50 Million Lives Were Saved in Iraq

[SimNut]

Saddam Hussien was a tyrannical leader. He was in command of the fourth largest army in the world. He invaded and destroyed another country without provocation. He mass murdered people in his own country. His country had the wealth and resources to become an even more serious threat to the world.

In hindsight, everyone is bashing the Iraq war. But they forget other events in recent history that made the war a necessity. They forget the period of time when everyone turned a blind eye to events in one country which eventually brought the entire world into a war. A war that costs millions of lives. They also forget that it was an international coalition that invaded Iraq, not just one country.

You can’t just turn your head forever. There comes a time when men of good conscious have to say enough is enough and something has to be done. Those men were George Bush and Tony Blair. They knew something had to be done and that it was not going to be a popular decision, but they had to do something.

Think of this. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver and takes him to jail, there’s just one less drunk on the road. Nobody knows what would have happened if the cop didn’t do his job. That drunk may have kept driving and crashed into a bus load of children killing 50 of them. So, does the cop get credit for saving 50 kids lives? If he a hero? Thankfully nobody will ever know.

Was Saddam going to acquire weapons of mass destruction and kill 50 million people? Maybe. He sure was on that path, just like the drunk driver. Thanks to brave men like Tony Blair and George Bush, we didn’t have to wait to find out. In 1939, one bullet could have saved tens of millions, but nothing was done until it was too late.

History will never record that George and Tony saved 50 million lives. I think they did and will never get credit for it.

[Takeda Shingen]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

[Sea Demon]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So is your rebuttal.

[Takeda Shingen]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So is your rebuttal.

And yours.

[Sea Demon]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So is your rebuttal.

And yours.

At least I got my point across. That's all I was hoping for. :smug:

[Takeda Shingen]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So is your rebuttal.

And yours.

At least I got my point across. That's all I was hoping for. :smug:

As did I. Cookies all around. I'd like sprinkles with mine.

[Sea Demon]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So is your rebuttal.

And yours.

At least I got my point across. That's all I was hoping for. :smug:

As did I. Cookies all around. I'd like sprinkles with mine.

Sounds good. :up:

[Skybird]

Saddam Hussien was a tyrannical leader. He was in command of the fourth largest army in the world. He invaded and destroyed another country without provocation. He mass murdered people in his own country. His country had the wealth and resources to become an even more serious threat to the world.

In hindsight, everyone is bashing the Iraq war. But they forget other events in recent history that made the war a necessity. They forget the period of time when everyone turned a blind eye to events in one country which eventually brought the entire world into a war. A war that costs millions of lives. They also forget that it was an international coalition that invaded Iraq, not just one country.

You can’t just turn your head forever. There comes a time when men of good conscious have to say enough is enough and something has to be done. Those men were George Bush and Tony Blair. They knew something had to be done and that it was not going to be a popular decision, but they had to do something.

Think of this. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver and takes him to jail, there’s just one less drunk on the road. Nobody knows what would have happened if the cop didn’t do his job. That drunk may have kept driving and crashed into a bus load of children killing 50 of them. So, does the cop get credit for saving 50 kids lives? If he a hero? Thankfully nobody will ever know.

Was Saddam going to acquire weapons of mass destruction and kill 50 million people? Maybe. He sure was on that path, just like the drunk driver. Thanks to brave men like Tony Blair and George Bush, we didn’t have to wait to find out. In 1939, one bullet could have saved tens of millions, but nothing was done until it was too late.

History will never record that George and Tony saved 50 million lives. I think they did and will never get credit for it.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

A head only needs to be empty enough - and echoes are thundering forever. :lol: Saving 50 million, eh? 4th largest army worldwide, aha!? I have seen those cartoons in 1990, too! Time or Newsweek magazine, if I am not mistaken. Pentagon started with a rating of 15th rank, then rated them higher and higher until pro war enthusiasm was overwhelming. If you label Bush and Blair to be men of consciousness, I hope I will already be dead and safe once there are people you label to be unreasonable.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

And while we are at it: the only ones turning their head currently are the Americans - since three years: ;)
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[Takeda Shingen]

:rotfl: :rotfl:
A head only needs to be empty enough - and echoes are thundering forever. :lol: Saving 50 million, eh? 4th largest army worldwide, aha!?

:rotfl: :rotfl:

And while we are at it: the only ones turning their head currently are the Americans - since three years: ;)
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Shhh. You're spoiling the flag ceremony. Now we have to start the Pledge of Allegiance all over again.

[Sea Demon]

If you label Bush and Blair to be men of consciousness, I hope I will already be dead and safe once there are people you label to be unreasonable.

:rotfl: :rotfl:
And while we are at it: the only ones turning their head currently are the Americans - since three years: ;)
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You may soon get what you ask, as your birthrates are low, and Muslim fertility is through the roof in your country.

And I'm not sure about these polls. It's incredible how they say one thing, yet the people I know who have actually been there, volunteered to go back, say something different. I'm not disputing these pols entirely, I just don't believe they are as accurate as you believe.

[3Jane]

Saddam Hussien was a tyrannical leader. He was in command of the fourth largest army in the world. He invaded and destroyed another country without provocation. He mass murdered people in his own country. His country had the wealth and resources to become an even more serious threat to the world.

In hindsight, everyone is bashing the Iraq war. But they forget other events in recent history that made the war a necessity. They forget the period of time when everyone turned a blind eye to events in one country which eventually brought the entire world into a war. A war that costs millions of lives. They also forget that it was an international coalition that invaded Iraq, not just one country.

You can’t just turn your head forever. There comes a time when men of good conscious have to say enough is enough and something has to be done. Those men were George Bush and Tony Blair. They knew something had to be done and that it was not going to be a popular decision, but they had to do something.

