Is it So Wrong?

[Klington]

Bush is Right!
In World War II, Hitler was attacking Europe and killing many Jews. England, was fighting for its very existance.
But the Americans didnt want to get in the war, so we watched our comrades fight and fight. Then one day Japan attcked Pearl Harbor, they allied with the Germans, became an instant enemy. There German Allies, thus, were enemies as well, did we go to war with Hitler because he was evil?
No! But now many people say it was because of Hitlers evil tendencies that we went to war, many!
It is the same with Iraq, just because we are wrong, doesnt mean we havent affected the world in a good way!


Is it so wrong to believe in one objective, and to use it to accomplish another objective?
It doesnt matter why, people! It is only that we have taken out a man that kills many, many people.
He urges them to give their lives for himself, but what does he do? He surrenders without a shot!
I am ashamed that we needed to say that Iraq had WMD's just to get support for Iraq!
And just so you guys know, if I was of age, I would be over their in Iraq fighting, you who think that war for a good cause is bad,you sicken me! (not that war isnt bad, its horrible, but at times we must fight). There are some who are willing to fight for what they belive in, FREEDOM! And some who make no sacrifice.....

If I offended you in this statement I am sorry, but I will state what I believe in!

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

I'm going to have to disagree with this sentence you wrote, "I am ashamed that we needed to say that Iraq had WMD's just to get support for Iraq!"

Iraq did have WMD and used them against the Iranians and their own people. Even the UN, Germany, France and others against the war thought it was still a strong possibility that Iraq possessed WMD's, they just disagreed on what should be done about it.

[EUtopia]

Intelligence was exagerated, hidden and just downright made up, to support this accusation. In my book this constitutes a lie.

I also disagree that the war in Iraq is good for the world. It will increase world terrorism and has killed more people and damaged more lives than Saddam would have in the remainder of his lifetime (while he was very evil, reports, especially on American TV, were greatly exagerated).

[Nulibert]

So you think all those stories about people being tortured with drills and meathooks were just lies?

I lost a friend in Iraq, and he went there wanting to get rid of a dictator...not to get rid of WMDs. Iraq did have WMDs, but they were either destroyed or hidden in a neighboring country before the invasion.

The American intelligence was not perfect. No intelligence is perfect. It was the blind leading the deaf. What do you expect?

[cammarvane]

> It was the blind leading the deaf. What do you expect?

Better reasoning than that for international war.

...

No, wait, I'm wrong. That's what I *prefer*. What I *expect* is for politicians to do whatever they feel like for their own personal gain. Which is exactly what happened. Ah, Halliburton.

[Parthini]

I think being in Iraq is a good idea mainly because it keeps all the terrorists out of the rest of the world and in Iraq where instead of killing thousands of defenseless civilians they are fighting well trained men, and for that I salute them all! Why do you think there are so many attacks in Iraq every day? Is it because the Iraqis want Saddam back? Yeah right.

GPP

[EUtopia]

Nulibert said:

So you think all those stories about people being tortured with drills and meathooks were just lies?

I lost a friend in Iraq, and he went there wanting to get rid of a dictator...not to get rid of WMDs. Iraq did have WMDs, but they were either destroyed or hidden in a neighboring country before the invasion.

The American intelligence was not perfect. No intelligence is perfect. It was the blind leading the deaf. What do you expect?

I never said lies, I said American TV exagerated it. This is not to say there were not daily torturings. Like I said he was very evil. But if you watched Fox you could be forgiven for thinking that there were over 100,000 murders a day.

As for the Intelligence not being perfect. This is the problem, it was not even close to perfect, it was fraudulent and completely misleading, and this is what the governments sent our troops out to die on?

Don't even think for a second that they cared about what Saddam was doing to his people, they funded and supported that action for decades! Even when he gassed the kurds, America refused to speak out against it. Governments do not feel compassion as we do, they feel money and power.

[Nulibert]

I never remember Fox saying there was 100,000 murders a day. Where did you hear that? It seems like you're doing the "ssssttttttrrrrrrreeeeeetttttccccccchhhhhing" here. Fox can only report on what they know, and with people like Hiraldo Rivera reporting the exact location of his unit (dumbass) you know they are clueless about anything. The media blows chunks whenever they can, because they love the ratings.

Let me remind you that the search has not ended yet. We are still looking. No intelligence will ever be perfect. Hell, sometimes it won't even be close. Do you think Saddam would let us walk in and check out his stash? No. America tried...we failed. Big deal. We removed a dictator that the Iraqis hated. Now everyone hates us. Why? Because we unclogged the toilet by blowing up the pipe. They enjoy the results but they protest the means by which it was done.

Do you also believe America funded and supported Saddam killing his people? No. Why would we do that? That's silly. How were we supposed to know what happened over there? The only reason we started to pay attention was the Iran/Iraq war, and even then we really didn't give a damn. Then Iraq marched into Kuwait and that really pissed everyone off. So we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and spat on his boots. What would have stopped him from building more WMDs? Nothing. We came back in 2003 to disarm him of any crap he built during the "intermission", free his people from the iron fist of "Saddamism" and find him hiding in some hole. We liberated the Iraqis. Now people hate us because we can't find Saddam's toys? People just have nothing better to do.

[EUtopia]

Nulibert said:

I never remember Fox saying there was 100,000 murders a day. Where did you hear that? It seems like you're doing the "ssssttttttrrrrrrreeeeeetttttccccccchhhhhing" here. Fox can only report on what they know, and with people like Hiraldo Rivera reporting the exact location of his unit (dumbass) you know they are clueless about anything. The media blows chunks whenever they can, because they love the ratings.

