PDA

View Full Version : Was the war on Iraq right?


Foeni
05-10-2005, 04:21 PM
Some time ago I started a thread whether the coalition should still have troops in Iraq. Almost everyone made a note about how wrong/right that war is, so why not have a thread for that purpose. Whas it right to attack Iraq? Personally I think yes. The reasons may not have been put very well, but I think that when Saddam the didn't coorporate with the International Nuclear dudes (sorry, I don't know the English name for that institution) as the resolution (I think it's number 1442, not sure though) demanded, we had to put some weight behind our threats. How is anyone ever going to be able to respect any resolution again? Plus we all know that Saddam have tried to develop nuclear arms earlier (a defected scientist has said that Iraq would have had them in 1993 if it wasn't for the Gulf War), and what would have stopped him from using them? He has committed crimes against humanity before.

Now, a lot of Europeans find that Bush's arguments for going to war was poor, but I don't know how the other world leaders presented the idea to their nation. Let's try and make this a proper discussion as the other Iraq thread was.

acliff
05-10-2005, 05:25 PM
Great entertainment!

DragonRat
06-10-2005, 02:56 AM
Why didn't we invade North Korea then? They've been ignoring nuclear pacts for quite some time now. Perhaps it has something to do with Iraqi oil reserves vs. N. Korea's lack thereof.

(And you know what, oil prices are still skyrocketing. Three bucks a gallon... when's that oil coming over here anyway?)

Liam
06-10-2005, 06:23 AM
We wouldnt mind some here, either.

To be fair, I think the North Korea thing has more to do with trying not to piss the Chinese and the Russians off too much.

deviljet88
06-10-2005, 07:01 AM
We wouldnt mind some here, either.

To be fair, I think the North Korea thing has more to do with trying not to piss the Chinese and the Russians off too much.
And invading Iraq's only got a bunch of nuthead suicide bombers hating Western countries even more.

Hazzle
06-10-2005, 07:36 PM
And invading Iraq's only got a bunch of nuthead suicide bombers hating Western countries even more.

They hated us enough to begin with. Anyway, what're you bitching about? Australia isn't "Western" it's further East than the Middle-East :p But seriously, don't tell me you believe that liberal bullshit? 9/11 occured WELL before this invasion of Iraq (and before people mention the first...for the record...UN-sanctioned, in order to liberate a Muslim country from invasion by another. No justification for an Islamist war against the "west"), and several other bombings occured well before. The Embassy bombings? USS Cole? The earlier WTC carbomb?

Terrorists like terror. War doesn't breed more of them at all, if anything it's actually lessened them. It shows a resistance and a desire NOT to be afraid. Plus there are reports showing support for Bin Laden in the Middle East has DECREASED since the war in Iraq. Reports done by WESTERN liberal newspapers who all have an anti-war stance and yet even they couldn't disagree with the findings.

Nuff said really.

Edit: I think voting "No" on this poll should be a bannable offence :p

hasselbrad
06-10-2005, 08:24 PM
The justification for war was WMDs. We knew he had them. The same bunch of senators who were the loudest critics of Bush were the same bunch (John Kerry included) that urged Clinton to go after Saddam in 1998. For the same WMD. That he didn't have a few years later. Hmmmm.
Oh, and in case you've missed it (strangely, much of it has gone unreported) we have found a fair amount of material buried in various locations. Frighteningly, however, much of it probably scurried across the border into Syria while France, Germany and Russia were preventing us from taking action. Sweetheart oil deals and illegal sales of weapons will cause some countries to take some pretty drastic actions...like the Russians (allegedly) helping said scurrying to occur.

Ranman
06-10-2005, 11:10 PM
Where are these wmd buried?
I'm sure If they found one weapon, Fox news would have reported it.
Fox News is on every night saying how well things are going over there.
Oliver North says things are much better Than reporters are saying.
If just one weapon was found it would have been on every front page.
So I say where? where? Where? Where? Where?

Jasmine
06-10-2005, 11:37 PM
I'm saying no.

In my Current Issues class, we talked about how the history of it all doesn't even add up. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden aren't even friends, so the US's claim that Iraq was assisting in terrorism and had WMDs is like... totally bogus.

It's such a sad situation :[ We invaded because Bush is a greedy asshole, and now thousands of lives are being lost. When will it end? :icon_conf

Hazzle
07-10-2005, 05:53 AM
Ever heard the phrase your enemy's enemy is your friend? They don't have to be bossom buddies, they have a common enemy, and this is war. In a war, friendship doesn't mean squat, you help out anyone who is an enemy of your enemy.

I'm not so sure about WMDs being found, but he clearly had them previously, because years before Bush was even president, people were insisting he did. Hell even the UN did. All of a sudden, Bush wins the Presidency controversially and people change their mind, simply because it's Bush.

I put it to you...if you have weapons worth billions of dollars, and the US Army is on your doorstep along with some chums, would you sit on them? Before you say "Why didn't he use them?" there's a simple reason. He used Scud missiles initially, then there was a bit of a backlash against the UN because according to the report he submitted to them, he didn't have scuds anymore. Liar liar pants on fire. Using just one WMD would've brought every other major superpower into the war...hardly a smart move.

Saddam's best weapon against the invasion was home (ie American, British, etc) opposition to it. This would go if he used them. Could you imagine the US media still opposing the war if he'd used one? Exactly.

So you can't use them...so what? Here's the thought...sell them?! If he managed to ship billions of dollars worth of gold bullion out of Iraq (and he did as they caught a couple of trucks moving gold over the border and these were not the only trucks of similar size and design going the same route at that timeframe) would it really be that difficult to sneak a few vials of a biological weapon out? That's an even smaller mass to get past pretty lax security.

This "Bush is greedy" line is odd...in what sense? PLEASE don't say oil because then I'll know you're stupid because economists have conceded that after Iraq is rebuilt, it will still take 5 years of US investment to actually make the oil fields profitable. Hardly a smart move considering Bush will be out of the White House by then.

deviljet88
07-10-2005, 08:23 AM
They hated us enough to begin with. Anyway, what're you bitching about? Australia isn't "Western" it's further East than the Middle-East :p But seriously, don't tell me you believe that liberal bullshit? 9/11 occured WELL before this invasion of Iraq (and before people mention the first...for the record...etc etc

Note, I said EVEN MORE. I know there was already resentment and chaos, but the attacks have been even more often since. Don't deny that. Oh, and Bush isn't out of the House. Lucky him.

Jasmine
08-10-2005, 03:00 AM
But 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein! He had no connection with Al-Queda whatsoever! 9/11 was just an excuse for Bush to get 50% of Americans to buy into his bullshit "Iraqi Freedom" scheme. There was a poll conducted, and some 80% of people who supported president bush's invasion of iraq thought that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

Bush wants oil & revenge. He will LIE to the American people and the UN to get what he wants. And he's willing to do that at the price of American lives. That disgusts me.

Rob The BLack Douglas
08-10-2005, 03:00 AM
The reason given for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD's in violation of the treaty. The White House also told the Senate that some were capable of hitting the east coast of the US.

Now, the UN inspectors continued to say that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's were already disposed of based on the serial numbers from the US, British, and French companies that sold the stuff to Iraq. What little he had left was either buried, or some of it most likely did get smuggled out. But he had very little according to the US military when they finished there search for WMD's.

