Iraq War in perspective

[-=DoW=- mark 3031]

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953,
55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history?



The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police
after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

[Father-Time.]

Being english an all my grasp of this is limited at best, but the term "propaganda" springs to mind. A mathematician once said to me "I can make bad numbers produce good percentages" I guess thta is the same for spin doctors :-?:

The fact of the matter is "Bush and Blair" attacked a country with no evidence of "Mass weapons of destruction" or "Terrorist behaviour" towrds either country. Osama was not supported by Sadam, although i imagine he was happy with the outcome. The only good thing to come from this war is that another dictator who believes violence is the best type of reform, will endure trial and prosecution and no longer be a threat to his own country.

There are a few questions that jump into my mind, never will i get a justified answer. Never will the families who have lost relatives.

We (America and England) have abused our power, in this case the "Ends do NOT justify the means"

This is my opinion and mine alone.

[argnt21]

So I take it you wouldn't call mass murder a good reason? True he was killing mostly iraqis so we could just let it go and not do anything while he creates another holocaust but then the question is if we don't stop people like that then who will. Perhaps it would just be better if we let it go until we have ww3 on our hands. Then we would have millions of people looking for a reason why there son or daughter didn't come home. Also another thing is if I had something I didn't want you to find and you told me you were coming to look for it, do you think you would find it quickly or at all? I just hope that we finish it, I hope that the soldiers over there aren't dying just so we quit short of the goal. Saddam was a threat to every nation everywhere, now he is not a threat to anyone. The iraqi people will be better off even if they hate us for it, and they will be free. Freedom has been and always will be a cause worth fighting for, and thats the END that always justifies the means. This of course is just my opinion also :)

[Father-Time.]

Ok - Point taken.

When will we be invading Rhodesia, iszbekistan, Zimbabwe, cambodia, columbia, isreal, lebanon, Algeria, Congo, Congo DR, Nigeria, Liberia, South Africa, Peru ..................... (That does not include Asia or Europe) those are countries who are experiencing some type of civil war at the moment.

Or what about taking care of Mugabe, estimated to of killed 600,000 of his own people, currently starving 1,000,0000 of his own people whilst he lives in splendour.

Or what about Yasser Arafat although peaceful at the moment has 1,000,000 (Estimated) worth of blood on his hands, during a violent reign between 90-96 before taking the leadership of the jordan area, he had a third of his population in chains or under curfew.

Or what about deposing the Kabila Regime in the congo. Where the current estimation says that 67% of ALL women in this country have been raped by Kabila's militia, no one from any other country can get in to estimate its population decrease, nor summise the total death toll.

Or we could venture out to Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge still rule, allbeit not under the leadership of Poll Pot, 2million dead between 98-01.

I could get in to the past but it would take forever.

WHY have we not helped these countries? Are they not worthy? Look at the figures above Sadam pales into insignifcance against some of the other perpatrators. Or de we simply not care because they dont produce large quantities of OIL!!!

Were you aware that if Sadam had put up the price of OIL (Before or After we imposed sanctions) after 3 months we would have tripled our fuel (Petrol, oil) costs? I wonder if this is just a coincidence or whether sadam really was such a terrible threat, no doubt Iraq WILL be better off without him, but there are countless other countries who are in the same position WITHOUT oil!

:2cents:

[recon73]

Personally, I think we should "Keep" Iraq, and it's oil reserves, throw all the Muslim radicals into Syria and Libya, and call it even. 8)

(sorry you hit a nerve) :P

[argnt21]

Even if we went there just for the oil, which doesn't make a lot of sense since we have our own if we need very bad, those people will still be just as free. Even if it started all wrong and the reasons they started with are all wrong then we are still fighting for a noble cause. Fighting for those other people you named would be just as good a cause, but where is the support? Where are all those other countries that could be helping? They could be saving millions of lives so where are they? Tony Blair had the courage to help fight for that cause with us and almost everything I hear about it is people ridiculing him for it? Same thing with Bush, if someone puts a positive light on what we are doing then they are a "spin doctor". What happened to patriotism, for doing the right thing for once, why aren't we discussing what else we should be doing instead of how we are wrong with what we are doing. At least we are doing something! I support our troops over there and that is all I have to say

[-=WGT=-Fraggin]

Great topic mark.

Ok - Point taken.

