Imagine the case in a court of law: the prosecuting lawyer simply slaws the defence lawyer and states "Well, the case has been made by others"
I suspect the prosecuting lawyer would lose, don't you?
Printable View
Imagine the case in a court of law: the prosecuting lawyer simply slaws the defence lawyer and states "Well, the case has been made by others"
I suspect the prosecuting lawyer would lose, don't you?
Well, this isn't getting anywhere.
I don't believe that Iraq was attacked to spare the people from their suffering. That would be noble, I don't think the current US president has had a noble thought in his life.
Somebody said that Iraq invaded another country. That's not true, Iraq invaded two other countries. They were thrown out of both of them. To compare Saddam to Hitler is a little silly, considering that Saddam has been a failure in his wars. Yes, he killed many people, but he was never a threat, since he always lost.
Would Saddam have started throwing WMD around if he had them? Why would he? That would be suicide, and he never showed anything but brutal pragmatism (and occaisional mildly misplaced optimism).
Did we stop in 91 because Saddam made promises? Not in my memory. We stopped because WE made promises. The coalition was based on clearing Iraq out of Kuwait. To form the coalition, Bush Sr. specifically promised not to go further, a position for which he has been loudly criticized by the neo-conservatives.
My position is that we went into Iraq for deceitful reasons. There were justifications, and Xanith has stated all that I am aware of. However, I don't believe that is why we got into this war. It is that deceit that angers me, not the war itself.
One other point: We regret civilian casualties, but it is not true that we go to extreme lengths to limit them. The lengths we go to are strongly bounded by other, overriding, concerns. America has always, and is continuing, to favor the lives of our troops over the lives of civilians of a foreign country. This seems entirely appropriate, but not if our troops are being sent into harms way for invalid or deceitful purposes. No casualties are justifiable in those circumstances.
87 billion for Iraq? Economy is at the bottom and he is spending on Iraq. How smart is that?
Iraq war wasn't needed.
Xanith: Bravo! Must grant us (the other side of the debate) this much; we seem to have rubbed off some thing onto you. You are much clearer, less scared of emotions and motivations (remember? facts! facts! facts! and more facts! and only facts!) and are no longer afraid of long-winding, repetitive and redundant, verbose statements. Congratulations and well done!
However as far as your leanings are concerned, you are still wrong. And I'll put it a bit bluntly.
1) The US of A thinks of herself as a "Western" nation. Her attitude of "other Western Nations are better and more prefferable that other Nations in other Directions" is a priori her value.
2) The US of A has military might far beyond any other entities capabilties and for that matter beyond many entities' sensibilities.
3) The US of A has fixed notions of "Freedom", "Democracy", "Commitment", "Duty", "We" among other concepts. These notions, by definition, need a "Western" influence to even correctly comprehend, let alone, accept.
4) The US of A has along with the UK, torchbearers of "The West", in mid last century, had asked the Arabs to pay Hitler's ransom for the Jews and to a large extent continue to do so. Or so its is percieved in the non-West nations.
Given the above four "facts", as one would have it, while your views are understandable and to an extent, expected, they are wrong. "Wrong" as in your interests are not the standard by which "Right" is defined. Of course, it goes both ways. You will not accept that our interests are the basis for judging right & wrong. Granted. So may the bigger gun win? Is that the end that is being foreseen by this august forum?
It was one of the reasons but not the primary one. It was however a nice outcome don’t you think? After years of being under the boot of Saddam the people of Iraq finally have a shot at freedom and democracy.Quote:
I don't believe that Iraq was attacked to spare the people from their suffering. That would be noble, I don't think the current US president has had a noble thought in his life.