Yes, I was talking about their "blowing things up" to get better stories.

Let me remind you that the search has not ended yet. We are still looking. No intelligence will ever be perfect. Hell, sometimes it won't even be close. Do you think Saddam would let us walk in and check out his stash? No. America tried...we failed. Big deal.

No, I think Saddam would have used those great weapons of his. And I think I quote American intelligence here, "We know exactly where the WMDs are, we just need to go in and get them". And you failed, big deal? Quite a big deal for the 15,000+ dead and countless of lives ruined.

Do you also believe America funded and supported Saddam killing his people? No. Why would we do that? That's silly. How were we supposed to know what happened over there?

Why would you do that? Becaue at the time he was a ruthless dictator who supported America in a pivitol point in the cold war. This is the very reason he was put there, the previous president was beginning to support the Soviet Union, so the CIA replaced him with Saddam. It wasn't until Saddam turned on America that they started "caring" about the human rights abuses.

The only reason we started to pay attention was the Iran/Iraq war, and even then we really didn't give a d**n.

Well, not giving a d**m didn't stop you from arming both sides to the teeth so that they had the means to destroy each other.

Then Iraq marched into Kuwait and that really pissed everyone off. So we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and spat on his boots. What would have stopped him from building more WMDs?

Why don't you ask him and find out what did stop him?

We liberated the Iraqis. Now people hate us because we can't find Saddam's toys? People just have nothing better to do.

Liberate is Bushes word, not the Iraqi's. Perhaps they hate you for other reasons, like the way coalition bombs destroyed their homes and killed their families? I know that would tick me off a bit.

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

EU-topia,

The thing that I don't get is that if your side had it's way, the potential threat of Iraq would still be there, and his evil would still be allowed to go on. That you're all right with, but going into protect American lives against a serious potential threat in light of Iraq's history, etc. that's no good? Even if Al Qaeda had never meet an Iraqi before, the enemy of your enemy is your friend would still very much apply. Iraq with WMD's + Al Qaeda can't and wasn't allowed to grow or eventually fester. They were dealt with.

BTW, the American weapons inspector, David Kay, said that while he hadn't found any WMD's, he thought Iraq was actually a bigger threat when the attack happened than the American's knew at the time. That's without actual WMD's being found.

The bottom line is that Saddam had WMD's and used them in the past against his own people and Iran. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement, which he broke in multiple ways, but one of the conditions of that agreement was that he'd fully disclose where all of his WMD's were. He did not do that. The weapons inspectors that you said didn't believe Iraq had WMD's, hadn't found the weapons, but could also not account for them.

So, we have a guy who has attacked *multiple* nations, used awful torture, killed children, allowed his son & others to rape as a hobby, had WMD's, used WMD's, couldn't account for his WMD's, kicked weapons inspectors out of his country for years, tried to fool weapons inspectors, for 12 years continued to not abide by the cease fire agreement he signed, but that's not good enough? I tell you what, if I was someone who was crooked, I'd like to be in business with you. Is this the type of man you would like to have questions about regarding unaccounted for WMD's? Was his word honorable? I for one would not and did not trust Saddam.

The United States went into Iraq to quell a potential threat. It is likely that one day the United States will be hit much worse than it was on 9/11, but until that day and afterwards as well, we will deal with potential threats as they appear.

It's not quite the same, but in a lot of ways this very much still applies. When Japanese Admiral Yamamoto attacked Pearl Harbor he has been said to have remarked, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." For nations that have WMD's and would use them against us, they should be prepared because 9/11 won't be forgotten. What you may call arrogance, I call resolve. To not act in the face of such facts would be unforgivable should Iraq have had, and may still have, WMD's and/or have enabled others to use them against us. What Bush did was right and I, for one, am glad he is the President of the United States.

Grub

[cammarvane]

The United States went into Iraq on the *pretense* of WMD, which your administration knew full well weren't there because your own intelligence said so.

You have now got the Office of Homeland Security, a truly scary thing, and with it a mandate to fingerprint and register all foreigners who cross your borders. You also have a track record of ignoring international law, ignoring international treaties and agreements, and even detaining foreigners without a trial even when the only "offense" anyone can think of was committed in another country where it was legal (Dmitri Skylarov). You don't even have an elected leader; he was appointed, after his brother deliberately made a mess of the election to allow this.

In short, the current American administration is more arrogant, swashbuckling, power-hungry, and fascist than ever before, and frankly scares the hell out of me.

I'm Canadian, and daily live in fear that the President's family and friends will decide they feel like having some resources or whatever north of the 49th, and start applying "trade pressure" and "security measures" to get it. You might be happy to throw away your civil freedoms for the "security" Bush's propaganda machine provides, but it's seriously wrong that I'd have to.

[WildthingX]

Cammarvane said:

I'm Canadian, and daily live in fear that the President's family and friends will decide they feel like having some resources or whatever north of the 49th, and start applying "trade pressure" and "security measures" to get it. You might be happy to throw away your civil freedoms for the "security" Bush's propaganda machine provides, but it's seriously wrong that I'd have to.

Well, you know, I live in the United States of America and Up until we snatched Saddam's ass out of that hole in the ground, I lived in fear everyday, that it would be my last day, because of his crazy ass!

<br>To each his own, but I feel like if you are an illegal immigrant, then you haven't any rights to be in my country. I'm tired of having to live or adjust my life because someone moves to my country that can't even understand my language and I'm expected to adapt to him or her. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. <br>
I'm not saying that I am proud of this war, but I am saying that I'm damn proud that we're tired of laying down like a rug and letting people walk all over us. We're taking a stand and we will not tolerate threats from anyone!!!!!!!