Think of this. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver and takes him to jail, there’s just one less drunk on the road. Nobody knows what would have happened if the cop didn’t do his job. That drunk may have kept driving and crashed into a bus load of children killing 50 of them. So, does the cop get credit for saving 50 kids lives? If he a hero? Thankfully nobody will ever know.

Was Saddam going to acquire weapons of mass destruction and kill 50 million people? Maybe. He sure was on that path, just like the drunk driver. Thanks to brave men like Tony Blair and George Bush, we didn’t have to wait to find out. In 1939, one bullet could have saved tens of millions, but nothing was done until it was too late.

History will never record that George and Tony saved 50 million lives. I think they did and will never get credit for it.

Will it also record that the west supported Sadam all through his tyranny until he became inconvenient.

[SUBMAN1]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So is your rebuttal.

And yours.

At least I got my point across. That's all I was hoping for. :smug:

As did I. Cookies all around. I'd like sprinkles with mine.

Sounds good. :up:

I want a cookie!

[ASWnut101]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So was this: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99346:up:

[Sea Demon]

Will it also record that the west supported Sadam all through his tyranny until he became inconvenient.

Yes, and it will record that the UN sat idly by while it's resolutions were being ignored by Hussein. It will record that the UN and negotiations initiated by European countries were useless. The problem SimNut, is that these guys here haven't even read the Iraq War resolution. They have no idea what we're doing there. Skybird sits in Germany and critisizes, yet his own country is going up the creek with no paddle.

[Skybird]

If you label Bush and Blair to be men of consciousness, I hope I will already be dead and safe once there are people you label to be unreasonable.

:rotfl: :rotfl:
And while we are at it: the only ones turning their head currently are the Americans - since three years: ;)
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You may soon get what you ask, as your birthrates are low, and Muslim fertility is through the roof in your country.

And I'm not sure about these polls. It's incredible how they say one thing, yet the people I know who have actually been there, volunteered to go back, say something different. I'm not disputing these pols entirely, I just don't believe they are as accurate as you believe.

They do not describe Iraq. They describe the mood in America, concenring opinions related to Iraq.

concerning Iraq, we had several high ranking militaries of the Us over the last six montzhs raising doubts about Iraq. Two days ago it was the highest British military. Plus we have crystal-clear and huge opinion majorites of the Iraqis themselves, and what they wish western powers should do - leaving. but they are told that they do not knw what they wish, and that we know better what they wish, and thus we do not what they wish, but what we do. And that is serving the purpose of not weakening political gangs in the ubcoming elections - by wiothdrawing and thus admitting that it has been a mistake.

As the polls on the opinion in america indicate, there has been a long trend now to reduce trust in the security competence of the Republicans, and currently Democats rally a majority behind them concenring a theme that traditionally has been regarded as a stroinghold of the Republicans: security, military, terrorism, Iraq. More, 4 out of 10 still think positive about Iraq, but 6 out of 10 think the war has been a mistake.

CNN world has run a looping comments show on these polls today, and CNN's Mr. Schneider summed them up.

[Sea Demon]

They do not describe Iraq. They describe the mood in America, concenring opinions related to Iraq.

As the polls on the opinion in america indicate, there has been a long trend now to reduce trust in the security competence of the Republicans, and currently Democats rally a majority behind them concenring a theme that traditionally has been regarded as a stroinghold of the Republicans: security, military, terrorism, Iraq.

CNN world has run a looping comments show on these polls today, and CNN's Mr. Schneider summed them up.

Right, and these same pollsters told us John Kerry would win the election days before Election 2004. Every election cycle we get polls telling us how many gains the Democrats expect to see. And then election day comes, and it's totally the opposite. I've learned to take polls with a grain of salt....especially ones taken close to election season. ;) Maybe this one's different. But if history's a guide, I'll remain skeptical of their results.

[Takeda Shingen]

This is empty conjecture; nothing more.

So was this: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99346:up:

No, those are statistics based on actual events. They are either provable or disprovable. As such, the poll that you have linked is a hypothesis.

This thread is based on a theory of an alternate timeline surrounding a government that no longer exists. No statement either supporting or refuting the theory can ever be proven or disproven. As such, it is conjecture.

[NEON DEON]

They do not describe Iraq. They describe the mood in America, concenring opinions related to Iraq.

As the polls on the opinion in america indicate, there has been a long trend now to reduce trust in the security competence of the Republicans, and currently Democats rally a majority behind them concenring a theme that traditionally has been regarded as a stroinghold of the Republicans: security, military, terrorism, Iraq.

CNN world has run a looping comments show on these polls today, and CNN's Mr. Schneider summed them up.

Right, and these same pollsters told us John Kerry would win the election days before Election 2004. Every election cycle we get polls telling us how many gains the Democrats expect to see. And then election day comes, and it's totally the opposite. I've learned to take polls with a grain of salt....especially ones taken close to election season. ;) Maybe this one's different. But if history's a guide, I'll remain skeptical of their results.

Oh crap! be prepared for a 10,000 word essay on the compilation of statistics.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Dowly]

Well, who can prove me that US saved 50 million lives by attacking Iraq? Who can prove me that US saved more lives by dropping the A-bombs to Japan than by searching for a alternative method to end the war?

Who asked US to attack Iraq? Nobody. Bush just told the people there is WMD´s and that Iraq is a threat to 'freedom'. Who wants US troops to be in Iraq? Not many, I can say that. This has been pointed before and I point it again, Iraq will be Vietnam all over again.

The insurgents are dressed up like a civilians, imagine one insurgent with a explosive belt in the middle of a 200 people crowd, the soldiers can do nothing to reveal him before the bomb blows. The war in Iraq has been lost, it was lost the first few weeks of the war. I doubt that the insurgents will give up nor they will run out of fighters.

