|
I can't believe they haven't found any WMDs yet (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acid Circus
And what about all the people that Saddam has killed already and would undoubtedly kill in the future. Can anyone argue that the world is not a better place after this war. Even if Saddam is not dead he is no longer in a position to seriously endanger anybody again, a positive thing by anyones outlook! |
You obviously dont see my point. TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE A RIGHT!
This war has MURDERED many people, just like Saddam has MURDERED many.
And do you honestly think this world is far better than it used to be before the war. The middle east is in chaos. Afghanistan is not doing so well, and Iraq is in shambles. The world is split apart with this decision, and billions of people are pissed off at the US. Not to mention that Terrorist attacks have increased since then in Indonesia, Suadi Arabia, Israel and Iraq and Afghanistan.
And WHAT DANGER was Saddam right before the war? People in Iran and Kuwait, who are neighbors with Iraq, werent shouting WAR! But the US and Britain, who are far from that part of the world, claimed to have been threatened...give me a ing break. |
|
|
| Viber |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
And WHAT DANGER was Saddam right before the war? People in Iran and Kuwait, who are neighbors with Iraq, werent shouting WAR! But the US and Britain, who are far from that part of the world, claimed to have been threatened...give me a ing break. |
what danger?maybe his annual "i will bomb israel with chimical weapons this year" sayings,do you have any idea how much money he gave to terror?!he is the one who gives the money to arafat and arafat takes it to himself and the rest is for the terror org.,and we are talking billions over here,
but you live far from the middle east so i guess you really dont give a |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And let's not forget that Iraq repeatedly violated the terms of UN resolution 1441, which IMO, was reason enough to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein and hopefully replace him with someone else who can be held more accountable for their actions or lack thereof. |
You are mistaken here. Iraq didn't violate the resolution 1441. It complied with it in almost all respects, and Hans Blix rated Iraqi cooperation as relatively good. And let's not forget Iraq also succumbed to the wishes of the US that were not in the resolution, like allowing the U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq and to freely take pictures. Up until the attack, inspectors were allowed to examine any site they wanted. The only thing they found were several missiles whose range was a little over the allowed limit, and those missiles were then destroyed by the Iraqis themselves. The US attack had therefore no legitimacy in the UN whatsoever.
Iraq has attempted to obstruct investigations prior to 1998, when Clinton decided to withdraw the inspectors. This time, however, Iraq did cooperate. And let's also not forget it was the US who refused the initiative to triple the amount of inspectors claiming Iraq had mobile WMD factories that were fleeing from the inspectors (the later discovered hydrogen producing trucks). |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
You are mistaken here. Iraq didn't violate the resolution 1441. It complied with it in almost all respects, and Hans Blix rated Iraqi cooperation as relatively good. And let's not forget Iraq also succumbed to the wishes of the US that were not in the resolution, like allowing the U2 spy planes to fly over Iraq and to freely take pictures. Up until the attack, inspectors were allowed to examine any site they wanted. The only thing they found were several missiles whose range was a little over the allowed limit, and those missiles were then destroyed by the Iraqis themselves. The US attack had therefore no legitimacy in the UN whatsoever.
Iraq has attempted to obstruct investigations prior to 1998, when Clinton decided to withdraw the inspectors. This time, however, Iraq did cooperate. And let's also not forget it was the US who refused the initiative to triple the amount of inspectors claiming Iraq had mobile WMD factories that were fleeing from the inspectors (the later discovered hydrogen producing trucks). |
They complied in "process" not in "substance" as reported by Blix. Translation: They continued the game of leading inspectors on wild goose chases while compiling a 12,000 page dossier of bull to deter attention from the fact that they still couldn't account for weapons they were already known to have just a few years prior. And I suppose that the taped phone conversations that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. were probably faked too, right?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Eitherway, Bush will be seeking UN's Help, ironic enough. I mean, the German, French Presidents, along with Puttin and probably the whole UN crew who was against this war, must be like.. :tongue2 ( Told ya, but you see, you didnt listen ) .. hehehe.. anyways, really, although the US had to do it in the first place, but it looks very hypocritical. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Well it does appear that the Germans are beginning to come around. I do agree that world involvement is important, but not at the expense of creating a beaurocrat state. There needs to be clearly defined leadership. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
and killing 100,000 people (directly or indirectly) is a perfect solution to get rid of him:rolleyes: |
i have no idea where you got that number.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ says that the minimum civilian casualties lie around 6131 and the max at 7849. And to add to it this is from the date of Jan 1 2003 up until today. all other indiciations also point somewhere in that range.
