Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq.

[Chocobo_Blitzer]

I would also like to mention that, the oil for food program was supposed to provide humanitarian aid and counter the sanctions imposed on Iraq for the Iraqi people.

We now know how abused that program really was, thanks to some europeans and Saddam.

And I agree, I wouldn't hold your prime minister morally responsible for a multi-national intelligence failure. Not that your country has suffered any significant loss due to the war. I don't even recall one fatality.

I don't mean to belittle your nation's support, but I don't see why you're upset about it.

 

[gladius]

You need to get with reality, instead of learning your lessons from Hollywood fantasy.

the matter of the fact is: who has the reality?when you believe only you have reality because you think god is with you, I can just think exactly same way.

I was making my arguement from a practical and realistic standpoint.
You are only saying this because you have nothing to reply to what I posted.

I posted an example using reality (WWII), and you use an example using Hollywood fantasy.

Shows me where you get your ideas from.

Hey you want an example of a bunch that thinks God is with them............The Islamic Extermists we are currently at war with.

Exactly.

 

[Damien435]

We in the US were not the only ones saying that Saddam had WMD's, France, Germany, Russia, Britain, China and the US all agreed that Saddam most likely had WMD's. But France, Germany, Russia, and China wanted to continue exploiting the Oil for Food program, oops, I mean let the sanctions take their course until the Iraqi people revolted, well twelve years later the Iraqi people had not revolted and we could not lift the sanctions because even if Saddam did not have WMD's he would have gotten them then.

France was the country that exploited the Oil for Food program the most, and they were illegally selling weapons to Iraq VIA Syria, darn it, there I do again, my mistake, those weapons were all produced prior to 1990 and had been sitting in storage in Syria for 12 years before being shipped to Iraq, I am sorry, it was a slip of the tongue.

Iraq owed Russia billions for weapons bought prior to the Gulf war, something along the lines of four billions USD, now that the US is trying to have he debt of many developing nations erased, most notable Iraq's, Russia would lose billions, something they can not afford.

China was also getting lots of Oil from Iraq, they only had about 3,000 oil contracts with Iraq, which is not near the 9,000 contracts France had or the 7,000 of Russia, but still, it is more than the six the UK had (two of which were being repealed) and the whopping one oil contract that the US had with Iraq.

There you have it, three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council who all the motive to try and block the US invasion of Iraq. I can not believe that France, Russia, and China could truly believe that the US would not go into Iraq without the UN's support. Did they not learn anything from the League of Nations? The League of Nations was powerless without the US and the UN is the same.

If the US is wrong for overthrowing Saddam the Allies were wrong in WWII for defeating Hitler. Genocide is Genocide, whether it is 10,000 people or 6,000,000 it is still wrong. To condemn the US is to condone Saddam.

And about a statement made earlier:

Just imagine, Americans speaking a different language.

So something along those lines. We do not need to, English is an international language, over 60% of the people of the world can speak english, America did not spread English to the rest of the world, England did (see the resemblance in name?) when French and German companies meet they speak in English, when Japanese and Argentine companies meey they speak in English. It is the language of business, it is the language of the UN, it is not just an "American" language as that person said, the British taught English to the people's that they conquered, that is 25% of the world that was, or had the opportunity, to be taught English.

 

[walkerd]

Just FYI, from what my cousin saw (he was over there working in a semi-military function), those people Saddam liked were given great favors and many modern things. Those he didn't like were often forced to live in Medieval circumstances with little or no benefit from modern things.

Rememeber we are talking pre 91 for the conditions in Iraq. When was your cousin there?

Good point, but remember that the sanctions were UN imposed.

Agree, what is the point?

The biggest load of nonsense I've heard beaten into the ground by the international community= "Saddam never had WMD and the United States knew it and invaded for no legitimate reason." His nuclear capabilities were certainly in doubt. But 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' includes chemical weapons. We know he had them. He used them on Iran and on the Kurds and we have more than enough proof on that score. There was no reason for anyone to believe that a power-hungry man like Saddam would just simply get rid of such things, but apparently he did so ... or hid them too well for anyone to find them. The real question is not whether he had them, its finding out what he did with those he had. The intelligence information for the USA, Russia, France and Britain all pointed to a significant threat in Iraq. Whatever those reports were pointing at has been very cleverly removed or sent elsewhere or it was a blatant smoke and mirrors trick by Saddam himself. The outrage of the international community is partly valid because the connection with the War on Terror and Iraq was nowhere near as obvious as Afganistan. When changing regimes ... well be prepared to catch a lot of crap no matter what.

Load of nonsense? Not a single piece of evidence has been put forward by anyone to support the weapons of mass destruction. In fact on todays news it has been admitted by the government that there never were weapons of mass destruction. Please supply some evidence to support your position. Any evidence. Please.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=19645

The problem is you cannot. I do not know why you insist there were WOMD. You might not like the fact your government and my governemnt were wrong but they were. They said there were WOMD, claimed they were going into Iraq to remove same. Refused to supply any evidence to a mass of questioning media and citzens and are now unable to supply any evidence.