[cammarvane]

> Up until we snatched Saddam's ass out of that hole in
> the ground, I lived in fear everyday, that it would be
> my last day, because of his crazy ass!

Yes, the propaganda *has* been quite effective, hasn't it?

I don't fear what the media tells me to, I fear what I can see is a threat.

[3wiseguys]

Did the first Gulf War really ever end? How many times did Iraq fire on planes patrolling the no-fly zone since 1991?

What about the oil for food program? Misappropriated humanitarian relief?

How many times was the UN planning on letting SH thumb his nose at them?

In the grand scheme of things sixty years is not a long time. Sixty years ago, we (Canada included) were fighting a Germany that was ordered to severely limit it's armed forces twenty years earlier at Versailles. Why wouldn't anyone interpret SH's actions as being roughly parallel to Germany's? Have we forgotten history? Had Saddam? Had the world?

How many millions of lives might have been saved if the US had not waited nearly three years before sending armed forces to Europe? Would Japan have dared to strike a giant that was not sleeping?

Iraq was openly defiant, even after numerous second chances. One would think that they would have taken the UN and especially the US very seriously given the context of the first Gulf War, nevermind 911.

It is disheartening to me that Canada did not lend it's support in Iraq the second time around. Perhaps if some of the larger nations had offered their support, SH would have made concessions substantial enough to avoid the war. I'm am proud to say that many of my family members have fought side by side with Canadian forces to accomplish great victories for liberty and world peace and I fully appreciate the Canadian presence in Afghanistan. (I consider that that the tragic accident there which cost many Canadian lives probably weighed heavily in the decision not to send troops to Iraq.) I think it is probably the invasion of Normandy that was the single most impressive allied action in terms of what it ultimately accomplished- the liberation of Europe. Impossible for anyone with even a remote familiarity of World history to forget.

Yet, sixty years,(three generations?) and major nations are ready to sit on their hands as another dictator goes hog wild on the world. Sure Saddam, take Kuwait, Poland, Hungary. Throw the Kurds in concentration camps. Just don't invade Saudi Arabia or France. Right.

I suppose one of the toughest things about being a superpower is that if we don't do it, who will? And what are the consequences of apathy? In this case, I for one am relieved we will never know. And I am grateful for those who have sacrificed so much.

[EUtopia]

I will explain why tonight when I am not so busy, and Idon't mean this in an offensive way, but Dunsez, that was the biggest load of crap I have ever heard, and I include "The Sun"'s (UK's most popular "paper", if you can call it that) news reporting in that. I think you might have forgotten the present, nevermind history.

[3wiseguys]

TEXT


Here's some more crap for ya. If your not too busy. Of course this was over twelve years ago ...

... if you respond quickly enough I can read it on the metro beneath the Pentagon and past Arlington National Cemetary on the way home...




Tracking Number: 166247
Title: "Iraq Cited for Numerous Rights Violations in Kuwait." Amnesty International issues lengthy report. (901220)

Translated Title: "Irak: Ses Violations des Droits de l'Homme au Koweit." (901220)
Date: 19901220

Text:
*POL402

12/20/90 2Ha Re IRAQ CITED FOR NUMEROUS RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN KUWAIT (Amnesty International issues lengthy report) (800)

Washington -- Amnesty International, in a report released December 19 in London, cites Iraq for numerous violations of human rights in Kuwait and calls on the Iraqi government to end the imprisonment, torture and killing of thousands of people in Kuwait.

The human rights organization reports that Iraqi forces have tortured and killed many hundreds of victims, taken several thousand prisoners, and left more than 300 premature babies to die after looting incubators from at least three of Kuwait City's main hospitals.

The organization's report has been submitted to all members of the United Nations Security Council, which has requested information on the human rights situation in Kuwait, and to the Iraqi government.

The report cites 38 methods of torture used by the Iraqi military, including cutting off people's tongues and ears, shooting them in their limbs, applying electric shocks to their bodies, and raping them.

"The Iraqi forces' brutality in Kuwait has shocked many people in the past four months," Amnesty International said, "but such abuses have been the norm for people in Iraq for more than a decade."

While welcoming the release of Western nationals, Amnesty International said it fears that the plight of thousands of victims of human rights violations in Kuwait and Iraq might now be forgotten. The organization called on governments throughout the world to appeal to Iraq to stop the human rights violations.

The organization said it has collected evidence supporting earlier reports of the killing of premature babies by Iraqi soldiers. "We heard rumors of these deaths as early as August," the organization said, "but only recently has there been substantial information on the extent of the killings."

Amnesty's investigation team interviewed several doctors and nurses who worked in the hospitals where the babies died. All had seen the dead bodies and one doctor had helped to bury 72 babies in a cemetery near the hospital.


GE 2 POL402 In some hospitals, unofficial records were kept of the number of people who had been killed, including the babies.

The report was based both on medical evidence and on in- depth interviews with more than 100 people from about a dozen countries. Since the invasion, Amnesty International investigators have traveled to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to talk to victims and the doctors who treated then, relatives and eyewitnesses and have interviewed dozens more in several other countries.

The investigators also talked to scores of people who had been arrested in their homes or on the streets. Most of those arrested were Kuwaitis, although many from other Middle Eastern, Asian, European and North American countries were also held.

The team collected the names of some 1,000 people who were arrested but believes the true figure to be much higher. Thousands of people -- some as young as 13 -- are reported to still be held in Iraqi and Kuwaiti prisons, detention centers and homes; others were killed shortly after their arrest, in police stations, before firing squads, or at their homes.

