Why CWAG ? Everyone knows that the US has a massive nuclear arsenal that could obliterate the planet many times over. Why hide them ?
I'm with Ryo on this one. The coalition didn't go to war because Saddam had WMDs 5 years ago. They went to war beacuse he had them now. The UK had a dossier that stated that Iraq could deploy WMDs at 45 minute's notice. It was the main reason for war given to us in the UK. If it was true - long range nuclear weapons available for Saddam to use at short notive - then I think that's a reasonable stance for war. Not a good one, but a reasonable one.
Its no good turning round and stating: "Weerrrll, we can't find any now, but he had them 5 years ago so they're here somewhere. Just the inspectors enough time until we can think of something else comes up to get tizzy about. Now get me Janet on the phone.".
But, there are no weapons as yet. Until they are found, then it is irrelevant whether it was a good reason or not, it was and still is a false reason. The irony is that for all the reasons for going to war with Saddam, and there were some good ones - gross human rights abuses, threat to neighbours, etc... - the one that was used was the one that may turn out to be a bowl of cornflakes.
And I agree with Nem0 on a couple of reasons too. The oil is obvious and talked to death I'm sure. And the old unfinished business reason does make a nice background to whole picture.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's the thing... He was already guilty. He was unable to prove his innocence in a verifiable manner.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the... the issue here is that we went to war believeing that Saddam STILL had WMDs, not "Did he use them in the past?" not "Was he a bad guy?" not "Was he insane?". If Saddam was guilty of still possessing WMDs, then I say to the US and to you "Show me the money!"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapon inspectors weren't there to prove him guilty, that was already determined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it wasn't. If Saddam was already determined to be guilty, the UN would have invaded and there would have been no need for the US to go it alone. The fact that most of the UN General Assembly plus over half of the Security Council believed Saddam was not guilty proves your statement that Saddam was assumed to be guilty as incorrect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and that practically every intelligence agency in the world believes that Saddam still possesses WMDs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh please could you back that up? Because that's not what the voting in the UN reflected. And indeed: Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says that in 1998 when he left the U.N. "there was not a single intelligence service in the world that said Iraq maintained massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You continue to forget that the burden was on Saddam to prove his innocence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I forget? No, I find it utterly irrelvant. The US was the one making a case for the war, and you don't make assumptions with this kind of thing. You have to produce proof. Are you suggesting that proof was not needed? That any nation can invade another just because they have a feeling that the other one is up to no good? Hitler would have LOVED that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam was not the victim here. He received only part of what he deserves. Its sad to think that the freedom of the Iraqis is less important than us being lied to. Not only that, but there is no proof that we were really lied to. We were told what our governments believed to be true. So it turns out they were wrong. It was a gamble they could not afford not to take. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never said that Saddam was a nice bloke. And please don't try to guilt-trip me and gain the "moral high ground" by making it look like I'm defending the guy. I'm not, I'm accussing the US, British and Australian governments of lieing to their citizens.
It seems to me with all the work only now being done that shows the pre-war intelligance to be so much balony that the politicians were hearing what they wanted to hear. The fact that so much of the pre-war intelligance is now being shown to be false makes it impossible to believe that it was the unanimous concensus of the intelligance community that Iraq still had WMDs. Bush, Blair and Howard heard what they wanted to hear and shut the rest out. And there were people saying otherwise:
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1030998.htm' target='_blank'>Kay steps down, new guy doesn't think there's anything to find://Kay steps down, new guy doesn't...nything to find</a>
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0622blix.htm' target='_blank'>Blix certainly didn't think there were weapons</a>
It's not enough for Bush and Co. to come out now and say "Oh, but we were told these things and we believed them". You have to get things right; it's no good starting a committe up now to determine if pre-war intel was faulty. That should have been done in the first place! Yet it wasn't done; we, the people, were told that Iraq had WMDs and we had to invade. There was no "They might have them" or "It's a possibilty they have them" it was "They have them".
Finally, I've already expressed my views on placing the humanitarian concerns of other peoples before your own citizens in other posts, and this is not the place for it.
<!--QuoteBegin-_Creep_+Feb 10 2004, 06:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Feb 10 2004, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why CWAG ? Everyone knows that the US has a massive nuclear arsenal that could obliterate the planet many times over. Why hide them ?
I'm with Ryo on this one. The coalition didn't go to war because Saddam had WMDs 5 years ago. They went to war beacuse he had them now. The UK had a dossier that stated that Iraq could deploy WMDs at 45 minute's notice. It was the main reason for war given to us in the UK. If it was true - long range nuclear weapons available for Saddam to use at short notive - then I think that's a reasonable stance for war. Not a good one, but a reasonable one.