When will we be invading Rhodesia, iszbekistan, Zimbabwe, cambodia, columbia, isreal, lebanon, Algeria, Congo, Congo DR, Nigeria, Liberia, South Africa, Peru ..................... (That does not include Asia or Europe) those are countries who are experiencing some type of civil war at the moment.

Or what about taking care of Mugabe, estimated to of killed 600,000 of his own people, currently starving 1,000,0000 of his own people whilst he lives in splendour.

Or what about Yasser Arafat although peaceful at the moment has 1,000,000 (Estimated) worth of blood on his hands, during a violent reign between 90-96 before taking the leadership of the jordan area, he had a third of his population in chains or under curfew.

Or what about deposing the Kabila Regime in the congo. Where the current estimation says that 67% of ALL women in this country have been raped by Kabila's militia, no one from any other country can get in to estimate its population decrease, nor summise the total death toll.

Or we could venture out to Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge still rule, allbeit not under the leadership of Poll Pot, 2million dead between 98-01.



Good points FT. Now lets pick which of these countries were actively attacking us. None, not one. Since then end of the Gulf War how many times has Iraq attacked Britains or our aircraft enforcing the UN sanctioned North and South no fly zones. Now whether you attack us here or our young men flying those airplanes doesn't matter one bit to me. What are we to do just keep on sittin back and doing nothing like Clinton.

Newsflash - Everything has changed since 9/11. We cannot wait for folks to bring the fight to us no more. I am damn glad we are fighting them over there verses fighting them here in the USA. I think we waited way to damn long to go over and clean up what we shoulda finished years ago.

Heres some of the left analogy:

9/11- The Angry Left Version

The following is how the 9/11 Commission's final report would look if the Angry Left and its partners in the partisan press had their way.


When terrorist associates of Osama bin Laden bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, Texas Governor George Bush failed to act.


When a terrorist car bomb killed five Americans in Saudi Arabia in November 1995, Governor Bush didn't respond.


When World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef, who had ties to Osama bin Laden and who carried an Iraqi passport, had planned to blow-up 11 American airliners over the Pacific in 1995, Bush did nothing.


When a 5,000 pound truck bomb killed 19 Americans at the Khobar Towers in June 1996, Bush didn't retaliate.


When the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed in 1998 on the orders of Osama bin Laden, Bush failed to respond.


On August 20th, 1998 when Monica Lewinsky testified before a grand jury that she had sexual relations with Clinton, Bush didn't act. But Clinton did the same day by launching cruise missiles at a harmless aspirin factory in Sudan.


When Ahmed Ressam, who received money and training from Osama bin Laden, was caught by local officials attempting to blow up LA Airport in December 1999, Bush did nothing.


When the USS Cole was blown up by Al Qaeda in October 2000, Bush didn't retaliate.


According to the Angry Left and the partisan press, Bush should have been chasing intelligence leads and fighting terrorism during the Clinton Administration. That's because Clinton was too busy chasing skirts and fighting personal scandals.


Next, the Angry Left wants to examine why Bush failed to prevent the Japanese sneak attack in December 1941.


*Shakes head in disgust*

[Father-Time.]

This is an Excellent topic, which brings out peoples very personable views. Mine, yours and everyones really.

I would like to add that the way this discussion is being conducted is a credit to those replying.

There are some excellent points raised, some i didnt know.

Good points FT. Now lets pick which of these countries were actively attacking us. None, not one.

So how come we didnt go to war with Saudia Arabia?
When a terrorist car bomb killed five Americans in Saudi Arabia in November 1995, Governor Bush didn't respond.

Or

When a 5,000 pound truck bomb killed 19 Americans at the Khobar Towers in June 1996, Bush didn't retaliate.

2 very good reasons i would think.

Or

Why didnt we invade these countries?

When the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed in 1998 on the orders of Osama bin Laden, Bush failed to respond.

We could look at thing a little differently,

UN sanctioned North and South no fly zones

Lets have a little look at the UN shall we. Iraq is a member state since 1945 and should adhere to its rules.

191 members states, including Afghanistan(Who should adhere to its rules) which has been at civil was for nearly 30 years (1976 - Present) the numbers dead are astronimcal. How come we have not gone into this country to "Help make it a better place for them" Freedom

So just two countries, both at some type of civil war, whats the difference???

