Reply With Quote
Yeah, it was the Baath party instead. Great ing logic.
Anyways, for those paying attention, the war was about removing a regime which, prior to 9-11 had already done more than enough to warrant its removal due to its continued refusal to work with the UN to confirm the status of its weapons programs. Every other intel agency in the world thought that Hussein had WMDs. Even his own generals did.
The impetus for the invasion post-9/11 was obvious. You had a Hussein regime that had a weapons program of uncertain status, a regime that had moved from a secular position to one aligned with Islamic fundamentalism (I guess Saddam used the greater enemy theory). In any event, you had a regime that had made it quite clear that it intended to develop such weaponry and was quite hostile to the US. The sanctions scheme the UN had set up was falling apart due to actions of parties in member states of the UN Security Council.
In hindsight, the Bush administration erred in its desire to point to the actual existence of WMDs. Of course, the US media has to dumb down and sensationalize public policy matters.
Would Americans be comfortable with a president, who facing a potentially dire situation, one in which Hussein, even if he did not happen to have functional nukes would be free to develop those due to the implosion of the sanctions scheme, decides to let the threat continue to manifest itself? I know I would not be.
Yeah, it was the Baath party instead. Great ing logic.
dude, again tell me when all of these alleged atrocisites took place? '88 and '91 right?
2003 guy, it was 2003
second, the iraqi government wrote a 100 pound do ent telling the world it didnt have, nor was it intending to develop WMD. Bush dubbed it the "100 pound lie"
^dumbass
How do the deaths of 100,000 people to keep a dictator in power compare to the deaths of 25,000 to bring freedom to all of the people? How can you compare that? I know the US is not in Iraq just to bring freedom to it's people, but I believe that is a possible outcome. The people who are doing the killing over there do so because that is the only way for them to control their fellow countrymen. In a free state their voice would be drowned out by the masses, moderates, and polar opposites that balance each other out in a free state. They are forced to use violence, fear, and such vile tactics to keep themselves in power. Sadam did the same thing on are much broader scale. Whatever reasons you believe the US is in Iraq for, the possibility that freedom and choice may be given to Iraq's people is a noble principle.
So we should take the word of the Hussein regime? Hussein certainly desired that weaponry and was working the UN Security Council to get what it wanted.
Wow, using past examples of mass death to justify lower current death counts. How conservative of you.
Wow, you used in innacurate aphorism to justify a death toll. How conservative of you. (and if you don't throw in your buck-o-five, who will?)
Wow, asking a question tangentially related to the topic. How conservative of you.
to you, not to them, there is a reason why there has only ever been one middle eastern democracy, and it is shaky at best (turkey) and that reason is...not eveyone thinks like us
Sorry, but when I state freedoms, I mean the people get to choose the type of government that rules them. If Iraq choose cons utional monarchy, then so be it. Atleast they would have a choice.
I don't think the majority of our current regime thinks that way though.
Democracy, now!
From a completely Machiavellian standpoint, I would have cut a secret deal with Hussein to bypass the sanctions in return for support against Al-Qaeda.Would Americans be comfortable with a president, who facing a potentially dire situation, one in which Hussein, even if he did not happen to have functional nukes would be free to develop those due to the implosion of the sanctions scheme, decides to let the threat continue to manifest itself? I know I would not be.
Or at least I would have considered that.
Yes, I would have collaborated with an awful dictator. Absolutely. The American President has a job to protect and serve the American people. That takes precedent.
And as we've seen for three years, wars of liberation to remove nasty dictators have indeterminate results.
I believe in having a cons ution, and whatever form of government that the Iraqi's want let them have.
What's the difference between a Hussein regime with WMDs and one who wants to build them and will be able to within 2 years? I don't see much.
That's about the only other way to try to neutralize the situation. Not really politically palatable in the US, even in dumbed down Medialand.
When is this kind of passion and anger going to be directed at those responsible for the suicide bombings that are killing so many Iraqis? Ever?
It seems to me that anyone who really cared for reasons besides Partisan cheerleading would show a little more anger towards the ones who are DIRECTLY responsible... instead of the US who is indirectly responsible, and whose retreat would be indirectly responsible for even more deaths.
Perhaps when Bush declares he's for gay marriage and all that God stuff, well he was just kidding about that.
Stout For President.
I just dont get liberals, yes to Saddam, no to Bush, hmmmmmmmmm maybe they would rather have saddam as president of the USA?
I think using a certain milestone number like 2000 to unjustify the war is even more contradictary to the word just, and alot more assinine.
My point CBF is, why not 1 or 10, or 250. Why does it have to be the number 2000. According to the lefts righteuous indignation, 1 dead is as bad as 1 million. All innocent deaths are evil if you want to go that route.
and the Baath party was just full of cheer and goodwill for all...
does anyone have the for ude to answer my indian analogy?
and another question for you RtoD.
I suppose you would have persecuted Abraham Lincoln and any of his initiatives to free the African American people of this country a couple hundred years ago?