Its funny everyone laughed off Hitler too in the beginning and thought that appeasement and peace treaties would hold him in check we all know how well that did. And when last I checked Germany did lose World War II. Unless of course you are reading some history book that I have never seen? And let me just sit back and digest your last statement….”Yes, he killed many people, but was never a threat, since he always lost.” Now that is priceless. So if he killed a few more million but eventually lost you still wouldn’t consider him a threat? Like I said above Hitler also lost but after taking several million with him, I suppose he wasn’t a threat either cause he was a failure in his wars?Quote:
Somebody said that Iraq invaded another country. That's not true, Iraq invaded two other countries. They were thrown out of both of them. To compare Saddam to Hitler is a little silly, considering that Saddam has been a failure in his wars. Yes, he killed many people, but he was never a threat, since he always lost.
We already know he had them. Had he destroyed them why would he not show proof to the UN inspectors to avoid war? Why all the stonewalling for 12 years? Why the need for 17 UN resolutions that stated he was still in violation? Why did the whole world think he had something and you seem to not think so?Quote:
Would Saddam have started throwing WMD around if he had them? Why would he? That would be suicide, and he never showed anything but brutal pragmatism (and occaisional mildly misplaced optimism).
If you read the conditions contained within the cease-fire you would find that in order for hostilities to end Iraq had to promise to destroy all stockpiles, support for, and programs concerning WMD. Here let me help you refresh your memory by quoting Resolution 687 that was passed to end the First Gulf War:Quote:
Did we stop in 91 because Saddam made promises? Not in my memory. We stopped because WE made promises. The coalition was based on clearing Iraq out of Kuwait. To form the coalition, Bush Sr. specifically promised not to go further, a position for which he has been loudly criticized by the neo-conservatives.
“8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;”
Read that whole resolution and the ones following for a better understanding of what was going on.
Why do you think we went to war then? I hope you have something more than no blood for oil or this was Bush’s way of finishing what his father started.Quote:
My position is that we went into Iraq for deceitful reasons. There were justifications, and Xanith has stated all that I am aware of. However, I don't believe that is why we got into this war. It is that deceit that angers me, not the war itself.
All throughout the war it was seen that US soldiers didn’t fire back at combatants that were in mosques, schools, and hospitals thus putting themselves in danger of death all for the sake of not killing civilians. Also aerial targets that were near highly populated civilian areas were avoided and the use of highly precision munitions were used exclusively as to prevent civilian deaths. So troops were put in harms way and some probably died all for the sake of preserving innocent civilians. So you are wrong in your point sorry the US did take extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties, more so than any nation has done in war in the past.Quote:
One other point: We regret civilian casualties, but it is not true that we go to extreme lengths to limit them. The lengths we go to are strongly bounded by other, overriding, concerns. America has always, and is continuing, to favor the lives of our troops over the lives of civilians of a foreign country. This seems entirely appropriate, but not if our troops are being sent into harms way for invalid or deceitful purposes. No casualties are justifiable in those circumstances.
To me this war is justified. Not only are the Iraqi people free but also there is a chance for democracy to take hold in the region that could have a profound effect on that region as a whole and could serve as catalyst to stabilize that region of the world that has been in turmoil for so long.
X
KayJay:
The need for long-windedness was precipitated by the lack of understanding and refusal to actually read anything I posted. While I don’t like to repeat myself it seems for the most part I have to because none of you will either respond or even acknowledge my points but instead just continue to drone on about the same thing over and over again.
The only emotion exhibited in my posts is one of frustration due to the lack of response to my points. It is very hard to reach someone who does not wish to look outside his/her own safety net or what he/she knows and actually look at another point of view.
I also fail to see how your four points prove I am wrong you simply list them and boldly declare me as being “wrong” without explaining why or even citing anything I posted. A poorly worded argument without documentation or citing just where I am supposed to be “wrong” according to you is hardly going to sway me to your point of view, or convince me I need to take another look at my facts.
I will respond and defend my position when you have more clearly defined just exactly I am wrong about. For now the only thing I can glean from your supposed argument is that because I am a westerner I fail to grasp the needs of the third world and that my standards of right and wrong do not apply universally to everyone. Please clarify for me.
