Why aren't we in Cuba? -We have a base in Cuba.Originally posted by Behold the Void
Why don't we invade North Korea? How about one of the many African countries who suffer under oppressive dictators? China? Cuba? Why JUST Iraq?
Korea? - You better believe we have soldiers all around Korea.
Africa? -Somalia
Some other countries? -Kosova, Bosnia, Grenada.
Why must we do everything at once? Why can't we do Iraq first?
My major problem with the Iraq war is there was no justification and it was done against the wishes of the UN. I also do not feel that the war is for moral reasons. While I am hesitant to say that it was for oil, even though I find that quite believable, I do not think it occured for the RIGHT reasons.
Talus is a true patriot.
What does that make me then? Unpatriotic?
No, sarcasm impaired.
You're damn right, he's a patriot. He's committed to serving and defending his country, as am I and thousands of other people. I find it rather petty that you would throw that term around as if it were some sort of insult.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Soldiers exist and fight, so that the rest of the people could live in blissful ignorance.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Fact: There were no WMDs between the end of the 1st gulf war and now. Saddam was effectively dismantled. Anything before that "doesn't count" because he was our ally until he invaded oil, i mean kuwait. This is important because it changes the nature of international law. He most certainly violated UN resolutions. And then Colin Powell wipes his with the UN charter on national TV when the UN wouldn't edorse the use of force. This makes the use of force illegal under international law in the same sense that Saddam committed crimes. The most tragic consequence is the practical abolition of the UN. It was the legacy of WWII and all the people who died in that madness.
Fact: Iraq does not have links to al-qaida. Bin-Laden doesn't like Saddam because he invaded fundamentalist Iran and received military aid from the US. Saddam fought fundamentalist Iran because he feared a similar uprising being inspired in Iraq's shiite population. The truth is al-qaida recruitment has increased since the beginning of the war and more troops have died since Saddam was captured. National security?
It is interesting to point out that in 1982 Iraq was considered a terrorist state and in 1983, in order to sell arms, it wasn't. At that moment Nelson Mandela was then put on the terrorist list. Define terrorism again.
Debateable point: We are there bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. We can't compare this situation to Japan or Germany. Japan is probably the most industrious nation in the history of the world, their recovery was inevitable. Germany was at the time of Nazism probably the most culturally and scientifically advanced nation on earth, again their recovery was inevitable. Iraq doesn't have these qualities. The one defining condition for democracy and peace will be in Iraq's soveriegnty. If Iraq's resources are nationalized and the poverty situation improves, then we did well. If Iraq's oil resources are sold to international businesses the people of Iraq won't get a dime. That will lead to civil war, and if the poverty situation becomes worse than Iraq will effectively become Iran. This is the more likely situation. Just ask the Kosovars.
Smile even though its breaking
Fact:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
Shows information about first world trade center attack, as well some allegede ties to iraq.
And Saddam supporting suicide bombings in Israel:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...mas-iraq_x.htm
But yea that is all old news, but that alone is enough proof for me to have attacked Iraq. There are no WMDs there at this point in time, but once were a few or so monthes ago. Who knows if the wmds can be found or ever ? Half of iraq is mostly desert and its easy to hide stuff in the sand? Or Saddam could've just destroyed them all years ago, or monthes ago before the war actually started. But hell if Saddam supported Hamas then he supported terrorism, because that is what terrorism is...
Your first link is outdated. It was part of the war propaganda machine. The truth: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/Originally posted by noname
Fact:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
Shows information about first world trade center attack, as well some allegede ties to iraq.
And Saddam supporting suicide bombings in Israel:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...mas-iraq_x.htm
But yea that is all old news, but that alone is enough proof for me to have attacked Iraq. There are no WMDs there at this point in time, but once were a few or so monthes ago. Who knows if the wmds can be found or ever ? Half of iraq is mostly desert and its easy to hide stuff in the sand? Or Saddam could've just destroyed them all years ago, or monthes ago before the war actually started. But hell if Saddam supported Hamas then he supported terrorism, because that is what terrorism is...
I never said Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists, but he most certainly didn't support those responsible for 9/11.
Smile even though its breaking
Does it really matter, though? So he sponsored a thousand others...I never said Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists, but he most certainly didn't support those responsible for 9/11.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
It matters if the reason for invading Iraq was supposedly WMDs that we knew they didn't have, as well as propoganda and hints that he had connections to 9/11 which they knew he didn't have.
Didn't support those responsible for 9/11? How about the murals of Planes striking the World Trade Center found in Saddam's palace?Originally posted by goyabean
I never said Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists, but he most certainly didn't support those responsible for 9/11.
Or the huge poster found by the 3rd ID of the World Trade Center attack in the background while Saddam smokes a cigar?
So I paint a picture of the trade centers, and approve of the 9/11 attacks. That's grounds to bomb me?
You missed the whole point completely Emerald Aeris, I'll walk you through it. Goyabean said that Saddam did not support the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. In response to that, I believe Saddam did support the attacks, so much as to have artwork of it displayed all over his palaces.
So you're trying to take an argument about one point and apply it to a whole different area. Try to focus.
Posting Permissions