Sorry but they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

I agree with this. I'm not crazy about the idea of the United States playing policeman, but at the same time, the world has generally been better off for it. The current outrage on the part of the international community will make it hard for the United States to continue to fill such a role in the future.

I would be more then happy to have USA as a policeman. They would certainly be more capable then anyone else. I just want them to act from a moral point of view.

Mostly a product of bad information. Its a legit mistake at best, and it really hasn't made the world any worse off. Also (and everyone fails to take note of this fact) the number 1 funder of terrorism worldwide is no longer in power.

Nope, it is bad decision making. They refused to look at the facts and now it shows.

Contrary to many I believe the USA went into Iraq believing they were doing the right thing. They believed that they could improve the welfare of people through out the middle east. They wanted democracy brought to the people in the area, they wanted a more free, more capitalist, more friendly middle east. They also believe a show of power would help put other dictators in their place.

Of course they did not say this but jumped on this WOMD band wagon. I know all I awant is honesty. I dislike being lied to and your government and my government is lying to us. They may be doing it as they want to protect us or lets face it most people are stupid but they have been caught out, they have mislead the public.

of course never let the facts stand in the way.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Answer one very basic question for me then: How did some 100,000 Kurds and an unknown number of Iranians die? Simultaneous food poisoning? Plague? I was under the impression that good ol Saddam gassed the poor bastards.

 

[whosewar2000]

Answer one very basic question for me then: How did some 100,000 Kurds and an unknown number of Iranians die? Simultaneous food poisoning? Plague? I was under the impression that good ol Saddam gassed the poor bastards.

USA supported Iraq WMD program in 1980s to be against Iran.

poor Iraq and Iran.......just like slaves being played by master

 

[Airborne Eagle]

Yeah, it's not like Saddam thought he was exploiting the US for some quick and deadly technology.

 

[walkerd]

Answer one very basic question for me then: How did some 100,000 Kurds and an unknown number of Iranians die? Simultaneous food poisoning? Plague? I was under the impression that good ol Saddam gassed the poor bastards.

I am not sure what you are getting at. That is your proof of WOMD?

Unless you want to provide some evidence I guess we have nothing more to say. If you can not or will not supply any supporting evidence of WOMD then there is nothing more to say. Show me a news report, show me an offical press release with proof, anything will do.

 

[Shadowalker]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#06
This CIA report does include refernces to actual uses of chamical weapons by iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2855349.stm - Chemical ali

Not very good links but one from the cia and bbc showing that womd were used and who used them

 

[walkerd]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#06
This CIA report does include refernces to actual uses of chamical weapons by iraq.

maybe I missed something but this report says Iraq used them years ago and could still have them. Again not a single piece of evidence proving thaey had them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2855349.stm - Chemical ali

Not very good links but one from the cia and bbc showing that womd were used and who used them

Used in 1987?

Maybe I need to make myself better understood.

The USa declared the intention of declaring war on Iraq was to remove the WOMD as per the UN resolution. This suggests that at some point proof should be available to show there were WOMD as at the time of the war. If Iraq had removed all WOMD then there is no reason for the war.

The problem is at the time of the war the evidence was not presented. Now that US weapons inspectors have had free run of the country there is no evidence of WOMD. It is clear that there are no WOMD, that at the time of the war there were no WOMD.

In my books that means my government (and yours) deliberately lied to the public. The only alternative is they did not want to know the truth, and acted in poor faith.

 

[whosewar2000]

walkerd, dont have to argue with others about this at all:

Everbody in this world knows that WMD is a excuse for Bush to go after Iraq.

Of course, he couldnot get any single piece of evidence for WMD cause there is none!

But you kown, people have this or that kind of "phscological effect" , if you keep telling youself that you can fly 1000 times everyday, i am sure just one week later, you DO beileve you can fly and you might really want to jump out from empire state building :lol: :lol:

 

[Airborne Eagle]

To accept the notion that the administration lied is to, in effect, state:

The collective intelligence services of the industrialized world also "lied" by stating (for well over a decade) Saddam had WMDs and WMD programs.

Saddam never offered proof his stockpiles were destroyed, claimed he still possessed them, and all sources pointed to him having them and maintaining them.

It's counter-intuitive and pretty illogical for anyone to hear the roar from intelligence services throughout the world (including the UN sources) claiming he had WMDs, hear Saddam constantly claim he had WMDs, see no evidence of the destruction of his stockpiles (recorded at the end of the first Gulf War), and conclude no WMDs existed.

For all the blather about Bush being dumb, only a true fool could turn their mind from that chorus of information and state the entire world is wrong.

Besides, I thought the anti-Bush folks wanted to knock him for not being aggressive enough pre-9/11. Now he's being knocked for being too aggressive against a threat with more information collected on it?

None of this follows a logical progression and continuation of thought.

 

[Chocobo_Blitzer]

I think it's legitimate to hold him responsible for it, and base your opinion of him on a "bad move". Whether you thought Saddam should have stayed in power, or perhaps taken a more lighter road and tried to persuade the UN.

I personally believe he made the right choice given the circumstances, but I do question some of it's execution.