Also the White House claimed to have proof that Al-Qaida was working with Saddam. There has been no evidence of this.

Also the White House fostered the perception that Iraq was partly responsible/involved with 9/11. Thanks to faux news for pushing this piece of White House propaganda.

Add in the fact that Shrub was itching to go in and finish what his daddy started means that all this administration needed was the flimsiest of exscuses to go into a country that they have always wanted to invade.

There has been accurate reports by people stating that the White House has been obsessed with Iraq from the first day they took office.

To many of the US's resources are being sucked up by Iraq instead of being used to go after Osama who should be our number 1 priority.

Rob

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 10:30 AM
Note, I said EVEN MORE. I know there was already resentment and chaos, but the attacks have been even more often since. Don't deny that. Oh, and Bush isn't out of the House. Lucky him.

I don't deny that there've been more attacks. I DO deny that there's more hatred towards the west as, in the rest of my post, I highlighted the fact that recent surveys have shown a declining support for Bin Laden.

But 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein! He had no connection with Al-Queda whatsoever! 9/11 was just an excuse for Bush to get 50% of Americans to buy into his bullshit "Iraqi Freedom" scheme. There was a poll conducted, and some 80% of people who supported president bush's invasion of iraq thought that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

Noone EVER said 9/11 had anything to do with Saddam Hussein. If idiot Americans believed that, then more fool them, but that was a naive interpretation of what was put forward. The argument was that 9/11 showed that WAITING for the worst to happen before dealing with it was a bad way to go about things. Bin Laden tried to bring down the towers way back in 93. He was then linked with the Embassy bombings and the sinking of the USS Cole. IF, as he'd been pushed to (ironically by Kerry, amongst others), Clinton had dealt with these threats by launching a proper offensive against Bin Laden, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

This logic was extended to Hussein thus; rather than waiting for him to use WMDs or worse yet, sell them to someone else who could be using them all around the world, let's see if he'll comply with his UN obligations, and if he doesn't, we'll make him comply. The proof was in the pudding...part of his obligation to the UN was to tell them exactly what long-range weapons he had. No Scud missiles were mentioned on the report his government submitted to the UN. However Scuds were SEEN used against the invading forces and captured by WESTERN media which, as we know, has been consistently AGAINST the war.

So the fact is, Saddam was breaking his UN obligations. Now if you WANT to argue against an invasion based on this, argue against it, and there are some very valid arguments (eg why won't the US be sterner against Israel which is also breaking UN resolutions? Double standards?) but please, I beg of you, don't keep trotting out the same old naive "Where are the WMDs?" (because the ACTUAL reason for the war was WMDs as well as long range missiles. BOTH were forbidden by the UN, not just the former. The latter he definitely DID have) or "It's about oil"

Bush wants oil & revenge. He will LIE to the American people and the UN to get what he wants. And he's willing to do that at the price of American lives. That disgusts me.

FFS. IT IS NOT ABOUT OIL. Have you not seen Oil prices rocket up? The irony is for everyone bitching about this being about oil the same people bitch about "gas" prices going up in the US...err...where's the logic in that? Let me repeat, it will take five years of US investment in a STABLE Iraq before it begins producing enough oil to counter the IMMENSE cost of the war. Do you people not realise how many billions a war costs? For Iraq to produce enough cheap oil to negate the cost of the war and then make the whole endeavour (if the war was a business proposal, as you suggest) profitable will take 5 years...and that clock hasn't even really begun running yet. Bush won't even be in office...

Now revenge...THAT you may have a point about...Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld were both in Bush senior's cabinet too...

(wait, why am I giving you arguments against the war? Oh yes, because I'm trying to give you valid ones instead of invalid ones :p)

The reason given for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD's in violation of the treaty. The White House also told the Senate that some were capable of hitting the east coast of the US.

Now, the UN inspectors continued to say that over 95% of Saddam's WMD's were already disposed of based on the serial numbers from the US, British, and French companies that sold the stuff to Iraq. What little he had left was either buried, or some of it most likely did get smuggled out. But he had very little according to the US military when they finished there search for WMD's.

Incidentally that first argument has never been refuted. He WAS found in possession of long range missiles capable of that.

And 95% is not 100%. Hell even if he had just a few solitary weapons, that doesn't diminish their danger. The US military only ever admitted that what they found were scraps, they never admitted that they found nothing. Equipment was found, I believe, but no actual weapons...but I ask...who has equipment if he's not been making the weapons? Whether he still had them or not, he knows who he sold them to, and the only way for us to find out would be to interrogate him. Which required his capture...

Also the White House claimed to have proof that Al-Qaida was working with Saddam. There has been no evidence of this.

Also the White House fostered the perception that Iraq was partly responsible/involved with 9/11. Thanks to faux news for pushing this piece of White House propaganda.

No, the White House claimed that they had sources and evidence that SUGGESTED that Al Qaida had been working with Saddam. It's the media that spun that into "proof". Everyone knows that the term "evidence" doesn't equate to proof, as both sides in a trial present "evidence" and only one side's "evidence" will ever amount to "proof".There has been no evidence refuting this either. The fact Saddam and Bin Laden aren't friends doesn't mean anything either as the suggestion was NOT that Bin Laden and Saddam had directly worked together, but people in Bin Laden's rather large network had worked with Saddam.

Sorry again, but no, the White House fostered the perception that Iraq might have helped with the planning for the attacks on 9/11. Don't forget, the pilots had initially trained to fly crop dusters and the theory is that initially they planned to spray something over New York and Washington DC but the plans were changed. If the former was the initial idea...given Saddam's preoccupation with biological warfare...whose idea do you think it might've been? I mean Bin Laden has NEVER been linked with chemical or biological weapons...he prefers things that go boom.

What I love is people complete disbelief of White House propoganda (which is a good thing to see) and yet their complete acceptance of the liberal media's propoganda (which is a bad thing to see). The truth lies somewhere in between...don't swallow everything the government tells you, but sure as hell don't believe the media because they're even worse! The media has ALWAYS been a propoganda machine, either pro or against a government, and to believe their spiel is silly.

Now Rob does make some valid points. The argument about wanting to finish what his daddy couldn't, and it being their agenda from day 1...all valid. In addition Bin Laden should be our number 1 priority and the irony is that our apparent ally, Pakistan, who helped in the invasion of Afghanistan, is allegedly harbouring him now.

Ranman
08-10-2005, 11:09 AM
I'm starting to like you Rob, well atleast your way of thinking.

Haz, you saying idiot americans is an insult to idiots
and where about to upgrade to morons.
There about to start teaching creation in schools instead
of evolution, so instead of learning we evolved from apes,
our youth are gonna learn about the guy who lived in a
whales belly for 200 years and the earth is only 5000 years old.

Our President nominated a supreme court judge this week.
Instead of putting a qualified judge up for the job
he chose his personal lawyer with no experience as a judge


The rest of the world should get on tv and point and laugh at the USA

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 05:03 PM
I'm against the teaching of creationism too. It'd be fine if it was just part of religions education but as a scientific principle? Bollocks.

Rob The BLack Douglas
08-10-2005, 05:47 PM
Actually the White House has repeatedly said that they had proof that Al Qaida was working with Iraq. The White House try'sd to tie everything into 9/11 because it distracts people fro mwhat they are doing to our country. Looting the treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars, forcing a right wing christian theocratic government on the people, the destruction of all privacy rights, and making the super rich ven richer at the exspence of the middle and working class.

And Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Rethug party here in the US. They spew the party line dribble as "News". The media did not sex up the bit about Al-Qaida and Iraq, the White House did and the news only reportrd what the White House said. Don't believe me, check out White House press conferance transcripts.

Saddam was bluffing the entire time. What was found was so old it could of never worked. He did such a good job of bluffing that everyone believed him. He actually had very little in the way of WMD's. Now he was trying to fool the UN into lifting sanctions so he could resume his weapons programs, but the last batch of inspectors were a little to efficient and he wasn't able to do anything on a large scale.

When the US went into Iraq, we had no plan to control the country, the administration actually thought the Iraqis would greet us with open arms and everything would be perfect.

This administration ignores the advice of numerous advisors and only listens to it's yes men. The White House refuses to take any responsibility for it's actions.


Thanks for the compliment Ranman, truly appreciated. Where I live people actually think god tells the president what to do :rolleyes:

Rob

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 06:06 PM
And Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Rethug party here in the US. They spew the party line dribble as "News". The media did not sex up the bit about Al-Qaida and Iraq, the White House did and the news only reportrd what the White House said. Don't believe me, check out White House press conferance transcripts.

As I said, they said they had evidence, not proof. The terms are not interchangeable, even if the media do use them as such. Fox News are as bad as anyone but the rest of the media are hardly blameless for their left-win nonsense either.

Thanks for the compliment Ranman, truly appreciated. Where I live people actually think god tells the president what to do :rolleyes:

That's bad. Although it's almost as bad believing the media too.

What are 10 years if you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars?
If you’re talking about the biggest oil supplies in a world were the need for oil raises everyday?
Who gets all the building contracts to rebuild Iraq? American building construction companies. ect.

Lol, yes, but where's the incentive for BUSH?! In 10 years he won't be president, he won't get to claim the glory, hell, some Democrat might be and get to claim it. There's no logic to that. Especially as the French only remained OUT of the war because they had agreements with Iraqi oil makers and didn't want to lose out.

Helping the people of Iraq was not the only reason the usa invaded. If that would have been the only reason than they would never invaded on their own.

Noone ever said it was that. I love the way people who oppose the war flip-flop and say "It wasn't to help the people of Iraq so Bush is a liar" "It wasn't because of WMDs so Bush is a liar". Which of those reasons did he give? You'll FIND that the actual REASON for war was the latter...the former was an added benefit that the White House spun out because they knew it'd gain them more support. Spin doctoring at its best. And they didn't go on their own thank you very much!

And for the Weapons of mass destruction. I am sure if you would drop years and years bombs on Belgium than you would find the restants of chemical factories and could claim "hey they were making weapons of mass destruction."

Lol. I'm not even dignifying that one with a response...dropping bombs wouldn't create chemical labs, would it? Plus Belgium also stayed out of the war for reasons of oil greed like France...

Foeni
08-10-2005, 06:49 PM
There's no doubt the oil had a role to play in invading Iraq. But it's a minor reason. I don't think I could name one single oil-using country who isn't interested in a stabile oil market. But making it the one and only reason, which a lot have, is wrong.

Yes, USA lead the war against Iraq. They are the superior force in this coalition. But other peace-loving, not so greedy nations have joined as well. Britain, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Spain etc. The biggest problem is that Bush had a good plan to win the war but none to win the peace. The most unstabile areas in Iraq is controlled by US forces. That doesn't neccesarily mean that US forces are bad, it also has something to do with which area we're talking about. Let's have that in mind.
I will repeat what I said when I created this thread. Saddam didn't obey (sorry about the choice of words, don't really know what word to use - you know what I mean) the UN after having been threatened with war. If we just had let him shit on our threats everyone we threat will do the same, because we won't react to it anyhow.

Finally, no respect for those countries who declare themselves against the war only to be caught in having great deals with Iraq.

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 07:58 PM
There's no doubt the oil had a role to play in invading Iraq. But it's a minor reason. I don't think I could name one single oil-using country who isn't interested in a stabile oil market. But making it the one and only reason, which a lot have, is wrong.

Exactly. However the oil argument cuts both ways, some countries had more to gain from Iraq's oil trade being restricted (such as Russia), and in fact the anti-war argument had a lot more to do with oil as financially they would reap bigger benefits than the coalition will. You think the billions that the US will make out of these contracts is big? Russia, France and Belgium together stand to lose TRILLIONS. Russia's oil trade has rocketted since the first Gulf War and the restrictions on Iraq. They alone stand to lose several hundred billion. Yes, hundreds of billions.

The biggest problem is that Bush had a good plan to win the war but none to win the peace. The most unstabile areas in Iraq is controlled by US forces. That doesn't neccesarily mean that US forces are bad, it also has something to do with which area we're talking about. Let's have that in mind.
I will repeat what I said when I created this thread. Saddam didn't obey (sorry about the choice of words, don't really know what word to use - you know what I mean) the UN after having been threatened with war. If we just had let him shit on our threats everyone we threat will do the same, because we won't react to it anyhow.

Exactly. Going to war was not a mistake, but going to war without a proper exit strategy and long-term planning was.

Finally, no respect for those countries who declare themselves against the war only to be caught in having great deals with Iraq.

Such as France and err...Belgium :p

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 08:05 PM
I would like you to go more in detail about your "belgium" argument. some prove, conections,...

Elf-Total-Fina is a Franco-Belgian merged company, is it not? One of the three was a Belgian company previously, I'm sure of that.

Anyway, they had a contract with Iraqi oil producers worth billions which they obviously lose.

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 08:16 PM
And the usa wins?

Nope. The contract was worthwhile to them because they negotiated a great price because the Iraqi oil producers were selling more oil than they were allowed to legally under the UN regulations. Those obviously didn't bind Elf-Total-Fina so they were free to buy the oil cheaply.

Plus neither France nor Belgium had to invest billions to even get that contract...the US spent so much on the war that a contract that size wouldn't even make a dent. Not to mention the fact that many oil fields were destroyed in the invasion which need investment to be made productive again.

Foeni
08-10-2005, 08:23 PM
You're as stubborn as a dwarf Flightfreak. But that's allright, you probably say the same thing about us :p

Foeni
08-10-2005, 08:35 PM
It has been answered earlier... So that's why you're so "stubborn", you didn't read what we posted, huh?





















:kidding:

Hazzle
08-10-2005, 09:20 PM
The same tools could NOT have been used to make medicines. The tools could ONLY be used to breed viruses, could this have been used for a medical process? Sure, but more likely, given the lack of other equipment that would normally be used when replicating viruses for medical purposes, it was for biological warfare.

The US went to war to back up a UN resolution that was not being followed. Saddam WAS in contravention of the UN resolution because he had scud missiles. To hell with the WMD argument, he wasn't even supposed to have long-range missiles and yet we KNOW he did because we SAW him use them.

The fact that the UN pussied out of it and wouldn't back military action wasn't surprising when you look at the countries that voted against; China (which always opposes the US), Russia (oil), France (oil), Germany (always opposes war, actually opposed the first gulf war and the war in Kosovo) and a bunch of former French colonies...wonder what motivated them :err:

Y'see...the US isn't the ONLY super power that controls the UN and ironically, the French have more control over the UN right now than the US ever have done. How many former French colonies still rely on their links with France to maintain their economies? EXACTLY.

