13 Jan 05
It is a matter of measuring the cost of achieving the end that is important. For example, would it be better for Saddam to be left in power if the only means of eliminating him were by nuking 2 million Iraqi's? Hopefully, you would answer, "No." In this case, the war cost us the trust of the international community. It made us the destroyer of at least 100,000 innocent Iraqi's for false pr ...[text shortened]... me for ignoring the question the first time. I just figured it was too silly to be taken seriously.The war cost us international community trust? so, who cares?
I suppose that the allies shouldve resigned to the Germans in WW2, It wouldve saved millions of lives, we would be slaves, but as long as we saved millions of lives thats all it matters.
just look ahead and you will see the light lol
about the Polls, I dont have the time to search for them, I saw it in our Newspaper about a month ago, you dont have to believe me if you dont wish, but I saw it myself,
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnityhere we go! 😉
I think were better off though, one question for everybody, Is it better to have Saddom in power or not? he killed hundreds of thousands of ppl,
Iraq Is happy,
US Liberals are not,
I think that is a good trade 😛
At least we know there is no WMD,
If we been hit by a WMD liberals would still be whining,
the process of covering up and minimalisation ofdeceit....next the 'new' histories will appear and be perpetuated...the first texts will be written for schools and from there reinvented history disseminated...
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnityOh, no polls to offer? Yep. I thought I smelled it.
The war cost us international community trust? so, who cares?
I suppose that the allies shouldve resigned to the Germans in WW2, It wouldve saved millions of lives, we would be slaves, but as long as we saved millions of lives thats all it matters.
just look ahead and you will see the light lol
about the Polls, I dont have the time to search for th ...[text shortened]... spaper about a month ago, you dont have to believe me if you dont wish, but I saw it myself,
The US should care. It will get its way more often in the world if it does so.
The US entered WW II more than 60 years ago. What does that have to do with our invasion of Iraq? Moreover, the US entered WW II for very different reasons than those for which we invaded Iraq. Really your mentioning WW II is laughable. What's the point? Why not bring up the American Civil War or the Korean War or the Spanish American War?
I have not said in this thread that war is never justified. I'm arguing that the US invasion of Iraq under Bush II was unjustified. Please come back with a stronger response when you get done knocking down those strawmen.
PS - I hope you don't support our invading sovereign countries because we helped defeat Germany in WW II.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaThey fell for the lovely Microsoft Powerpoint presentation showing the suspect trucks from the air, etc. I've worked in the marketing department of corporations and we love our Powerpoint presentations too. I could immediately sense the bull shi# but maybe others didn't. The least they can do is learn from the lesson and give serious thought to the latest excuses for invading and occupying Iraq. They can't be trusted either.
speaking from a standpoint outside of being American, (apologies to those Americans who did see through the deceptions of the Bush administration) it was hilarious to us that so many Americans could be so easily 'hood winked' into believing Bush??!!.🙄
The next process will be for lackey American historians to write school text books, to rewr ...[text shortened]... war.
Will any American step up to the plate and explain why they believed the WMD tall tales?
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by telerionugl,. you missed my point, Im saying that in WW2 it cost millions of lives, you was saying how many lives Iraq cost us, Im trying to get you to look in the future,
The US entered WW II more than 60 years ago. What does that have to do with our invasion of Iraq? Moreover, the US entered WW II for very different reasons than those for which we invaded Iraq. Really your mentioning WW II is laughable. What's the point? Why not bring up the American Civil War or the Korean War or the Spanish American War?
PS - I ho ...[text shortened]... u don't support our invading sovereign countries because we helped defeat Germany in WW II.
[/b]
But as I said before, there are ppl who dont care about the other ppl in the world, as long as dont have to spare our lives for them,
I think it was really iresponsible of Bush to make it a case of WMD's And If I was president I dont think I wouldve went to war, ( I probaly wouldve though if I thought there was a real danger)
but now that its mostly over, think how much better things will get,
It saddens me when my freinds who helped get rid of a horrible dictater, Liberated millions, gets thanked by alot of Iraqis, Then comes home and see's sites like this, where ppl sit in there chair all day and bash bash bash because they liberated millions not only in this generation, but in the ones to come.
13 Jan 05
the US has set a dangerous precedent now - all a country has to say, as an excuse to invade another, is we THINK there are WMD there - or any such fabrication.