Afghanistan, the taliban capital. Hamid Karzai the current leader, publicly denounced the taliban regime and Osama, however what does that mean when he currently has only 13% of the country behind him? Why are we not helping those.

Make no mistake the statement mark has made may well be 100% truth but it isnt the whole 100% of the story is it? Spin Doctors give you one side, The "Angry Left" give you the other.
If sadam had weapons of mass destruction (and remember we identified 71 possible sites), declaring war upon him (Of all people) would of resulted in him using them i think. In now way am i defending sadam, he is a brutal leader who has starved, killed, maimed, raped and pillaged all his victims of which there are more than 600,000, that figure is what we know of the official documents. The world is a better place without his freedom.

I fully support ALL the soldiers currently doing UN sanctioned work (i have 2 friends left out of 5 that joined). America and England went to the UN and asked for support for the declaration of war with Iraq, it was declined, reason "No evidence", 3 months later an English delegate presents a 114 page dossier siting 71 suspected sites of weapons of mass destruction manufacture, incuding Nuclear and Biological. Strange i think considering we have had UN officials in this country for over ten years.

Let me say again i SUPPORT ALL the soldiers in wartorn areas of the world, they are braver than i, much braver than i and given the RIGHT guidance can make our world a better place.
I leave you with a couple of thoughts.

Argnt21 Freedom has been and always will be a cause worth fighting for, and thats the END that always justifies the means.
If we use lies to justify our actions, how can we expect any different from anyone else, We expect everyone in the world to believe we are doing whats best in the interest of freedom and peace. We wanted the world to believe Sadam had WoMD, yet we did not believe him when he said he has NONE.

Robert Mugabe incited his fellow "black people" (His words, not mine) to overthrow the evil white farmers who are a defacation on our country, as a result 1200 hundred families were evicted and either killed/maimed or imprisoned - FREEDOM, whos freedom?

Adolf Hitler believed he was creating a "Superior and Free" world by eradicating the jews, he thought the jews were a bigger enemy than the russians. FREEDOM - Whos freedom?

Pol Pot believed if you were not in the Khmer Rouge you were against it, as a result you died, Actually over 3 million died terrible deaths driven to starvation in camps, 750,000 executed as enemies of the state, whilst he died peacefully in his sleep. FREEDOM - Whos freedom?

If we make OUR ends justify OUR means, how can we complain when others do the same???

Incidentally [quote]In the two years since terrorists attacked us,[/qoute] We were all devastated by this atrocious act from Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden i say it twice because no matter how hard you look at it, it does not say Saddam Hussien, although he has openly supported terrorist activity. My FATHER, GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDFATHER were driven out of their native country (Northern Ireland) by the IRA. The IRA have always used terrorism as the main political tool, The political "front" for the IRA is Sinn Fein, whose hefty financial aid has come from Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush 89-93 and Bill Clinton. This has been publicly documented by Sinn Fein in there annual accounts. I wonder if that purports to supporting terrorist activity. I might add that the funds were supposed to be used for "Political Reasons Only", but if we gave any other known initiator of terrorist activity money how do you think they would spend it? Tea and scones? I doubt it. We also have 6 of the last 10 Prime Ministers of England listed.

STRANGE WORLD

Oh and recon - No need to aplogise, WAR hits nerves! :(

[recon73]

Well, most of what I hear from liberals, is either speculation, or what they want to be true, (for their party's sake). Our President has a moral obligation, and a Constitutional mandate to protect the people of the United States of America. All of the propaganda (and that's all it is) from the left is designed to discredit and defame President Bush. Once you realize where it comes from, it's laughable. While sometimes I think more could be done, or done a bit differently, both President Bush, and Prime Minister Tony Blair will always be remembered as courageous leaders, who stood in the gap for their countries, and I am very proud to have been here to witness such men. 8)

[IsZi]

Erm... reply to FT's latest (Particularly the "Why didn't we retaliate?" questions): All of those events took place while our country had a president too busy getting head to be the head of our country. Yeah, we could retaliate now, but that would be like washing your kid's mouth out with soap 9 years after he said a bad word.

[Hari Seldon]

Well, most of what I hear from liberals, is either speculation, or what they want to be true, (for their party's sake).


This is speculation, too.

Our President has a moral obligation, and a Constitutional mandate to protect the people of the United States of America

I agree 100%.

