Government.

[DracIV]

He didn't.

Saddam was worse. He funneled cash away from the people for himself (the opposite of us), and, on average, far more people died weekly before than they do now. How exactly is the Coalition trying to make the Iraqis fear them? Wrong target. The Coalition is trying to make the TERRORISTS fear us.

[jazzmosis]

Even IF US gives the oil costs to Iraq, they are still shipping the oil to their country first; solves their shortage problems. And even then, they could sell the oil to any country in need at an inflated price and take the profits from that.

My point is that Bush went into Iraq because it was a convienent battle; there were worse problems then a dictator killing his own people - Example of North Korea, who openly admitted to having weapons of mass destruction, yet US has not sent troops in there - why? Because NK could start a nuclear war.

US said, or at least underlined the fact that Iraq was potentially as dangerous as NK because of WMD - but because there was none, they poured troops to control the country that exports mad gallons of oil.

But does NK have resources for US to take? No - so why rush into there?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You seem to have this idea in your head that Iraq was a complete hell-hole while Saddam was in charge, that's a load of bullshit. It was a beautfiul country. If you didn't mess with the government, for the most part, you were fine. Baghdad was a cosmopolitan city, and now it's a war zone.

People didn't die at this rate when Saddam was in power. Less people were killed on a weekly basis. Now instead of being afraid of Saddam, the coalition wants the iraqi public to fear them and do what they say. One dictatorship to another, that's how most of them see it. Wouldn't you fight against that?

Your arguments are entirely based upon fictions conceived either by you or by liars.

Iraq was a "beautiful country" with Saddam in charge? What about the hundreds of thousands of people killed by his regime? For so much as speaking a word against Saddam? What about the mass graves? http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

More reading assignments for you, seeing as you are clearly ignorant of Iraq's past, present, and future:

The Truth About Saddam's Legacy Of Terror - http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressrelease...ss_graves.html

Proof That The Beginning Of Iraq's Best Days Are Here - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Tales of Saddam's Brutality - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030603-7.html

You are forbidden to post again in this thread until you have read all 3 of those links. Oh, and register your nick.

[GuidoHunter]

Am I the only one in this country who supports a strong-armed, imperialistic America?

As for the Saddam threat, that's well and good. I don't want evil, asshole dictators pointing WMD's at us and/or our allies (He had them, unless y'all want to call your all-supreme United Nations a bunch of liars, and the fact that he may not have had them at the beginning of this war is irrelevant). As for instituting democracy in Iraq, I couldn't care less, and wouldn't care if that is only lip-service to the masses. As for the removal of his regime, that's cool, and we succeeded, gratz to us. As for the "underlying" reasons for this war, I still have no problems with it. If Bush was "picking his fights", who cares? Might as well get the easier one out of the way, then try the harder one later if they prove such a threat. And the disgusting "this war's all about oil" argument...EVEN IF we went in there to take all the oil, that's great. They've got a bunch of oil, we could use it, and it'd be an easy fight. So what if Bush and Cheney are trying to help out their friends? You would, too. Oil's quite a staple in our economy, so why not stimulate it?

Of course, I always expect the obligatory "war is bad" or some other spinoff response, to which I say: Shut Up. The sixties are past, so when did we devolve back to a nation of hippies? I swear, I'm waiting for someone to drop a bunch of flowers over the White House and think things'll be all better. The fact of the matter is, the American military's nickname should be "The Boot with which Ass is Kicked".

We're the strongest country in the world, and I'm all about demonstrating that fact. The only reason I have against kicking the ass of anyone who doesn't like us is the potential budget issues associated with war, but, then again, I'm all up for slaughtering many social programs and other government spending outside what I feel its realm should be.
I'm not overly happy with Bush's performance in office (didn't cut government well, didn't overtly give the UN the middle finger, etc.), but I'd rather have a conservative running the country and I'll be damned if I ever vote to put a liberal in office.

To conclude (and get back on the point because I pretty much just rambled), I don't see what the problem with the war in Iraq, and with Bush's handling of it, is.

--Guido

http://www.mikee385.com/andy

[Anonymous]

At least GuidoHunter has the guts to admit what he believes in. I vehemently disagree with it because I believe ot can only end in tyranny, but at least he's willing to stand up and say it.

Yes, Saddam was a fuckhole. Nobody is denying that. I talked to a girl that lived in Iraq once, and she told me that teenage girls walking down the street were abducted for Saddam's sons to be raped, tortured and killed by those psychopaths. If you even glanced at Saddam's palaces, you could be killed on the spot. I was wrong about Baghdad being a decent place, I was looking too far back in history.

The thing is though, Iraq was safer before the war. Now it's very, very dangerous. People can be arrested by US soldiers, declared enemy combatants, and sent to israel for "interrogation."

The reason for this war was not to oust Saddam Hussein, it was to stop him from using his large cache of weapons of mass destruciton against the United States. Now, there appears to be no weapons. If the original declared intention of the war, was to end Saddam's dictatorship, this argument would be a lot shorter.

If the US is against dictatorships, why aren't they hostile towards Saudi Arabia? Why don't they take out Arafat and invade Palestine? Cuba? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Belarus? Turkmenistan? Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Pakistan? China?

Their foreign policy is inconsistent. It begs us to ask why.

[perfect_fat]

Sorry about all the guest posts, it keeps logging me out.

[Anonymous]

Gulf war:

we go in, lose resources, money, men, dont even get saddam and its a "complete success".

Iraq "war":

we go in, remove the evil tyrant saddam, free the iraqi people and its a "complete failure".


the american people have just lost faith because of rumor and ignorance.



have you people SEEN the videos of World War I and World War II? i lost over 20 relatives in WWII. THAT was horrible. millions, MILLIONS, jazz you cant even count to a million, of bodies were strewn all over the countryside of europe in Worldwar I. World war II? same stuff, just more of the bodies strewn across the ocean floor. The skeletons rotting on the bottom of the pacific despise you jazz.

