Keira Knightley.com Forums - View Single Post - Was the war on Iraq right?
View Single Post
Old 08-10-2005, 10:30 AM   Attended an OMGWTFKKWBBQ! KKWiki Contributer Senior Registered Member #14
Hazzle
Sponsored Cunt
 
Hazzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by deviljet88
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine
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"

Quote:
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 )

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Hazzle; 08-10-2005 at 10:45 AM.
Hazzle is offline   Reply With Quote