All of the propaganda (and that's all it is) from the left is designed to discredit and defame President Bush. Once you realize where it comes from, it's laughable.

There is nothing funny about this conflict. This so called "propaganda" is trying to define the assumptions and mistakes there were made within the intelligence community by our government - which subsequently led our allies (UK and Australia) to assist us with this conflict in Iraq.

While sometimes I think more could be done, or done a bit differently, both President Bush, and Prime Minister Tony Blair will always be remembered as courageous leaders, who stood in the gap for their countries, and I am very proud to have been here to witness such men.

No question, President Bush, PM Blair and PM Howard are trying to lead their counties in this difficult time.

We should probably separate the conflict in Iraq and the conflict against the Taliban and "terrorism." There is no reliable connection that has thus far stood up to scrutiny connecting Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden/The Taliban.

All of those events took place while our country had a president too busy getting head to be the head of our country. Yeah, we could retaliate now,

While President Clinton's personal behavior was reprehensible, there is no reason to think this interefered with his foreign policy.

The war in Iraq is ongoing, and our troops deserve our unconditional support. Whether this sets a standard for how we (the US and our close allies) deal with the Heads of State for countries we disagree with will be determined by the future. I agree with FT, there appears to be a double standard when we eliminate Hussein, but turn a blind eye to other despots who brutalize their people. Hussein was a brutal dictator - if one could go back in time, who wouldn't support a similar action against Hitler? But could you say the same about Stalin (with his overwhelming army and resources - the outcome would be clearly hard to predict.) How do we engage North Korea when they can retaliate with WOMD of their own. It is not at all clear yet, and in fact there is increasing evidence, that the intelligence that prompted the conflict in Iraq was incomplete, and possible fabricated, and led to assumptions (WOMD) that have yet to be confirmed. I am not questioning President Bush's motives, I believe he is acting on the best info he can, but we our obligated to review our deciscion analysis through the "retrospectivescope" so that we make fewer mistakes in the future. The actions we have taken may very well lead to a change in government in Australia and UK.

[Cro9710]

I think some people are forgetting one other point: the fact that Saddam defied MANY UN Resolutions and got away with it. The UN did not have the guts to back up its own mandates. If the UN will not endorce their resolutions, then why would the world honor them? Bush simply had the guts to do the work for them. Also, from what I can tell, President Bush did believe that Iraq did contain WMD's. This was based on intelligence and all that. Now, this intelligence has apparently fallen through to some degree, but we cannot blame Bush for that and call him a war monger. It is not like Bush is undercover in the field gathering this intel.
Saddam was evil and needed to be removed. And WMDs or not, he should have been removed from power back in the 90's when he was defying the UN then. The US let it slide then I guess, but after 9/11 the chains are definitely tighter.

[Dutchie]

oh boy... oh boy....

Please dont get me started...

[Dutchie]

You support your soldiers in doing their job, fair play to you! I think you should! Nothing wrong with that. All they do is their job and follow orders.

But to mix up supporting your soldiers and supporting your governments policy is a bit weird imho.

As goes for calling people names if they dont support your current government or have mixed feelings about who or what is a patriot.

But what we would like to know if WHY THIS WAR started. What are the real reasons behind it?

Any contingency plans in place?

[IsZi]

Erm... if I'm not mistaken, the war wasn't just about the WMD issue. Saddam Hussein was, in Iraq, almost equivilant to what Hitler was to Germany, neh?

[recon73]

You support your soldiers in doing their job, fair play to you! I think you should! Nothing wrong with that. All they do is their job and follow orders.

Yes, that is correct, but don't forget we have an all volunteer military, the vast majority of which are very familiar with the policies of the government forces to which they have pledged their allegiance. All you have to do, is ask some of the guys (veterans) here Dutchie, if they support their President. :wink:

[Hari Seldon]

I think some people are forgetting one other point: the fact that Saddam defied MANY UN Resolutions and got away with it.

Yep, you are right here.

[-=DoW=- mark 3031]

And alot of UN folks got rich from his money.

[Father-Time.]

And alot of UN folks got rich from his money.

There you go, someone telling it like it is. :)

[Dutchie]

And alot of UN folks got rich from his money.


What does that have to do with it? If you bring the money thing into play, how about Mr Cheney and Mr Bush's friends who have been awarded "tenders" for suppling US/Alliance forces in Iraq with prices way higher then normal...