Its no good turning round and stating: "Weerrrll, we can't find any now, but he had them 5 years ago so they're here somewhere. Just the inspectors enough time until we can think of something else comes up to get tizzy about. Now get me Janet on the phone.".
But, there are no weapons as yet. Until they are found, then it is irrelevant whether it was a good reason or not, it was and still is a false reason. The irony is that for all the reasons for going to war with Saddam, and there were some good ones - gross human rights abuses, threat to neighbours, etc... - the one that was used was the one that may turn out to be a bowl of cornflakes.
And I agree with Nem0 on a couple of reasons too. The oil is obvious and talked to death I'm sure. And the old unfinished business reason does make a nice background to whole picture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok then, why can we have them, they can't. We have even used them, twice. I don't see how that is very safe?
Because we can. We have the money and the power. Ironically, power backup up by nuclear weapons.
I don't agree with this position.
I wouldn't be comfortable about people like Hussein having them (although I've never met the bloke). I'm also not entirely comfortable with America, India, China or Pakistan having them either. That doesn't make me feel safe.
I assume we're not going to enter a nuclear war in the same way that I assume I'm not going to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.
Ryo, for the same reasons that you implicitly trust your government without question, we will never agree on this. Some people and things are simply untrustworthy: there is no way you can ever undue years of actions as great as a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or Saddam. None. When you have spent your entire life as a murdering dictator, there is not some point where can suddenly repent and be trusted. You are simply a very optomistic, trusting, black and white person, and hopefully, life will eventually beat it out of you. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not going to argue in this one anymore, because people hear Iraq and immediately shut their ears and minds, on both sides. In fact, I'm about ready to end it as an acceptable topic on here like science versus religion, because it's been done to death, no one ever offers any new or interesting opinions, and it just causes bad feelings. Don't get mad people, its all of our own choosing.
Well here's a new angel, why is it that there is now huge Al Queda activity in post war Iraq. Where did they all come from and who is giving them a base of operations. Saddam claimed to have no links to Al Queda but every day there is increasing insurgence of suicide bombers in his former country. If there was/is a definate link between Iraq and Al Queda would that have been enough reason for the war in your opinions?
<!--QuoteBegin-_Creep_+Feb 10 2004, 10:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Feb 10 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because we can. We have the money and the power. Ironically, power backup up by nuclear weapons.
I don't agree with this position.
I wouldn't be comfortable about people like Hussein having them (although I've never met the bloke). I'm also not entirely comfortable with America, India, China or Pakistan having them either. That doesn't make me feel safe.
I assume we're not going to enter a nuclear war in the same way that I assume I'm not going to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.
So I live with it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, you are more comfortable with a nation with vast resources, 400+billion dollars in "defense" spending, a trigger happy president, controlling enough nuclear weapons to vaporize the planet...but you are worried a nation with a GNP less than $2000 per-capita, will invade and conquer us. I don't see how that fits...
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 11:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well here's a new angel, why is it that there is now huge Al Queda activity in post war Iraq. Where did they all come from and who is giving them a base of operations. Saddam claimed to have no links to Al Queda but every day there is increasing insurgence of suicide bombers in his former country. If there was/is a definate link between Iraq and Al Queda would that have been enough reason for the war in your opinions? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The same way some republicans don't like bush (Not me, I'm Independent, obviously)
Just because they have similarities dosen't mean they made a deal with him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 10 2004, 06:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 10 2004, 06:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I forget? No, I find it utterly irrelvant. The US was the one making a case for the war, and you don't make assumptions with this kind of thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We have a winner! But he's looking at it in totally the wrong light I'm sad to say.
You are correct... You do not make assumptions for this kind of thing. That is exactly what I've been saying time and time again. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth this one time when there are large quantities of unaccounted for WMDs. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth this one time when behind the scenes he gives reasons to doubt his word. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth becase of his past history. When you said that you do not make assumptions with this kind of thing you are absolutely right. You do not assume that Saddam is innocent because we all know he is guilty.
You try to separate the history of Saddam from this situation. That is just foolish ( and I mean that in the nicest way possible ). The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that he is telling the truth. The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that Iraq did not still possess WMDs ( especially since large quantities are unaccounted for and his actions behind the scenes ). The history of Saddam is the most relevant set of facts one can use in this situation.
