Originally posted by newdad27Hi Newdad,
you on the other hand seem to take an ideological slant to every thing you say. Can you explain the statement "invading a sovereign state"? This statement gives your posts no credibility whatsoever. Saddam was in direct violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the first gulf war; it was only after the 18th violation that action was ta ...[text shortened]... s aiding terrorists including al Qaeda. Is it not possible for you to look at this objectively?
Thank you for trying to answer my question.
What aspect dd he violate 18 times?
Did not Scott Ritter from the original UN inspection team publicly state that it was impossible for Saddam to have restarted and WMD programmes?
I can't recall any direct evidence of terrorism and Iraq being linked. In fact Tony Blair, publicly stated that there was no proven link?
Saddam was no longer seen as a threat to his neighbours or the West by most neutral and respected experts.
Even though I questioned the validity of the no-fly zones and our continual bombing of Iraq's in the years between the wars I recognise that this muscle was a good reminder that he shouldn't get any ideas about expansionism. This was working.
I'm not saying the UN is perfect. I do not wish to be portrayed as a friend of Saddam. The oil for food program was flawed but surely abandonning the program and allowing Iraq to benefit from its wealth would have been a cheaper, safer more logical solution.
I cannot see why America and its coalition had the right to smash its way through a country which was not threating its way of life. Even which the US's economic and military might, it couldn't get UN approval. Bush was not prepared to listen to anyone who disagreed with his perspective. As a result thousands of innocent people, including nearly 2000 Americans, have lost their lives. The region is still insecure and now we have created terrorists with due cause to hate the west.
Originally posted by mudaksee.. thats the beauty about the democrats.. they try to bring a balance to
I couldn't agree with you more on that newdad. I can't understand how people can think that Iraq was a stable, "sovereign country." You have to remember that democrats would bitch about Iraq even if we didn't invade.
any situation..
go right, they go left.. up and they are down..
not having a true aim in life is not uncommon in any political party.. they
are all worst than each other.. and they all unite under one umbrella..
power..
and if the dems were in power and in charge of the situation, betya the
other parties will do just the same..
Originally posted by buckkyYes.
How many here that hate Bush think we should replace let Sadam out and put Bush in ? Do you think Sadam could do a better job running America than Bush ?
1. No more guns for American citizens, just guns for Saddam. Better one armed crazy nut than 250 million.
2. Less verbal diarrhea from US people (currently at epidemic proportions), due to the clamping down on free speech.
3. The death of shitty, crappy western fast food as we know it. All that crap will be replaced with middle eastern resturants.
4. Government controlled media. The "free" media have their own adgendas anyway - at least it is out in the open with Saddam.
5. Saddam can pronounce english words like nuclear properly.