I´m terrified to even think, what Bush comes up next. 'Hey, that Italian guy is wearing a T-shirt with Iraqi colors on it! Let´s attack Italy!'

IMO, the sooner we get rid of the guy, the better.

Just my opinion, nothing you say can change it. No pun intended.

[TteFAboB]

Any cookies left?

According to the theory of chaos, I have just prevented a massive Hurricane from forming in the North Atlantic and saved 300 billion lives by shutting the doors in my house and stopping a gust of wind.

Who can prove me that US saved more lives by dropping the A-bombs to Japan than by searching for a alternative method to end the war?


Well, the Japanese of course! :rotfl: They were pretty convinced to resist to the last man. The only "alternative" method was the A-Bomb method itself. But don't take that from me! Search Google for a few hours untill you find enough speeches by Japanese politicians and military authorities to back my words.

That was easy. :up:

[Coda]

I have to agree with the original post on this one.


Should everyone just wait for another Hitler to cause massive casualties and then act? Hell no.

I think that was part of his point. We will never know. Given the choice of stand by and wait for millions to die and then do something or make a proactive move to prevent it, I’ll take proactive.

If during the original Gulf war the coalition would have marched all the way into Baghdad and pressed on until they captured Saddam, the world would not be as critical as it is now. That’s where the mistake was made. He should have been removed then.

If you believe any poll, you’ll to gullible to form an opinion. Poll’s are designed and paid for by people who want their own opinion validated. They are worthless.

I’m not happy about the war. Nobody is.

Did it have to be done?
Yes.

Given the same circumstance, do it again?
Yes.

Did it save lives in the long run?
Yes.

What really amazes me is all the people in countries from around the world telling me what Americans think.

[Sea Demon]

I have to agree with the original post on this one.


Should everyone just wait for another Hitler to cause massive casualties and then act? Hell no.

I think that was part of his point. We will never know. Given the choice of stand by and wait for millions to die and then do something or make a proactive move to prevent it, I’ll take proactive.

If during the original Gulf war the coalition would have marched all the way into Baghdad and pressed on until they captured Saddam, the world would not be as critical as it is now. That’s where the mistake was made. He should have been removed then.

If you believe any poll, you’ll to gullible to form an opinion. Poll’s are designed and paid for by people who want their own opinion validated. They are worthless.

I’m not happy about the war. Nobody is.

Did it have to be done?
Yes.

Given the same circumstance, do it again?
Yes.

Did it save lives in the long run?
Yes.

What really amazes me is all the people in countries from around the world telling me what Americans think.

Agreed. :up: And well, said.

[NEON DEON]

Well, who can prove me that US saved 50 million lives by attacking Iraq? Who can prove me that US saved more lives by dropping the A-bombs to Japan than by searching for a alternative method to end the war?



I have one word for you:

OKINAWA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

[Skybird]

I have one number for you:

1991

[ASWnut101]

Who asked US to attack Iraq? Nobody. Bush just told the people there is WMD´s and that Iraq is a threat to 'freedom'.

Obviously the people:stare: :down:

[Dowly]

Sure, you can keep up the dreaming. Another dictator will rule Iraq someday. Just pull the troops out and save the lives of the soldiers that still are there. Nothing can be gained from Iraq anymore, the insurgents wont give up the fight.

[Konovalov]

Who asked US to attack Iraq? Nobody. Bush just told the people there is WMD´s and that Iraq is a threat to 'freedom'.

Obviously the people, moron:stare: :down:

Can we make a point without blatant name calling?

[Sea Demon]

Sure, you can keep up the dreaming. Another dictator will rule Iraq someday. Just pull the troops out and save the lives of the soldiers that still are there. Nothing can be gained from Iraq anymore, the insurgents wont give up the fight.

You haven't read the Iraq War Resolution either. :roll: Typical. And your answer is indicitive why Finland doesn't lead the world in any way shape or form. "The insurgents won't stop fighting, so just surrender". The Nazis wouldn't stop fighting either. And the Japanese were prepped to fight until the last man.

Thank God you people weren't around back then.

[NEON DEON]

I have one number for you:

1991

Coalition forces liberate Kuwait from Sadman Insane.

Anything I Miss?;)

BTW:

Do a statistical analysis of the battle of Okinawa durring WW II and project that onto a scenario where the US attacks all four Japanese home islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

:p :p :p

[ASWnut101]

Who asked US to attack Iraq? Nobody. Bush just told the people there is WMD´s and that Iraq is a threat to 'freedom'.

Obviously the people, moron:stare: :down:

Can we make a point without blatant name calling?

sorry about the name calling, but it just makes me mad when people say things that they try to make a point out of but end up being ignorant

[Dowly]

@ASWnut

Sorry you feel that way, but when someone says that US saved 50 million people by attacking to Iraq with NO reason, I´d like to see some proof.

@Sea Demon

I´m happy that Finland doesnt lead the world. No one can lead the world, Bush can try but he only gets everyone against him by doing that. I´ve said this before, USA is PART of the world, not the world. Sure, the US helped Europe in WWII and I thank you for that, but not everything that happens in the world is USA´s business.

[Sea Demon]

@Sea Demon

I´m happy that Finland doesnt lead the world. No one can lead the world, Bush can try but he only gets everyone against him by doing that. I´ve said this before, USA is PART of the world, not the world. Sure, the US helped Europe in WWII and I thank you for that, but not everything that happens in the world is USA´s business.

If you read the Iraq War Resolution you would know what I'm talking about. If you understood UN Resolutions regarding Iraq, how they were violated, and what conditions were in place to ensure they were kept, you would understand what I'm talking about. And who else can actually enforce UN resolutions halfway around the world if not the USA? And these UN Resolutions were pushed by you Eureopeans. If you don't want them enforced, don't waste our time. :stare:

[Yahoshua]

"but not everything that happens in the world is USA´s business."