Following is the summary section from the Amnesty International report:

(begin text of summary section)

Widespread abuses of human rights have been perpetrated by Iraqi forces following the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August. These include the arbitrary arrest and detention without trial of thousands of civilians and military personnel; the widespread torture of such persons in custody; the imposition of the death penalty and the extrajudicial execution of hundreds of unarmed civilians, including children. In addition, hundreds of people in Kuwait remain unaccounted for, having effectively "disappeared" in detention, and many of them are feared dead. To date, an estimated 300,000 Kuwaitis have fled their country, as well as several hundred thousand foreign nationals working in Kuwait. Their accounts have received worldwide media coverage. This document details some of these abuses, confining itself to those violations which fall within Amnesty International's mandate.

Amnesty International takes no position on the conflict in the Gulf, and does not condone killings and other acts of violence perpetrated by the parties to the conflict. What concerns the organization are human rights violations taking place in that context. Those violations which have been reported since 2 August are entirely consistent with abuses know to have been committed in Iraq over many years, and which have been documented by Amnesty International in


GE 3 POL402 its numerous reports. Iraq's policy of the brutal suppression of all forms of internal dissent continues to be implemented, and the people of Iraq remain its victims. Amnesty International has repeatedly placed such information on the public record, and regrets that until the invasion of Kuwait, the international community did not see fit to apply serious pressure in an attempt to put an end to these abuses.

[3wiseguys]

Where did that goofy smiley come from? That is not a happy post.

[3wiseguys]

"The Iraqi forces' brutality in Kuwait has shocked many people in the past four months," Amnesty International said, "but such abuses have been the norm for people in Iraq for more than a decade."


I was trying to highlight this sentence in particular.

[RichfieldMN]

I will repeat what I said on the main board.

The US was attacked on 911 unjustly. The US went after the culprits in Afghanistan. They have not found the culprits yet. Osama is still alive and kicking. The main goal of the war on Terror has not been reached.

The US went to War on the pretext Iraq had WMD's it was not to get rid of a dictator, but to find the WMD's which do not exist.

The two actions above show the Bush administration is capable of moving the goal posts when it wants.

The US is no safer now than it was on 911 when the terrorist threat struck. Al Qaeda is still up and running and Osama is on the loose.

Many nations feel threatened by US action, and the stupid statement you are either with us or against us.

The US was one of the allies in WWII it did not win the War it was a member of a coalition who won the war. Germany declared War on the US not the other way around and without Pearl Harbor the US would not have been involved in WWII.

I pray for the day a new administration takes place in the US which seeks for a coalition in the world, a coalition for peace. This will be the one act which will limit or eliminate terrorism.

I love the American people, my partner is American, I live in the US, I have many American friends. What I don't like is the current administration which is a major threat to world peace.

[Odracir]

richfieldMN said:

I will repeat what I said on the main board.

The US was attacked on 911 unjustly. The US went after the culprits in Afghanistan. They have not found the culprits yet. Osama is still alive and kicking. The main goal of the war on Terror has not been reached.

I would love to see you find one person in a whole world. It's not exactly the easiest thing to do.

The US went to War on the pretext Iraq had WMD's it was not to get rid of a dictator, but to find the WMD's which do not exist.

First off, they do exist, he used them, and no one can account for them. Reasonable logic leads one to believe that he still had them. Also, even if he didn't, the world is a better place without Saddam.

The US is no safer now than it was on 911 when the terrorist threat struck. Al Qaeda is still up and running and Osama is on the loose.

Osama is on the run, not on the loose. Saddam was in a spider hole, people like them run when things don't go their way. People like Bush take it to them when stuff like 9/11 happens.

Many nations feel threatened by US action, and the stupid statement you are either with us or against us.

Actually, many nations helped the US. And the statement "you are either with us or against us" goes back to the time of Jesus. He Himself used it. And it makes since. Just like the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

The US was one of the allies in WWII it did not win the War it was a member of a coalition who won the war. Germany declared War on the US not the other way around and without Pearl Harbor the US would not have been involved in WWII.

This is total crap. If it wasn't for the US, the French would be eating sauerkraut and not escargo right now. Germany would be three times as big as it is now, and Europe, heck the whole world, wouldn't be the same. And something like Dec. 7, 1941 or Sept. 11, 2001 will usually draw a nation into action.

I pray for the day a new administration takes place in the US which seeks for a coalition in the world, a coalition for peace. This will be the one act which will limit or eliminate terrorism.

How will a bunch of pacifists get rid of terrorism? I'm not saying war is good, it's horrible. But sometimes its necessary. If there is this "coalition for peace," they would not take the action necessary to get rid of terrorism. Bush knows how to get rid of it. The US may not have Osama yet, but it has a whole bunch of his top officials. And it can get a person. Ask around to see if you can find Saddam's address. It probably reads: TOP SECRET FACILITY.

[qupte[I love the American people, my partner is American, I live in the US, I have many American friends. What I don't like is the current administration which is a major threat to world peace.[/quote]

How so? I don't see how getting rid of a dictator is a threat to world peace.

[RichfieldMN]

I suggest you take up History as a hobby. Any decent guide to history will help you.

FACT: Germany declared war on the USA.
FACT:The US went to War becuase of Pearl Harbor
FACT:a Coalition of forces beat Germany including France.
FACT:Millions of French people died in WWI which led to their reticence to fight in WWII, a whole generation had died.
FACT:The Soviet Union played a major part in the victory of the Allied (Coalition)

I am sorry but the aims of the War on Terror were to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, not to invade Iraq.

The Bush administration is guilty of changing the ground rules, and America is not safer now.

Do you really feel safer now that Iraq is occupied by American forces, that the USA is dictating the new rules for elections in Iraq?

I suggest Bush go after those responsible for 911.

[cammarvane]

> I suggest Bush go after those responsible for 911.

That would be silly. They don't have any oil.

[Parthini]

richfieldMN said:

FACT:a Coalition of forces beat Germany including France.
FACT:Millions of French people died in WWI which led to their reticence to fight in WWII, a whole generation had died.
FACT:The Soviet Union played a major part in the victory of the Allied (Coalition)

History is definatley one of my hobbies:

Truth be told, in WWII France didn't play any huge part after 1940 besides resitance (mostly because they couldn't).

Also, millions of Englishmen died in WWI but they weren't as hesitant as the French to go to war after Churchill came to power. (Before then Neville Chamberlin was about as willing to let the Nazis have Europe as the Gestapo)

Lastly, the Soviet Union joined only because they were attacked by the Nazis. They had a nice little peace agreement going on and may have even allied had things not gone so....well. The "Enemy of My Enemy is My Friened" thing fits here very nicely.

Just wanted to keep the history straight here.

GPP

[EUtopia]

Grub[/u]

Even if Al Qaeda had never meet an Iraqi before, the enemy of your enemy is your friend would still very much apply. Iraq with WMD's + Al Qaeda can't and wasn't allowed to grow or eventually fester. They were dealt with.

Saddam Hussain hated Al Qaeda, he hated what they stood for and was strongly opposed to any co-operation with them.

BTW, the American weapons inspector, David Kay, said that while he hadn't found any WMD's, he thought Iraq was actually a bigger threat when the attack happened than the American's knew at the time. That's without actual WMD's being found.

“DR DAVID KAY: I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarised chemical and biological weapons there”
Doesn’t sound so confident to me.

The bottom line is that Saddam had WMD's and used them in the past against his own people and Iran. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement, which he broke in multiple ways, but one of the conditions of that agreement was that he'd fully disclose where all of his WMD's were. He did not do that. The weapons inspectors that you said didn't believe Iraq had WMD's, hadn't found the weapons, but could also not account for them.

I do not believe the emphasis was on Iraq to prove they did not have WMD’s (since this is near impossible), it was on the USA to prove that he did.

I tell you what, if I was someone who was crooked, I'd like to be in business with you. Is this the type of man you would like to have questions about regarding unaccounted for WMD's? Was his word honorable? I for one would not and did not trust Saddam.

Of course I did not believe a word that Saddam said (which I why I have never quoted him in an debate), however, this does not mean that I believe a word the Bush administration (who are guilty of some of the crimes you listed, as well as others) said either.

The United States went into Iraq to quell a potential threat. It is likely that one day the United States will be hit much worse than it was on 9/11, but until that day and afterwards as well, we will deal with potential threats as they appear.

They will be harder, since no superpower can last for ever. I have no problem with America trying to make their empire last forever, everybody does, but if you want to deal with potential threats, try dealing with countries who actually have the ability to damage you.

It's not quite the same, but in a lot of ways this very much still applies. When Japanese Admiral Yamamoto attacked Pearl Harbor he has been said to have remarked, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." For nations that have WMD's and would use them against us, they should be prepared because 9/11 won't be forgotten. What you may call arrogance, I call resolve. To not act in the face of such facts would be unforgivable should Iraq have had, and may still have, WMD's and/or have enabled others to use them against us. What Bush did was right and I, for one, am glad he is the President of the United States.

No, it’s not the same at all, it’s a nice quote to finish on, but it’s completely irrelevant since Iraq did not attack the USA, does not have the means to attack the USA and wouldn’t have attacked the USA if it did.

WildthingX[/u]

Well, you know, I live in the United States of America and Up until we snatched Saddam's ass out of that hole in the ground, I lived in fear everyday, that it would be my last day, because of his crazy ass!

<br>To each his own, but I feel like if you are an illegal immigrant, then you haven't any rights to be in my country. I'm tired of having to live or adjust my life because someone moves to my country that can't even understand my language and I'm expected to adapt to him or her. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. <br>
I'm not saying that I am proud of this war, but I am saying that I'm d**n proud that we're tired of laying down like a rug and letting people walk all over us. We're taking a stand and we will not tolerate threats from anyone!!!!!!!

Not much I can say about this except….Yes, definitely been watching too much television. Saddam was no threat to anybody, never mind the USA.
Also, what was that xenophobic rant about in the <br>’s?


Dunsez[/u]

Did the first Gulf War really ever end? How many times did Iraq fire on planes patrolling the no-fly zone since 1991?

Not as much as NATO planes constantly bombed Iraqi installations. You can’t have it both ways, you could argue with great ease that they fired in self defence.

In the grand scheme of things sixty years is not a long time. Sixty years ago, we (Canada included) were fighting a Germany that was ordered to severely limit it's armed forces twenty years earlier at Versailles. Why wouldn't anyone interpret SH's actions as being roughly parallel to Germany's? Have we forgotten history? Had Saddam? Had the world?

For a start, Germany was a world superpower who had earlier invaded most of Europe with plans of world domination for the dictatorial Kaiser. They had some of the best technology and one of the biggest militaries in the world. Hardly a comparison to the decrepit Iraq, with their poorly trained, terribly equipped and wholly unloyal conscript army.

How many millions of lives might have been saved if the US had not waited nearly three years before sending armed forces to Europe? Would Japan have dared to strike a giant that was not sleeping?

World War 2 and US intervention is not the issue, this is totally irrelevant and simply a ploy to evoke emotion in those reading.

Iraq was openly defiant, even after numerous second chances. One would think that they would have taken the UN and especially the US very seriously given the context of the first Gulf War, nevermind 911.

There are dozens of countries all over the world who are defiant. Including the USA and its allies, you cannot single Iraq out for an invasion on this basis. Again, 9/11 is completely irrelevant in this issue and is another attempt to evoke emotion.

I think it is probably the invasion of Normandy that was the single most impressive allied action in terms of what it ultimately accomplished- the liberation of Europe. Impossible for anyone with even a remote familiarity of World history to forget.

Dare I even ask what your point is here? You cannot even begin to compare Normandy with any action in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is this another attempt at irrelevant emotion?

Yet, sixty years,(three generations?) and major nations are ready to sit on their hands as another dictator goes hog wild on the world. Sure Saddam, take Kuwait, Poland, Hungary. Throw the Kurds in concentration camps. Just don't invade Saudi Arabia or France. Right.

May I remind you that Saddam did not invade anybody to justify this invasion? He invaded Kuwait and we quite rightly threw him out. Perhaps we should have gone further than then (further than pretending to support an uprising then leaving them out to dry and letting the rebels be murdered in their thousands), but that is not the issue. Hungry? Poland? Again, completely irrelevant.

I suppose one of the toughest things about being a superpower is that if we don't do it, who will? And what are the consequences of apathy? In this case, I for one am relieved we will never know. And I am grateful for those who have sacrificed so much.

The only good thing for America about being a superpower, is that there is no bigger country to see this and decide unilateral action is needed to stop it.
Consequences? Surely they were than Saddam was going to invade and take over the world, installing a world dictatorship where he would rule from a large, evil looking castle. Give me a break. Saddam was going nowhere without support from the US, like he had in Iran and throughout his rule.

Tracking Number: 166247
Title: "Iraq Cited for Numerous Rights Violations in Kuwait." Amnesty International issues lengthy report. (901220)………

Yes, 12 years ago. You should give that to the UK government, they might present it to the UN as current evidence. And I didn’t see Amnesty International asking the USA to break numerous international laws and kill over 15,000 people, did you?

Parithini[/u]

Also, millions of Englishmen died in WWI but they weren't as hesitant as the French to go to war after Churchill came to power. (Before then Neville Chamberlin was about as willing to let the Nazis have Europe as the Gestapo)

Perhaps the French were hesitant because they were right on the front line and had been completely devastated in WW1, losing millions of lives (an entire generation). Something they still had not recovered from.
Did Chamberlain not sign a peace treaty with Hitler in 1938? Then attempting to take the UK into WW2 when Germany invaded Poland in 1939?

Lastly, the Soviet Union joined only because they were attacked by the Nazis. They had a nice little peace agreement going on and may have even allied had things not gone so....well. The "Enemy of My Enemy is My Friened" thing fits here very nicely.

The Soviet Union had been building up its military for years, in anticipation of the Nazi attack. Sure, Germany struck the first blow, but I have a feeling the SU would have entered anyway when Germany were more stretched. To avoid having another superpower right next to them and to expand their territory.

Regards,
EU-topia

[Punkerz]

Cammarvane said:

> Up until we snatched Saddam's ass out of that hole in
> the ground, I lived in fear everyday, that it would be
> my last day, because of his crazy ass!

Yes, the propaganda *has* been quite effective, hasn't it?

I don't fear what the media tells me to, I fear what I can see is a threat.

Bush's propaganda has been very effective on the normal american citizen, they believe everything he says.(check my signature)

Cammarvane said:

> I suggest Bush go after those responsible for 911.

That would be silly. They don't have any oil.

nice way of thinking, lot of american people don't see it that way that's why they say it's to get rid of a dictator or to find WMD's

[Anceltierre]

Not all americans are like that... In that recent interveiw he looked like he had something to hide... Frankly I've always disliked the Bush admin

[Nulibert]

Good God EU...you type too much:

Saddam Hussain hated Al Qaeda, he hated what they stood for and was strongly opposed to any co-operation with them.

Saddam actually admired Al Qaeda, especially after 9/11. Saddam tried many times to help them in their "Jihad" against America.

“DR DAVID KAY: I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarised chemical and biological weapons there”
Doesn’t sound so confident to me.

He wasn't sure whether they had WMDs or not, he wasn't confident either way.

I do not believe the emphasis was on Iraq to prove they did not have WMD’s (since this is near impossible), it was on the USA to prove that he did.

That's based on your interpretation.

Of course I did not believe a word that Saddam said (which I why I have never quoted him in an debate), however, this does not mean that I believe a word the Bush administration (who are guilty of some of the crimes you listed, as well as others) said either.

I would like to see a full list of the "crimes" the Bush administration commited, and a list of the "crimes" the Saddam dictatorship commited.

I may be a democrat, but I still believe the word of my president. He's not the smartest in the bunch, but he's certinely not the dumbest.

They will be harder, since no superpower can last for ever. I have no problem with America trying to make their empire last forever, everybody does, but if you want to deal with potential threats, try dealing with countries who actually have the ability to damage you.


So you're saying Iraq couldn't have sent terrorists over to hijack a plane? Saddam couldn't have invaded Kuwait again and blow up the American embassy? Saddam couldn't have funded Islamic terrorists?

No, it’s not the same at all, it’s a nice quote to finish on, but it’s completely irrelevant since Iraq did not attack the USA, does not have the means to attack the USA and wouldn’t have attacked the USA if it did.

You have no proof of that. Iraq invaded Kuwait, an American ally, and that is an indirect attack on America. Iraq shot down American and British planes. Iraq used mustard gas. It does have the means and it WOULD attack the USA if it could (and it could have).

Saddam was no threat to anybody, never mind the USA.

Once again, you speculate that. Iraq could have been funding terror. They still had scud missiles and T72 tanks. He was a threat to his own people and his neighbors. Financially, he was a still a threat to everyone.

Not as much as NATO planes constantly bombed Iraqi installations. You can’t have it both ways, you could argue with great ease that they fired in self defence.


NATO planes bombed Iraq installations because they fired on American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone. American and British planes never attacked Iraqi installations unprovoked. Also, we would argue with great ease that you are some anti-American war activist with nothing better to do. We choose not to, however.

For a start, Germany was a world superpower who had earlier invaded most of Europe with plans of world domination for the dictatorial Kaiser. They had some of the best technology and one of the biggest militaries in the world. Hardly a comparison to the decrepit Iraq, with their poorly trained, terribly equipped and wholly unloyal conscript army.

Saddam's Republican Guard was highly trained, well equipped and VERY LOYAL.

World War 2 and US intervention is not the issue, this is totally irrelevant and simply a ploy to evoke emotion in those reading.


It's called using an example. People do it all the time.

There are dozens of countries all over the world who are defiant. Including the USA and its allies, you cannot single Iraq out for an invasion on this basis. Again, 9/11 is completely irrelevant in this issue and is another attempt to evoke emotion.

Sure, many countries are defiant, but how many have been in and out of wars for the last twenty years? How many abuse their people? How many use beatings, electricution and whipping as punishments?

Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to have emotion. We're damn droids.

Dare I even ask what your point is here? You cannot even begin to compare Normandy with any action in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is this another attempt at irrelevant emotion?


Once again, use of examples is not a reason to shoot someone in the foot. I find myself crying my eyes out by reading that too.

May I remind you that Saddam did not invade anybody to justify this invasion? He invaded Kuwait and we quite rightly threw him out. Perhaps we should have gone further than then (further than pretending to support an uprising then leaving them out to dry and letting the rebels be murdered in their thousands), but that is not the issue. Hungry? Poland? Again, completely irrelevant.


Poor Dunsez, his use of examples and emotion drive EU crazy. Boo hoo. The reason for this invasion was:

a.) The repeated defiance of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government.
b.) Possible weapons of mass destruction.
c.) The liberation of the Iraqi people from a harsh dictatorship and the disarmament of a great threat.

I think that justified an invasion.

The only good thing for America about being a superpower, is that there is no bigger country to see this and decide unilateral action is needed to stop it.
Consequences? Surely they were than Saddam was going to invade and take over the world, installing a world dictatorship where he would rule from a large, evil looking castle. Give me a break. Saddam was going nowhere without support from the US, like he had in Iran and throughout his rule.

Nothing would have stopped Saddam from building up his armed forces, invading the rest of the middle east, nuking Israel and expanding like Hitler did with Germany.

Also, "installing a world dictatorship where he would rule from a large, evil looking castle" is completely irrelevant!

The Soviet Union had been building up its military for years, in anticipation of the Nazi attack. Sure, Germany struck the first blow, but I have a feeling the SU would have entered anyway when Germany were more stretched. To avoid having another superpower right next to them and to expand their territory.

That's speculation. You can't tell what Stalin would have done. Remember, the Germans got all the way to Moscow before the winter slowed them down. The Soviets were not prepared.

[EUtopia]

Nulibert said:

Good God EU...you type too much:
Saddam actually admired Al Qaeda, especially after 9/11. Saddam tried many times to help them in their "Jihad" against America.

Saddam had issued orders for his troops not to cooperate with Islamic terrorists because their ideals were so opposed. Saddam does not want Islamic states, he was a secular leader. When Al Queada sent an envoy to meet him a few years back, he told them where to go.

That's based on your interpretation.

Well America used their "interpretation" to go to war, so I think I can use mine here.

I would like to see a full list of the "crimes" the Bush administration commited, and a list of the "crimes" the Saddam dictatorship commited.

So would I, it's a shame they are much better at coverups than Saddam. However, the known list is still considerable, I will draw up a short draft later on (if I remember).

I may be a democrat, but I still believe the word of my president. He's not the smartest in the bunch, but he's certinely not the dumbest.

If you believe the word of a politician, you're a bigger fool than I. They will screw you at every turn, even your cocaine using, insider dealing, vote selling president.

So you're saying Iraq couldn't have sent terrorists over to hijack a plane? Saddam couldn't have invaded Kuwait again and blow up the American embassy? Saddam couldn't have funded Islamic terrorists?

Anybody could hyjack a plane, doesn't mean we should invade them. Anybody could invade Kuwait, Iraq showed no more will to than any other country. Anybody could fund Islamic terrorists, these are all very general things which could be done by anybody at any time. No reasons to invade a country.

You have no proof of that. Iraq invaded Kuwait, an American ally, and that is an indirect attack on America. Iraq shot down American and British planes. Iraq used mustard gas. It does have the means and it WOULD attack the USA if it could (and it could have).

So Iraq could have attacked Iraq. Iraq wanted to attack Iraq. Iraq would have attacked America if it could. Forgive me if I hear wrong but....why didn't they then? The logic just doesn't follow.

Once again, you speculate that. Iraq could have been funding terror. They still had scud missiles and T72 tanks. He was a threat to his own people and his neighbors. Financially, he was a still a threat to everyone.

Every country has the right to a military. His was out of date and obsolete. He was no threat to his neighbours. His missles had a range of about 100 miles, modern ICBMs can go accross continants.

NATO planes bombed Iraq installations because they fired on American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone. American and British planes never attacked Iraqi installations unprovoked. Also, we would argue with great ease that you are some anti-American war activist with nothing better to do. We choose not to, however.

NATO planes took part in extensive bombing runs of installations which did not fire at the, as well. And just because I have a different view from America doesn't mean I am anti-Americans, this is a hangup that Americans really have to get over (something they should stop listening to Bush about)...... Might be right about having nothing better to do though..

Saddam's Republican Guard was highly trained, well equipped and VERY LOYAL.

So we were told over the news repeatedly. It's a shame that they completely collapsed at the first sign of opposition with many of them deserting.

It's called using an example. People do it all the time.

Yes, but it helps when the example has something to do with the point being made. I could draw parralells with the Spanish civil war, it doesn't advance my argument though.

Sure, many countries are defiant, but how many have been in and out of wars for the last twenty years? How many abuse their people? How many use beatings, electricution and whipping as punishments?

Well, this is what I was talking about. Dozens of countries do all these things and do them a lot worse than Saddam

Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to have emotion. We're d**n droids.

When it comes to devastating millions of lives, we cannot act on emotion or impulse, but instead use reason and logic.

Poor Dunsez, his use of examples and emotion drive EU crazy. Boo hoo. The reason for this invasion was:

a.) The repeated defiance of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government.
b.) Possible weapons of mass destruction.
c.) The liberation of the Iraqi people from a harsh dictatorship and the disarmament of a great threat.

I think that justified an invasion.

(a) Like countless other countries
(b) Completely unfounded accusations which are now being disowned
(c) Like countless ther countries

Sounds like America should go and take over half tghe world if these are the variables for war.

Nothing would have stopped Saddam from building up his armed forces, invading the rest of the middle east, nuking Israel and expanding like Hitler did with Germany.

So, Saddam was the next Hitler? He was going to use his military might of deserting, poorly equiped, poorly trained conscripts to take over the world and his abandoned nuclear project was to be used to nuke Isreal? None of this has the remotest part of possibility.

Also, "installing a world dictatorship where he would rule from a large, evil looking castle" is completely irrelevant!

I disagree, this is the view many people hold. I hope my mocking it made somebody, somewhere realise how stupid it is.

That's speculation. You can't tell what Stalin would have done. Remember, the Germans got all the way to Moscow before the winter slowed them down. The Soviets were not prepared.

Quite true, but we can speculate. The Germans may have caught them off-guard in breaking the treaty, but it proved to be the single biggest mistake they made.

regards,
EU-topia

[Parthini]

Holy God. You people write a lot!

Perhaps the French were hesitant because they were right on the front line and had been completely devastated in WW1, losing millions of lives (an entire generation). Something they still had not recovered from.
Did Chamberlain not sign a peace treaty with Hitler in 1938? Then attempting to take the UK into WW2 when Germany invaded Poland in 1939?

I did a bit of research and discovered that Chamberlain did in fact declare war on Germany, because he had to. The UK had an agreement with Poland, like that in WWI with Serbia, so that they were forced into it by agreement. Before this Neville Chamberlain was basically giving away countries like Czechlesovakia *sp* to the Germans so they're fearce appetite could be fed. This is a very good example of what happens when you don't deal with the situation at hand. Chamberlain was giving solutions that only had short-term benefits. If he had stood up to Germany instead of just appeasing him, he could have saved millions of lives, or started WWII earlier.

Bush is doing the opposite of Chamberlain. He is dealing with a potential threat, not necissarily to the US, when the threat needs to be dealt with, not when Iraq owns Saudi Arabia, Iran, Tel-Aviv is a radioactive crater, and Istanbul is under mass evacuation. By attacking Iraq, Bush also scared many of the rogue states like Syria and Iran into talking with the US. Also, in areas not directly affected by Saddam's wrath, countries like North Korea and Lybia have also begun peace talks. They have seen that the US won't take any more BS, especially from a now useless organization run by a bunch of socialist pacifists who make corrupt deals with dictatorships and even though they say they are very open don't even allow religous symbols to be worn in school.

Oh, and about the USSR. They were not ready, but they didn't need to be. They're Russians. Just get a bunch o' farmers and hand 'em guns and aim them towards Berlin.

They also seemed as if they were planning to make an alliance with the Germans and Japs. It would have worked out quite nicely, but it may not have lasted. After the world is run by fascists they would have torn it apart. Thankfully, that did not happen.

For a start, Germany was a world superpower who had earlier invaded most of Europe with plans of world domination for the dictatorial Kaiser. They had some of the best technology and one of the biggest militaries in the world. Hardly a comparison to the decrepit Iraq, with their poorly trained, terribly equipped and wholly unloyal conscript army.

Two things:
1) Which Germany are you talking about? WWII Germany had no Kaiser! It was not a monarchy. Hitler was a chancellor, called the Furer or something.
WWI Germany did not own all of Europe. They had colonies but they were a new country barely 50 years old.

2) Saddam may not have had a very loyal army but neither did Stalin. They were just fed propaganda liek the Soviets. And there were several thousand very loyal troops at Saddam's command. They just wern't very good...

Also, the Iraqis were liberated. You must have missed the celebrating ones watching your Al-Jezzera fed liberal media showing Palestinians burning American and Isreali flags.

GPP

[cammarvane]

> your Al-Jezzera fed liberal media

Thank you, Rush Limbaugh.

This doesn't exist and never did. And it's especially non-existant these days; virtually all media channels in and around the US are firmly conservative in their political leanings.