Originally posted by usmc7257So is is back to weapons of mass destruction? And those crafty Arabs have hidden the thousands of litres of nerve gas, the nuclear bombs and the anthrax toxins? The UN spent 10 years looking for them and it looks as if the US forces have given up even the pretence of searching.
[b]you still dont see it. to everybody here the iraqi war was just a big oil campaign.
Perhaps Osama has them stored in the back of the cave?
Who said this about using aerial bombardment of poison gas on to Iraqi villages:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes."
Winston Churchill 1921. The RAF did not have the technology, but gas filled shells were used by the British Army. This is not the first time the UK has fought in Iraq.
George Santayana: "Those who forget about history are condemned to repeat it."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/widip218.xml
Originally posted by steerpikeWell yes. Everybody used (or wanted to use) poison gas - it was thought to be the big advantage. Now everyone wants nuclear weapons as it seems from North Korea that it does work as a deterrent.
Who said this about using aerial bombardment of poison gas on to Iraqi villages:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes."
Winston Churchill 1921. The RAF did not have the technology, but gas filled shells were used by the British Army. This is not the first ti ...[text shortened]... peat it."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/widip218.xml
In WWII they happily bombed civillians in hundreds of towns and cities. It was pretty much the norm for the time.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Why does anyone care about the middle east?
(1)Its a desert, it has nothing to offer Western Democracies apart for one thing...Oil. There is no way you can argue that a war in the Middle East is not about oil, since outside religion, oil is the only thing in the Middle East to fight over.
(2) It is an area of emense religious importance to 3 principal religions on our planet. Who wants a religious war? Fundermentalist groups in all 3 religions, and thats about it. All sides have unfortunately found that there are some nutters who have come out of the woodwork in positions of power in all 3 religions.
(3) Its a common issue. The middle east now has a ring of familarity that allows politicians to build policies around that the public will accept. Countries in the region are shown as pretty horrific places in the media, the people are shown as oppressed, religious rule is shown to be dominant, civil rights abuses common. In a lot of cases this is all true. But remember, one of the main reasons the oppressive Saudi government is in power is because the US is supporting it and ensuring the Saudi public do not replace it with a government that they believe may suit their needs more than American needs.
Why does anyone care about weapons of mass destruction?
(1) As i understand it, most of todays touted threats were developed or invented by the Western Democracies. In terms of threats with WMD... Isreal, India vrs Pakistan, China, the former Soviet Republics all seem greater threats than a bankrupt Iraq. In terms of threats, did the US not use the threat of WMD against Iraq?
(2) I suppose, the real threat of WMD has come from the dissolution and bankrupsy of the Soviet Union, The west lost a definable "enemy", one that has now been replaced with AlQueda, and the semblence of restaint the Soviet Union used to impose is gone. Pre to the collapse of the Soviet Union Bin Laden was far more concerned with Soviet oppression than American.
Why does anyone care about Iraq?
(1)It had a dictator who murdered large numbers of its population, mainly around tribal / religious issues. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon trait among the 180 odd countries in the world. Much of what happens in Africa is horrific, while a lot of South American naitons have very doubious goverments. I mean if you want to discuss human rights abuses lets look at China. If the world is going to cirrect its ills, then we need a UN accepted code of acceptable behaviour and punishment. Don't believe the hype about the UN being insignificant, that is just the line used to justify behaviour the UN did not agree on.
(2) Its common ground, its a media freindly fiend from the past. Its a lot easier to sell a war against Iraq, than say a action is West Africa - people have heard of it. I think there is little doubt that Mr Bush wanted a shot at Iraq if the opportunity came along. If Al Gore was president would he have invaded Iraq given the same circumstances? If its no, then the desicion was not inevitable and shows that it reflects the desires of Mr Bush than the needs of the US.
Andrew
Originally posted by chancremechanicI came across this report today which is intriguing and slightly disturbing. Conspiracy theorists will probably like it:
Frauholle, so you think the U.S. is behind the 9-11 tragedy because few Jews were killed? You are talking out of your arse hole...remove your pants so you can breathe! However, I do agree that Saudi Arabia is an evil empire and that we should tell them to stick their oil where the sun doesn't shine...you got proof that the Taliban scumbags in GITMO ...[text shortened]... red" Saudi "pilots" to crash into the WTC towers and blamed it on Osama: totally asinine!! 🙄
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html
Originally posted by latex bishopI care
Why does anyone care about the middle east?
(1)Its a desert, it has nothing to offer Western Democracies apart for one thing...Oil. There is no way you can argue that a war in the Middle East is not about oil, since outside religion, oil is the only thing in the Middle East to fight over.
(2) It is an area of emense religious importance to 3 princip ...[text shortened]... vitable and shows that it reflects the desires of Mr Bush than the needs of the US.
