No, no reason at all to invade Iraq!

[Yonivore]

Bodies of babies found in Saddam's 'killing field' (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening%20Standard)

[Hook Dem]

The Democrats don't want to see the truth Yoni. You're not playing fair!

[ChumpDumper]

Dead babies in the Sudan, too.

Attack?

[Hook Dem]

Big difference Chump!

[Nbadan]

I wonder how many of them were killed with smart bombs?

[ChumpDumper]

What's the difference?

You're saying dead Kurd babies are more important than dead black African babies.

Good show.

[smeagol]

As horrible as the Saddam regime was, that in itself is not enough to invade a country. WMDs or a strong link to terrorist groups would help legitimize the war in Iraq.

This may sound like a cliche, but it is true: If dictators who opress their people is a big enough excuse to invade a country, what is Bush waiting for to invade Cuba, South Korea, Iran, etc.

[Hook Dem]

Spin, spin, spin Chump You'll figure it out later than sooner.

[ChumpDumper]

Spit it out -- what's the difference?

What are your degrees of genocide?

[bigzak25]

so you would support US troops in the Sudan?

[ChumpDumper]

To stop an active genocide as peacekeepers? It's been done before.

[Yonivore]

I wonder how many of them were killed with smart bombs?
Shot in the head and bulldozed, according to the article.

[Yonivore]

As horrible as the Saddam regime was, that in itself is not enough to invade a country.
I never claimed it was the only justification...just another in a long list of legitimate reasons to topple the regime.

[smeagol]

I never claimed it was the only justification...just another in a long list of legitimate reasons to topple the regime.

What are the other legit. reasons?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think genocide is more than enough reason to go into a country, and I wish those in control on Capitol Hill would step up in the Sudan situation.

They, along with the "sophisticated" people over in the EU, stood by and let Rwanda happen.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hussein failed to comply with the terms of the original Gulf War armistice which was to provide a full accounting of his WMD programs. That's where the justification for the invasion begins.

[ChumpDumper]

I think genocide is more than enough reason to go into a country, and I wish those in control on Capitol Hill would step up in the Sudan situation.You mean Republicans?

I dig the consistency though....

[travis2]

Both sides are to blame on that one, Chump...that was going on when your buddy was in office too...

[Marcus Bryant]

Ah, Rwanda.

[Nbadan]

Now we're worried about dead babies?

Well then, we'd best not be attacking any more cities.

Especially w/ clusterbombs and artillery.



Ms. Bellamy (UNICEF) noted that if the substantial reduction
in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had
continued through the 1990s, there would have been half
a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as
a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a
partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of
the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues
which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed
to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people
would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of
the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council
and the effects of war."

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

And here:


After Baghdad fell to US-led coalition forces one year ago,
infant mortality rose, according to NGOs working on
health issues in Iraq and health officials, including
Dr Naeema al-Gasseer, the World Health Organization
(WHO) representative for Iraq who is currently based in
Amman, Jordan.

www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=40480&SelectRegion=Iraq_Crisis&SelectCountry=IRAQ

[CommanderMcBragg]

Democrats are just as caring as you conservatives make yourselves out to be.

[whottt]

This may sound like a cliche, but it is true: If dictators who opress their people is a big enough excuse to invade a country, what is Bush waiting for to invade Cuba, South Korea, Iran, etc.


Geez Smeagol give us a break, you act like it's easy to go and invade countries, murder civillians, topple great humanitartian governments, and be the greatest source of evil, corruption, and greed mankind has ever seen.

We're only 1 country, be patient




We'll get to those other countries...

[ChumpDumper]

The situation in Darfur started in March of last year.

If you're talking about Rwanda you're absolutely right -- the entire world lacked a spine.

[CommanderMcBragg]

What about Sudan?

A genocide is happening and this president doesn't even mention it.

[whottt]

To stop an active genocide as peacekeepers? It's been done before.


Let the UN do it...they know how to do it the right way...oh wait.

[ChumpDumper]

Let the UN do it...they know how to do it the right way...oh wait.Actually, we've done it before. Unless you think the US can't do it.