The French are devious bastards. Perfect example is how much they loved the EU whilst it favoured them, but now with the accession of the new Eastern European countries, who will now need the same sort of financial aid that France needed after WWII, they oppose the EU consitution which will allow them to get the financial aid they need (at the expense of France, of course). The French loved the EU whilst they dominated it...they're afraid of losing control.

Thankfully for them the UN is still their lapdog...

Rob The BLack Douglas
09-10-2005, 02:55 AM
As I said, they said they had evidence, not proof. The terms are not interchangeable, even if the media do use them as such. Fox News are as bad as anyone but the rest of the media are hardly blameless for their left-win nonsense either.





Actually they did say they had proof but that it was classified. Not evidence. Proof. Proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaida prior to 9/11. The administration used the word proof on all the talk shows when they were trying to build up support for the invasion.

This is a personal topic to me because I have lost kin in the US and British military.


By the way here is an excellent site that does great analasys:

http://billmon.org/

Hazzle
09-10-2005, 12:00 PM
Actually they did say they had proof but that it was classified. Not evidence. Proof. Proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaida prior to 9/11. The administration used the word proof on all the talk shows when they were trying to build up support for the invasion.

Meh, administrations are as stupid as anyone. And so what? We have nothing to disprove that theory. If they have the proof, who are you to say they don't? We have no proof that there was no relationship there, do we?

It is an all know fact that Iraq made chemical weapons and used them (1988). The ‘prove’ they’ve found are what’s left of the old factories used to make those weapons.

So? Even the UN inspectors conceded that Iraq probably DID possess SOME WMDs.

I am also wondering what if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What is it that the usa are trying to protect? The world? Are they scared Saddam would try to invade the US? Or would it maybe be about the Black Gold? Maybe about the huge strategically oil supplies in the area?

The fear was that weapons could not only be launched against the East Coast of the US, but even if that were not the case, the US has many strategic bases in the area, as well as embassies etc. Given the embassy bombings and USS Cole it was logical to worry about those sorts of things too. And so what if the fear was that a fuck off chemical war in the Middle East would deprive the world of oil? Do you WANT to live in a world where business all grinds to a halt, where production disappears, and we all starve to death? Believe it or not but we all need there to be oil for us to survive.

Oh now they invaded them for long-range missiles? :p
Israel is ignoring UN resolutions him self, I don’t see the USA bitching about that.

FINALLY you picked up on an argument I already threw out. The UN resolutions with regard to Israel are, imho, spurious. Israel is doing nothing wrong, merely defending itself against what is technically an invading force. You support the Iraqi's rights to fight back, why not the Israeli's? And yes, they invaded them for long-range missiles, don't pull a face like that, only an idiot who believes the press spin would believe it was all about WMDs. It was about breaching the resolution, which covered BOTH WMDs and missiles.

I saw a documentary once about how Jacques Chirac is addicted to money. It was pretty interesting.
what’s the point? France was against that war because there were economical strings attached. Lovely, now we all know that.

I am sure if you would look at the USA their reasons to invade that you would find as much economical reasons as france had to be against that war.

You'd find some, but not as many. For the simple reason that you forget that GOING to war actually costs money, whereas NOT going to war is free. So there can't possibly be as many convincing reasons to go to war for financial reasons because it actually COSTS to make that decision.

Foeni
09-10-2005, 03:15 PM
Polls show that the majority of the Iraqi people is glad we removed Saddam.
Isn't brad missing in this thread?

Hazzle
09-10-2005, 10:10 PM
Pols kept by who?
They got a civil war instead of suppression. Oh they must sure love it.

Brad can only check kkw during the week at his work.

Polls conducted by lots of people mate.

Incidentally...where was the oil in Kosovo?

Rob The BLack Douglas
10-10-2005, 01:52 AM
Meh, administrations are as stupid as anyone. And so what? We have nothing to disprove that theory. If they have the proof, who are you to say they don't? We have no proof that there was no relationship there, do we?



Actually the documents captured by coalition forces prove at this point that there was no relationship.

Nothing available to date will prove that invading Iraq was the right thing to do at this time. Osama is and should be the number 1 priority. Anything, and I mean anything that takes away from that is a waste of resources and does nothing to make the world safer from terrorists.

Rob

deviljet88
10-10-2005, 07:05 AM
Polls conducted by lots of people mate.

Incidentally...where was the oil in Kosovo?
Did Bush send troops to Kosovo?

Edit: Oh and there's oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.

Hazzle
10-10-2005, 06:11 PM
Did Bush send troops to Kosovo?

Edit: Oh and there's oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.

No, but this idea that Bush went to war alone is ludicrous. Many of the same people are involved in both conflicts...Blair for example?

To say Bush didn't send troops to Kosovo is just plain fucking stupid as he wasn't president and in no position to do so...can you say he wouldn't have? EXACTLY.

The Caspian Sea isn't controlled by Kosovo. Hell Kosovo is a weak country in the region. Russia is the real power broker in the area...

Polls by who? as far as I know all humanitarian organisation left Iraq, who's left? coalition troops? Important Iraqi’s who want to stay friends with the states? Those polls must sure be correct.

Western media groups. As well as Al Jazeera...you know...those lapdogs of Bin Laden? EXACTLY. Al Jazeera's OWN polls show a decline in support for Bin Laden.

And no, the Red Cross is still in Iraq.

Like Jet said,
As good as no Oil and Kosovo isn’t strategic important in the regio either. For that reason the UN troop are there and not the USA playing it on its own.

The US still went to war there. The idea that the US only goes to war where oil and strategic importance are crucial is stupid. The US, incidentally, along with Britain, LED the UN to send troops there...and the initial attacks were NOT UN ones, because the UN is only involved in peace-keeping. The war in Kosovo was waged by the US, Britain and, to a lesser degree, France.

hasselbrad
10-10-2005, 08:41 PM
If you were going to have a party on your back deck, would you...

...run around during your party with a fly swatter smashing the mosquitos as they began biting your guests?

*** or ***

...hang a bug zapper in the far corner of the yard, and let the bugs busy themselves there?

:rolleyes:

deviljet88
11-10-2005, 04:23 AM
If you were going to have a party on your back deck, would you...

...run around during your party with a fly swatter smashing the mosquitos as they began biting your guests?

*** or ***

...hang a bug zapper in the far corner of the yard, and let the bugs busy themselves there?

:rolleyes:
Cool. Explains dropping nuclear bombs everywhere.

Hazzle
11-10-2005, 05:57 AM
Cool. Explains dropping nuclear bombs everywhere.


Errr, Japan doesn't qualify as "everywhere".

deviljet88
11-10-2005, 10:33 AM
Errr, Japan doesn't qualify as "everywhere".
Errr, my comment means, basing on Brad's post (in an extreme case), it's alright to drop nuclear bombs to prevent any future trouble (using the fly analogy).

hasselbrad
11-10-2005, 01:05 PM
Errr, my comment means, basing on Brad's post (in an extreme case), it's alright to drop nuclear bombs to prevent any future trouble (using the fly analogy).