Andrew
Old ye of little faith . America had no choice but to finally take a stand against terrorists and against so damn insane - better known as Saddam Hussein.I fully support our going to war and our remaining there to see it concluded right or else it will have all been in vain. Its better to stand for something or else you will fall for anything . I think many of you forgot to stand !-BBG
Originally posted by bluebabygirlWell said, BBG. Great Bitain, United States, Poland....POLAND?, yes Poland. The Poles know what it's like to live under tyranny, so they are in Iraq helping to free the people and to aid in establishing a free Iraq. The Aussies, although few in numbers, are there too. The rest of the Free World (France, Germany and most of W. Europe) are hoping the US/UK fail, so they can say "We told you so!" Just like in 1938 when Hitler was on a rampage, the Free World did nothing, including the U.S., until it was too late and 50,000,00 lives were lost. There is new proof out today (FOX, CNN) that states that there was a real connection between bin-Laden and Hussein. I know, they were of different beliefs in regards to which faction of Islam they worshipped, but they had one thing in common that cemented their relationship: hatred for the U.S. and the West. So, if some of you think the U.S. will "cut and run" by Christmas, you are mistaken. If the U.S. pulls out now, it will be defeat for not just us but for the rest of the free world. The stakes are bigger now than in Vietnam...this is a World War against terrorism...we can't afford to lose. The Free World MUST join together to defeat terrorism, and the terrorists are now in Iraq. The U.N. must find a pair of gonads and attach them fast, because if they had had a pair, they would have dealt with Hussein in the early 90s when he started violating plenty of U.N. mandates...I don't want the U.S. to be global cop any more than Europeans do, but if we don't act to stamp out terrorism now....who will?...France?...Germany?....don't think so...
Old ye of little faith . America had no choice but to finally take a stand against terrorists and against so damn insane - better known as Saddam Hussein.I fully support our going to war and our remaining there to see it concluded right or else it will have all been in vain. Its better to stand for something or else you will fall for anything . I think many of you forgot to stand !-BBG
Originally posted by chancremechanicInteresting, I hadn't heard that there had been a connection established between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Queda. I tried looking for it on the CNN website just now, but I didn't find anything. Could you provide a link to the news report that establishes this connection?
Well said, BBG. Great Bitain, United States, Poland....POLAND?, yes Poland. The Poles know what it's like to live under tyranny, so they are in Iraq helping to free the people and to aid in establishing a free Iraq. The Aussies, although few in numbers, are there too. The rest of the Free World (France, Germany and most of W. Europe) are hoping t ...[text shortened]... we don't act to stamp out terrorism now....who will?...France?...Germany?....don't think so...
Originally posted by steerpikeI think you'll find the logistics of this war are nothing at all like Vietnam in the slightest. Vietnam was a protracted battle in ground that the american army wasn't built for, Jungle. Since that war the Americans have put a lot of money into various light infantry groups designed for such a battle. The result in Vietnam was due to a lack of public support, large casualty counts (and I mean far bigger than the ones from Iraq), the terrain and the over all level of the American army. The result in South Vietnam was a fighting retreat from masses of organised Viet-Cong, organised by Russia. Now I don't think that there's enough Iraqi's trying to get rid of the americans, enough americans being 'got rid of' and the opposition is in pieces. Stop making parrallels with Vietnam, this is completely different.
Any predictions when the Americans will cut and run?
Don't think Bush has called Bremer back to tell him what a great job he is doing. I say major pull-out before Xmas - with the same result as in South Vietnam thirty years ago.
Also, you seem to be having a go at Bush for a being a Warmonger (Which I have to admit I kind of agree with) and now saying that he's going to run away?
Jim.
Originally posted by bbarrI saw the news a couple of days ago on FOX and CNN, but here is a link if you're interested...what do you think?
Interesting, I hadn't heard that there had been a connection established between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al-Queda. I tried looking for it on the CNN website just now, but I didn't find anything. Could you provide a link to the news report that establishes this connection?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main ...looks like a UK source...
Any other opinions out there?
"Please choose the way of peace. ... In the short term there may be winners and losers in this war that we all dread. But that never can, nor never will justify the suffering, pain and loss of life your weapons will cause."
Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997), -- Letter to U.S. President George Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, January 1991.
Originally posted by jimmi tif anyone of importance in america's government cared about iraq, we woud have handed compleat control over to the UN with our fources as donations to the cause to be governed by the UN.
[b]I personnaly feel that America shouldn't have invaded Iraq. But, they have, and to leave now would be an even bigger mistake. Look at what happened after the last Gulf War yes they invaded, but, they didn't stop long enough to set things up to be a better place. As someone stated earlier 2/3 iraqi's want the troops there, and wanted Saddam out. If all the ...[text shortened]... not left with the strength to take care of these problems then it will end up just as bad as before.