You continue to make the assumption that our governments lied to us. This is an assumption from the simple fact that no WMDs have been found ( this time ). Even if our governments did not have hard proof that Saddam still had WMDs, they have plenty of reasons to suspect that he still did. That is the thing here... We do not need hard evidence to go after someone like Saddam. You do not assume that someone like Saddam ( with his history ) is not a threat. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone here that our governments sounded sure in their opinions that Saddam will possessed WMDs. That was their assessment of the situation. Thus far this opinion has proven false, but when you are given the choice to assume that Saddam does or does not have WMDs and you have evidence that points in both directions, you do not ever assume the he does not have WMDs. Once again, that is just simply foolish ( and once again meant in the nicest way <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
P.S. Vulgar, add something meaningful to this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are correct... You do not make assumptions for this kind of thing. That is exactly what I've been saying time and time again. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth this one time when there are large quantities of unaccounted for WMDs. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth this one time when behind the scenes he gives reasons to doubt his word. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth becase of his past history. When you said that you do not make assumptions with this kind of thing you are absolutely right. You do not assume that Saddam is innocent because we all know he is guilty.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't trust Saddam? That's what inspections are for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You try to separate the history of Saddam from this situation. That is just foolish ( and I mean that in the nicest way possible ). The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that he is telling the truth. The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that Iraq did not still possess WMDs ( especially since large quantities are unaccounted for and his actions behind the scenes ). The history of Saddam is the most relevant set of facts one can use in this situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what inspections are for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You continue to make the assumption that our governments lied to us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not an assumption. It has long since been proven. Compare Condi Rice's 2001 statement that Saddam didn't pose a threat to what she said later. Look at the Niger documents that were known to be BS but were pushed anyway. Rumseld saying he KNOWS exactly where the weapons are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an assumption from the simple fact that no WMDs have been found ( this time ). Even if our governments did not have hard proof that Saddam still had WMDs, they have plenty of reasons to suspect that he still did. That is the thing here... We do not need hard evidence to go after someone like Saddam. You do not assume that someone like Saddam ( with his history ) is not a threat. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone here that our governments sounded sure in their opinions that Saddam will possessed WMDs. That was their assessment of the situation. Thus far this opinion has proven false, but when you are given the choice to assume that Saddam does or does not have WMDs and you have evidence that points in both directions, you do not ever assume the he does not have WMDs. Once again, that is just simply foolish ( and once again meant in the nicest way ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At no time did the evidence point in the direction of him having WMDs. Furthermore, Iraq was a quad-amputee after the Gulf War.
The reports are everywhere, and it isn't just the media; America is one of the most violent and proud nations in the world. A lethal mix. Officials can tap this pride and use it to make a case against "enemy" nations. American citizens seem to think that we have the right to use nuclear weapons and no one else does because "We're America, we're happily capitalist, we're bigger than you, and we're FREE!" ****. I wish they would give China the job of world superpower, they're the only ones who want it. When you're a superpower like the US your borders reach out and touch EVERYONE. And no one questions anything because they go out and vote once every 4 years!
The US had no right or real reason to invade Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 10 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 10 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 11:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well here's a new angel, why is it that there is now huge Al Queda activity in post war Iraq. Where did they all come from and who is giving them a base of operations. Saddam claimed to have no links to Al Queda but every day there is increasing insurgence of suicide bombers in his former country. If there was/is a definate link between Iraq and Al Queda would that have been enough reason for the war in your opinions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The same way some republicans don't like bush (Not me, I'm Independent, obviously)
Just because they have similarities dosen't mean they made a deal with him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not similiarities, today 50 people were killed by a suicide bomber driving 500 pounds of explosives in a pick up truck. These bombings have already been tied to Al Quida as well as some that they have claimed responsibility for.
My question is where are they basing their operations from, where are they keeping supplies to use in these operations. I find it hard to believe that Al Quida members could simply decided to "show up" after the war and set up operations in a country they supposedly have no connection to that is currently fully occupied by US forces.
"You are saying that we should not believe Saddam Hussein because of his earlier actions, correct? Glad you came around to seeing it my way." Yes i am saying that. Am i saying that because of that, i should tilt in the favor of letting the US military unleash its military onslaught on iraq? No.
"Again, the rest of your points are not relevant to talking about the here and now in Iraq."
Well, again, they are. Because if a Nation (their political and economic elites, yeah) has been faking threats for the last half-century to attack defenseless nations for their natural resources and cheap labor, then it is important to keep that in mind the next time that it cries wolf.
For the link on US companies supplying Bio-weaps to iraq, hold on, im writing this quickly at work, ill post it soon.