Think of the dead babies....

[travis2]

Actually the Sudanese Muslims have been killing and enslaving Sudanese Christians for years.

[whottt]

Actually, we've done it before. Unless you think the US can't do it.

Think of the dead babies....


At the moment we can't do it as we are in two other countries and there are a bunch whining anti war protestor conspiracy theorists making those jobs difficult enough as it is.

Let the UN do it...let them be relevant for a change. If they backed us in defending ourselves, we might have the manpower available, but since they didn't we don't.

[whottt]

What are the other legit. reasons?

For the 1 trillionth time...

Iraq lost a war. They signed a cease fire agreement...The UN passed a resolution allowing war if they violated that resolution.

Technically, we were officially at war with them again when they shot at British and US planes enforcing the no fly zone that were conditions of Saddam's surrender.

And if that's not enough, he violated the UN resolution that gave us just cause to take him out.

Those other countries haven't signed a cease fire agreement, and had UN resolutions passed that allow for war, after losing a war in which they invaded another country.


It's not like Iraq is just another country, the entire world declared war on them in the early 90's and they never lived up to the conditions of their surrender.

[ChumpDumper]

But we want the UN to pay for rebuilding Iraq now, so what?

I'm so glad were helping the Kurds 20 years too late just in time to let all the African Sudanese die too.

At least we're consistent.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yes, Republicans on CH deserve blame for not tackling the Sudan, but I haven't seen any Senators standing up and calling for intervention.

Similarly, the clowns at the UN aren't doing jack squat about it either. Perhaps if they got a couple of billion in bribes (like some got to back Hussein against the US) they'd suddenly have a spine to say and do something about it.

[whottt]

But we want the UN to pay for rebuilding Iraq now, so what?

Perhaps that because we pay for the fucking UN too.


I'm so glad were helping the Kurds 20 years too late just in time to let all the African Sudanese die too.

At least we're consistent.


This war not about the Kurds...that a side issue...the importance of that issue is showing you what kind of life those people faced under Saddam.

The reason for this war to take out a potential opportunity for nuclear weapons to meet terrorists and be used against us.

This war is for our own defense, but all you guys screaming about the deaths of innocent civillians need to look at what was going on before we were there.

That condition was chronic, this war won't be.

[ChumpDumper]

The reason for this war to take out a potential opportunity for nuclear weapons to meet terrorists and be used against us.That worked out really well -- we didn't even guard the equipment that was there.

Got those oilfields protected though....
That condition was chronic, this war won't be.You underestimate the resolve of the enemy.

And WTF with this?
Under pressure from China, the U.S. eases its threat of oil sanctions against Sudan, revising its motion to the Security Council to say the UN "shall consider" punitive action, rather than "will take."http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/darfur.html

[whottt]

That worked out really well -- we didn't even guard the equipment that was there.

Got those oilfields protected though....You underestimate the resolve of the enemy.

You lose the right to make that complaint if you also argue Saddam wasn't a serious threat to us. The only ones allowed to complain about both are democratic presidential candidates who are politicizing the war to get elected.

Also, if all we are worried about is Oil then why didn't we take Saddam out the first time?

And why did we first try to go through the UN this time?



And WTF with this?http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/darfur.html

That's called multilateral cooperation with the great liberal nations of the world. You should be happy.

Now if we can just get France and Germany on board, like China, they might be willing to work with us now that their oil for food scam has gone to pot.

If the oil is right...they might be willing to join the coalition of the coerced and bribed.

[ChumpDumper]

You lose the right to make that complaint if you also argue Saddam wasn't a serious threat to us.He certainly wasn't the imminent threat we were led to believe he was.
Also, if all we are worried about is Oil then why didn't we take Saddam out the first time?We were afraid of chaos in large parts of the region like that kind that is happening now.
That's called multilateral cooperation with the great liberal nations of the world. You should be happy.Knuckling under to communists makes you happy? You suck.

[whottt]

He certainly wasn't the imminent threat we were led to believe he was.

The neither is the missing equipment and therefore why are you mentioning it?



We were afraid of chaos in large parts of the region like that kind that is happening now.

