Here is an argument (not as stupid as TW Scott's but at least logical) what you don't hear everyday, just to get the discussion going:
The war in Iraq is justified because it was for taking over the control of oilfields by the mightiest army in the world and as we know the Might is always just and right and eventually writes history .
See? I told you, you don't hear an argument like this everyday! It has the added advantage of being logical and factual too!! Argue with that...
Ok. How was he a threat to the world though? He possessed no weapons with which to threaten the world. So the threat to the "the world" came by way of what exactly? That he posed a threat to the people of his country is not in question and that will be addressed later on, but how exactly did he pose a threat to "the world"?The war in Iraq was for a simple to understand yet complex reason. People in a place to know more than you could imagine if given a million years KNEW Iraq under Saddam was a threat, not just to the US but the world.
So you consider it an "emerging Holocaust" since the 80's? How can that be? Did he start committing the crimes against his people and his enemies in the last year before the US invaded? Ermm no. He did however use weapons and logistics supplied by his then allies (yes that's right.. the US and her allies) when he did commit said crimes since the 80's. So now it's an emerging holocaust when he committed crimes against humanity more than 20 years ago?They recognized the signs of an emerging Holocaust and moved quickly to strike off it's head.
So do many other despots and other leaders. But why was Saddam allowed to go on for so very long? Why exactly was the US not more forceful in trying to stop this world leader when he slaughtered the thousands upon thousands of people? Oh wait.. that's right.. global strategy and stopping him would have meant they had no little pet in the region.They had a world leader who continually defied the UN and violated his own agreements.
The one thing the US could no longer ignore.A Dictator that had invaded another country.
And a tyrant who kept on doing it with no one willing to stop him. A tyrant who was meeting with the US and other Western countries to trade in arms and to get logistical support in his war against a country the West considered an enemy. So why was nothing done to stop him when used the mustard gas to slaughter his own people?A tyrant who had Mustard gassed thousands of his very own people because one had taken a poorly aimed potshot.
Before and after 'Desert Storm'. And yet nothing was done for the before cases now was it? Absolutely nothing was done.A man who had hundreds of thousands killed in just the years following Desert Storm.
LOL! And the US is not guilty of the same crime?Not to mention the torturing.
This is a new one.this is a man who was bringing together other Dictators who hated freedom in order to form an alliance against anybody not like them.
How very poetic, romantic and patriotic of you.Bush acted when he had to and beheaded the lumbering monster that would have destroyed freedom of all kinds.
Intersting all the facts but none of the truth.
Ok. How was he a threat to the world though? He possessed no weapons with which to threaten the world. So the threat to the "the world" came by way of what exactly? That he posed a threat to the people of his country is not in question and that will be addressed later on, but how exactly did he pose a threat to "the world"?
So you consider it an "emerging Holocaust" since the 80's? How can that be? Did he start committing the crimes against his people and his enemies in the last year before the US invaded? Ermm no. He did however use weapons and logistics supplied by his then allies (yes that's right.. the US and her allies) when he did commit said crimes since the 80's. So now it's an emerging holocaust when he committed crimes against humanity more than 20 years ago?
Had you been right and "they (had) recognised the 'emerging holocaust' and moved to quickly strike off it's head", Saddam would have been out of power and in jail since the early 80's. Sadly nothing was done back then was it? Instead Bush's little sidekick had taken to visiting Saddam along with Bush Snr to further reinforce the close relations the US had with Iraq, especially in its war with Iran. I like how you are blithely ignoring how the US was complicit during the time that Saddam commenced and continued his 'holocaust', only deciding to see him as an enemy when he invaded another country. It's also a shame that the US can be so blind to atrocities in a country so long as it fits into their global strategy and aims for that particular region. And now you call it an "emerging holocaust"? That's an insult to all the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam killed and tortured during all those years of his reign of terror in Iraq.
So do many other despots and other leaders. But why was Saddam allowed to go on for so very long? Why exactly was the US not more forceful in trying to stop this world leader when he slaughtered the thousands upon thousands of people? Oh wait.. that's right.. global strategy and stopping him would have meant they had no little pet in the region.
The one thing the US could no longer ignore.
And a tyrant who kept on doing it with no one willing to stop him. A tyrant who was meeting with the US and other Western countries to trade in arms and to get logistical support in his war against a country the West considered an enemy. So why was nothing done to stop him when used the mustard gas to slaughter his own people?
