The Iraqi Perspective

[theundeadhero]

Heh. Even the US government admits there was no link between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime. Unless, of course, you want to opt for 'guilt by association' since both groups are Arabic and both hate the US.

wrong

Ah, so it's ok for US allied to have WMD, but not US enemies? That sounds fair and reasonable.

You're avoiding the subject.

Yet another piece of propoganda as released by the Bush regime. It's simple fallacy. France and others opposed the invasion because it was illegal under international law, and because there was no independent verification of the US intelligence - now known to be false - that was used to justify it.

Nope. Political cover-up. The Iraqi people themselves admit to this.

Just before the invasion, the only "diplomacy" from Bush was statements like "leave your country within 48 hours or we kill you". That's not "diplomacy", that's one country exerting control over another. It'd be like the EU saying to America, "you must let us inspect your WMD arsenal or else we'll invade to remove the threat you pose to the world".

Like I said, you don't remember the talks they had.

A single bombing raid, killing Hussein and his nearest and most powerful loyalists, would have got the job largely done.

Because we all know that Hussein kept all his people togther real close. He met up with them all the time because he didn't really think we would attack him.

I'm tired of this. Any more questions then refer to my first post where I said, I don't care if you like it or not, it wasn't done for you, it was done for them, and they appreciate it.

[Shlup]

I guess its just depressing to be thought of as evil because of something other people in your country did that "could've been done better." I'd rather just not think poorly of anyone, but grr... nevermind.

[Auronhart]

Ah, so it's ok for US allied to have WMD, but not US enemies? That sounds fair and reasonable.

Simple, people who believe that killing people will get them into heaven are capable of ignoring the effects of launching nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) and therefore are a threat to world security.

Yet another piece of propoganda as released by the Bush regime. It's simple fallacy. France and others opposed the invasion because it was illegal under international law, and because there was no independent verification of the US intelligence - now known to be false - that was used to justify it.

Where did you get this info from? I have to agree with previous posters who said that any information that you get from the media is REALLY biased. (I live in Canada and like all we have are bush-whackers )

The US government has already announced that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Not that they haven't found any, but that there were none at all.

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

Everyone's seen that picture, and it's old news that Hussein refused to condemn the attacks. But then, there's been plenty of promotion and bragging by Western sources, using images of destruction in Iraq as "trophies", of sorts. As he took delight from the destruction of American buildings, so too did Westerners make light of death and bombings in Iraq.

I have no clue how you see that. No similarities at all.

During the first Gulf War, the US aided Kurdish rebels against Hussein. Following Iraq's withdrawl from Kuwait, that support vanished and the Kurds were massacred. The current invasion was poorly planned and poorly executed. On the first day, civilian targets were bombed; empty palaces were also destroyed, with the full knowledge that Hussein wouldn't be there and that the only casualties would be civilians.
Basically, the invasion could, with more time and effort, have been held off until some genuinely useful intelligence was available. A single bombing raid, killing Hussein and his nearest and most powerful loyalists, would have got the job largely done. Not the best course of action, but preferable to what did happen, at least.

If Hussein was just killed and the US left, his regime still would be dominant and carry on killing many more Iraqis than the US. It has to be removed little by little.

Whatever the case, in the long run, removing dictators who kill whoever they feel like saves the most lives. Fine maybe the US could have done it a little bit better but it needed to be done and that is the point, I believe, of this this thread.

[theundeadhero]

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

Like smallpox. The US stopped giving children smallpox shots in the 70's I believe and the Army stopped giving it to troops in the early 80's. The virus was not a threat until Hussein started using it as a biological weapon. Now I have a big itchy scar on my arm, a side-effect of the smallpox shot.

[Big D]

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

US inspectors haven't found any significant biological or chemical weapons materials, either. That's their own admission. It's common knowledge that they existed previously, but even the US president accepts that Iraq's stockpiles ceased to be during the decade following the first Gulf War.

Simple, people who believe that killing people will get them into heaven are capable of ignoring the effects of launching nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) and therefore are a threat to world security.

Saddam Hussein was largely un-religious; he was basically a secular dictator. It's too easy, or perhaps convenient, to assume that all powerful/nasty Arabs are Islamic fundamentalists.

Whatever the case, in the long run, removing dictators who kill whoever they feel like saves the most lives. Fine maybe the US could have done it a little bit better but it needed to be done and that is the point, I believe, of this this thread.

You do realise, I hope, what the world is fearing now: that President Bush has shown a propensity for "killing whoever he wants". Regimes he disagrees with, or considers a threat; not all evil dictators, mind you, only those that control valuable resources or potentially support anti-US activities. It's got nothing to do with "world security" and everything to do with pecuniary advantage. [b]That[/i] is what makes the world so afraid.