where you got 100k i have no idea, thats a really high margin factor.
furthermore, what Acid Circus said was correct. who's to say that those other deaths (starvation and such) are caused by the US, maybe those same deaths would have been ten fold under saddam and nobody would have known. for all we know "indirect" deaths may be happening a lot less then they were under the old regime, so to use this as an arguement is absurd.
the argument is simple on comparison
the human rights watch says "at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children, were killed out of hand between February and September 1988," http://hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php
most figures indicate around 5,000 civilians have died during the gulf war 2.
if we're talking about civilian deaths, the iraqi's are much safer under US control. |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
the US has a larger WMD program compared to Iraq. I think they should be looking around in their own yard for goodies.
The people dont want the US there, they should just leave. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
I think the deaths mentioned is just part of all the mess that surrounds the US and Iraq subject. What one really have to look at is the future outcome, results, and what will happen to Iraq. Furthermore, how will people in Iraq live after this. Under Saddam Hussein, yes there was some ugly stuff that happened about a decade ago, but, like Ive said 10000 times, there was no problem with terrorists breeding there, or causing antyhing related. The 3 major religious groups lived great if we look at how bad this groups are with each other, or what their perspectives and beliefs are. So basically, whats more troubleing is what we all know, which is the way that the US has failed, as of now, on the postwar outcome. It really saddens me, because if one really takes that fold off one eyes, under Saddam people were living decent lives, it wasent as to what it was portrayed, people were getting education and working, it was decent country, and if all the sanctions would've been taken off IRaq, I definetly would say that Iraq would've been one of the leadering countries in that part of the middle east.
Overall, like Ive said, US has failed ( currently ) on the postwar issue, and I dont think that under the US command Iraq is better then what it was under Saddam, but by the own testimonies of the Iraqui people ( we are talking even people against saddam ) .. have said that Iraq was much better under Saddam, and that now all there is is just fear, no way to protect, and a new way of lifestyle emergin.. or other kinds of bad things. The black market is growing like never before there, and culture there is just a mess there. And yes, sucks to see people dieing by people that are usually there to free them, but thats no surprise, since is justifyable the trauma that all this american soldiers are getting, and will be coming back with. Even worst would be if they later see that going to Iraq for just presumtions, with no definite objective, and changing your life like that, its desagradable. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
like Ive said 10000 times, there was no problem with terrorists breeding there
|
that is not true. many hamas members have had training inside iraq for use of explosive devices. a hamas member was assasinated in baghdad by another palestinian orginization. colin powell reported of "al-qeada-esque" military camps in iraq. one can not say that terrorists did not breed or reside in iraq. |
|
|
| dj adagnitio |
Its important to note that terrorists, such as those that overtook the planes on september 11th, train inside the United States.
It is true that since the war nowhere close to 100,000 people have died. However sanctions put on Iraq since 1990 are estimated to have killed many many more then that number. If I remember correctly the UN estimated that over 500 000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. sanctions. The number of people hurt by Saddam's regime was a small fraction of that. Iraq also had one of the highest living standards in the middle east prior to that time. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj adagnitio
Its important to note that terrorists, such as those that overtook the planes on september 11th, train inside the United States.
It is true that since the war nowhere close to 100,000 people have died. However sanctions put on Iraq since 1990 are estimated to have killed many many more then that number. If I remember correctly the UN estimated that over 500 000 Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. sanctions. The number of people hurt by Saddam's regime was a small fraction of that. Iraq also had one of the highest living standards in the middle east prior to that time. |
last time i checked the sanctions were not coming soley from the US.
futhermore you must respect a countries soviergn right to hold sanctions agiasnt which ever country they want and for what ever reason they want. you can't force two sides to do business. |
|
|
|
|