X
Sing Hallelujah! After 9 looong months - I started off in Jan 03 on these boards!Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
KayJay:
.........because I am a westerner I fail to grasp the needs of the third world and that my standards of right and wrong do not apply universally to everyone. Please clarify for me.
X
At last! Yes sir! Yes sir! You have said it. Right and Wrong are based on certain a priori presumptions. Presumptions that need not be shared by one and all. And no need to grasp the third world needs. Just a prefferable situation. There is no compulsion whatsoever at all.
No one anywhere, including his own sons, ever denied that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, an evil dictator. The point was not that. The point I've been trying to make, and apparently successfully, though belatedly, was that it is of absolutely no matter whatsoever whether Saddam Hussein was a heamoraging Oedipus incarnate or not. The US of A had no "right" and was not in the "right" to undertake any unilateral action against any other sovereign nation.
You are wrong 'cause my standards do not permit any American jurisdiction in any matter under any circumstances whatever in Iraq. But as you rightly said, our standards are not the same, and therein lies many a dead man.
I see you as intelligent, Xanith, so I hope you do not mean exactly what you have stated here.Quote:
that my standards of right and wrong do not apply universally to everyone. Please clarify for me.
Your standards are exactly that: Yours. No-one elses - so you cannot apply them universally. If you believe that there is an overall morality - please give me the source; I'd love to read it.
The presupposition is that demcracy is 'right' and we were 'right' to impose our political will on another nation.Quote:
there is a chance for democracy to take hold in the region that could have a profound effect on that region as a whole
You can, of course, hold your own opinion of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' but you have to remember that it is your opinion, not a means unto itself.
:rolleyes:
Ahhh I think I am beginning to understand your logic. Who am I to say things like gassing your own people or state sponsored rape and torture are wrong. From my purely western point of view these things might seem repulsive and wrong but who am I to put my views on what others might deem perfectly acceptable.
So in reality there is no right and wrong its all a matter of perception and what your local government allows. Who am I to say as a westerner that the brutalizing of women is wrong? Sure I might consider them to be equal but in other countries it is ok to kill them and deny them basic human rights. After all in your world no one has a right to impose his or her own laws or even basic human rights on another right? There is no fundamental right and wrong and we should leave others to do as they will because we don’t have a right to judge the practices of another government or interfere in them.
Is this what you are trying to say? We have no right to stop genocide or mass murder because we have no right to interfere in what another nation does. They could be starving their own people but interfering would be wrong because who knows that government might want to starve and kill their own people.
I’m sorry but you are the one who is wrong. There are basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone. This includes not being murdered by your government. The UN was put in place for just such a purpose to stop such things. But if the UN doesn’t act then someone must.
X
Well said. The point still remains. No. Sorry. The US of A has no right to act on her own outside her jurisdiction (at least, there seems to be no argument between us, in that Iraq is not under the jurisdiction of the US of A). If the UN does not act, the only thing that can be done by the US of A, by virtue of being a privileged member of the UN, is to make it act. Not act on her own. Thats what democracy is all about. Democracy, especially when it is being held as the holy grail of human governance by you, is about convincing or being convinced, not saying "buzz off pal", which is precisely what the US of A said to the whole world in the case of Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
.....................
I’m sorry but you are the one who is wrong. There are basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone. This includes not being murdered by your government. The UN was put in place for just such a purpose to stop such things. But if the UN doesn’t act then someone must.
X
As regards all that talk (and very true talk) about gassing and raping by Saddam Hussein, where was the sentiment you portray in the first couple of paragraphs of the post quoted from above when the murder, plunder, rape, torture, barbarism, etc was actually being planned and committed? Justice delayed is Justice denied. Denying Justice is wrong. Ergo, the invasion of Iraq in the summer of '03 by the US of A was wrong.
