The US defense secretary has admitted to the media that the US HAS NOT and PROBABLY WILL NOT find weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Why am i not surprised ?
Iraq should not have been invaded on the excuse of weapons, the intelligences sources of the US and Britian found but the UN could not find.
i am not deputing the repulsiveness of Saddam's regime. But i am sicked at a world which ignored the people of Iraq because there leader was bad.
Why did we send medical equipement to Iraq without vital components ? The excuse was that the components could be used for duel purposes, so the west condemned lives that could be saved.
The world blockaded the gulf to prevent smuggling of illegal goods into or out of Iraq. Preventing the citzens of Iraq from earning a living, and slowly destroying the country. Why did they not stop the smuggling operations that happened everyday across the Turkey and Syrian borders, the smuggling operations personnal run by the regime.
that is just my opinion
trekkie
So many excuses were given for the invasion, and the reason changed again and again.
Threat to the West.
WMDs.
Al Qaeda links.
The faked British government intelligence report shows the disdain our government has for us, the plebian massive,
Finally, Saddam is a bad guy.
Can't argue with that, but why couldn't they be honest!
My opinion is: the US has decided to sort out the middle east problems, using any pretext for intervention necessary.
Why?
To secure oil supplies maybe.
To protect Israel definitely,
Originally posted by VargBut who is protecting Israel from itself. i think terrorist should be put in jail never to see freedom again, i do not believe in killing someone because they killed someone else (but that is a different debate), whilst in jail their human rights should be protected.
So many excuses were given for the invasion, and the reason changed again and again.
Threat to the West.
WMDs.
Al Qaeda links.
The faked British government intelligence report shows the disdain our government has for us, the plebian massive,
Finally, Saddam is a bad guy.
Can't argue with that, but why couldn't they be honest!
My opinion is: the US has ...[text shortened]... for intervention necessary.
Why?
To secure oil supplies maybe.
To protect Israel definitely,
i can not however see the problems Israel is encountering being solved by violence. Israel is a victim of terrorism which through various human but uncondonable reactions has brought more violence upon itself. Every time Israel invades (in an act of war) the west bank or gaza strip to arrest terrorist, they are enrage ten other people enough to become terrorists themselves.
A lot of things have to change on the middle east for there to be peace, America or anyone else coming in with violence uninvited will not solve the problem it will only make it worst.
Another question i have, is was the conservative southern christians in the US, who seem to hold an a lot of lobbying power, so blatantly stupid that they thought Iraq would become a Christian dominated democracy. Even if that thought is infinitesimally close to the truth then the stereotype of texan’s being stupid and naive of anything past their state border is certainly true in at least one case.
Even if that thought is infinitesimally close to the truth then the stereotype of texan’s being stupid and naive of anything past their state border is certainly true in at least one case.[/b]Ah, now don't get me started with the Texans! I've got a whole hotel full of them to take care of right now. 😀
Here's a quick quiz for you.
Who is responsible for this quote? No prizes, of course.
"Why of course the people don't want war.... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorshop, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people will always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger".
Originally posted by VargThat was Goering, at the Nuremberg trials.
Here's a quick quiz for you.
Who is responsible for this quote? No prizes, of course.
"Why of course the people don't want war.... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorshop, or a parliament, or a communist dictator ...[text shortened]... ked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger".
I'm sorry. But there was a WMD right in front of your nose. It's called Saddam Insane and he has killed thousands of Iraqi's for one purpose only. To keep him in power and therefore in the money.
The man was/is nuts and having him in power to kill his people was nuts. I'm glad we went in and removed him from power. 😛
I guess you haven't heard all of the stories about the torture chambers?
The US may have been right in going to Iraq and removing Saddam, but where they drop the ball is by not having the UN approval. To make matters worse, the US wants to have the major control of choosing the new leaders and government for Iraq. This only fuels the ire against the US in the Mid-East. If the US didn't go to war for oil ( and don't think they didn't) they should be glad to hand over the reigns to the UN and Iraq itself. By not doing this we as a country look like a bunch of greedy colonialistic war hawks.
One other reason for us to go to war is that George Bush Sr. (who still runs much of US policy) and Cheney have alot of influential friends who profit from defense contracts. And oil. Imagine that.
If we are truly concerned with people we should our hungry and homeless children in our own country.
Originally posted by ChessNutOf course this is the reason why the US invaded Iraq. And it's why the US is preparing to invade Nigeria right now - even though there are no economic interests, the human rights abuses justify a massive military expenditure. And the Congo too, they're up on our axis of evil list, considering the mass genocide going on there as we speak.
I'm sorry. But there was a WMD right in front of your nose. It's called Saddam Insane and he has killed thousands of Iraqi's for one purpose only. To keep him in power and therefore in the money.
The man was/is nuts and having him in power to kill his people was nuts. I'm glad we went in and removed him from power. 😛
I guess you haven't heard all of the stories about the torture chambers?
Your argument holds no water. If you're going to apply the doctrine that any government that treats it citizens poorly will be toppled by the US, then it needs to be enforced universally, otherwise it is pure hypocrisy.
No matter how many not-so-clever names you call Saddam Hussein, he was still sovereign leader of his country, and the Republican party is still grasping at straws trying to justify the military invasion that illegally removed him from power.
-mike
Question: What will the political fallout be in Britian, the US, and Australia. In Australia i can comment, i think the fallout will force the PM to retire in the next 12 months. He was always due to make a decision on his future near his 64th birthday, this month, i think the kind word will be put in his ear to leave before he is pushed on this issue.
-trekkie
Originally posted by trekkieUnfortunately i don't think that will be the case trekkie. If labour had a stronger leader then it wouldn't have been hard for them to sweep the liberals away on the anti-war wave, but as it stands now i wouldn't be surprised if howard can hang on for another one.
Question: What will the political fallout be in Britian, the US, and Australia. In Australia i can comment, i think the fallout will force the PM to retire in the next 12 months. He was always due to make a decision on his future near his 64th birthday, this month, i think the kind word will be put in his ear to leave before he is pushed on this issue.
-trekkie
In the states also i don't see there being much of a backlash. I read an article the other day where the whitehouse admitted the WMD thing was mainly a political and diplomatic (ha) manouver to get the country behind them, yet it didn't even make big news.
I think poor old blair will be the only one to suffer badly from the entire deal, and in my opinion he was the only one out of the three whos heart may have been in the right place.