***whiff***

You know what that was? That was the sound of you completely missing my point. :p
Like bugs to the zapper, the war in Iraq has attracted scumbag, terrorist jihadists from all over the globe to martyr themselves. And, in their zeal to show what good muslims they are, they are beginning to alienate the more moderate muslims. Folks over there are slowly beginning to realize that these jihadists are willing to kill anyone, anywhere to further their cause...regardless of whether they are infidels or not. This explains the falling poll numbers. When muslims see terrorists targeting other muslims, it starts to hit home that maybe these jihadists are simply waging a personal war.

deviljet88
11-10-2005, 01:15 PM
Isn't it Sunnis and Sufis... Reminds me of Protestants and Catholics back in the old days.

And so is your lamp thingy to... uh... attract flies to kill each other? Huh?

*does another **whiff** *

hasselbrad
11-10-2005, 03:16 PM
Isn't it Sunnis and Sufis... Reminds me of Protestants and Catholics back in the old days.

And so is your lamp thingy to... uh... attract flies to kill each other? Huh?

*does another **whiff** *

Do y'all not have bug-zappers in Australia? Sheee-it...a six-pack of beer and a bug zapper is all the entertainment you need.

Seriously, the blue light attracts the bugs. They fly into the light and ZAP!, they die.

Think of the war as the blue light and our military as the electical current.

Most of the "insurgents" are militants from other countries. They are pouring into Iraq to prevent a democracy from taking hold, because they know that freedom and personal liberty run counter to their islamic totalitarianism. It's these same islamic totalitarianist regimes that support terrorism. They would rather see a government like Iran's, run by extremist imams, because it's easier to get funds from a government like this than it is a democratic government that is accountable to voters.

chewwie
11-10-2005, 06:30 PM
I think it was the right move upon those countries who agreed to it! There was a dictatorship that was in need of difusing. Sadam was subplanted and for that it will become a better and more stabalized economy, which will play host to human and civilised laws, not those of execution and torture. I know there is the whole argument on the case for WMD but still, there were many other reasons why it was required. Obviously no one likes war, or wants confrontations between nations (and if they do they are sick) but sometimes it is needed in such gruesome circumstances - as was evident in Iraq before the war. And i believe the only reason why the Iraqis are stilled scared, is because there are Sadam loyaltists who continue to blow themselves and others up! Not because another nation is attempting to help them!

AureaMediocritas
12-10-2005, 09:15 PM
All this perfectly shows the subjectivity we are all subjected to in our
considerations. Your opinion largely depends on your character (relentlessly
pacifistic, patriotic, alternative, conservative, intelligent, dumb, especially naive etc.), your level of curiosity, the partial sources you have to base yourself upon (in any case, the author manages to affect you in one way or another: hepresents an interesting idea that makes you stick to his belief or a remark that annoys you and makes you reaffirm your initial position with even more impetus) and last but not least, your government´s relationships with the sides involved.

It is worth considering that rarely a peace of information is purely objective
(even pictures are not always).

The discord and the multiplicity of points of view might very well lead to a
productive discussion (exactly what this forum needs!) but in case of doubts,
it seems wisest to me to remain strictly neutral.

At least, you do not end burnt as a witch. :)

DefyingGravity
13-10-2005, 10:40 AM
At least, you do not end burnt as a witch. :)

SHE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT

AureaMediocritas
13-10-2005, 05:01 PM
SHE TURNED ME INTO A NEWT

What a shame !! My sincere condolences.

Ranman
04-11-2005, 12:00 AM
Over 2000 Dead Americans

With no end in sight

deviljet88
04-11-2005, 05:37 AM
450 Australian troops to be withdrawn in May, due to Iraqi security forces finally training their butts, yay.

Hazzle
04-11-2005, 10:02 PM
not mentioning the deaths count on the Iraqi side which is a lot higher.

Most of which were caused by insurgency which is not the fault of the invasion as the religious tensions that are causing the insurgency were always there. Saddam was perpetrating bloodbaths on a daily basis, and the insurgency was happening (by the Shiites instead of the Sunnis who're doing it now), we just didn't know about it as the bloody media didn't care then.

They do now as they can use it to criticise Bush, when the truth is, the only reason so many Iraqis are dying now is because liberal idiots stopped us going to war against Saddam sooner. We should've gone to this war back in the late 90s.

Please stop spewing fiction. This is supposed to be a real-life discussion and the idea that the deathtoll of innocent Iraqis, most of whom were NOT harmed by US military but by insurgents, is the fault of this invasion is a bald-faced lie.

The deaths of the US soldiers is, however, the "fault" of this invasion but then, so by that token were the deaths of the US soldiers in Europe during WWII as America didn't have to send troops to Europe, it did so to help Europe.

America's sole threat was from Japan, how many American lives could've been saved by just attacking Japan and leaving the Europeans to worry about the Nazis? And how many more Jews would've died if that had been the American attitude then?

AureaMediocritas
04-11-2005, 10:11 PM
It was indeed a clever move on the part of Georgie´s daddy Georgie Sr. to let
Saddam in power when the road to Baghdad was open. How much did he care
about those shiite massacres !

His lovely son seems to have inherited this remarkable magnanimity.
Freedom for the poor Iraqi we all love so much !

Yeah right.

Hazzle
04-11-2005, 10:21 PM
It was indeed a clever move on the part of Georgie´s daddy Georgie Sr. to let
Saddam in power when road to Baghdad was open. How much did he care
about those shiite massacres !

His magnamity seems to have stained his lovely son. Freedom for Iraq !

Yeah right.

It was indeed an error to allow Saddam to stay in power back then. I don't disagree. But the fact one mistake was made doesn't make this war any less right.

FYI, there was virtually no way to capture Saddam without using force against his own person. But US law prevented the military from using force against a President of any nation after JFK's assassination so there were complex legal issues about what Bush Snr could actually order.

The legal situation is different now as Bush Jnr passed an ammendment to the law prohibiting assassinations of Presidents. They're still illegal but non-lethal force against a foreign leader is now allowed.

hasselbrad
04-11-2005, 10:30 PM
We should've gone to this war back in the late 90s.
You mean when Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry et al were pushing Clinton to do it?
;)

AureaMediocritas
04-11-2005, 10:31 PM
In my opinion , what you call a mistake is one of many proofs that the U.S
administration does not give a damn about the Iraqi people (and I honestly
do not see why they should : if they were to liberate the world from dictatorship
they would have plenty more of work to do..., especially in regions less
"interesting" , geopolitically and economically).

I am quite sorry but I do not buy their story.

Hazzle
04-11-2005, 10:37 PM
In my opinion , what you call a mistake is one of many proofs that the U.S
administration does not give a damn about the Iraqi people (and I honestly
do not see why they should : if they were to liberate the world from dictatorship
they would have plenty more of work to do..., especially in regions less
"interesting" , geopolitically and economically).

I am quite sorry but I do not buy their story.

That was never their story. That's just it, they pitched it in that they were liberating Iraq from Saddam (which they have) but noone EVER said that that was their entire motivation for doing it. It's basically just been implied from what was said because it suits the anti-war agenda.

But that's total bollocks, the reasons for the war were many, and yes, they even said that one of them was the hope that a democracy in the Middle East would have good geopolitical rammifications. Economically Iraq isn't that crucial, but a stable Middle East would be. Again, what about that is wrong again? Do we not want a stable Middle East?

You mean when Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry et al were pushing Clinton to do it?
;)

Yup...