Ok, perhaps this is a question everyone can answer for me:
If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 10 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 10 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 11:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 11:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well here's a new angel, why is it that there is now huge Al Queda activity in post war Iraq. Where did they all come from and who is giving them a base of operations. Saddam claimed to have no links to Al Queda but every day there is increasing insurgence of suicide bombers in his former country. If there was/is a definate link between Iraq and Al Queda would that have been enough reason for the war in your opinions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The same way some republicans don't like bush (Not me, I'm Independent, obviously)
Just because they have similarities dosen't mean they made a deal with him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not similiarities, today 50 people were killed by a suicide bomber driving 500 pounds of explosives in a pick up truck. These bombings have already been tied to Al Quida as well as some that they have claimed responsibility for.
My question is where are they basing their operations from, where are they keeping supplies to use in these operations. I find it hard to believe that Al Quida members could simply decided to "show up" after the war and set up operations in a country they supposedly have no connection to that is currently fully occupied by US forces. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You know Al Queda wanted to topple Saddam's secular regime right? They were probably there for the same reasons there are(or at least were) Al Queda in the US.
A few is very different then having an organized military opreation in a country that is under complete military occupation.
For them to be able to do that they must know exacty where to keep supplies, exactly where to have a base of operations, and exactly which routes to take to succesfully exexcute those operations without getting caught.
Saddam at least knew they were in his country, if not allowed them to be. A dictator has much more say over who can and cannot be in his country than a president of the united states.
So that leaves the question if there are now hundreds (maybe thousands) of Al Quida militants in Iraq with supplies and weapons, where were they before the war? Because they certainly didn't come into the country AFTER 200 thousand US troops got there.
By the way Al Quida use Fundamentalism as a form of propeganda, they aren't exactly relegious, and I doubt they were offended enough by Saddam's secularism to decline safe harbor, money, and weapons.
I have disagreed with just about every foreign policy move the US has made in a long, long time, but I think it's time for the world to face up to terrorism on the grand scale and due away with fundamentalism for good. If I may be so crass I say liberals should be in favor of such measures because in the long run they are just paving the way for more human and civil rights globablly (or what has been labeled "forcing our beliefs on people"). I for one see nothing wrong with "forcing" the world to treat every human with decency.
<span style='color:white'>Utterly and completely off topic ramblings like this are not allowed, Psycho. As punishment, it is nuked. If it continues, your posting rights in here will be suspended like other people have been this week.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A few is very different then having an organized military opreation in a country that is under complete military occupation.
For them to be able to do that they must know exacty where to keep supplies, exactly where to have a base of operations, and exactly which routes to take to succesfully exexcute those operations without getting caught.
Saddam at least knew they were in his country, if not allowed them to be. A dictator has much more say over who can and cannot be in his country than a president of the united states.
So that leaves the question if there are now hundreds (maybe thousands) of Al Quida militants in Iraq with supplies and weapons, where were they before the war? Because they certainly didn't come into the country AFTER 200 thousand US troops got there.
by the way Al Quida use Fundamentalism as a form of propeganda, they aren't exactly relegious, and I doubt they were offended by Saddams secularism to decline safe harbor, money, and weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats only if you assume that ALL the anti american activities are by Al Queda. There are homebrewed Fundie groups and Iraqi Nationalists and Baath Party leftovers and THEN there are some Al Queda. A carbombing is a simple and effective tool used by anyone who wants to cause mass destruction for a minimum of cost. Or are you going to argue that Timmothy Mc Veigh was a member of Al Queda?
So if the US formed a coilitian with every first world country and decided to erradicate tyrants, dictators, and warlords in every single country on Earth, would you be for that?
Timothy Mc Veigh was not an enemy combatant in a country with 200 thousand hostile troops, It's a little bit more complicated to pull of a car bombing when you could be stopped at any point by a military checkpoint.
I'm saying there are caches of weapons, and bunkers strewn throughout Iraq so they could wage gurella warfare after the war was over, and I'll voice my opinion that Saddam knew, and still knows about this.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 05:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So if the US formed a coilitian with every first world country and decided to erradicate tyrants, dictators, and warlords in every single country on Earth, would you be for that?
Timothy Mc Veigh was not an enemy combatant in a country with 200 thousand hostile troops, It's a little bit more complicated to pull of a car bombing when you could be stopped at any point by a military checkpoint.
I'm saying there are caches of weapons, and bunkers strewn throughout Iraq so they could wage gurella warfare after the war was over, and I'll voice my opinion that Saddam knew, and still knows about this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm... that a tough question. I suppose only in instances where it would do any good. Attempting to over throw China would be as the death toll would be ludicrous and the same result would come just by aloowing the modernization thats happening now to take its course. Same with Iran, the population is young and liberal and it's only a matter of time before the old guard religious conservatives die off. But yeah I would support a beefed up version of the UN human rights commission.
And 200, 000 may sound like a lot but Iraq is a pretty big country with millions of people, decayed record keeping and lots of people who don't think too kindly of it.
Ultimately I think that though there were good reasons to topple Saddam there are more pressing matters right now. Also they way in which it was done has destroyed international goodwill and leaves our troops in a lot more danger from an angry populous.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 10 2004, 05:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 10 2004, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, my question was brushed aside or answered with nonsense. I guess I'll start a new topic on it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite frankly, **** you Monse, I answered you question. I would but individual feelings have no place in international diplomacy.
Damn and I wanted to continue arguing how hypocritical it is as a liberal to want human rights but be opposed to the removal of an oppressive regime. Oh well guess I'll just have to sign his guestbook.
On a side note that illustrates how effectively **** you can end debates.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 10 2004, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 10 2004, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And Psycho-Kinetic Hyper-Geek has now been banned. Please do not say '**** you' to Dev's, Admins, or Moderators, as it's one strike and you're out.
Feel free to continue with your normally scheduled programming here... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you expect me to treat you like anything other than a fellow forum goer you are sadly mistaken. Your status on this board means nothing ultimately and I answered you as I would any other. Congratulations on being so thin skinned that you've driven away one of the communities better active modelers.
"If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario. "
Of course!
Do i think the US appointed iraqi governing council is a democracy? No.
Do i trust the US army and politicians in setting up a democracy in iraq? Not at all.
Would i want the third partys army staying in my country, pumping my countrys resource to pay for occupying my country, giving the third-partys corporations 0% tax in my country with a selected, appointed "democracy"? Nope.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 10 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 10 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, perhaps this is a question everyone can answer for me:
If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would kill myself rather than live in Saddam's world -
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Feb 10 2004, 07:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Feb 10 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Damn and I wanted to continue arguing how hypocritical it is as a liberal to want human rights but be opposed to the removal of an oppressive regime. Oh well guess I'll just have to sign his guestbook.
On a side note that illustrates how effectively **** you can end debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't hypocritical. We know WTH happens when we meddle with middle eastern countries. We get burned, create more terrorists, and destablise the region further, etc.
And, lo and behold, we have Islamic hardliners setting up religious laws in Iraq that will scale back that country's civil rights to who knows when.
Comments
I'm with Ryo on this one. The coalition didn't go to war because Saddam had WMDs 5 years ago. They went to war beacuse he had them now. The UK had a dossier that stated that Iraq could deploy WMDs at 45 minute's notice. It was the main reason for war given to us in the UK. If it was true - long range nuclear weapons available for Saddam to use at short notive - then I think that's a reasonable stance for war. Not a good one, but a reasonable one.
Its no good turning round and stating: "Weerrrll, we can't find any now, but he had them 5 years ago so they're here somewhere. Just the inspectors enough time until we can think of something else comes up to get tizzy about. Now get me Janet on the phone.".
But, there are no weapons as yet. Until they are found, then it is irrelevant whether it was a good reason or not, it was and still is a false reason. The irony is that for all the reasons for going to war with Saddam, and there were some good ones - gross human rights abuses, threat to neighbours, etc... - the one that was used was the one that may turn out to be a bowl of cornflakes.
And I agree with Nem0 on a couple of reasons too. The oil is obvious and talked to death I'm sure. And the old unfinished business reason does make a nice background to whole picture.
What the... the issue here is that we went to war believeing that Saddam STILL had WMDs, not "Did he use them in the past?" not "Was he a bad guy?" not "Was he insane?". If Saddam was guilty of still possessing WMDs, then I say to the US and to you "Show me the money!"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapon inspectors weren't there to prove him guilty, that was already determined. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it wasn't. If Saddam was already determined to be guilty, the UN would have invaded and there would have been no need for the US to go it alone. The fact that most of the UN General Assembly plus over half of the Security Council believed Saddam was not guilty proves your statement that Saddam was assumed to be guilty as incorrect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and that practically every intelligence agency in the world believes that Saddam still possesses WMDs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh please could you back that up? Because that's not what the voting in the UN reflected. And indeed: Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter says that in 1998 when he left the U.N. "there was not a single intelligence service in the world that said Iraq maintained massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You continue to forget that the burden was on Saddam to prove his innocence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I forget? No, I find it utterly irrelvant. The US was the one making a case for the war, and you don't make assumptions with this kind of thing. You have to produce proof. Are you suggesting that proof was not needed? That any nation can invade another just because they have a feeling that the other one is up to no good? Hitler would have LOVED that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saddam was not the victim here. He received only part of what he deserves. Its sad to think that the freedom of the Iraqis is less important than us being lied to. Not only that, but there is no proof that we were really lied to. We were told what our governments believed to be true. So it turns out they were wrong. It was a gamble they could not afford not to take. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never said that Saddam was a nice bloke. And please don't try to guilt-trip me and gain the "moral high ground" by making it look like I'm defending the guy. I'm not, I'm accussing the US, British and Australian governments of lieing to their citizens.