Before and after 'Desert Storm'. And yet nothing was done for the before cases now was it? Absolutely nothing was done.
LOL! And the US is not guilty of the same crime?
This is a new one.
How very poetic, romantic and patriotic of you.
But one itsy teenie little thing you failed to consider. Saddam had no way of destroying "freedom of all kinds". Saddam was not the one who attacked the US. Saddam had been allowed to be the monster he was all through the 80's under the benevolent eye of the US, and a US Government for which Bush's father was a part of. Bush did not act to behead a monster. Bush acted out of revenge. Bush left behind the hunt for the man who not only attacked his country but also attacked others and did pose a threat to said "freedom of all kinds" and went for the one man who did not pose a threat to said freedoms and would not do so for a very very long time.
Did I say I did not like the US?Nice Spin. I admit mine was spin too, not as much or as heavy but spin none the less. Especially the way you kept yourself uneducated as to the scope of actions involved. You don't like the USA that's fine, just educate yourself fully question everything you read.
Here is an argument (not as stupid as TW Scott's but at least logical) what you don't hear everyday, just to get the discussion going:
The war in Iraq is justified because it was for taking over the control of oilfields by the mightiest army in the world and as we know the Might is always just and right and eventually writes history .
See? I told you, you don't hear an argument like this everyday! It has the added advantage of being logical and factual too!! Argue with that...
Ahh, the semantics of a warwonger. All too cute.The war in Iraq was for a simple to understand yet complex reason.
As Bells has already asked you (and you have failed to reply, oddly enough), how exactly was Saddam a threat to the U.S, let alone the world? Can you provide evidence which demonstrates those scary stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which appear to be as real as the tooth fairy? It's clear that Saddam's WOMD arsenal didn't amount to a microfart, and it's laughable for you to claim that he was a threat.Saddam was a threat, not just to the US but the world.
What signs? Prior to the invasion, Saddam's killing had ebbed. This has been acknowledged by numerous humanitarian rights groups.They recognized the signs of an emerging Holocaust
If 20 years after his so called genocide against the Kurds is what you define as 'moving quickly', I'd hate to see what you define 'moving slowly' as!!!and moved quickly to strike off it's head.
What about other countries who continually violate UN dictates and treaties which they are party to? North Korea? India? ISRAEL? THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!They had a world leader who continually defied the UN and violated his own agreements.
1. Kuwait is historically a part of Iraq.A Dictator that had invaded another country.
1. There is considerable controversy over who gassed the Kurds. An alternative (and credible) explaination is that Iran used chemical weapons, which resulted in the mass murder of the Kurds.A tyrant who had Mustard gassed thousands of his very own people
As have numerous dictators over the world. As have numerous democracies over the world (again, including the U.S). However, it's funny how you neglect to mention that many of the people Saddam killed were insurgents, and rebels conspiring against his regime. Are you telling me that the U.S doesn't kill insurgents?A man who had hundreds of thousands killed in just the years following Desert Storm.
LOL! Pot, meet kettle!Not to mention the torturing.
More pedantic bullshit. Saddam went out of his way to kill Osama, and bring about the destruction of Al Qaeda.this is a man who was bringing together other Dictators who hated freedom in order to form an alliance against anybody not like them.
to obtain oil, and yet another American foothold in the Middle EastBush acted when he had to
More like the annoying, toothless gnat (at best).and beheaded the lumbering monster
Like detaining civilians without trial in Abu Gharib, and torturing?that would have destroyed freedom of all kinds.
was it justifed to capture poland
Here it is as so far the first person with guts to admit the war is right, I guess I'll have to speak.
The war in Iraq was for a simple to understand yet complex reason. People in a place to know more than you could imagine if given a million years KNEW Iraq under Saddam was a threat, not just to the US but the world. They recognized the signs of an emerging Holocaust and moved quickly to strike off it's head. They had a world leader who continually defied the UN and violated his own agreements. A Dictator that had invaded another country. A tyrant who had Mustard gassed thousands of his very own people because one had taken a poorly aimed potshot. A man who had hundreds of thousands killed in just the years following Desert Storm. Not to mention the torturing. this is a man who was bringing together other Dictators who hated freedom in order to form an alliance against anybody not like them. Bush acted when he had to and beheaded the lumbering monster that would have destroyed freedom of all kinds.