Do you sacrafice in your life currently? I'm sure you do.
Why do you do it? do you do it for a greater good?
why can't you see that that translates directly to what we as a Country are doing in Iraq?
first, as i already said once, I don't buy the 100,000 deaths claim until it can be verified by another source than Wikipedia, and even if it can be, you still cant account for the fact that saddam was senile and out of real contol when we took control of Iraq, and whatever murder he commited was 14 to 17 years ago, where as we have murder 25,000 people in the last two years.
Sit back and really contimplate what all of you are saying, 25,000 people, think about exactly how large that number is, and then tell me that we are jusitifed in forcing our government on them despites the cost to their society.
Do you understand what that sounds like?
So we should take the word of the Hussein regime? Hussein certainly desired that weaponry and was working the UN Security Council to get what it wanted.
Marcus Bryant, did we find weapons of mass destruction in iraq? We never had a problem trusting saddam hussein when pappa bush was the vice president now did we?
And as i have said a few times before, saddam wasn't in control of his country anymore, he had become a figure head
probably the fact that the hussein regime was telling the world on a repeated basis, that it did not want to build weapons of mass destruction, and we have since found out that they only ever propogated that story in order to thwart future aggression from Iran
oh I can't stand them either, but we are responsible for these attrocities just as much as they are, if we had not done what we hav done, there wouldn't be any attoricities going on right now. Oh and by the way, more than half of those people were killed by american bombsWhen is this kind of passion and anger going to be directed at those responsible for the suicide bombings that are killing so many Iraqis? Ever?
It seems to me that anyone who really cared for reasons besides Partisan cheerleading would show a little more anger towards the ones who are DIRECTLY responsible... instead of the US who is indirectly responsible, and whose retreat would be indirectly responsible for even more deaths.
if you cant get your head out of you ass and add something useful to the thread, go the away. dumbass, it's called reading, that's what you need to learn to do, read.I just dont get liberals, yes to Saddam, no to Bush, hmmmmmmmmm maybe they would rather have saddam as president of the USA?
same to you asshole, learn to read, i already addressed the asinine comparison to the civil war, i'll repost it for you, but i doubt you will read it this time either, your indian example was a bad one, because 1) the aztecs were not slaughtering everyone in their path, they did capture prisoners of war and use those prisoners as human sacrafice, but they weren't slaughtering whole tribes, just 15 to 29 mean a year, and if the ******Spanish******* had decided to stop this pricatice instead of annialating the aztecs, than yes i would find that just. How does that pertain to this example, as halting human sacrafice wouldnt have required any bloodshed at all on the part of cortes, he was origianally considered a god.and the Baath party was just full of cheer and goodwill for all...
does anyone have the for ude to answer my indian analogy?
and another question for you RtoD.
I suppose you would have persecuted Abraham Lincoln and any of his initiatives to free the African American people of this country a couple hundred years ago?
Do you sacrafice in your life currently? I'm sure you do.
Why do you do it? do you do it for a greater good?
why can't you see that that translates directly to what we as a Country are doing in Iraq?
that was from the second pagelastly, the american civil war was fought between white people in order to free ensalved black people which the white people were entierly responsible for. Thus, those who were responsible for the genocide of balck people, bore the burden of freeing them.
By the same logic, are you saying the Iraqi people are responsible for the fact that they didnt choose the same governemnt we chose, and therefore just have to deal with the consequences that we give them due to our personal vandetta against their old form of government? BULL
second, although it pains me to say this, extra stout has provided this discussion with some very good anylasis, that really acentuates my original point, that just because we like democracy, doesnt mean that out actions are justified in iraq (i.e. killing 25,000 people)
The numbers don't mean anything. You could switch them around and it still doesn't make a strong argument. Maybe Saddam was senile, but he was still in control. He had his sons and had setup some system for maintaing his power. Regardless of this, there is now the opportunity to set up a system by the Iraqi's for the Iraqi's. When was the last time that ever happened?
There is another point about the prices being paid by those that have lost their lives. Who is responsible for the deaths? You act as though it's the US troops that are killing civilians. People push these figures like US marines are over there killing people in the streets. Who is doing the killing in Iraq? Is it not those who struggle to control the majority with violence? Is it not those who know that without conflict they would have no purpose in society? These are the en ies for which the majority of Iraqi's must be given the power to overthrow. If the US abandons them now, these same fringe groups will once again force their will on the people.
Times change.
Then it was his kids who were in control. The regime still represented a threat to the US.And as i have said a few times before, saddam wasn't in control of his country anymore, he had become a figure head
That's great. We still did not know what the they had and their actions in seeking to thwart the UN sanctions, actions which would have allowed the regime to restart/continue its weapons program were ongoing. Again, there was plenty of cause to take out the regime pre-9/11. Post-9/11, there was an even greater urgency to get it done.
probably the fact that the hussein regime was telling the world on a repeated basis, that it did not want to build weapons of mass destruction, and we have since found out that they only ever propogated that story in order to thwart future aggression from Iran
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