Then stop asking us to empty our pockets for every sally-sobstory and harry-hardluck that comes along then. And stop asking us to waste money on that monstrosity you call the U.N.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/chronol/fin2000a.htm

We'll let Europe take care of Africa if you so desire, as the U.N. is already "doing their job."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45304-2005Apr11.html

But I doubt that much will be accomplished as even Europe refuses to assert herself in order to survive, yet silences those who attempt to revive her.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

U.N.workable

http://www.alpinesurvival.com/un_keep-out.jpghttp://www.alpinesurvival.com/un-usa-map.jpg (http://www.unwatch.com/)http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/us%20out%20of%20un.jpg

[Tchocky]

I think that was part of his point. We will never know. Given the choice of stand by and wait for millions to die and then do something or make a proactive move to prevent it, I’ll take proactive.

You're not making any sense. We'll never know, but, in your situation we do know that "millions" will die. Get it together.



What about polling companies and market research groups like Zogby or MRBI?

[quote]I’m not happy about the war. Nobody is.

Did it have to be done?
Yes.

Why then did the powers that be feel the need to lie to their public? Why did they have to "sell" the war with false "intelligence"?

Apologies for the overuse of inverted commas :)

[ASWnut101]

I think that was part of his point. We will never know. Given the choice of stand by and wait for millions to die and then do something or make a proactive move to prevent it, I’ll take proactive.

You're not making any sense. We'll never know, but, in your situation we do know that "millions" will die. Get it together.

If you believe any poll, you’ll to gullible to form an opinion. Poll’s are designed and paid for by people who want their own opinion validated. They are worthless.

What about polling companies and market research groups like Zogby or MRBI?

I’m not happy about the war. Nobody is.

Did it have to be done?
Yes.

Why then did the powers that be feel the need to lie to their public? Why did they have to "sell" the war with false "intelligence"?

Apologies for the overuse of inverted commas :)

False intelligence? says who? how do you know that Iraq never had weapons? Weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder are very valuable on the black market.

[waste gate]

"but not everything that happens in the world is USA´s business."

Then stop asking us to empty our pockets for every sally-sobstory and harry-hardluck that comes along then. And stop asking us to waste money on that monstrosity you call the U.N.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/chronol/fin2000a.htm

We'll let Europe take care of Africa if you so desire, as the U.N. is already "doing their job."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45304-2005Apr11.html

But I doubt that much will be accomplished as even Europe refuses to assert herself in order to survive, yet silences those who attempt to revive her.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

U.N.workable

http://www.alpinesurvival.com/un_keep-out.jpghttp://www.alpinesurvival.com/un-usa-map.jpg (http://www.unwatch.com/)http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/us%20out%20of%20un.jpg


Great post Yahoshua, glad to see you are off the popcorn:D .

Most of these threads that criticize US policy come from people whose countries were at one time meaningful. Based on elections Bush isn't the source of their trouble, it's the US people they criticize. What I have concluded is that many of those countries and their citizenry don't want to make the hard decisions (they love the UN) which are necessary in an uncertain world and yet cannot help but critisice those who make the decisions for them. These times are a great opportunity for some other nation or nations to step up and lead.

[Dowly]

@Yahoshua

So it´s ok, not to even try to resolve things peacefully? USA just goes in guns blazing with a huge flag, 'ready or not, here comes the AMERICAN freedom and demoracy!'?

Afghanistan and Iraq are both in the edge of a civil war atm. US troops can do nothing about it. Oh well, it´s not my problem how many US soldiers die because Bush wants to play cowboy, I´m just a european after all, eh?

[ASWnut101]

you obviously didn't read wastes gates post.

[Tchocky]

False intelligence? says who? how do you know that Iraq never had weapons? Weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder are very valuable on the black market.

Says me and the general consensus. Also, those in charge of finding the damn things (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484237.stm).

I'm not sure what the price of weapons has to do with this, but I'll go with what I think you meant.
I think it's laughable to imagine that Iraq sold off their WMD's before the war, given the military build-up around the country and the non-stop surveillance.

[ASWnut101]

there wasn't much around Iran, who has ties to NK

[Skybird]

Reasons given before a war are reasons. Reasons given after a war are foul excuses.

[ASWnut101]

hmmm, than why did the democrats start yelling and kicking AFTER the main part of the liberation

[Tchocky]

hmmm, than why did the democrats start yelling and kicking AFTER the main part of the liberation

Because they beliieved the rubbish about flowers and happy welcomes? Because they believed in the reasons for war? I don't know

[3Jane]

Will it also record that the west supported Sadam all through his tyranny until he became inconvenient.
Yes, and it will record that the UN sat idly by while it's resolutions were being ignored by Hussein. It will record that the UN and negotiations initiated by European countries were useless. The problem SimNut, is that these guys here haven't even read the Iraq War resolution. They have no idea what we're doing there. Skybird sits in Germany and critisizes, yet his own country is going up the creek with no paddle.


Hardly idle or useless, simply not in line with u.s corporate strategy for the middle east. Anyway, whatever. As long as we distance our selfes as soon as possible from that kind of muck now that poodle Blair is stepping down the better.:rock:

[ASWnut101]

quoting Tchocky

sounds like a foul excuse to me......

[waste gate]

hmmm, than why did the democrats start yelling and kicking AFTER the main part of the liberation

Because they beliieved the rubbish about flowers and happy welcomes? Because they believed in the reasons for war? I don't know

Hindsight is always 20/20.

House 256-153 to back President Bush's policies in Iraq.

Senate 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.

Everyone looked at the same intelligence reports, saw the same UN resolutions and Iraq's non-compliance, voted the way their constituants wanted them to vote.

[Tchocky]

hmmm, than why did the democrats start yelling and kicking AFTER the main part of the liberation
Because they beliieved the rubbish about flowers and happy welcomes? Because they believed in the reasons for war? I don't know
Hindsight is always 20/20.

House 256-153 to back President Bush's policies in Iraq.

Senate 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.

Everyone looked at the same intelligence reports, saw the same UN resolutions and Iraq's non-compliance, voted the way their constituants wanted them to vote.

Aye, and what had the constituents been told for the previous 18 months? Every speech from the top ran " Saddam......Al-Qaeda.....9/11.....Osama".It doesnt take a genius to work out what the intention was.

[ASWnut101]

what was it?

[waste gate]

hmmm, than why did the democrats start yelling and kicking AFTER the main part of the liberation
Because they beliieved the rubbish about flowers and happy welcomes? Because they believed in the reasons for war? I don't know
Hindsight is always 20/20.

House 256-153 to back President Bush's policies in Iraq.

Senate 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.

Everyone looked at the same intelligence reports, saw the same UN resolutions and Iraq's non-compliance, voted the way their constituants wanted them to vote.

Aye, and what had the constituents been told for the previous 18 months? Every speech from the top ran " Saddam......Al-Qaeda.....9/11.....Osama".It doesnt take a genius to work out what the intention was.


If you believe everyone is stupid then I guess you are correct. I do not believe that. Perhaps you do.

[Tchocky]

what was it?
To create connections in the public mind between 9/11 and the proposed war with Iraq. To ride into Baghdad on the back of post-9/11 patriotism/energy. And to do this without compelling evidence.

Colin Powell had to be convinced to go to the UN and make the case for war. He still regrets this "Adlai" moment.

@ wastegate: I do believe that a person is smart, but people, together, are more often sheep.

[ASWnut101]

know how crazy that sounds?

anyway, when did colin powell be convinced? (what year, specifically)

[Tchocky]

know how crazy that sounds?

anyway, when did colin powell be convinced? (what year, specifically)

No, I don't. Explain it to me.

I read about Powell in Woodward's book, Plan of Attack I think. His regret I heard about a few months ago, in the paper.

[ASWnut101]

it reminds me of these, thats why:

Mexican democrat: "There was no hurricane Katrina! Bush planned it out to kill off the population there(specifically the african american race). He blew up the levees and then just said a hurricane did it!"

Ray Negan: "I personally saw Bush don a wetsuit, grab a sack full of TNT, and plant them at the levees"

btw, these were actuall quotes!

[Tchocky]

I don't find it to be that far of a leap. Governments are always trying to manipulate their people. Did Donald Rumsfeld not say just after 9/11 "is there any way we can pin this on Iraq?". The common speech ran "We now live in a dangerous world, and we saw that on 9/11. Madmen like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein pose a threat to our country". Do you not see how suspect that line of argument is?

Your government is lying to you, and that is true for every country.

[waste gate]

[quote=ASWnut101]@ wastegate: I do believe that a person is smart, but people, together, are more often sheep.
I think this is the quote you're looking for.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it".

So what you are saying is that representatve government is 'people, together, are more often sheep'. Your contempt for representative government is of great concern. I don't always agree with what is done under this system but I know it is better than the alternatives.

[Tchocky]

@ wastegate: I do believe that a person is smart, but people, together, are more often sheep. I think this is the quote you're looking for.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it". I wasn't looking for a quote, I have a brain and a mouth.

So what you are saying is that representatve government is 'people, together, are more often sheep'. Your contempt for representative government is of great concern. I don't always agree with what is done under this system but I know it is better than the alternatives.

No, that isnt what i am saying. You should know better than to make that kind of leap. I am saying that people are extremely easily led and manipulated.

[ASWnut101]

[quote=ASWnut101]@ wastegate: I do believe that a person is smart, but people, together, are more often sheep.
I think this is the quote you're looking for.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it".

So what you are saying is that representatve government is 'people, together, are more often sheep'. Your contempt for representative government is of great concern. I don't always agree with what is done under this system but I know it is better than the alternatives.

I don't remember posting that......wtf?:huh: :ping:

[waste gate]

@ wastegate: I do believe that a person is smart, but people, together, are more often sheep. I think this is the quote you're looking for.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it".
I wasn't looking for a quote, I have a brain and a mouth.

So what you are saying is that representatve government is 'people, together, are more often sheep'. Your contempt for representative government is of great concern. I don't always agree with what is done under this system but I know it is better than the alternatives.

No, that isnt what i am saying. You should know better than to make that kind of leap. I am saying that people are extrememly easily led and manipulated.

Ah, you changed your reply.

[Tchocky]

Ah, you changed your reply.

I edited for spelling, if that's what you mean?

[SimNut]

Bottom line.

Saddam was in direct command of the worlds fourth largest Army.

“It was during the late 80's until 1991 the worlds 4th biggest, smaller only than the armed forces of USA, Soviet Union and China.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq

He used that army to invade a country [Kuwait] and was going to absorb that country and its assets then enslave the population.



If you have the stomach for it, some videos of Saddam’s treatment of his own people: (*Warning, very graphic videos)
http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html

Amnesty International report 2001
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ



He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

Even without the WMD’s, this guy needed to be taken down. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. The intelligence was confirmed by other governments, not just the US.


But the dead bodies do exist. Even today they are still finding mass graves of people killed by him.

How many red flags does someone have to raise before something gets done? Again, think back to 1939………how many people have to die?

How many people need to die before you can justify action? 1 million? 15 million? 50 million?

Should the world have waited for Auschwitz III to be built?

Really, tell me, I'd like to know. How many countries do you have to invade? How may people do you have to brutalize rape and murder? What are the acceptable numbers before someone has to finally step up and say enough of this sh1t, we're going in.