But as I said, bloody liberals wouldn't let it happen. If you want to know what would happen if Liberals ran the world...look at the riots in Paris. The French capital, home of the nation which staunchly opposed the war in Iraq, is being burnt and destroyed by Islamic riots as we speak...

AureaMediocritas
04-11-2005, 10:46 PM
Economically Iraq isn't that crucial, but a stable Middle East would be. Again, what about that is wrong again? Do we not want a stable Middle East?

Imperialism is wrong. Using violence to impose values that the locals are not
familiar with, provoquing a brutal culture clash , lying about "weapons of
mass destruction" , not bothering to respect UN decisions , using the military to
fulfill personal ambitions or the ones of a lobby , wasting loads of people´s lives ,
all this doesn´t sound right to me.

A stable Middle East ? Good luck... If the method will stay the same , much
fun will be had.

Hazzle
06-11-2005, 02:07 PM
Imperialism is wrong. Using violence to impose values that the locals are not
familiar with, provoquing a brutal culture clash , lying about "weapons of
mass destruction" , not bothering to respect UN decisions , using the military to
fulfill personal ambitions or the ones of a lobby , wasting loads of people´s lives ,
all this doesn´t sound right to me.

A stable Middle East ? Good luck... If the method will stay the same , much
fun will be had.

Imperialism isn't wrong. Half the world wouldn't be educated if it wasn't for British imperialism. What values are we imposing? The world's first ever democracy was in Persia, where modern-day Iraq sits. The culture clash hasn't been provoked by the invasion, don't be an idiot. Do you not know about the brutality that was taking place every day under Saddam? The culture clash comes from the age-old issues between Sunnis and Shiites, nothing the west could do could have made those better or worse.

Noone lied about WMDs, it was all speculation, you can't blame governments for the fact that the media didn't understand that and spun off their own interpretation of the various dossiers.

The UN decision was basically a smokescreen for the fact France didn't want the war and neither did Russia. China always opposes the US, Germany always opposes any way, even the firts Gulf War, Russia didn't want the war for economic reasons and the French not only didn't want the war, but coerced former French colonies into voting in their favour. It was the most corrupt decision the UN has ever taken, it's not up to France to run international organisations, it's bad enough that they've used the EU as their own personal empire for long enough.

Want to see an Imperialist nation abuse its power? Look no further than France which has, unlike the British, never relinquished control on its former colonies. The French blackmailed former colonies, that makes the "decision" a mockery and null and void.

Plus the UN resolutions already passed gave ample authority to go to war. Read up on them a bit and you'll find the UN DID actually sanction this war, they just tried to back down on that by refusing to pass another resolution which would have been a bit sterner in its terms. However the war DID have UN backing under existing resolutions.

"wasting" people's lives is a point of view. Do you have proof that the region will not be better? How about we wait long enough before judging the effectiveness of this war, instead of being narrow-minded idiots and failing to see that the only way to see if this will bring stability to the region is in the LONG-TERM.

Wars are all about personal ambition, don't be so naive. Every single commander in chief decides to go to war on the basis of their own personal ambition, or lobbying, this is why Roosevelt opted to stay out of WWII (due to lobbying against it) until the US was attacked and the lobbyists switched sides. Are you saying that it was wrong for Roosevelt to go to war?

Your sarcasm just underlies the weaknesses of your points. It's the lowest form of wit. Peace can only be achieved through war, perhaps if you read a little more than just the newspapers (with their latent bias), you'd have read the many many philosophers and thinkers of far greater intelligence than you or I who have said so.

AureaMediocritas
06-11-2005, 03:54 PM
So you would fully understand , in case the Queen was a dictator , a unilateral (and I persist , unilateral) invasion of Britain because it needs to be educated, (all right, if you say it is the medias´fault excusively, I will leave the WMD behind), because the UN partly consists of self-righteous countries who have different causes to prevent this invasion from happening (but did not vote against a previous invasion led by the U.S) and still it is backed by the U.N (?) , because one man is fully entitled to use his power to fulfill his ambitions since that ´s just the way it goes, there is nothing wrong with that... ? If I were British , I wouldn´t like to see my property blown up ,
the national resources exploited by unfriendly culturally and religiously
opposed invadors, the establishment of a government devoted to the invadors (with the illusion of so-called democracy, a bit as in the former communist countries of eastern Europe) etc.

I would have appreciated foreign help preparing an insurrection to get rid of the Queen, but I would not understand why the Yanks are "liberating" me.

Although I do like your powerful argumentation , it seems not to reflect the
mentality of somebody living in the 21 th century. It rather reminds me of a
19 th century approach making the difference between "good and bad" , "developped and undevelopped" , "clever and dumb" with nothing in between,
blindly justifying any kind of action suiting that point of view.

No offence , your points show that you are willing to accept the course of
history with all the violence creating peace that goes with it. I do respect that. So, would you say that a superpower is entitled to invade every
country they regard as a thread ? If so, wouldn´t you agree that there
is still a lot of work to do and that there is a slight risk that new enemies
are going to arise in consequence ? And lastly, would you agree that
the so much powerful superpower is eventually going down because of this
geopolitical approach ?

Hopefully , my stubornness is not too frustrating :) . I like energetic
discussions.

Hazzle
07-11-2005, 06:47 PM
because the UN partly consists of self-righteous countries who have different causes to prevent this invasion from happening (but did not vote against a previous invasion led by the U.S) and still it is backed by the U.N (?)

I think you misunderstood my point. The ENTIRE UN didn't vote on the resolution, I'm sure you're aware, it's the Security Council, which contains both permanent and temporary members. In 1991 the balance of the Security Council wasn't so Franco-centric, to begin with, and secondly the French were not opposed to that war as, unlike this one, it was not against their economic interests. That is why they backed it then.

Incidentally, yes, it is still backed by the UN because the initial resolutions gave enough backing for the war to be valid, the stronger resolution was sought for clarity and more unanimity of purpose, it was a chance for the world to join what is a just war and stand up for the UN's beliefs, but instead the French-led coalition opted to vote in favour of national, not international, interest. And yes, if the French coerced former French colonies into voting in their favour, thereby making the result an anti-war one whereas it would've have been in favour of it previously, then the decision should be deemed null and void due to corruption.

No offence , your points show that you are willing to accept the course of
history with all the violence creating peace that goes with it. I do respect that. So, would you say that a superpower is entitled to invade every
country they regard as a thread ? If so, wouldn´t you agree that there
is still a lot of work to do and that there is a slight risk that new enemies
are going to arise in consequence ? And lastly, would you agree that
the so much powerful superpower is eventually going down because of this
geopolitical approach ?

There is a lot of work to do and no, there isn't any risk that new enemies will arise in consequence. Support for Bin Laden has dropped in the Middle East after the war in Iraq. That's according to Al Jazeera, who, let's not forget, should be biased the other way. I do not believe that the US has anything to fear, let's face it, who's going to bring the US down?

Bringing the US to its knees will have no other result than a catastrophic decline in the economies of every other nation in the world, and spiral the world into the depths of depression never seen before. Never before has the world been so economically reliant on one nation, not even in 1929.

As for military might, no matter what, the US still boasts the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and a hi-tech, sophisticated and large military. Not to mention it has allies in the UK, Canada and Australia who combined make it a pretty daunting task to humble the Americans militarily.

