is also why we heard of so soooo many other flimsy excuses to go to war (WMD etc etc)
I don't know what your point is: but my point is clear. Arguing that non-compliance of a UN resolution gives the right to war is plainly wrong (and misguided)
Incidentally USA propped up Saddam just as much as France, Germany, and the UK did. Times change (as do allies) - and a whole host of other dictatorships with a massive blood cost associated (so no 'holier-than-thou' bull****, please)
So did I and so do I!Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
...............I find it hard to stomach as you put it that other nations hinge their foreign policies by propping up mass murdering dictators all for the sake of cheap oil, defense contracts, and building up their own power base to counter another country. [/B]
Good to see you speak out against the French and Russians then. Good for you.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
So did I and so do I!
X
And we the people support our administration's decision to oust Saddam. I support most of Bush's policies.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
But you cannot wash your hands off the "Administration's" actions. Its done in your name and you have sanctioned it. You are culpabable.
You are blinded by your hatred towards the US. I ask you one simple question, do you believe Saddam was justified in burrying people alive, torturing them, etc. He had the most brutal regime of this century. I can't imagine you support this sick minded *******
Bart, to answer your question, absolutely not. Saddam was not justified in gassing and killing. At all.
I repeat, that is not the point. And you repeat, that is the point. O-bla-di-O-bla-da....
There are three options. "The Good Thing to do", "The Right Thing to do", "The Easy Thing to do". Preferrably, I'd like to see all three in the same thing. But should there be different actions for each of the above, I'd choose the "Right" first, and then the "Good" and finally the "Easy" way out.
Iraq - 2003. The Right thing to do was to continue with inspections and wait for Mr. Blix to come back with a firm answer/question, continue sanctions, promote political isolation to force internal change. Libya is a good recent example. So was South Africa. The Easy way out would have been to push the whole matter under the carpet, again, and play for time, again. The Good thing that could have been done was to ensure removal of Saddam Huessein and demolish any WMD that may be in existence.
You chose to do the Good thing. Congratulations. But, I do not accept the "Good" over the "Right/Correct". In this case the two are mutually exclusive.
Hence my continued hankering in stating that I beileve that the Invasion of Iraq in the Spring of 2003 is not acceptable, given clear evidence that Iraq did not pose an immediate and direct threat to either the "Western Civilization" or any other "Civilization" and/or "Uncivilized bunch of Home Eructus", outside the legal and constitutional ambit of the Iraqi Government, notwithstanding the fact that "law" and "constitution" in Iraq under Saddam was not the same as "law" and "constitution" as is generally known in the Occident.
Oh! and I do not hate the U. S. In fact I do not hate. Actually, I only hate "Hatred".
The arrogance of this statement is unbelievable.Quote:
You are blinded by your hatred towards the US. I ask you one simple question, do you believe Saddam was justified in burrying people alive, torturing them, etc. He had the most brutal regime of this century. I can't imagine you support this sick minded *******
To believe, specifically, that we are talking about the US, is quite simply wrong. Many countries went to war against Iraq; indeed, many nations lost their men in such a war.
I reckon that you ought to remember that there are over 250 nations in the world, the US being only one, and consisting only of around 5% of the world's population (c 300m)
****.
The war in Iraq was fought on two basis:Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Bart, to answer your question, absolutely not. Saddam was not justified in gassing and killing. At all.
I repeat, that is not the point. And you repeat, that is the point. O-bla-di-O-bla-da....
There are three options. "The Good Thing to do", "The Right Thing to do", "The Easy Thing to do". Preferrably, I'd like to see all three in the same thing. But should there be different actions for each of the above, I'd choose the "Right" first, and then the "Good" and finally the "Easy" way out.
Iraq - 2003. The Right thing to do was to continue with inspections and wait for Mr. Blix to come back with a firm answer/question, continue sanctions, promote political isolation to force internal change. Libya is a good recent example. So was South Africa. The Easy way out would have been to push the whole matter under the carpet, again, and play for time, again. The Good thing that could have been done was to ensure removal of Saddam Huessein and demolish any WMD that may be in existence.