But all this rubbish about him "lying" is just plain stupid. And anyone who believes that is either uneducated about the topic, or refuses to believe anything else.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually there was some evidence he destroyed some WMD. But the problem was, there was no evidence on how much he destroyed.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Answer one very basic question for me then: How did some 100,000 Kurds and an unknown number of Iranians die? Simultaneous food poisoning? Plague? I was under the impression that good ol Saddam gassed the poor bastards.

I am not sure what you are getting at. That is your proof of WOMD?

Unless you want to provide some evidence I guess we have nothing more to say. If you can not or will not supply any supporting evidence of WOMD then there is nothing more to say. Show me a news report, show me an offical press release with proof, anything will do.

Sorry for the delay in my response. Here is one source: http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html

In 1988, as a staff member working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I documented Iraqi chemical weapons attacks on 49 Kurdish villages in Dihok Province along Iraq's border with Turkey. These attacks began on Aug. 25, 1988, five days after the Iran-Iraq war ended, and were specifically targeted on civilians.

As a result of the committee's report, the Senate unanimously approved comprehensive sanctions on Iraq.

Between March 1987 and August 1988, Iraq made extensive use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villages as part of a campaign aimed at depopulating rural Kurdistan. These attacks have been well documented by human rights groups, forensic investigators and the Kurds themselves. Many occurred in places far from the front line in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Kurdish survivors of the Halabja attack all blame Iraq, and many report seeing Iraqi markings on the low-flying aircraft that delivered the lethal gas. While the most deadly, the Halabja attack was one of between 60 and 180 such attacks that took thousands of civilian lives.

PETER GALBRAITH
Washington, Feb. 3, 2003

And further,

Iraqi forces used mustard and nerve gases, as well as mass executions, to kill some 100,000 Kurds in the genocidal 1988 Anfal campaign. The commander, Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, said of the Kurds, in a taped speech obtained by Human Rights Watch: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community?"

It looks as though several people people beat me to putting in sources. Mustard gas and nerve gas, if you were unaware of it, just happen to be WMD. He did have them at one point. We know that for certain. Based on his behavior and past experience, it was entirely reasonable to assume that he would keeps such weapons. He would likely think he was giving up some shred of power, something he never would have done intentionally.

The point is not to say the use of Chemical Weapons in 1987 is absolute proof of those same weapons existing in 2002, but if anyone ever ACTED guilty about such things, it was Iraq. Why were they so determined to disallow UN inspectors unrestricted access? Why were they behaving like they had something to hide if they did not? No, its not hard evidence nor is it a smoking gun. The lack of hard evidence would hurt your case in courtroom, but how does it "prove" that 1.) there never was any WMD and 2.) the United States invaded knowing fully that there were no WMD??

There will always be a conspiracy theorist around to tell you all about how the President knew everything about everything and even saying that Bush secretly contracted the 9/11 attacks. There are also lots of sources claiming that the US government has extensive relation with space aliens. You believe that too?

 

[Damien435]

There can be no doubt that Saddam had at one point or another, a large stock pile of WMD's, we have video footage of the WMD's in use, their effect on the Kurds and Iranians, and the destructions of thousands of tons of WMD's, a large portion of which were nerve gases. The questiong is whether Saddam had them in 2003, as the CIA, FBI, Bush, France, Russia, Germany, Britain, Israel, Poland, Spain, Italy, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, Japan, and China claimed they did, we will likely never know the truth, although I have heard from a number of people who were in Iraq that their units discovered many WMD's in Iraq, some of which are even members of this site. But, putting the WMD story behind, since it is clearly an international conspiracy so we can tap Iraq's vast supply of oil, not that oil is a problem, Saudi Arabia has more oil than we need and we are not about to stop buying from them because if we do Al Qaeda could very likely take over the government of Saudi Arabia, no more money from the sell of oil and the Saudi's power disappears, Saddam should have been removed because he murdered hundreds of thousands of people, the key difference between Hitler and Saddam is that Saddam actually took pleasure in killing many of his victims himself, where as Hitler had other people doing his dirty work for him.

 

[Lupos]

REMOVED


Mod edit: I feel you, but no. Reread the forum rules.

 

[Lupos]

REMOVED


Mod edit: I feel you, but no. Reread the forum rules.

Sorry, I was just tired and in a bad mood that night. Whosewar2000 has been shouting ignorant things about the US everywhere. I just felt the need to correct him in the same manner he makes his statements. Sorry for saying that though. I promise I will not do it again.

 

[gladius]

The invasion of Iraq and the hostage situation in Russia have nothing to do with kids in America going to school or even being safe.

The whole post is just......odd.

You do not border a Fundamental Islamic state that you are at war with. So why the connection to Russia?

The fact that we do not border an Islamic country that we at at war with didn't stop 19 radical Islamics from crashing airplanes into building here in the US, now did it?

What has invading Iraq have to do with kids going to school?

Everything.

I already gave the reason for this on the original post.

Bush did the right thing.

 

[Bratwurst]

A question comes to mind: How can you display proof of the absence of something? :lol: