Originally posted by orfeoi posted a link to the timeline ... one of the issues was the existence of a government with motive and funding to create WMDs (which could be smuggled) and willingness to obfuscate inspectors as to same ...
I didn't ask who it wasn't, I asked who it WAS. You presented this as evidence that someone feared Iraq on their home soil.
Originally posted by darvlaya) it's not ridiculous, i posted a link to the timeline ...
Originally posted by Delmer
[b]Saddam justified the invasion of Iraq.
Okay, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that Saddam was the head of a murderous regime. Next question: When can I expect the US to begin ...[text shortened]... US go there to spread "freedom"? Don't they need it the most?[/b]
b) that was somalia, under clinton ... it appears not to have worked ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotHow much different is this from the USA ?
i posted a link to the timeline ... one of the issues was the existence of a government with motive and funding to create WMDs (which could be smuggled) and willingness to obfuscate inspectors as to same ...
Up to 100,000 people have died in Iraq, USA is full of WMD's and Bush had personal financial interests in pipe lines in the middle east and military equipment manufacturers.
Originally posted by orfeo
No, I am saying they would have a lot of trouble convincing the seller.
I've read this sentence at least a dozen times and am still baffled. Are you saying al Qaeda (or Hamas, or the PLO, or whoever) would have had a difficult time persuading Saddam Hussein to sell them nuclear, biological or chemical weapons with which to murder Americans (or Jews, or Hindus, or Catholics, etc.; we're all the same to those folks) simply because they were Islamic fanatics and he was a secular Muslim? Is this what this sentence says? I haven't laughed this hard in a long, long time. Thank you!
YOU'RE naive to think that a secular government wouldn't hesitate to sell chemical weapons to someone who would quite like to bring down that government! "Oh, you want to use these against the Americans, but you promise not to use any against us? Oh, okay, we believe you, here you go". Yeah, right!
This is actually a valid point. However, the United States would have been foolish in the extreme to assume that any WMD made available to Islamic fanatics would be used against Saddam Hussein instead of against us. Saddam was no fool. You can be quite sure he'd know where these weapons were intended to be used before selling them. And besides, he never had any qualms about using WMD against his own people. He might have welcomed an attack as a justification for another round of repression in Iraq.
You're also extremely Americo-centric to think that everything is about you. Guess what? There are other people fighting each other, it's not always about being America's friend or America's enemy. My whole point was these people have other battles to fight amongst themselves as well. They are not all allied against you, they fight you separately. Big difference.
Not once have I said anything resembling "It's all about the USA". However, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that, post-9/11, it's not at least partly about us. And quite frankly, since I and my wife and children do live here in the United States, I am personally very concerned about who America's friends and enemies are. The evidence is compelling that Islamofascists are indeed America's enemies, and since there's a very high concentration of them in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Iran, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia), our troops are well-positioned to fight and kill them.
I hope this doesn't get your panties in a wad, but I've said many times that we'll either kill them now over there, or they'll kill us later over here. It's a very straightforward choice. This American is cheering that we've chosen to kill them now over there. Your preference is apparently the other choice. Shame on you.
Originally posted by gpb0216You see, the difference is, I want us to make damn sure we know who 'they' are. Before we kill 'them'.
Originally posted by orfeo
[b]No, I am saying they would have a lot of trouble convincing the seller.
I've read this sentence at least a dozen times and am still baffled. Are you saying al Qaeda (or Hamas, or the PLO, or whoever) would have had a difficult time persuading Saddam Hussein to sell them nuclear, biological or chemical weapons with ...[text shortened]... hosen to kill them now over there. Your preference is apparently the other choice. Shame on you.[/b]
Originally posted by orfeo
You see, the difference is, I want us to make damn sure we know who 'they' are before we kill 'them'.
There's no difference, except that I want the sorting to occur over there instead of over here. Others, perhaps even you, seem content, even eager, to allow the sorting to occur here as opposed to over there.
I very much want 'them' to die in their homeland before 'they' have an opportunity to kill my wife and children in my homeland. Again, it's very straightforward, at least to me.
Originally posted by gpb0216I can understand that. Really, I can. But that still doesn't mean being so eager to kill 'them' that it's okay to kill people who AREN'T a threat because we're not careful enough to distinguish. I worry that that's what happens. Solve the problem and never mind the consequences, so long as they're not consequences for us.
Originally posted by orfeo
[b]You see, the difference is, I want us to make damn sure we know who 'they' are before we kill 'them'.
There's no difference, except that I want the sorting to occur over there instead of over ...[text shortened]... my homeland. Again, it's very straightforward, at least to me. [/b]
It's instructive to compare the American army in Iraq to, say, the British one. Early one there were several incidents where the British were simply horrified at the lack of discipline of US troops, which resulted in casualties that the British felt shouldn't have happened. At least one of these was a 'friendly fire' incident where an American pilot killed British troops on the ground, but there were others where the British were upset about Iraqis being killed. And the level of violence in the parts of Iraq the British are looking after, in the south, has consistently been lower.
All of which says to me that the job can be done better, because in some places the job IS being done better. I'm reasonably sure the British troops are tracking down and rooting out the real villains just as effectively as their American counterparts, but with less collateral damage because they are more careful about thinking first and shooting later.
bad hair day, meant 11th Sept, just that he got me annoyed....
I actually watched the program 9/11 farenhiet, and was very supprised to discover just how much the Bush family are into the pockets of the Suadi oil machine.
One of the best things to come out of it for me, was the companies that are winning all the bids to rebuild Iraq, and the amount of money they are making.
They blow it up, then they get to rebuild in there own image....