You chose to do the Good thing. Congratulations. But, I do not accept the "Good" over the "Right/Correct". In this case the two are mutually exclusive.
Hence my continued hankering in stating that I beileve that the Invasion of Iraq in the Spring of 2003 is not acceptable, given clear evidence that Iraq did not pose an immediate and direct threat to either the "Western Civilization" or any other "Civilization" and/or "Uncivilized bunch of Home Eructus", outside the legal and constitutional ambit of the Iraqi Government, notwithstanding the fact that "law" and "constitution" in Iraq under Saddam was not the same as "law" and "constitution" as is generally known in the Occident.
1) WMD
2) Iraqis being murdered, tortured, the terrible living conditions (while they have the second largest oil reservers), etc
Firstly, I do not believe any intelligence was bended to suit the politicians. Whatever intelligence the government had, they believed that Iraq posed a threat and I believe in those conclusions to. There may not be direct evidence that WMD existed, but their is piles of evidence about possible WMD programs including a nuclear program. Saddam was in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and this every intelligence agency in the world agrees upon. They had missiles that violated UN regulations. They have scientists who admit they used to work in clandestine programs, etc.
Possible Nuclear weapons and the clear intent of Saddam to develop WMD is enough of a threat for me to urge our government to get rid of him. The United Nations was not avble to pass a bill because obviously Saddam would never attack France, Russia, China, etc. But given the fact that Saddam and the US are such terrible enemies, I wouldn't doubt that he would try doing anything he could whether its giving a radiological or chemical weapon to a terrorist or directly hurling a missile at us. I'm afraid of him and I'm glad he is gone. I don't care what the world or the United nations think when it comes to my security
And of course, the pathetic violation of human rights. Have you ever thought of the families of thousands of people who were slaughtered under his regime. And there is nothing you could do about it?
I've not seen a single reason why this war is not justified. But of course, the anti-US feeling these days will make people come up with the most absurd ideas like "stealing oil", etc.
if I am arrogant I wonder what you should be classified inQuote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
The arrogance of this statement is unbelievable.
To believe, specifically, that we are talking about the US, is quite simply wrong. Many countries went to war against Iraq; indeed, many nations lost their men in such a war.
I reckon that you ought to remember that there are over 250 nations in the world, the US being only one, and consisting only of around 5% of the world's population (c 300m)
****.
Iraq posed a threat to the US, not the entire world. And thus we have the right to get rid of it. Read my post above
I don't know what your geography is like, but Iraq did not pose a direct military, or financial risk to the US. At all.Quote:
Iraq posed a threat to the US, not the entire world. And thus we have the right to get rid of it. Read my post above
You cannot justify war on the basis that the guy you're after killed, and tortured lots of people (however horrific that fact actually is) because
(i) There are many more people doing exactly the same but are 'friends' of the coalition - so we don't invade them
(ii) Various modern nations sanction telling someone that they must die, keeping them in prison for obscene amounts of time, and then killing them through a rather painful process (potassium chloride used to stop the heart in a lethal injection scenario is a caustic acid injected directly into the veins; which in some cases is only preceded by a paralysing drug - so you get to feel all the pain) Arguing that human beings deserve this (because due-process has been served) would be synonymous to Saddam claiming it was within his right as leader to invoke whatever 'due process' his regime saw fit.
(iii) Every modern nation has done exactly what Saddam did; murder, torture and general ruling by fear. We do not invade each other.
(iv) Abusing peoples human rights is rife amongst nearly every nation in the world today.
Kettle Pot Black?
You are convinced of a clear and present danger from Saddam/Iraq in 2003. Since you already are so fixed in your conviction, the above quote takes care of us debating, once and for all.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
..............
on the whole, the above are fair enough, but
I don't care what the world or the United nations think when it comes to my security
Cheers and good luck and a happy safe life.
Regards
KayJay