Your good intentions (no denying that. Yes they are good intentions, even if I still have doubts whether they were of the US of A's and not only of Xanith's) by themselves are not justification of any acts commited by you that results in the physical harm of any others' body or property. Invasion of a Soveriegn Nation results in and has resulted in the physical harm of other bodies and properties. Ergo, the invasion of Iraq in the summer of '03 by the US of A was wrong.
A good man is not by definition a correct man. In internation affairs, being right is paramount. Being good is very prefferable. Because "good" and "bad" are very very brittle and fragile concepts. Right and Wrong are mostly an arbitary set of conventions and mutual agreements by the involved parties. That is why Criminal Law is considered easier to implement than Civil Law. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq in the summer of '03 by the US of A is primarily, and I have stated so in many ways many a time, because of its incorrectness. It being wrong. That I have my doubts on the motivations as well is a different issue.
The "how", under any circumstance, cannot justify the "what", that "what" cannot for that matter justify the "why".
"How" the US of A invaded and decapitated the Regime in Iraq cannot justify the actual act of decapitation, which act I hold as "wrong". "
That Iraq was invaded by the US of A, unilaterally (ok, multiple bi-laterally, as stated by the Offence Secretary of the US of A) was not in accordance to any international democratic custom or convention or law, if there is indeed any law that binds the whole world and it is as wrong of the US of A to invade Iraq in '03 as it was wrong of Iraq to have invaded Kuwait in '90-'91, insofar as the invasion was concerned, which is what I label as "wrong".
The UN approved the 1991 war to remove Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. Why would it be wrong to resume a UN approved war when Iraq didn’t abide by the cease-fire agreement?
Read UN Resolution 687
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
X
'Cause
1) Iraq is not in Kuwait any longer
2) Where are the WMD?
3) The UN Inspectors were asked to leave Iraq in '02-03 by the US of A and not by Iraq.
4) A dirty trick, that one. Let go for a generation (ok 12 years, not 15) and then, wham!
5)And should that be the rationale, christ!, N. Korea and the US of A.!
You must mean 'capital punishment' then.Quote:
Ahhh I think I am beginning to understand your logic. Who am I to say things like gassing your own people or state sponsored rape and torture are wrong.
Keeping someone in prison awaiting for their own execution can surely be defined as torture.
Besides you fail to define 'right' and 'wrong'
Did you even read the resolution?Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
'Cause
1) Iraq is not in Kuwait any longer
2) Where are the WMD?
3) The UN Inspectors were asked to leave Iraq in '02-03 by the US of A and not by Iraq.
4) A dirty trick, that one. Let go for a generation (ok 12 years, not 15) and then, wham!
5)And should that be the rationale, christ!, N. Korea and the US of A.!
And Iraq asked inspectors to leave in 1997. Had US troops not been on the border in Kuwait the inspectors would not have been allowed back in. As soon as those troops disappeared the inspectors would have been kicked out again and the process of stonewalling and not conforming to the cease-fire that Iraq agreed too would begin again.
It’s not a dirty trick to resume hostilities if the country that signed and agreed to the terms of a cease-fire doesn’t follow them. Point is the world agreed they were still in violation of the cease-fire agreement, even the UN inspectors said Iraq had not complied. Resolution 1441 was their last chance; they didn’t take it so hostilities began again.
And attacking North Korea is not off the table due to that very same fact of their being only a cease-fire not a peace treaty.
X
So in your mind capital punishment and the gassing of thousands of people is the same? Hmmm what about Hitler gassing the Jews is that just capital punishment too?Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
You must mean 'capital punishment' then.
Keeping someone in prison awaiting for their own execution can surely be defined as torture.
X
If you dont know that by now its a wonder why you have the views you do :)Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Besides you fail to define 'right' and 'wrong'
X
You're joking, right?Quote:
If you dont know that by now its a wonder why you have the views you do
Do you fail to see that different people, and different cultures have different opinions of what is right and wrong?
Do you believe that morality is some form of absolute belief that everyone must subscribe to?