It seems to me with all the work only now being done that shows the pre-war intelligance to be so much balony that the politicians were hearing what they wanted to hear. The fact that so much of the pre-war intelligance is now being shown to be false makes it impossible to believe that it was the unanimous concensus of the intelligance community that Iraq still had WMDs. Bush, Blair and Howard heard what they wanted to hear and shut the rest out. And there were people saying otherwise:
<a href='http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1030998.htm' target='_blank'>Kay steps down, new guy doesn't think there's anything to find://Kay steps down, new guy doesn't...nything to find</a>
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/' target='_blank'>Scott Ritter spoke out</a>
<a href='http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0622blix.htm' target='_blank'>Blix certainly didn't think there were weapons</a>
It's not enough for Bush and Co. to come out now and say "Oh, but we were told these things and we believed them". You have to get things right; it's no good starting a committe up now to determine if pre-war intel was faulty. That should have been done in the first place! Yet it wasn't done; we, the people, were told that Iraq had WMDs and we had to invade. There was no "They might have them" or "It's a possibilty they have them" it was "They have them".
Finally, I've already expressed my views on placing the humanitarian concerns of other peoples before your own citizens in other posts, and this is not the place for it.
I'm with Ryo on this one. The coalition didn't go to war because Saddam had WMDs 5 years ago. They went to war beacuse he had them now. The UK had a dossier that stated that Iraq could deploy WMDs at 45 minute's notice. It was the main reason for war given to us in the UK. If it was true - long range nuclear weapons available for Saddam to use at short notive - then I think that's a reasonable stance for war. Not a good one, but a reasonable one.
Its no good turning round and stating: "Weerrrll, we can't find any now, but he had them 5 years ago so they're here somewhere. Just the inspectors enough time until we can think of something else comes up to get tizzy about. Now get me Janet on the phone.".
But, there are no weapons as yet. Until they are found, then it is irrelevant whether it was a good reason or not, it was and still is a false reason. The irony is that for all the reasons for going to war with Saddam, and there were some good ones - gross human rights abuses, threat to neighbours, etc... - the one that was used was the one that may turn out to be a bowl of cornflakes.
And I agree with Nem0 on a couple of reasons too. The oil is obvious and talked to death I'm sure. And the old unfinished business reason does make a nice background to whole picture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok then, why can we have them, they can't. We have even used them, twice. I don't see how that is very safe?
I don't agree with this position.
I wouldn't be comfortable about people like Hussein having them (although I've never met the bloke). I'm also not entirely comfortable with America, India, China or Pakistan having them either. That doesn't make me feel safe.
I assume we're not going to enter a nuclear war in the same way that I assume I'm not going to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.
So I live with it.
I'm not going to argue in this one anymore, because people hear Iraq and immediately shut their ears and minds, on both sides. In fact, I'm about ready to end it as an acceptable topic on here like science versus religion, because it's been done to death, no one ever offers any new or interesting opinions, and it just causes bad feelings. Don't get mad people, its all of our own choosing.
I don't agree with this position.
I wouldn't be comfortable about people like Hussein having them (although I've never met the bloke). I'm also not entirely comfortable with America, India, China or Pakistan having them either. That doesn't make me feel safe.
I assume we're not going to enter a nuclear war in the same way that I assume I'm not going to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow.
So I live with it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, you are more comfortable with a nation with vast resources, 400+billion dollars in "defense" spending, a trigger happy president, controlling enough nuclear weapons to vaporize the planet...but you are worried a nation with a GNP less than $2000 per-capita, will invade and conquer us. I don't see how that fits...
The same way some republicans don't like bush (Not me, I'm Independent, obviously)
Just because they have similarities dosen't mean they made a deal with him.
Nuff said.
We have a winner! But he's looking at it in totally the wrong light I'm sad to say.
You are correct... You do not make assumptions for this kind of thing. That is exactly what I've been saying time and time again. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth this one time when there are large quantities of unaccounted for WMDs. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth this one time when behind the scenes he gives reasons to doubt his word. You do not assume that Saddam is telling the truth becase of his past history. When you said that you do not make assumptions with this kind of thing you are absolutely right. You do not assume that Saddam is innocent because we all know he is guilty.