AureaMediocritas
07-11-2005, 09:54 PM
I am fine with your post except for the "corrupt decision" of a France-led
coalition that only considered "national" interests.

It is no secret that France has tried to disrupt the strong ties between America and Europe ever since the 1960s . Beeing a permanent member of the Security Council , I believe that France has a right to oppose decisions that are not in favour of its national interests ; all former Soviet and Chinese vetos can be explained in the same way. As the name of the organisation shows , the U.N is a group of nations , which includes thinking based on the concept of nation, therefore national egoism. Of course , it would be great if
every country got along together without any trouble whatsoever , yet reality seems to prove that a nation cares about itself first. This is not a
purely french phenomenon, I guess.

The concept of a "just" war you mentioned is also subjected to fragility.
Many people in Europe , but also in the U.S. and the world (who you would
probably call "damn liberals" ;) ) have got founded reasons not to regard
such an intervention as "right" ("In wartime , the first victim is Truth"),
either because of (tendencious and still solid) documentaries , critical
investigations on the part of scolars and journalists or frankly
anti-American propaganda (always bearing at least some true facts).
In consequence, I would dare to affirm that the French even made a
decision representative of a great deal of Europeans (sissy pacifists , yes I
know).

Anyway, I hope the democratisation will succeed in Iraq, one Vietnam is
enough.

Hazzle
08-11-2005, 06:55 PM
I am fine with your post except for the "corrupt decision" of a France-led
coalition that only considered "national" interests.

I have no objection to France's voting against the resolution. I do have issues with blackmailing their former colonies to do so even if they didn't want to. Every member of the UN should be free to exercise the vote, as you said, in their OWN national interest. It's ironic that you, a champion of democracy, should hide behind a very undemocratic decision. Is it democracy to vote with a gun pointed to your head, being told who to vote for? That's the situation that took place.

The concept of a "just" war you mentioned is also subjected to fragility.
Many people in Europe , but also in the U.S. and the world (who you would
probably call "damn liberals" ;) ) have got founded reasons not to regard
such an intervention as "right" ("In wartime , the first victim is Truth"),
either because of (tendencious and still solid) documentaries , critical
investigations on the part of scolars and journalists or frankly
anti-American propaganda (always bearing at least some true facts).
In consequence, I would dare to affirm that the French even made a
decision representative of a great deal of Europeans (sissy pacifists , yes I
know).

A just war is a necessary one. It's up to every nation to decide what's necessary for its own national security. It doesn't matter what the French believe to be necessary for their own national security, it's not up to them to claim that the war in Iraq was unnecessary when clearly the US, Britain and several other allies DID feel it was necessary for THEIR national security.

Anyway, I hope the democratisation will succeed in Iraq, one Vietnam is
enough.

I wish people would stop making that comparison. That's not a legitimate one to make, the US did not go to war based on an ideological opposition to Saddam Hussein's politics, it was not a case of not wanting to see a Sunni government (unlike Vietnam where it was opposition to Communism) but based on his danger to surrounding areas and potential international rammifications. That would make it far closer to the second world war, as Hitler is very reminiscent of another Hitler. Kuwait was very much an example of him trying what Hitler did with Czechoslovakia and as a history student, you know that had he been challenged at that point, Hitler would never have invaded Poland, and the second world war would never have happened. The truth is, a war now prevented a massive-scale world war in 5 years time.

AureaMediocritas
08-11-2005, 08:47 PM
If former french colonies deem it necessary to obey french intimidations , it is
obviously a sign of political weakness and dependence. Nevertheless , if such
politicians decide to back the french attitude (again supported by a large
number of Europeans) , it is a sign that France cares about them most.
An easy solution would for instance be to contribute to the development of
stable democracies instead of letting power to mostly corrupt leaders ( in many cases, considered with little / without interest , especially in Africa [maybe this rings an economic bell ?]).

Yeah , I had a good laugh when I saw the impressive list of "allies" : all sincere and entirely devoted coutries (my personal favourite is Uzbekistan).
The U.S promisses to such countries to make them provide military support
are of course a nice appetizer but all in all, they are as corrupt as the
french intimidations.

Your objections as to the Vietnam are indeed well-founded. I guess it is
commonly used to show the possibility that a fanatized guerilla , supported
by wealthy allies not intervening directly (Saudi-Arabia, Iran maybe , perhaps
Syria) can defy a mighty invador. In this case , it seems to me that this
possibility is largely underestimated by the Coalition , especially in an instable
region such as the Middle East.
Seeing that Saddam was overwhelmed in 1991 already , the Czechoslovakia
analogy seems to be a bit exaggerated. You may claim that Hussein was
a clever one, usurping the Oil for Food program to obtain money illegally ,
sending home the inspectors to win time and so on , I still would not believe
he would have started a new war. But that is a matter of point of view.

Let me add that this thread helped to illustrate the points of both pro- and
anti-war positions, which I think has been a tremendous benefit after all.

Pygmalion
10-11-2005, 01:54 AM
War is never the right answer, and the war in Iraq was the poorest excuse for Bush to get his hands on oil and win support for an election I've ever heard of.
I marched in the "No War" marches at the time, and I'd do so again.

Foeni
10-11-2005, 05:16 AM
God I hate when people believe Bush went to war only for oil! What about the rest of the coalition? Do you really think us to be that stupid? We have leaders more intelligent than Bush, and they've met with him, talked to him. Don't you think they made sure the reasons for going to war was well-founded? Besides, if you look at the way the US handle the situation in Iraq, you'll see that they lose a rather large amount of soldiers, which the same US is known to try and prevent at any costs. All those cities in which terrorists hide, they could have just bombed the hell out of them. They let their soldiers go in. Why? Because they believe in what they're doing.

deviljet88
10-11-2005, 06:39 AM
All those cities in which terrorists hide, they could have just bombed the hell out of them. They let their soldiers go in. Why? Because they believe in what they're doing.

No, it's so there's little collateral damage. Pity the enemy doesn't know what the word means.

duckula
10-11-2005, 12:57 PM
War is never the right answer

Except when it is.

hasselbrad
10-11-2005, 01:21 PM
No, it's so there's little collateral damage. Pity the enemy doesn't know what the word means.

I think that's the point he's trying to make. If it was just an oil grab, we would have bombed indiscriminately. Hearts and minds don't need to be won if the hearts aren't beating.
And, the enemy knows exactly what collateral damage is. That's all they've got to work with.

If Bush relied on poor data, what are these peoples' excuse?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force� if necessary� to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Oh, and by the way, WMD has been found...just not according to the Iraq Survey Group's restrictive definition. Near the town of Baiji, the 4th I.D. discovered an ammo dump. In that ammo dump were 55 gallon drums of chemicals. These chemicals, when mixed together, create nerve gas. They were stored next to surface to surface missles...configured to carry a liquid payload. :err:

Pygmalion
10-11-2005, 02:02 PM
God I hate when people believe Bush went to war only for oil! What about the rest of the coalition? Do you really think us to be that stupid? We have leaders more intelligent than Bush, and they've met with him, talked to him. Don't you think they made sure the reasons for going to war was well-founded? Besides, if you look at the way the US handle the situation in Iraq, you'll see that they lose a rather large amount of soldiers, which the same US is known to try and prevent at any costs. All those cities in which terrorists hide, they could have just bombed the hell out of them. They let their soldiers go in. Why? Because they believe in what they're doing.