The US HAS WMD, why are you so perturbed by groups that want to nullify them within the States? if WMD are such bogeys, when they DONT exist, why then would you begrudge "terrorists" from subduing the US threat when they DO exist.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnityThe connection to WW II is tenuous at best. I understand that now that we've put our foot in it we have to make the most of what we are faced with. Certainly, the removal of Saddam is positive in and of itself. I don't share your optimism about Iraq's future. There is no reason why the new elected leader of Iraq won't end up just as bad as Saddam. Then imagine how the Republicans will bend over backward to make excuses for the new dictator. Wouldn't that just about take care of every last lame excuse the administration has put forth? I sure hope it doesn't come to pass.
ugl,. you missed my point, Im saying that in WW2 it cost millions of lives, you was saying how many lives Iraq cost us, Im trying to get you to look in the future,
But as I said before, there are ppl who dont care about the other ppl in the world, as long as dont have to spare our lives for them,
I think it was really iresponsible of Bush to make it ...[text shortened]... h bash because they liberated millions not only in this generation, but in the ones to come.
As for our military personnel overseas, I suspect that the vast majority have served honorably. As a very intelligent Vietnam Vet once put it to me. "We served honorably in a war that was fought for dishonorable reasons."
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaYes, The US does have WMD, aslo its inspected by other countrys, and the UN, there is no threat to another country of WMD from USA, you all should know that, but when a terrerist nation would use WMD if they had them, thats different, its better safe then sorry, Lets say Bill Clinton Killed osama bin laden when he had a chance, it wouldve saved thousands, but, if Clinton wouldve killed him before 9-11, I bectha this forum would bashing him because of it,
the US has set a dangerous precedent now - all a country has to say, as an excuse to invade another, is we THINK there are WMD there - or any such fabrication.
The US HAS WMD, why are you so perturbed by groups that want to nullify them within the States? if WMD are such bogeys, when they DONT exist, why then would you begrudge "terrorists" from subduing the US threat when they DO exist.
Osma and Soddom has the same motives, Osama had a chance to use his. Saddom will never have a chance,
The US set a dangerous precedent? I think the UN did by not enforcing their laws, now any nation knows that if it dosnt obey security resaloutions, it has nothing to fear, The UN wont do anything.
If no one stoped Saddom, he wouldve used WMD againts the USA, Iseral, UK, maybe not in the nest 5 years, But he wouldve for sure used them, to say that he would not use them is like saying before 9-11 osama wont attack
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by telerionIf the new elected Leader becomes bad, the Iraqi's now have a chance to remove him, though elections 🙂
The connection to WW II is tenuous at best. I understand that now that we've put our foot in it we have to make the most of what we are faced with. Certainly, the removal of Saddam is positive in and of itself. I don't share your optimism about Iraq's future. There is no reason why the new elected leader of Iraq won't end up just as bad as Saddam. ...[text shortened]... t once put it to me. "We served honorably in a war that was fought for dishonorable reasons."
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnityLike the elections that unanimously elected Saddam Hussein not long before we invaded?
If the new elected Leader becomes bad, the Iraqi's now have a chance to remove him, though elections 🙂
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/
Bad governments don't usually offer "free" elections.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnityof course, well except for the nuking part, that was my point exactly.
lol of course, look here http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/kurd.opinion/index.html
Saddom probaly nuked who ever didnt vote for him, like he did if anyone spoke againts him
We shall see. I hope you are right and better days are in the near future for Iraq. I hope it doesn't involve a repressive theocratic gov't like the Taliban or a puppet controlled by US business interests.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by flyUnityFirst of all, please list the countries that inspect the u.s.' wmds?
Yes, The US does have WMD, aslo its inspected by other countrys, and the UN, there is no threat to another country of WMD from USA, you all should know that...
If no one stoped Saddom, he wouldve used WMD againts the USA, Iseral, UK, maybe not in the nest 5 years, But he wouldve for sure used them...
Secondly, you are obviously living in lala land if you think that no country is at threat from america's wmds. During the Cuban missile crisis, Air Force General Curtis LeMay (one of the presidents main advisers at the time) wanted the president to nuke Cuba, which would inevitably lead to a counter strike from the soviets, which would in turn lead to counter strikes from the americans. That's at least three countries that your harmless country was close to nuking off this planet due to the inbred agression of a military advier.
Tell you what, how about the u.s. kill all arabic children and women, who may not attack the u.s in the next 10-20 years, but they for sure will attack. Oh hang on. Isn't that what's going on already. The u.s. has already killed more people in Iraq than Saddam could ever hope to. Through committing war crimes in the first Gulf War by bombing water and sewage facilities and then introducing crippling sanctions, the u.s. managed to kill 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children. Now, during the current war, at least 100,000 people have been killed in an illegal war of aggression (invading a country which hasn't attacked your country was outlawed at Nuremburg), and possibly upwards of 200,000. The longer the illegal u.s. occupation goes on for, the more p'd the average Iraqi is going to get with the foreign military rule that they have to live under, and more and more people are going to die.
Your analogy with WWII is absolutely sickening, much the same way the bunch of thugs who have ganged together to illegally invade Iraq have taken the term allies to describe their group.
D