Saddam defied MANY UN Resolutions


He did, but the fact remained that the US/Alliance did not invade Iraq to support the UN resolutions. They invaded it and said it was because Saddam was harbouring WMD. None have been found. Mr Blix (UN Weapons inspector #1) has said that mostlikely they were destroyed after Gulf War I.

Were the US president and British Prime Minister lying?

Do they expect us to swallow those lies?

If they were not lies, someone should take responsibilty for this misinformation. If they did lie, they should be SHOT! :twisted:

[-=DoW=- Wildman]

I would just like to say, from a Military persons side. How dare you even question my president. I did not hear you question him when Hitler was knocking on your doors or even when he knocked some down. I look at it like this (now remember I'm from the south) When the US was freeing the world (so to speak) you were saying go go go. Now that your free your saying please explain yourself Mr. President. I say Sorry wrong answer, your not in Iraq hearing people saying please help us (just like the rest of the world was saying please help us with Hitler) I was their the first time in Iraq, I did hear them say come back he's going to kill us now. We let the Iraq people down then or should I say the UN did. We did something no one but the US could do, we went in and took a dictator out of power. I do not thing anyone should question the US on why they went in, you should question the UN why they stopped us the first time. Now I"m not upset this is just my thinking :banger:

[Dutchie]

Sorry I have upset you Bill.

I think everybody should be able to question any other persons intend, why not? Cause he is an elected official for 4 years I cannot question his intends?


DiD

Ps. I am/was under the impression that the US wanted out of the first Gulf War.

Ps2. Serving in the military means above all things that you risk getting killed. If you dont like that, dont join. In many proffesional armies that is a major issue. People have joined because it was a great way to learn new skils, get a good education. They might have forgotten the original idea behind an army. (this is not personally aimed)

Ps3. What does this have to do with the 2nd world war?

[-=DoW=- Wildman]

I'm not upset Dutchie.

Pss, No we wonted to take him out then, but the UN said no.

Pss2, Yes your right I did, it was not the Military crying but the Iraq people.

Pss3, I was looking at this, why would you question the US going in. They did not question the US when we came over to Europe, the only question was When are you coming, and my statement is now, why are you questioning the US. We did what everyone else would not do, protected the world.

Ps, I agree with the fact that the US should do more the the military, I do believe we should help more, that is what I question, not the fact that we took someone out the everyone wonted out, well maybe not the french, they were making to much money off of them (did I say that outloud) SORRY, I found some french weapons over their the first time to.

[Dutchie]

LOL! :lol: Ofcourse you would have found some french weapons. Probably found some other countries as well, right? I mean we all sent weapons to Iraq when they where at war with Iran. We will prbably find a few American ones in Iraq Afghanistan and Iran along with the french ones.. why did you bring this up?

The Netherlands has a few soldiers down in Iraq as well and has supported the US in most of their endeavours for quite a few years now. But I personally dont support the Dutch government on their endeavour into Iraq because the UN resolution for the invasion was made under falls pretense. Right? We havent found WMD (yet).

Will we ever find WMD? That should be the perspective/objective. Thats why "we" went in.

Not to help the Iraqi people or secure the oil.

We went in for WMD.

Where are they?

[Dutchie]

Pss3, I was looking at this, why would you question the US going in. They did not question the US when we came over to Europe, the only question was When are you coming, and my statement is now, why are you questioning the US. We did what everyone else would not do, protected the world.

I not only question the US.

I question everyone views. Cause I want to know and learn. From those answers I then try to make my own views.

Do you seriously want me to answer the above question?

[Dutchie]

ps. Team speak down?

[-=DoW=- Wildman]

Now I think I hit a nerve, sorry Dutchie. See that is why I try and never say anything about this kind of stuff. That is why I did not question the president. I know when we went in we were helping. Would I like to see the WMD, heck yes, it would make a lot of people stop and think and we would not be having this conversation now. I look at it like this, he had many years to hide them, we are just now finding planes that were hidden under the sand. We may never find them but that does not mean they are not still their. I bring up the French because that is the new equiment that we were finding all since the first fight with Iraq. It is not the French i'm upset with just the gov.

[Dutchie]

:lol:

Takes more then this to hit my nerves :lol:

I like this stuff Bill... I should have gone to university and become a shrink. :lol:

I didnt want to stray from the perspective off WMD and reason for this war, we all have something that might have a little/lot to do with Iraq but doesnt relate to WMD.