YOU may have a clever leader, but I know OUR leader is an arse-licking capitalist pansy.

Foeni
10-11-2005, 02:13 PM
No, it's so there's little collateral damage. Pity the enemy doesn't know what the word means.

It is possible to use missiles with very little collateral damage, almost as little as sending in troops. Look at brad's post right after yours, he's right.

AureaMediocritas
10-11-2005, 03:37 PM
I believe terrorists need more sex.

hasselbrad
10-11-2005, 03:39 PM
What has one of the highest priorities on the usa's agenda?
TERORISME
What would you create with "just" bombing Iraq down?
LOADS and LOADS of more terrorists all around the world.
So that argument does not clear "the war for oil" idea.
The war is not *just* for oil but I seriously believe that it was a big factor in the decision to "go to war" or "not go to war".

Terrorism is/was a priority. The "big lie" that's been propogated in our media is that there was no connection between Saddam and terrorism, because he didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 (even though Iraqi officials were in Malaysia at precisely the same time a planning meeting for the attacks was taking place) attacks.
When Bush made his speech, he implicated those nations who harbor terrorists. The Al Qaeda camps that existed in Iraq fall under this "harboring" caveat. Hussein was already known to be paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers in Gaza, so it wasn't much of a stretch to think he might be willing to part with weapons of a much more sinister nature.
Fact is, if France had been willing to enforce a decade worth of UN resolutions rather than reap billions in sweetheart oil deals, a war may have been avoided altogether. Saddam might have backed down and reopened Iraq to inspections, but instead, our hand was forced.
Now, elections have taken place and Iraq seems headed toward a democracy. It won't be easy, but the fact that over 60% of the population (under threat of retribution from Al-Zarqawi's terrorist thugs) showed up to vote makes me confident that democracy will eventually come to fruition. And, that democracy will be a step toward marginalizing terrorism as a political tool.

Foeni
10-11-2005, 07:04 PM
War is never the right answer
Except when it is.

True. This is not compared to Saddam, it's a reply to Pygmalion's answer only: What would you have done with Hitler? Asked him nicely over a cup of tea to withdraw his forces from the countries he'd occupied? Hmm...

CollisionStar
10-11-2005, 07:06 PM
I have no idea if I posted on this before or what...but....

I'm tired of America being the universal big brother. I wish we would just stay the hell out of others business at times.

Plus...I believe war solves nothing in the end anyway.

hasselbrad
10-11-2005, 07:30 PM
I believe terrorists need more sex.

You are right. You know these silly bastards are sitting around rubbing 'em out thinking about the 70-some odd virgins they're supposed to get when they've blown themselves up.

AureaMediocritas
10-11-2005, 07:38 PM
You are right. You know these silly bastards are sitting around rubbing 'em out thinking about the 70-some odd virgins they're supposed to get when they've blown themselves up.

I see you got my point :)

hasselbrad
10-11-2005, 08:58 PM
I see you got my point :)
Seriously though, I think the repression plays a huge part in their fervor. I read somewhere that they sequestor these guys they recruit away from everything so that they can program them to carry out suicide bombings. Nothing but heavy doses of radical ideas.

Rob The BLack Douglas
14-11-2005, 02:46 AM
I love how people who support the war refuse to acknowledge the fact that bringing democracy to Iraq never was the reason stated for going to war. Very few argue that removing Saddam from power is a good thing but that isn't why Iraq was invaded.

No matter what arguements one uses the simple fact is that the war in Iraq pulls resources away from the main objective which is the hunting down of Osama Bin Laden.

hasselbrad
01-12-2005, 03:58 PM
That cartoon is representative of the Nancy Pelosi plan, not Bush's.

Rob The BLack Douglas
02-12-2005, 04:54 AM
That cartoon is representative of the Nancy Pelosi plan, not Bush's.

You mean shrub actually has a plan? Could of fooled me.

Foeni
02-12-2005, 06:41 PM
I found this:

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/iraq_mass_grave.jpg

hasselbrad
02-12-2005, 07:35 PM
luckly the states went to iraq to prevent that, they still have a lot of work around the world thought if its for that :p.

I'm pretty sure those bodies are from Saddam's regime.
So, if the United States said that it was going to topple regimes of ruthless dictators that massacred civilians, would you support it?

hasselbrad
05-12-2005, 03:10 PM
That's a complicated question, can't give you an easy yes or no awnser on that.
The day that a country helps an other country without any personal advantages will never happen, it would be naive to think it would. Anyway because of that reason i can't give you just an easy yes or no answer on your question.

So thousands of deaths (possibly hundreds of thousands) at the hands of a brutal dictator are worth not allowing the United States any sort of political or financial advantage?
Interesting.

AureaMediocritas
05-12-2005, 05:04 PM
So thousands of deaths (possibly hundreds of thousands) at the hands of a brutal dictator are worth not allowing the United States any sort of political or financial advantage?
Interesting.

No it is not. Although it would still depend on the historical evolution leading to the contemporary situation (an evolution, I am sure , the U.S. would have been involved in anyway), no nation , as long as the world is being ruled by the concept of nations, is allowed to use unilateral force to get rid of an unwanted governmental form, however terrible it is.
Since the creation of the UN, such logic has become unnecessary. And not respecting UN resolutions is a way of showing totalitarianism as well.

Let´s assume the U.S. were allowed to eliminate dictatorships and gain
political or financial advantages by doing so. There were times it all was just
handled differently : by supporting dictatorships against the "evil" Communist pigs, thousands of deaths (possibly hundreds of thousands) have been made possible around the world. Funnily enough, political or financial advantages included. In addition , I am convinced that the intention of bringing democracy to a country is honourable as such, yet only valuable from the western point of view. Some cultures are just not ready for democracy, so imposing it might become risky and turbulent.

You see what can happen once a superpower can decide what "freedom" , "democracy" and "moral correctness" means. Finally, to prove that I am not blindly antiamerican, I am now going to enjoy coke, hamburgers and FRENCH fries at McDonalds. :p

Ranman
05-12-2005, 05:29 PM
Everyone who writes in this thread should share a hotel room
and you can slug it out, winner owns this thread

AureaMediocritas
05-12-2005, 06:20 PM
Looking forward to it , Ranman . I shall bring along my whip for you. :)

Ranman
06-12-2005, 12:31 AM
I'm bored and I need a laugh

Hasselbrad tell me again

How they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
And the news didn't cover it :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

hasselbrad
06-12-2005, 12:46 PM
I'm bored and I need a laugh

Hasselbrad tell me again

How they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
And the news didn't cover it :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

I'm reading a book on the subject right now. Well...not right now...because I'm at work...but I am reading it. So, you'll just have to wait until I'm finished and then I will strike down with furious vengeance those who doubt my word.
:D
Really though, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Surely you don't believe everything the media feeds you.

Ranman
06-12-2005, 11:58 PM
I'm reading a book on the subject right now. Well...not right now...because I'm at work...but I am reading it. So, you'll just have to wait until I'm finished and then I will strike down with furious vengeance those who doubt my word.
:D
Really though, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Surely you don't believe everything the media feeds you.

Me, a reasonably intelligent person?
Haven't you heard I can't deduce an overly ripe orange