The MAD principle certainly applies in the the case of Iraq; they'd never have risked directly starting another war that'd involve the US or its allies.

I have no clue how you see that. No similarities at all.

When people celebrate the loss of innocent life in another country, it makes no difference what colour skin the victims had.

[TheAbominatrix]

wrong

You may wanna check your facts http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

President Bush said there has been no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disavowing a link that had been hinted at previously by his administration.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," the president said yesterday after a meeting at the White House with lawmakers.

By the way, are you saying you're a soldier in Iraq? Because that first post was hard to understand. Where are you stationed at, by the way? What's your division and what platoon are you in? You must have really nice commanders if they let you on the internet so much.

[Auronhart]

You do realise, I hope, what the world is fearing now: that President Bush has shown a propensity for "killing whoever he wants". Regimes he disagrees with, or considers a threat; not all evil dictators, mind you, only those that control valuable resources or potentially support anti-US activities. It's got nothing to do with "world security" and everything to do with pecuniary advantage. [b]That[/i] is what makes the world so afraid.

I guess this matter is just one of opinion, because it all has to do with whether Bush was mostly just acting for selfish purposes. This is my take on the situation.

Europe: (except GB): It's none of our business if Hussein is killing a whole lot of his own citizens, let them deal with with it, after all it's out of our jurisdiction and we don't want to give any of our lives to save Iraqis.

US: We have to remove this dictator from power and stop the countless future deaths that he will cause. We even will possibly have to give our lives for this cause.

Europe: What the heck are you doing, let the Iraqis deal with their own problem or just keep him, don't you have a brain?

US: They can't though because his regime is too strong, we have to remove him as quickly as possible.

Something like that and don't flame me for this, it's just what I see and as far as I can tell, the US isn't going to get anything out of the deal except improved safety.

When people celebrate the loss of innocent life in another country, it makes no difference what colour skin the victims had.

I see no celebrating over dead Iraqis. (unless you mean the capture of Hussein, and yes I would celebrate over the death of any heartless tyrant no matter his skin color)
In my opinion this is to save Iraqis, not kill them, as we would know if the objective was to kill as many Iraqis as possible, simple. Plus, the US are trying to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible, which is the complete opposite of Osama's terrorist attack.

[theundeadhero]

You may wanna check your facts http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

That link is over a year old, you might want to update yourself on the subject.

Saddam Hussein was largely un-religious; he was basically a secular dictator. It's too easy, or perhaps convenient, to assume that all powerful/nasty Arabs are Islamic fundamentalists.

Hussein wasn't but we're not fighting him we're fighting the sunni Wassabi and they are.

the US president accepts that Iraq's stockpiles ceased to be during the decade following the first Gulf War.

Yet, they still make all deploying troops get anthrax and smallpox shots. It must be because they like us to have permanent scars on our arms. What other reason is their?

[TheAbominatrix]

That link is over a year old, you might want to update yourself on the subject.

Because the subject was a year old. They dont continually keep saying it after they've made the announcement. Prove to me otherwise. Show me a link with the White House saying it. Please.

And would you please answer my other questions?

[theundeadhero]

I'm in the states. Give me some time to find a link.

[TheAbominatrix]

You're in the states? But I thought you'd been spending time with Iraqis? And even in the states, you're still part of a division. What is it? And where are you stationed?

[theundeadhero]

I'm in the states AND spending time with the Iraqi's. That's not hard to understand. The rest I can't tell you most of it.

Vice President Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that success in Iraq means "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

The very same link. As you know, polititions flip-flop what they say all the time.

More proof, more recently

http://search.aimhome.netscape.com/a...0407230835.asp

http://search.aimhome.netscape.com/a...2F092503F.html

[TheAbominatrix]

You mean you're spending time with Iraqi-Americans. Your original post made it sound as though you were spending time with Iraqis living in Iraq. I'd be much more interested in their perspective. The rest you can tell me, but choose not to.

edit: Cheney still isnt saying that Saddam had the connections, and the link you showed me (the first one is a cannot find server) says nothing about the president. You said Big D was wrong about the White House admitting that there is no link. The link you showed me is just as valid as anything Micheal Moore says... twisted facts and opinions. Still not what you said Big D was wrong about.

[theundeadhero]

Nope, I mean I'm spending time with Iraqi citizens who live in Iraq but are in America right now.

[TheAbominatrix]

Nope, I mean I'm spending time with Iraqi citizens who live in Iraq but are in America right now.

What are they doing in America? How long have they been in America? Do you have any proof to back this up? Because by refusing to tell me anything about your military service, I'm getting the strong impression that you're making this up.