This crap in iraq is nothing. If the stupid democrats would stop crying and lowering everyone's morale and faith we'd all be ok. Democrats should just take one for the team and shutup.

i hate politics =/

Originally Posted by Anonymous

The thing is though, Iraq was safer before the war. Now it's very, very dangerous. People can be arrested by US soldiers, declared enemy combatants, and sent to israel for "interrogation."

The reason for this war was not to oust Saddam Hussein, it was to stop him from using his large cache of weapons of mass destruciton against the United States. Now, there appears to be no weapons. If the original declared intention of the war, was to end Saddam's dictatorship, this argument would be a lot shorter.

If the US is against dictatorships, why aren't they hostile towards Saudi Arabia? Why don't they take out Arafat and invade Palestine? Cuba? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Belarus? Turkmenistan? Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Pakistan? China?

Their foreign policy is inconsistent. It begs us to ask why.

Wrong. First of all, when we take prisoners, we put them in prison. When Saddam took prisoners, he had them raped and tortured without trial or questioning, then he had them executed (usually in a cruel way, as well.) You can't say Iraq has been less safe, too - far more people died per year under Saddam's regime than under U.S. occupation.

We went into Iraq was because Saddam was a threat to his people, to neighboring nations, and to the United States. It wasn't just for one simple reason like WMDs. It was mainly because he had failed to comply with U.N. regulations and sanctions regarding his weapons cache (which he had many months to dispose of/hide before we came in) and because, as I said, he was a threat. The U.S. hates dictatorships, but most of them aren't threats.

[Specforces]

Exactly Chardish, the U.S. needs to look out for it's self-interest, and hell at the same time depose a brutal dictactor that slaughtered many. I'm joining the military myself soon, and I look forward to serving my country, I agree with most things this adminstration has done. And, with all due respect Canadians, worry about your own damn country. It's too early to argue.

Specforces

[DracIV]

A large part of why we were able to go into Iraq and not storm North Korea is that Saddam was breaking a major rule by not letting us see if he had WMDs. Now, if you wanted to check my drawers for a knife and I suddenly refuse to let you look in a specific drawer, doesn't that make you suspcious? He was breaking a major rule that could mean he was a very dangerous threat to everyone. He had months to hide smallish weapons facilities in a massive desert that would take decades to truly search. No one really expected to find the weapons.

North Korea is different. We can't storm them because they didn't break any major rules. They have the weapons now, but we aren't allowed to go in by any justification. However, Bush stated publicly that they are working on a way to screw over NK also.

[jazzmosis]

First off; Guest, making immature, even if undertone, insults at me isn't appreciated. Saying that I can't count to 1 million is pretty ridiculous - and besides, there was a difference between WW1+2 to the Iraq regime. WW1+2, Germany/Italy/Yugoslavia/Austria (depending on which war) were trying to CONTROL the ENTIRE world, and attempting to do so by brutal force. Saddam in Iraq was not sending armies into neighbouring countries trying to conquer the land. Because if he was, the UN would be all over him. What he was doing was killing his own people and being a menace to the world. So don't compare the two when they don't relate. I have nothing but respect for those who gave their lives in the Wars.

Second off; Spec, Canada has much to worry about in their country, yes, but nothing more than any other country (on average). It's not exactly our citizen's fault our government spends money foolishly (appeasing the French-Canadian jackasses.)

Last off; DracIV, the fact that US sent inspectors in to Iraq (perfectly fine) to find WMD I have nothing against. But when they DIDN'T find any and still sent a wave in, that's what I have a problem with. They make the claim that despite their failure to find any WMDs, that Saddam still has them and will use them. That's just a cover story to go in and "free" the country, governing it as they dictate ("democracy"...) and taking the oil all the while. I'm not doubting the Iraq is better without Saddam, but the fact is America will create Iraq as they see fit, not as Iraq does. It's a total disregard for cultures and lifestyle.
NK still is and was the bigger threat of the two countries, but despite China's call for help, America has done little to appease that problem.

[DracIV]

Inspectors were sent in, but they weren't allowed to inspect. They were only allowed to go to specifically planned buildings. They were only allowed to interview people who had obviously been told what to say. They weren't allowed to inspect. We sent them in with the threat that Saddam would be in major trouble if he kept keeping us out. We sent them in, but he still kept them out, so we followed through. If someone is purposely hiding a specific area from you when you are searching for illegal mass-murder weapons, anyone would be suspicious.

[perfect_fat]

The United States doesn't allow UN weapons inspectors in. What do they have to hide?

[Jam930]

state sovereignty

[perfect_fat]

So they're allowed to do whatever they want but everybody else has to submit to the "whims" of the UN?

[Jam930]

Members of the U.N do, that's why the U.S didnt join the U.N...i think.

[perfect_fat]

The US was one of the first members of the UN, and the United Nations building is in New York City.

[Jam930]

i dont think so...

i looked it up and u were right...i was thinking of the thing they made after WWI before the U.N.

=/ whatever

[perfect_fat]

Yeah, the United States opted out of the League of Nations because the senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.

Since the United States, the great protector of the world, didn't recognize the treaty of Versailles, they did not help enforce it. Lack of enforcement of the T.O.V. led to WW2.

[jazzmosis]

The treaty of Versailles was also a ridiculously idiotic treaty. Basically, they blamed Germany for the war when it wasn't Germany that started it at all. It was Austria and Italy (and I think Yugoslavia) that began WW1, It was Germany that began WW2 (after the treaty of Versailles).