What do you think of the war in Iraq?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I'm wondering how many people thought the war was right, and now think it was wrong, and vice-versa.
Here it is as so far the first person with guts to admit the war is right, I guess I'll have to speak.
The war in Iraq was for a simple to understand yet complex reason. People in a place to know more than you could imagine if given a million years KNEW Iraq under Saddam was a threat, not just to the US but the world. They recognized the signs of an emerging Holocaust and moved quickly to strike off it's head. They had a world leader who continually defied the UN and violated his own agreements. A Dictator that had invaded another country. A tyrant who had Mustard gassed thousands of his very own people because one had taken a poorly aimed potshot. A man who had hundreds of thousands killed in just the years following Desert Storm. Not to mention the torturing. this is a man who was bringing together other Dictators who hated freedom in order to form an alliance against anybody not like them. Bush acted when he had to and beheaded the lumbering monster that would have destroyed freedom of all kinds.
The war in Iraq was for a simple to understand yet complex reason. People in a place to know more than you could imagine if given a million years KNEW Iraq under Saddam was a threat, not just to the US but the world. They recognized the signs of an emerging Holocaust and moved quickly to strike off it's head. They had a world leader who continually defied the UN and violated his own agreements. A Dictator that had invaded another country. A tyrant who had Mustard gassed thousands of his very own people because one had taken a poorly aimed potshot. A man who had hundreds of thousands killed in just the years following Desert Storm. Not to mention the torturing. this is a man who was bringing together other Dictators who hated freedom in order to form an alliance against anybody not like them. Bush acted when he had to and beheaded the lumbering monster that would have destroyed freedom of all kinds.
Totally agree with scott the war was needed for the freedom of the world however the way our countries went about it was abysmal, my 42 year old dad was a seargant of a platoon 2 years ago that fought in Iraq, the army had no form of a plant, they literally told the army to "get get Iraq"
It is this non-planned attack that has resulted in more iraqi civillian deaths occur, however I will still vote the rather elegantly put option of "yes".
peace,
Louisos
It is this non-planned attack that has resulted in more iraqi civillian deaths occur, however I will still vote the rather elegantly put option of "yes".
peace,
Louisos
Here is an argument (not as stupid as TW Scott's but at least logical) what you don't hear everyday, just to get the discussion going:
The war in Iraq is justified because it was for taking over the control of oilfields by the mightiest army in the world and as we know the Might is always just and right and eventually writes history .
See? I told you, you don't hear an argument like this everyday! It has the added advantage of being logical and factual too!! Argue with that...
The war in Iraq is justified because it was for taking over the control of oilfields by the mightiest army in the world and as we know the Might is always just and right and eventually writes history .
See? I told you, you don't hear an argument like this everyday! It has the added advantage of being logical and factual too!! Argue with that...
Intersting all the facts but none of the truth.
Even though Saddam was a tyrant and threat to the peace of people around the world, the U.S. should have negotiated with and talked to other countries regarding the solution to securing Iraq. Instead we announced that Saddam was on a time limit, that his time was running out, to surrender his chemical weapons and those of mass destruction, and then we dropped bombs and men in the Middle East. I wouldn't say it was justified, though Saddam was captured. In the process the U.S. has spent hundred of billions of dollars and erased thousands of lives during the invasion. They have damaged their status as a leader of civil rights morality. Nuclear programs are rearing their heads once again. America is already decaying, but we're spitting acid now too.
Bells
Staff member
Ok. How was he a threat to the world though? He possessed no weapons with which to threaten the world. So the threat to the "the world" came by way of what exactly? That he posed a threat to the people of his country is not in question and that will be addressed later on, but how exactly did he pose a threat to "the world"?
So you consider it an "emerging Holocaust" since the 80's? How can that be? Did he start committing the crimes against his people and his enemies in the last year before the US invaded? Ermm no. He did however use weapons and logistics supplied by his then allies (yes that's right.. the US and her allies) when he did commit said crimes since the 80's. So now it's an emerging holocaust when he committed crimes against humanity more than 20 years ago?
Had you been right and "they (had) recognised the 'emerging holocaust' and moved to quickly strike off it's head", Saddam would have been out of power and in jail since the early 80's. Sadly nothing was done back then was it? Instead Bush's little sidekick had taken to visiting Saddam along with Bush Snr to further reinforce the close relations the US had with Iraq, especially in its war with Iran. I like how you are blithely ignoring how the US was complicit during the time that Saddam commenced and continued his 'holocaust', only deciding to see him as an enemy when he invaded another country. It's also a shame that the US can be so blind to atrocities in a country so long as it fits into their global strategy and aims for that particular region. And now you call it an "emerging holocaust"? That's an insult to all the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam killed and tortured during all those years of his reign of terror in Iraq.
So do many other despots and other leaders. But why was Saddam allowed to go on for so very long? Why exactly was the US not more forceful in trying to stop this world leader when he slaughtered the thousands upon thousands of people? Oh wait.. that's right.. global strategy and stopping him would have meant they had no little pet in the region.
The one thing the US could no longer ignore.
And a tyrant who kept on doing it with no one willing to stop him. A tyrant who was meeting with the US and other Western countries to trade in arms and to get logistical support in his war against a country the West considered an enemy. So why was nothing done to stop him when used the mustard gas to slaughter his own people?
Before and after 'Desert Storm'. And yet nothing was done for the before cases now was it? Absolutely nothing was done.
LOL! And the US is not guilty of the same crime?
This is a new one.
How very poetic, romantic and patriotic of you.