[ASWnut101]

apparently, according to lefties, they can do whatever they want, and we just have to take it.

[waste gate]

[quote=ASWnut101]@ wastegate: I do believe that a person is smart, but people, together, are more often sheep.
I think this is the quote you're looking for.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it".

So what you are saying is that representatve government is 'people, together, are more often sheep'. Your contempt for representative government is of great concern. I don't always agree with what is done under this system but I know it is better than the alternatives.

I don't remember posting that......wtf?:huh: :ping:

This may have been my fault. The way I posted the quote. My apologies.

[ASWnut101]

accepted!

[Tchocky]

He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.
I think that if the intelligence agencies could see weapons that werent there, they would definitely have spotted ones that actually existed, being destroyed.

Even without the WMD’s, this guy needed to be taken down. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

If it was that plain, why did the governments of two countries have to lie to their countries to garner support for the war? I'm not saying that the pre-war Iraqi regime was any sort of holiday camp, it strikes me as odd that the horrific state of Iraq wasnt espoused as reasoning.

How many red flags does someone have to raise before something gets done? Again, think back to 1939………how many people have to die?

How many people need to die before you can justify action? 1 million? 15 million? 50 million?

Should the world have waited for Auschwitz III to be built?

Really, tell me, I'd like to know. How many countries do you have to invade? How may people do you have to brutalize rape and murder? What are the acceptable numbers before someone has to finally step up and say enough of this ****, we're going in.
My figure is around 750,000 people, but usually i won't get out of moral bed for less than a million. Grow up

[waste gate]

Bottom line.


He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.



SimNut has a good point. If I have nothing to hide why wait and have an army invade my country if I do not have the WMD that they accuse me of havin?

[Yahoshua]

So it´s ok, not to even try to resolve things peacefully?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1479974/posts

http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2004/LINKS/Peacekeeping_Failures_and_Successes/


This I happened to find on another forum in regards to the U.N. :

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping". (http://www.truthnews.net/comment/2002_05_un_peacekeeping.html)

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml)

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/933288.stm)

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994? (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9806/04/rwanda.congo.probe/)

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke! (http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF021258.html)

They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534058398.html)

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm)

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor)

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm)

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola. (http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm)

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too. (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html)


The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

Sorry, I simply haven't been able to find any U.N. successes so far (using Google search engine now at page 8 or so).

Now to directly move onto the original question regarding the resolution of instances solved peacefully:

Yes, I do believe things should be resolved peacefully. However, negotiations only take you so far. And if peace cannot be achieved by negotiation, it will be achieved by armed conflict, and it must be a decisive victory for a single side.

To put it into perspective, had South Korea won the war and defeated the North Koreans, we wouldn't be having the problem with Kimmy Wong that we have now. And it was an ill timed peace that got us to where we are now, as was the Treaty of Versailles after WWI, and the Munich agreement. Short of being accused of a warmonger, please point out to me where true peace has taken place, and not appeasement of a nation threatening war on another?

[Tchocky]

Bottom line.


He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.


SimNut has a good point. If I have nothing to hide why wait and have an army invade my country if I do not have the WMD that they accuse me of havin?

I think the general arrogance and egoism that comes along with dictatorship made giving in to the US unacceptable to him.

[Coda]

My figure is around 750,000 people, but usually i won't get out of moral bed for less than a million. Grow up
So, 750,001 is what it would take to trip your trigger? What's the population of your country?

I'd say you lost the debate and are resorting to throwing stones.

Simnut - 1
Tchocky - 0

[ASWnut101]

....23

[Tchocky]

My figure is around 750,000 people, but usually i won't get out of moral bed for less than a million. Grow up
So, 750,001 is what it would take to trip your trigger? What's the population of your country?

I'd say you lost the debate and are resorting to throwing stones.

Simnut - 1
Tchocky - 0

I was calling out the ridiculous situation whereby we all have kill-limits in our heads, that it takes a certain number of people to die before we notice and/or do something. It's a pointless notion, hence the "grow up" at the end of my post.

It's interesting that you take seriously the only part of my post meant in jest.

[ASWnut101]

hard to tell what is and isn't a jest...

[Tchocky]

hard to tell what is and isn't a jest...
Well, put it this way - Those protesting against the war had placards saying "No War - Not Enough Have Died Yet"

[waste gate]

Bottom line.


He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.


SimNut has a good point. If I have nothing to hide why wait and have an army invade my country if I do not have the WMD that they accuse me of havin?

I think the general arrogance and egoism that comes along with dictatorship made giving in to the US unacceptable to him.


But it wasn't just the US he was giving into. Years of UN resolutions and an army of Australians, British, Italians, South Korean, Spanish, Romania, Georga, Denmark, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lituania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova.

[Coda]

Korea hasn't launched an attack on another country. <yet>
Iran hasn't launched an attack on another country. <yet>
There is still a chance for diplomacy before it gets out of hand. If they do anything offensive it would be a very stupid move.

Iraq invaded another country.

Like SimNut pointed out, Iraq used it's army for evil. This guy was an idiot. He proved it to the world. He needed to be stopped. I think he's right. All the UN did was give him enough time to get rid of his weapons. Even if there weren't any, there eventually would have been.

If he had nothing to hide, why did he throw the weapons inspectors out?

[Tchocky]

Bottom line.


He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.


SimNut has a good point. If I have nothing to hide why wait and have an army invade my country if I do not have the WMD that they accuse me of havin?
I think the general arrogance and egoism that comes along with dictatorship made giving in to the US unacceptable to him.

But it wasn't just the US he was giving into. Years of UN resolutions and an army of Australians, British, Italians, South Korean, Spanish, Romania, Georga, Denmark, El Salvador, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lituania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova.



Exactly. The Mighty and Glorious Nation of Iraq cannot be seen to be a lackey of the West.

[ASWnut101]

Protestors!:nope:

"enough have died yet" *gritts teath*

*start rant*

keep smoking pot, hippies!

I say NOT ENOUGH terrorists have died yet, so we need a few more of these: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/33/300px-GAU-8_avenger.jpg

(they mounted that on a fighter jet, FYI)

30 mike-mike works well in a crowded area.....

*ends rant*

as you can see, i do not have a paticular liking for hippies.....

[Tchocky]

Korea hasn't launched an attack on another country. <yet>
Iran hasn't launched an attack on another country. <yet>
There is still a chance for diplomacy before it gets out of hand. If they do anything offensive it would be a very stupid move.

Iraq invaded another country.

Like SimNut pointed out, Iraq used it's army for evil. This guy was an idiot. He proved it to the world. He needed to be stopped. I think he's right. All the UN did was give him enough time to get rid of his weapons. Even if there weren't any, there eventually would have been.

If he had nothing to hide, why did he throw the weapons inspectors out?

Same reason, the guy was freakin' nuts. What I had an issue with was where the blow fell. The Iraqi people suffered for the sins of their unelected dictator.

[Tchocky]

Protestors!:nope:

"enough have died yet" *gritts teath*

*start rant*

Yes, it doesn't make sense. It also didnt happen, so you don't have to get mad

[ASWnut101]

it actually has.....right on the white house grounds too!

[Yahoshua]

Korea hasn't launched an attack on another country. <yet>


The more appropriate phrase would be "North Korea has not resumed from a Cold-War to a Hot-War......yet."

As the situation stands now, North Korea and South Korea are still at war.

No justification is needed to start shooting as there has yet to be a treaty signed.

So if Kimmy Wong wants to do something stupid, by all means he can press the button and get hammered by the South Koreans if they decide to invade.

[ASWnut101]

indeed, they are only at a cease fire right now.

[waste gate]

Bottom line.


He had a great portion of the worlds military might sitting on his doorstep for months before the war. You think he didn’t have time to get rid of his WMDs? Bury them? Burn them? Move them? Just because they weren’t found, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.


SimNut has a good point. If I have nothing to hide why wait and have an army invade my country if I do not have the WMD that they accuse me of havin?
I think the general arrogance and egoism that comes along with dictatorship made giving in to the US unacceptable to him.

But it wasn't just the US he was giving into. Years of UN resolutions and an army of Australians, British, Italians, South Korean, Spanish, Romania, Georga, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lituania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova.



Exactly. The Mighty and Glorious Nation of Iraq cannot be seen to be a lackey of the West.

Didn't you write it was the general arrogance and egoism that comes along with dictatorship made giving in to the US unacceptable to him

Which is it? the West( eastern nations: Romania, Georga, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Albania, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lituania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova), or arrogance?

[Tchocky]

K. Saddam was an egomaniacal dictator, and couldn't countenance giving in to anybody, hence the intractable diplomatic situation.

When I said "exactly" I meant that he was even less likely to give in to a huge amount of nations.

[Fish]

So it´s ok, not to even try to resolve things peacefully?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1479974/posts

http://www.debate-central.org/topics/2004/LINKS/Peacekeeping_Failures_and_Successes/


This I happened to find on another forum in regards to the U.N. :

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping". (http://www.truthnews.net/comment/2002_05_un_peacekeeping.html)

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/165110.shtml)

The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/933288.stm)

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994? (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9806/04/rwanda.congo.probe/)

Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke! (http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF021258.html)

They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534058398.html)

U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/04/iranno042202.htm)

U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy. (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/september2001/east_timor)

Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1201763.stm)

The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola. (http://www.afrol.com/News2002/ang007_un_hrw_idps.htm)

That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too. (http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2003/kashmir20030105a.html)


The U.N. failed in Somalia.

The U.N. failed in Bosnia.

The U.N. failed in Israel.

The U.N. failed in Columbia.

Sorry, I simply haven't been able to find any U.N. successes so far (using Google search engine now at page 8 or so).

Now to directly move onto the original question regarding the resolution of instances solved peacefully:

Yes, I do believe things should be resolved peacefully. However, negotiations only take you so far. And if peace cannot be achieved by negotiation, it will be achieved by armed conflict, and it must be a decisive victory for a single side.

To put it into perspective, had South Korea won the war and defeated the North Koreans, we wouldn't be having the problem with Kimmy Wong that we have now. And it was an ill timed peace that got us to where we are now, as was the Treaty of Versailles after WWI, and the Munich agreement. Short of being accused of a warmonger, please point out to me where true peace has taken place, and not appeasement of a nation threatening war on another?

I think you have to ask yourself what if there was no UN? :hmm:
Would the world be a better place?

[The Avon Lady]

I think you have to ask yourself what if there was no UN? :hmm:
Would the world be a better place?
Of course the answer is "that depends".

What if there was no UN or anything like it at all?

Or what of there was no UN but other better run organization(s)?

Is the UN better than nothing? Possibly but that's not very complimentary. :nope:

[catar M]

Saddam Hussien was a tyrannical leader. He was in command of the fourth largest army in the world. He invaded and destroyed another country without provocation. He mass murdered people in his own country. His country had the wealth and resources to become an even more serious threat to the world.

In hindsight, everyone is bashing the Iraq war. But they forget other events in recent history that made the war a necessity. They forget the period of time when everyone turned a blind eye to events in one country which eventually brought the entire world into a war. A war that costs millions of lives. They also forget that it was an international coalition that invaded Iraq, not just one country.

You can’t just turn your head forever. There comes a time when men of good conscious have to say enough is enough and something has to be done. Those men were George Bush and Tony Blair. They knew something had to be done and that it was not going to be a popular decision, but they had to do something.

Think of this. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver and takes him to jail, there’s just one less drunk on the road. Nobody knows what would have happened if the cop didn’t do his job. That drunk may have kept driving and crashed into a bus load of children killing 50 of them. So, does the cop get credit for saving 50 kids lives? If he a hero? Thankfully nobody will ever know.

Was Saddam going to acquire weapons of mass destruction and kill 50 million people? Maybe. He sure was on that path, just like the drunk driver. Thanks to brave men like Tony Blair and George Bush, we didn’t have to wait to find out. In 1939, one bullet could have saved tens of millions, but nothing was done until it was too late.

History will never record that George and Tony saved 50 million lives. I think they did and will never get credit for it. Why they didn't finished him of in 91????? or back then it didn't matter that he killed few thousands Kurds.

[micky1up]

Saddam Hussien was a tyrannical leader. He was in command of the fourth largest army in the world. He invaded and destroyed another country without provocation. He mass murdered people in his own country. His country had the wealth and resources to become an even more serious threat to the world.

In hindsight, everyone is bashing the Iraq war. But they forget other events in recent history that made the war a necessity. They forget the period of time when everyone turned a blind eye to events in one country which eventually brought the entire world into a war. A war that costs millions of lives. They also forget that it was an international coalition that invaded Iraq, not just one country.

You can’t just turn your head forever. There comes a time when men of good conscious have to say enough is enough and something has to be done. Those men were George Bush and Tony Blair. They knew something had to be done and that it was not going to be a popular decision, but they had to do something.

Think of this. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver and takes him to jail, there’s just one less drunk on the road. Nobody knows what would have happened if the cop didn’t do his job. That drunk may have kept driving and crashed into a bus load of children killing 50 of them. So, does the cop get credit for saving 50 kids lives? If he a hero? Thankfully nobody will ever know.

Was Saddam going to acquire weapons of mass destruction and kill 50 million people? Maybe. He sure was on that path, just like the drunk driver. Thanks to brave men like Tony Blair and George Bush, we didn’t have to wait to find out. In 1939, one bullet could have saved tens of millions, but nothing was done until it was too late.

History will never record that George and Tony saved 50 million lives. I think they did and will never get credit for it. Why they didn't finished him of in 91????? or back then it didn't matter that he killed few thousands Kurds.




becuase the didnt have the mandate ( ie un resolutions)to enter bagdad and sieze power from saddam clearly you dont know a thing about how the UN works and sometimes dosent work

[Skybird]

I have one number for you:

1991

Coalition forces liberate Kuwait from Sadman Insane.

Anything I Miss?;)


It's also the year when America intentionally failed to remove this oh so fdangerous and unacceptable regime, although the street to Baghdad was as good as open. And it was the year when a rebellion against Saddam was encouraged and Saddam was allowed limited air operations again and the previously encouraged rebellion was let down - so that tens of thousand of people got slaughtered becasue they believed that America would help them as it promised, but it didn't. It is the year when Iraqwui troops slaughetred civilians, families in viewing range of american forces, who were pordered to mdo nothing, just to observe. It is the year when many american soldiers, and I occasionally red several such confessions, felt deeply ashamed of just sitting by and are ordered to become witnesses only of an incredible brutal crime going on.

After 1991, the military teeth of Saddam had been drawn, and in the following twelve years never posed a realistic threat to the outside of Iraq again, nor was he able to rebuilt his conventional military forces again, all he did was regrouping the remaining tanks that he had, and these were no threat to anyone of his neighbors.

The small traces and hints, at best, of WMDs in Iraq indicated that there were such things many years before 1991 (what nobody ever has denied) - but not in 2003 or imminent years. the administrations attempts to make this site looking as if it was not only dual-purpose-capable, but actually being used in that function, or t make those empty alloy tubes look as solid facts that there are WMDs, are pathetic, and in a queer way: amusing only.

So in 1991, the threat level of Iraq was broken. but nevertheless in 2003 all of a sudden he should have been a threat to the regionoal stability and the world again. I wonder how that could have been possible in the 12 years between both years. It makes more sense to assume that the threat would have been higher in 1991 than in 2003, militarily, becasue the sanctions were not perfect, but significantly weakned Iraq's possebilities, and close to stopped the import of hightech and military goods. If this was true, it makes the American actions in 1991 after the war even more questionable.

Two principal remarks:

1991 was the year when it was the right time to act and remove the regime. First major mistake of Bush & gang.

The war should have been waged, no matter if in 1991 or 2003, only to topple Saddam - not to missionize Iraq (towards westernism and democracy, I mean, not christianity). Second major mistake.

Edit: and on Okinawa, I knew one man whose family partially lived there, and who told me how the Japanese saw the americans. It was a clash of two cultures that knew close to nothing about each other (and i think america still does not know much about Japan). And this created fear, and ciruclating barbaric monster stories of how the enemy use to deal with civilian prisoner, and tortuirng babies, and so on. so many people commited suicie in Okinawa not only becasue of questions of honour, but becasue they believed these rumours about the barbaric and mercyless americans who without doubt would do things to prisoners that are much worse than death. It's the old "the enemy even eats our babies"-symptom.

[Skybird]

becuase the didnt have the mandate ( ie un resolutions)to enter bagdad and sieze power from saddam clearly you dont know a thing about how the UN works and sometimes dosent work
And what was different in 2003? The war in 2003 isn't being called illegal war without UN mandate for no reason by experts on international law.

[Coda]

And what was different in 2003? The war in 2003 isn't being called illegal war without UN mandate for no reason by experts on international law.


If this is true then the following are guilty:

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Herzegovina, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

I hope I didn't leave anyone out.