Question remains, what do we do now no WMD have/will be found? Will the repsonsible people be held responsible?

[-=DoW=- Dsotm]

Politics is the aligning of yourself, your party, your government and country with interests with whom you agree, or need at the time because of expediency. We elect politicians because
a: We don´t want to do it ourselves and have faith they do it in our best interests
b: They are mostly a lower life form than lawyers who desire power and the weilding thereof

I am not making any distinctions here bewteen either countries or conservative/liberal views. I grew up in South Africa under a repressive white regime where law and order mostly prevailed. Under the new black regime the country is spiralling into anarchy with the highest crime rates in the world (24000 murders per year). So tell me which was the better government?

Whether we agree with the war or the reasons for it or not, there is not a single "civilised" country in the world that has not behaved abomnibably in past to some people or county. Mostly on the basis of "they have it - we want it - lets take it" These decisions are all made by the government of the day, based on the short/long term interests of the day as they percieve them. Examples?


Britain
Virtual slavery of Ireland leading to 100 years of sectarian war
Partition of India - 1 million deaths and all those subsequent
Palestine/Isreal - abandonement/formation thereof and all subsequent problems
The slave trade - Started by the Portuguese but streamlined into the major busines it became by the Brits and southern US states
Iraq and the support of Saddam against the nutters in Iran - seemed like a good idea at the time

America
Virtual elimination and overall treatment of the American indian
Slavery and the subsequent civil war fought over it
Covert sponsorship of various anti-communist/anti-interest (include all world superpowers in this group - America is not the only one)

A common thread runs through all of the above - commerce and self-protection - and by inference, basic human nature. We elect and support governments to protect our way of life and ourselves. If you don´t like what they do, go and live somewhere where the policies are more acceptable. Or elect someone else.

But above all bear this in mind:
Hindsight is 20/20. Is there anyone on these forums who would now object the removal of Adolf Hitler and the cost thereof? Yet 36 million Brits (70% of the population at that time) voted not to go to war in 1938. Perhaps we will never find WMD, perhaps we will. Perhaps 5-10 years from now had nothing been done, an increasingly desperate Saddam would be financing and supplying terrorist groups with mini-nukes, VX, Sarin etc for use within our countries. What pricing the anti war movement then?

History is formed from good and bad decisions, all you can say at the point they are made is: "It seemed like a good idea at the time"

P.S My belief in 1997 that Tony Blair was a shallow, manipulative liar has been borne out not by his behaviour over Iraq, where I happened to think for once he followed his conscience, but by all the behaviour of his government on the home front. My view only

[Cro9710]

Random Quote:

Saddam defied MANY UN Resolutions



He did, but the fact remained that the US/Alliance did not invade Iraq to support the UN resolutions. They invaded it and said it was because Saddam was harbouring WMD.


Well, we did invade Iraq because of a Resolution . . . Resolution 1441. This resolution was about disarmament. Sure, we have not found the WMDs yet, but even the UN acknowledged that Saddam was not cooperating with the resolution (once again!!!) so the US said "that's it" and decided to enfore the resolution. Don't forget, the UN PASSED the resolution . . . they just failed to back it up - THAT is why the US invaded.

[5thColumn]

BOTTOM LINE

We are Americans

That means we are above and beyond all the divisive prejudices of the past.

(sorry for the spelling I am drunk again)

As americans we must act for the greatest good. The truth is that because of the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 we chose to forgo our personal freedoms for a safer America. The most unfortunate example of this is Ken beheaded by AlQuida, he was help and prevented for 12 days to leave the country of Iraq (even though he was a U.S. citizen) because we did not belive his passport. He was subsequently kidnaped and then beheaded.

When did we forget all of the Americans, French, and Mexicans that with there blood helped to insure this countries existence and coutinuned it's success.

We need to now rally around those Americans that BELIEVED that what they did saved lives.

As a psycology student, I know of the may examples of students split into 2 groups , prisoners and guards. In the end abuse always occurs, not because of the doctrine, or the lack of it, but because we are human and as humans we need revenge. until we jump to the next level of thought , we cannot solve the cause.

Sorry im drunk, Om going to bed.

[recon73]

:8): "Who was that masked man?" :8):