But one itsy teenie little thing you failed to consider. Saddam had no way of destroying "freedom of all kinds". Saddam was not the one who attacked the US. Saddam had been allowed to be the monster he was all through the 80's under the benevolent eye of the US, and a US Government for which Bush's father was a part of. Bush did not act to behead a monster. Bush acted out of revenge. Bush left behind the hunt for the man who not only attacked his country but also attacked others and did pose a threat to said "freedom of all kinds" and went for the one man who did not pose a threat to said freedoms and would not do so for a very very long time.
Oh Truth? I can do that, here it goes:
Since 60% America's oilusage is coming from foreigners it just makes common sense securing the 2nd biggest oilresurces on Earth.
I can argue for the Iraq war logically day and night. Not morally, but logically...
Nice Spin. I admit mine was spin too, not as much or as heavy but spin none the less. Especially the way you kept yourself uneducated as to the scope of actions involved. You don't like the USA that's fine, just educate yourself fully question everything you read.
Bells
Staff member
Did I say I did not like the US?
What I do not like is the way the West merely shrugs its shoulders at their actions in the past as though nothing was wrong or claiming ignorance. It's what Governments do. You wish to talk about a 'spin', look at the way the West, not just the US, has totally ignored their role in Saddam's reign. Claiming ignorance shows that they are either down right stupid or that they just did not care because at the time Saddam and his actions suited their needs and wants. How anyone can claim ignorance, as though they did not know that a man who had his own cabinet executed when he took power (and caught on tape), would not be a ruthless tyrant, would have been funny if the result of their total lack of response did not result in the hundreds of thousands of deaths, all while they looked on and offered him support to further their own strategic goals for the region. And you call it an emerging holocaust?
What is happening now in Iraq is an emerging holocaust.
And before you accuse others of being ignorant of history, I'd suggest you brush up on your own history.
Yes, this is true that through history that the stronger nations have ruled and defeated the smaller ones. However, that does not mean its justified, Germany in WWII had the strongest army in europe, was it justifed to capture poland and sluahgter all the jews,<-------If your'e a nazi this reply does not count to you
TW Scott:
2. Numerous countries have invaded other countries, including the U.S.
2. Either way, you're talking crap. The Kurds aren't 'Saddam's own people'. They are a bunch of nomads separate from the Iraqi, who were conspiring with the Iranians during the Iran-Iraqi war. Last time I checked, rebels of a different ethnicity aren't 'your own people'. In fact, they are fair game during war.
The bullshit spouted by Republicans is laughable.
Ahh, the semantics of a warwonger. All too cute.
As Bells has already asked you (and you have failed to reply, oddly enough), how exactly was Saddam a threat to the U.S, let alone the world? Can you provide evidence which demonstrates those scary stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which appear to be as real as the tooth fairy? It's clear that Saddam's WOMD arsenal didn't amount to a microfart, and it's laughable for you to claim that he was a threat.
What signs? Prior to the invasion, Saddam's killing had ebbed. This has been acknowledged by numerous humanitarian rights groups.
If 20 years after his so called genocide against the Kurds is what you define as 'moving quickly', I'd hate to see what you define 'moving slowly' as!!!
What about other countries who continually violate UN dictates and treaties which they are party to? North Korea? India? ISRAEL? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!
1. Kuwait is historically a part of Iraq.
2. Numerous countries have invaded other countries, including the U.S.
1. There is considerable controversy over who gassed the Kurds. An alternative (and credible) explaination is that Iran used chemical weapons, which resulted in the mass murder of the Kurds.
2. Either way, you're talking crap. The Kurds aren't 'Saddam's own people'. They are a bunch of nomads separate from the Iraqi, who were conspiring with the Iranians during the Iran-Iraqi war. Last time I checked, rebels of a different ethnicity aren't 'your own people'. In fact, they are fair game during war.
As have numerous dictators over the world. As have numerous democracies over the world (again, including the U.S). However, it's funny how you neglect to mention that many of the people Saddam killed were insurgents, and rebels conspiring against his regime. Are you telling me that the U.S doesn't kill insurgents?
LOL! Pot, meet kettle!
More pedantic bullshit. Saddam went out of his way to kill Osama, and bring about the destruction of Al Qaeda.
to obtain oil, and yet another American foothold in the Middle East
More like the annoying, toothless gnat (at best).
Like detaining civilians without trial in Abu Gharib, and torturing?
The bullshit spouted by Republicans is laughable.
According to the Might is just rule NO, because eventually they lost. Had they won, you would be reading a different history in the books about a victorious empirebuilding nation...
i think the pro-active war by U.S. was the right decision, if you are out there trying to catch terrorists; they would turn to hostile nations like iraq and eventuaally bomb states; every nation must protect itself;
all those Liberals are Communists god dammit; if communists were treated the same way, we would have been ruled by Stalins grandsons and we all know what kind of rights U.S.S.R. had.
so yeah, it all boils down to freedom and democracy. i fail to understand why world never appreciates what U.S. does. Hezbollah is a terror group which will become a threat; so yea it must eliminated; does that mean U.S,. is against religion of islam? hell no. Its only terror americans are fighting.
and yeah president bush is honest in doing and making tough decisions and not pussying out like Bill clinton in last moments when they could have killed bin laden; all you guys think ABC documentary was drama? go think again
Rick
all those Liberals are Communists god dammit; if communists were treated the same way, we would have been ruled by Stalins grandsons and we all know what kind of rights U.S.S.R. had.
so yeah, it all boils down to freedom and democracy. i fail to understand why world never appreciates what U.S. does. Hezbollah is a terror group which will become a threat; so yea it must eliminated; does that mean U.S,. is against religion of islam? hell no. Its only terror americans are fighting.
and yeah president bush is honest in doing and making tough decisions and not pussying out like Bill clinton in last moments when they could have killed bin laden; all you guys think ABC documentary was drama? go think again
Rick