You try to separate the history of Saddam from this situation. That is just foolish ( and I mean that in the nicest way possible ). The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that he is telling the truth. The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that Iraq did not still possess WMDs ( especially since large quantities are unaccounted for and his actions behind the scenes ). The history of Saddam is the most relevant set of facts one can use in this situation.
You continue to make the assumption that our governments lied to us. This is an assumption from the simple fact that no WMDs have been found ( this time ). Even if our governments did not have hard proof that Saddam still had WMDs, they have plenty of reasons to suspect that he still did. That is the thing here... We do not need hard evidence to go after someone like Saddam. You do not assume that someone like Saddam ( with his history ) is not a threat. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone here that our governments sounded sure in their opinions that Saddam will possessed WMDs. That was their assessment of the situation. Thus far this opinion has proven false, but when you are given the choice to assume that Saddam does or does not have WMDs and you have evidence that points in both directions, you do not ever assume the he does not have WMDs. Once again, that is just simply foolish ( and once again meant in the nicest way <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
P.S.
Vulgar, add something meaningful to this discussion.
Don't trust Saddam? That's what inspections are for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You try to separate the history of Saddam from this situation. That is just foolish ( and I mean that in the nicest way possible ). The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that he is telling the truth. The history of Saddam gives plenty of reasons why you should not assume that Iraq did not still possess WMDs ( especially since large quantities are unaccounted for and his actions behind the scenes ). The history of Saddam is the most relevant set of facts one can use in this situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what inspections are for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You continue to make the assumption that our governments lied to us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not an assumption. It has long since been proven. Compare Condi Rice's 2001 statement that Saddam didn't pose a threat to what she said later. Look at the Niger documents that were known to be BS but were pushed anyway. Rumseld saying he KNOWS exactly where the weapons are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an assumption from the simple fact that no WMDs have been found ( this time ). Even if our governments did not have hard proof that Saddam still had WMDs, they have plenty of reasons to suspect that he still did. That is the thing here... We do not need hard evidence to go after someone like Saddam. You do not assume that someone like Saddam ( with his history ) is not a threat. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone here that our governments sounded sure in their opinions that Saddam will possessed WMDs. That was their assessment of the situation. Thus far this opinion has proven false, but when you are given the choice to assume that Saddam does or does not have WMDs and you have evidence that points in both directions, you do not ever assume the he does not have WMDs. Once again, that is just simply foolish ( and once again meant in the nicest way ).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At no time did the evidence point in the direction of him having WMDs. Furthermore, Iraq was a quad-amputee after the Gulf War.
The US had no right or real reason to invade Iraq.
The same way some republicans don't like bush (Not me, I'm Independent, obviously)
Just because they have similarities dosen't mean they made a deal with him. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not similiarities, today 50 people were killed by a suicide bomber driving 500 pounds of explosives in a pick up truck. These bombings have already been tied to Al Quida as well as some that they have claimed responsibility for.
My question is where are they basing their operations from, where are they keeping supplies to use in these operations. I find it hard to believe that Al Quida members could simply decided to "show up" after the war and set up operations in a country they supposedly have no connection to that is currently fully occupied by US forces.
"You are saying that we should not believe Saddam Hussein because of his earlier actions, correct? Glad you came around to seeing it my way." Yes i am saying that. Am i saying that because of that, i should tilt in the favor of letting the US military unleash its military onslaught on iraq? No.
"Again, the rest of your points are not relevant to talking about the here and now in Iraq."
Well, again, they are. Because if a Nation (their political and economic elites, yeah) has been faking threats for the last half-century to attack defenseless nations for their natural resources and cheap labor, then it is important to keep that in mind the next time that it cries wolf.
For the link on US companies supplying Bio-weaps to iraq, hold on, im writing this quickly at work, ill post it soon.
If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario.
The same way some republicans don't like bush (Not me, I'm Independent, obviously)
Just because they have similarities dosen't mean they made a deal with him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not similiarities, today 50 people were killed by a suicide bomber driving 500 pounds of explosives in a pick up truck. These bombings have already been tied to Al Quida as well as some that they have claimed responsibility for.
My question is where are they basing their operations from, where are they keeping supplies to use in these operations. I find it hard to believe that Al Quida members could simply decided to "show up" after the war and set up operations in a country they supposedly have no connection to that is currently fully occupied by US forces. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know Al Queda wanted to topple Saddam's secular regime right? They were probably there for the same reasons there are(or at least were) Al Queda in the US.
For them to be able to do that they must know exacty where to keep supplies, exactly where to have a base of operations, and exactly which routes to take to succesfully exexcute those operations without getting caught.
Saddam at least knew they were in his country, if not allowed them to be. A dictator has much more say over who can and cannot be in his country than a president of the united states.
So that leaves the question if there are now hundreds (maybe thousands) of Al Quida militants in Iraq with supplies and weapons, where were they before the war? Because they certainly didn't come into the country AFTER 200 thousand US troops got there.
By the way Al Quida use Fundamentalism as a form of propeganda, they aren't exactly relegious, and I doubt they were offended enough by Saddam's secularism to decline safe harbor, money, and weapons.
I have disagreed with just about every foreign policy move the US has made in a long, long time, but I think it's time for the world to face up to terrorism on the grand scale and due away with fundamentalism for good. If I may be so crass I say liberals should be in favor of such measures because in the long run they are just paving the way for more human and civil rights globablly (or what has been labeled "forcing our beliefs on people"). I for one see nothing wrong with "forcing" the world to treat every human with decency.
Carry on. </span>
For them to be able to do that they must know exacty where to keep supplies, exactly where to have a base of operations, and exactly which routes to take to succesfully exexcute those operations without getting caught.
Saddam at least knew they were in his country, if not allowed them to be. A dictator has much more say over who can and cannot be in his country than a president of the united states.
So that leaves the question if there are now hundreds (maybe thousands) of Al Quida militants in Iraq with supplies and weapons, where were they before the war? Because they certainly didn't come into the country AFTER 200 thousand US troops got there.
by the way Al Quida use Fundamentalism as a form of propeganda, they aren't exactly relegious, and I doubt they were offended by Saddams secularism to decline safe harbor, money, and weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats only if you assume that ALL the anti american activities are by Al Queda. There are homebrewed Fundie groups and Iraqi Nationalists and Baath Party leftovers and THEN there are some Al Queda. A carbombing is a simple and effective tool used by anyone who wants to cause mass destruction for a minimum of cost. Or are you going to argue that Timmothy Mc Veigh was a member of Al Queda?
Timothy Mc Veigh was not an enemy combatant in a country with 200 thousand hostile troops, It's a little bit more complicated to pull of a car bombing when you could be stopped at any point by a military checkpoint.
I'm saying there are caches of weapons, and bunkers strewn throughout Iraq so they could wage gurella warfare after the war was over, and I'll voice my opinion that Saddam knew, and still knows about this.
Timothy Mc Veigh was not an enemy combatant in a country with 200 thousand hostile troops, It's a little bit more complicated to pull of a car bombing when you could be stopped at any point by a military checkpoint.
I'm saying there are caches of weapons, and bunkers strewn throughout Iraq so they could wage gurella warfare after the war was over, and I'll voice my opinion that Saddam knew, and still knows about this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm... that a tough question. I suppose only in instances where it would do any good. Attempting to over throw China would be as the death toll would be ludicrous and the same result would come just by aloowing the modernization thats happening now to take its course. Same with Iran, the population is young and liberal and it's only a matter of time before the old guard religious conservatives die off. But yeah I would support a beefed up version of the UN human rights commission.
And 200, 000 may sound like a lot but Iraq is a pretty big country with millions of people, decayed record keeping and lots of people who don't think too kindly of it.
Ultimately I think that though there were good reasons to topple Saddam there are more pressing matters right now. Also they way in which it was done has destroyed international goodwill and leaves our troops in a lot more danger from an angry populous.
Quite frankly, **** you Monse, I answered you question. I would but individual feelings have no place in international diplomacy.
Feel free to continue with your normally scheduled programming here...
On a side note that illustrates how effectively **** you can end debates.
Feel free to continue with your normally scheduled programming here... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you expect me to treat you like anything other than a fellow forum goer you are sadly mistaken. Your status on this board means nothing ultimately and I answered you as I would any other. Congratulations on being so thin skinned that you've driven away one of the communities better active modelers.
Of course!
Do i think the US appointed iraqi governing council is a democracy? No.
Do i trust the US army and politicians in setting up a democracy in iraq? Not at all.
Would i want the third partys army staying in my country, pumping my countrys resource to pay for occupying my country, giving the third-partys corporations 0% tax in my country with a selected, appointed "democracy"? Nope.
If you lived in Iraq under Saddam, would you want him cast out of power by a third-party and get a democracy installed instead? Or would you want him to remain in power and have absolute control? Don't take anyone else's view, just your own personal one, as if you were in that scenario. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would kill myself rather than live in Saddam's world -
Actually, I'd try to flee the country first
On a side note that illustrates how effectively **** you can end debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't hypocritical. We know WTH happens when we meddle with middle eastern countries. We get burned, create more terrorists, and destablise the region further, etc.
And, lo and behold, we have Islamic hardliners setting up religious laws in Iraq that will scale back that country's civil rights to who knows when.