So we were afraid of it then but not now? What changed?




Knuckling under to communists makes you happy? You suck.

Telling them to fuck off when they veto our ability to defend ourselves makes you unhappy? You suck worse.

[Yonivore]

What are the other legit. reasons?
Here's an excerpt from an earlier post I made, in another thread...

"The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, through it's consort with known terrorists, harboring of known terrorists, support of known terrorists organizations, expressed desire for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, preparations for the production of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, exploitation (at the expense of starving Iraqi children) of the U.N. run Oil for Food Program, defiance of 17 U.N. resolutions, repeated violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, attempted assassination of a sitting U.S. President, and the perpetration of genocidal acts within the borders of Iraq are what necessitated the invasion and swift (21 days) conclusion of the war begun in 1991."

[ChumpDumper]

The neither is the missing equipment and therefore why are you mentioning it?
English please, ducks.
So we were afraid of it then but not now? What changed?You tell me.
Telling them to fuck off when they veto our ability to defend ourselves makes you unhappy?I never said so. We'll always do what we want, or so we thought....You said China was a great liberal nation. That's horrible.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, you can always find a reason for war but finding a reason for peace eludes many of us.

[spurster]

From this same article:

The mass grave was being excavated near Hatra, a village in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the [b]Eighties[\b]. The bodies had been bulldozed into the ground.
This was when Saddam was our despicable ally. This is just another rationalization for this war after the massive stockpiles of WMDs failed to materalize. We should invade ourselves because we met with Saddam, and so we must have collaborated with him to mass murder Kurds. And if we didn't collaborate, we certainly had the capability to do so. This makes more than enough reasons for us to make war on ourselves.

[whottt]

English please, ducks.
It was plain english. If Saddam wasn't a threat than neither is the missing equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either he posed no danger or he did.



You tell me.I never said so.
Yes you did. And I'm asking you.



We'll always do what we want, or so we thought

And what we want is consistently more fair and just than what any other country wants.


....You said China was a great liberal nation. That's horrible.

I agree liberals are horrible, and kinda dumb as well. I mean surely you realize you stand on the same side of this war as China? And France and Germany. And Russia. Oh and the terrorists as well.

A regular who's who of the worlds great liberal nations and causes in history. Enjoy your company. I hear they have parties where they see how many jews they can exterminate, how many personal freedoms they can take away, how many cuts of the knife it takes to remove a bound mans head.... Maybe shoot a few female and adolescent Iraqis with a single shot to the head..and I hear the finale is great, they reenact the destruction of the World Trade Center. Right up the liberal alley.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I think conservatives are dumb.

[ChumpDumper]

It was plain english. If Saddam wasn't a threat than neither is the missing equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either he posed no danger or he did.No immediate threat. Not a one.
I mean surely you realize you stand on the same side of this war as China? And France and Germany. And Russia. Oh and the terrorists as well.I stand on not killing my friends unnecessarily. Sue me, bitch.

Get the terrorists first, dumbass. They are the immediate threat. Not Saddam's decades away at best phantom nukes. You bought into this hook, line and sinker because you didn't want to feel as impotent as you did after 9/11. Anger is fine, but it completely clouded your judgment.

If my friends are going to die, I want them fighting the immediate threats -- not some guy who has been under our thumb and bombs for over a decade.

[smeagol]

Geez Smeagol give us a break, you act like it's easy to go and invade countries, murder civillians, topple great humanitartian governments, and be the greatest source of evil, corruption, and greed mankind has ever seen.

We're only 1 country, be patient




We'll get to those other countries...

Whottt:

This thread started with an article which described some of the attrocities committed by Saddam's Regime. The title of the thread implies that the Iraq war is justified on that basis.

My point is that the war is not justified on the basis that totalitarian regimes, such as Saddam's, should be deposed. If this were a good enough reason, as I said before, the US should go after Cuba (hey, I'd love to see that bearded SoB toppled!).

The other reasons given by you and by Yonivore are debatable. I think they are not enough to go to war. But that is my opinion.

And Whottt, don't make me kick your ass like I did in the "Rugby" thread! :lol