I do not accept that there are absolutes. I cannot accept that there is an overall guiding principle or morality, and attempts to force that very idea onto uk statute books have resulted in complete and utter disaster - The Human Rights Act for example is currently preventing the police, and the Prison Service from stopping behaviour which the majority of people would find abhorrent (morally 'wrong')
Hmm. Let's have a moment of clarity here. Discombobulation is all good fun, but . . .
morality
n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]
Source:WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
There are definitions relating to social conduct, but they all eventually come down to the same issuse. Morality is about a belief that an act is right or wrong. I cannot believe that right and wrong is absolute; there will always be some context that defines the moment, and mind of an individual involved in an act. (even British law recognises that: 'Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea' which means 'An act does not make a man guilty of crime unless the mind is also guilty) Sure there will be middle ground where most people would agree something is 'right' or something is 'wrong' but most people would have an argument here and there about someone elses behaviour when they consider the actions of another to be unfair (and thus wrong)
If you believe, which I'm assuming that you do, in some system of morality that is objective, and can be measured (which is a logical conclusion of objectivity - metrics, and measurement) then you are essentially creating a code of behaviour of which people must adhere - as most people would consider themselves 'moral' and would like to act in a 'moral' manner. If this is the case you are creating law. After all a law framework exists to guide and control social behaviour. Besides, what we could objectively agree that what is morally wrong today (murder, for example) may not be objectively wrong morally tomorrow. In fact, in the case of murder the UK state used to do this for punishment of serious crimes - which was morally accepted by the masses (you could argue that they knew no better)
If you find that you have to believe in an objective moral code you will need to form a social framework on which to base it, and bearing in mind that the social framework is normally unique the moral objectivity you propose to discover will only be relevant in the social context of which it was created - which can only mean that there is no uniform standard of morality on which to base our behaviour.
Besides, if morality was objective, then the simple fact that we can sensibly argue the point must mean that one of us is morally wrong to question the basis of morality - as morality is a basis for human thought and behaviour. This, to me, and perhaps me alone, points to the fact that morality must be subjective. Furthermore, if morality is objective, someone must decide what is moral, and what is not.
The presupposition here is, of course, the assumption that everyone is as intellectual and as articulate as everybody else - argument upon a level playing field - whch will never be true. This can only mean that in any argument the strongest mind, the brightest chap etc will always 'impose' his will and moral judgements upon the weaker individual (synonymous with evolution, perhaps?) which is particularly important as the weaker individual will never be able to justify any action they support or engage in whether they are 'right' or they are 'wrong'
I cannot support this stance. And you have yet to define exactly what you mean by 'wrong'
Does this then make Xaneth inherently wrong?Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
And you have yet to define exactly what you mean by 'wrong'
Or is that a judgement Call on your part?
NotLKH
Eh?
I thought that I had explained that right and wrong exist only in the mind.
How does that make Xanith inherently wrong? It doesn't.
I am stipulating that he (and everyone else) is neither right or wrong (unless he can define an absolute positon on which to base his stance - which is highly unlikely)
It appears, to me, Xanith is arguing that the invasion of Iraq was the 'right' thing to do, and is thus justified; he has still failed to find one reason that another nation cannot also be held cupable of; and he finishes by making assertions of what is right and what is wrong and who is right and who is wrong.
If he wants to argue on that basis; I ask him - what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' - I have defined my position, let him define his.
I seem to only be here about once a week, so my posts tend to refer to older history.
Xanith, a few clarifications about my earlier post. You're right, I wasn't clear on who Saddam was a threat to. He was a threat to his own people. However, he wasn't a threat to the US. Hitler defeated all of his neighbors, then was defeated by us. He would have become a direct threat to the US, eventually. Saddam might have become a direct threat, but he couldn't get out of the starting block without falling over. Therefore, when I said that he wasn't a threat, I meant that he wasn't a threat to the US, except insofar as his troubles disrupted our oil supplies.
The resolutions that ended the war can be waved around to justify the statement that we stopped because he gave in, but there is ample history to support my claim that Bush Sr. built his coalition on the understanding that we were not trying to remove Saddam, but instead were just driving him from Kuwait.
Last, I'm sorry you won't accept that this is something that Bush is doing to finish what his father started. That is indeed the reason that I think we went to war. I feel the weight of evidence, albeit circumstantial, points in that direction. I am not Bush (thank God), and don't really know what is going on in that secretive white house, but I think that answer is the most likely.
I can't believe the American public are believing this bullsh;t propaganda about going to war in Iraq for the Iraqi people!!!!!!! It's got nothing to do with the Iraqi people, its ALL about US self-interest. Just like all the other countries America invades. There are plenty of countries around the world where there have been huge human rights isses. What about the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia for example?
In ancient times many countries were into expanding their empire, the Romans, The Vikings, the British. It took the world wars to make countries sit up and realise that countries could not be allowed to get away with it anymore.
Take the 2nd world war. Amerca had no interest in getting involved at all until right at the end when the Germans started sinking US cargo ships.
We couldn't believe the fact that the German public blindly followed their leaders in their murderous campaign of world domination, but the same is happening right now in the US. I am angry embaraced that that the British were involved in Iraq. It was an illegal war. There is some other motive, wheteher its oil or something else. US are using 911 as a licence to take control of the middle east. There were NO Afgan or Iraqi terrorists on board the 911 flights
Sweet, now we, the American public, are being compared to the German public of World War II. Outstanding. Nothing like exagerating for effect. I thought the comparisons here in the States of this war to Vietnam were outlandish but your Nazi comparisons take the cake. Thanks for that. Oh the British, so reasonable and sensical. I LOVE MY TEAM!!!! GO USA!!!!!!!!
Thats probably a bit OTT, but I just think the US public should be demanding answers from their government. You shouldn't just accept everything they say. Sure, our forces aassisted in Iraq, but our people were anti-war. You HAVE to ask yourselves WHO wanted this war in Iraq? If you asked the citizens of all of the countries in the world (including the Iraqis) whether they agreed with the war, it would only be the americans who agreed. And you have to ask yourselves why is that? The rest of the world is staring to see America as the world's bully, whilst US citizens think that their country is only interested in world peace.
We can demand all we want, we won't get them. This is the most secretive administration in the history of the US. What does leak out stinks pretty bad. All decisions are driven by the politics of power. Clinton, who was more of a politician, was driven by polls rather than ideology. Reagan was driven more by ideology. Bush sr. was a blend. The current administration has generally been driven by control. They want it, you can't have it. Therefore, if you push this administration, they either stop talking to you, or leak information about your wife.
That doesn't sound like a democracy??.. :rolleyes:
I think Bush and Blair should be put on trial for war crimes.
I agree. What I don't understand is if he was that bad why didn't the people of Iraq do something about it? And who gave Bush and Blair the right to and invade?Quote:
Originally posted by PeteD
I think Bush and Blair should be put on trial for war crimes.
You all make it sound worse than it is.
A) the situation is being addressed in the UN as we speak and it has razed major issues that must be resolved when it comes to world security.
B) Most of Iraq is happy to be free from Saddam they just want everything now and it just wasnt going to happen in a country that was left in decline for many years. 6 months and they will have a constitution thats progress.
C) Even the governments have agreed to look at the rebuilding of Iraq even though they objected to the war. Look forward now not back.
D)Bush and Blair have committed no war crimes you over dramatic bod :lol:
E)Compared to Nazi's??? Since when??? you are finding things that arent there.
F) The reason for Saddams removal was not in question but the methods were. Differing opinions are what keeps that world on its toes and addresses important issues before they become seriously dangerous.
The UN disagreed with the war as there was no proof of the WMDs. Bush and Blair lied to the world, claiming that thei rsuperiour intelligence had told them that the WMD existed, and that they had to act now. This is why some people (including myself), agreed (trusting my government) that if this were reeally true, then war would be benificial. As these claims have turned out to be blatent lies, I feel that the war was illegal, and Bush and Blair should be charged with the deaths of all those Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed in the war.
I wasn't saying Americans are Nazis, I was just highlighting how dangerous it could be if the world's only superpower (with full support of its citizens) using deception, propaganda, and force, goes against opinions of the rest of world and invades other counties for its own self interest.
They are still searching for the weapons and that search is not over yet. I do understand your point because i felt betrayed but i do beleive Saddam was a threat and that his removal is in the long term beneficial to the Iraqi people.
It was war people die and it is not classed as Murder. Would you wait for Saddam to fire and murder first??? That is the decision that faced the governments of the world. Each answered in their own way :)
:wave: :wave:
It might benifit many countries if their leaders were overthrown. Bush and Blair didn't say we are going to war soley because the Iraqi people would benefit. It was all about preventing him developing his WMD.
I went to Kuwait 12 months after desert storm, and I saw the damged buildings, the bullet holes, the tank tracks, the war museums and spoke to the Kuwaities about the appauling things that the Iraqis did. There are still many Kuwaities who have just never been found. As Iraqis were fleeing, it was nothing short of rape and pillage. It was right to stop Sadam then (however the West probably would not have done anything about it if it wasn't for Kuwaits oil), and there is no debate.... Saddam is/was a bad man, but by lying to the world in order justify war, I think Bush and Blair are bad men. There is no excuse.
How long does it take to find weapons that supposedly could have been prepared for launch in under 40 minutes?Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
They are still searching for the weapons and that search is not over yetp.
And about Bush's lies, heard this morning there on the radio the last US diplomat who went to Iraq and who had been sent to find out if Saddam had been trying to buy uranium or plutonium for nuclear weapons, and he said its highly unlikely.
Bush's state of the whatever address he says that Saddam was trying to get his hands on that stuff. I mean for christ's sake :rolleyes:
Like i said i am dissapointed that there appears to be no WMD's found yet to justify that part of the war but the Iraqi's are now free and Saddam is no longer in power.
The UN would have gone in after a 6 month discussion :lol: :lol:
The simple fact is that America has become very jumpy after 9/11 and is dealing with things in a much more direct way. All countries together need to discuss situations before reacting and this wasnt done 100% before the Iraq war. France Vetoed everything, America didnt want to know etc etc. In a situation of petty bicuring you are bound to get this sort of thing.
One side didnt want to do anything while the other wanted to do everything. They wouldnt meet in the middle!!! :( :(
France didn't say no to everything. They wanted the UN to handle the problem - not for the US to be pushy and decide everything by itself...
You think the Iraqis feel happy now???
What US doesn't understand is that terrorist attacks such as 911 are not casued because people in other countries are jealous of US wealth. They are caused because people are angry at the awful US foreign policies. Going to war in Iraq will only make terrorist attacks more likely, and the US government will only have itself to blame
France Vetoed an Ultimatum to Iraq before Iraq even turned it down. That showed their true colors!!!!!
The UN has had its chance and was even failing to uphold its own rules. The UN talks too much and does nothing for 6 months while innocent people die or WMD's are being produced. They need reform to deal with modern day problems :( :( :(
The BBC reporter that wrote that story that contained the 40 minutes claim recently admitted that it was only an ASSUMPTION by him and not a quote attributed to British Intelligence.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
How long does it take to find weapons that supposedly could have been prepared for launch in under 40 minutes?
What a surprise a BBC reporter distorting and making false assumptions. Funny how you people blindly believe the BBC yet don't even give the benefit of the doubt to the British and American governments.
X
I was under the impression that Blair used it in a speech.
he didQuote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
I was under the impression that Blair used it in a speech.
Funny how some people blindly believe the British and American governments yet don't even give the benefit of the doubt to the BBCQuote:
Funny how you people blindly believe the BBC yet don't even give the benefit of the doubt to the British and American governments
:D