Valhalla Legends Archive

Well there's a lot of people starting to doubt that Iraq and Saddam actually posed as big of a threat as was accused and presented.  People are also starting to see that in the entire War on Iraq.. the "big enchilada" was never discovered and in fact Saddam may be clear of guilt.  Although he is in fact an evil leader and poses some threat, America has no business in taking them out because "they pose a threat for world peace".  If we could, you wouldn't see much nations still here. =/

Just sorta my $0.02.

I saw a website that had a news article on it about this but I forgot which it was.

Saddam went down because the world will be a better place without him. No further reason is needed.

Maybe it will be without him, but US has a ton of ties and etc... We went against the NATO and warred Iraq, and if there are in fact no nuclear weapons, that leads you to believe U.S. will take out anyone with a leader anything near to evil.  World Peace.  Sometimes you gotta fight to get what you want, but honestly if nothing comes up found, then you know =/

Anyhow I really think ever since 9/11 i've heard 'nuff about this stuff, it's old news, the war started it back up but its dead again.  Sorry for bringing this up again, some people might be interested, i guess..

I don't see how Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.. I thought that Saddam opposed Islamism?  I dunno, I guess somebody will tell me if I'm wrong.

I personally could care less about the WMD threat. Saddam was a cruel dictator that needed to go plain and simple.  Look at the mass graves, the tortures, rape, murders, and countless other inhumane activities.

I also believe world peace wont come if we just sit around and let this shit happen. Him and his regime deserved what they got. Now we should just hope some good comes out of their disappearance.

Like what? People being Raped every night in Baghdad, raw sewage in the streets, electricity and water are hard to come by. Would you  like to have an unofficial crufrew at 11:00pm? and thats not even the tip of the iceburg.

You do realize a better life is not going to just appear over night don't you... It will probably take years, but at least they're given another chance at it. That's more than what was given to them by Saddam. I guess it's up to them now.

One of the reason we had to drive out Saddam's regime, is not only because he treats his people like shit, but he forces them to do whatever he wants done. Intellegence says that Russia and other countries have attempted in selling them nuclear material, And with Islamic Extremists, if a potentially rich country like Iraq acquired weapons of mass destruction, especially under a dictated power, god knows what would become of it, that is why we stress other countries like korea, to power down there nuclear programs as well.

Quote from: MesiaH on June 11, 2003, 08:34 AM...Russia and other countries have attempted in selling them nuclear material...

If Russia tried to sell them nuclear material, and they didn't buy it, doesn't that say something positive about them?  Or is that just worded wrong?


Plus, a word of the day that may or may not apply here (I'm not going to take sides):
propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda

In other words, don't believe anything that you haven't seen first hand, since goverments will lie to their people (see: Machiavelli: The Prince) in a democratic, dictator, or any other regime to get support from people.  Also, see South Park 704: I'm a little bit country.  :-)

War with Iraq was warranted and sanctioned by a majority of the world community based on two (2) presumptions proposed by the Bush Administration and explicated by Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN.

Presumptions:
1)  That Saddam Hussein has Chemical, Biological, and/or nuclear weapons.  [However, the fact that he has these [or is developing them] is not enough to warrant an armed conflict with a foreign nation.)
2)  That the Hussein regime is anti-western (meaning he has strong dislike for all "western" nations) and that the possibility is there that he might sell/give these weapons to various terrorist organizations (not just Al Qaeda)

Yes, there is a tie between Iraq (and their regime) and terrorist activities. As there are various factions that take refuge in northern Iraq which can be dismissed by the Hussein regime as "out of his control".  But, the Bush Administration (or the intelligence agencies) seem to have apparently fudged the facts a bit; however, time will tell how much.  The finger of fate seems to have singled out, at the present, the lone Clinton carryover (FBI Director Robert Mueller) for apparently overstating the threat that Iraq posed.  It should be noted that it cannot be said with all certainty that Hussein did or did not have WMDs; however, the threat posed by the potential of those weapons (which may or may not exist) to end up in terrorist hands was probably vastly overstated.  Hussein and his regime have never (and probably will never) been tied directly to a terrorist regime.  Though anti-American sentiments are prevalent throughout that region, the only terrorist organizations that could be remotely construed as tied to the Iraq regime were anti-Israeli in origin.

The policy of the Bush Administration in the Middle East was made clear today, when they denounced the bus bombing in Israel and offered condolences to their families.  However, no condolence was made to the family of the little girl killed yesterday by a missle from an Israeli helicopter.  While I can respect the fact that the Israeli government was probably acting on legitimate intelligence that their target was tied to active terrorism, I believe there are many better options than a helicopter missle attack on a semi-busy roadway.  It is becoming more and more aparent that Bush has his sites set on re-inventing the Middle East.

But to digress back to the topic of war on iraq, Bush is now stating that the war was justified even if WMDs are never found, because Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions.  However, you didn't see the UN sending troops, it was a US effort.  This "coalition of the willing" included countries like Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, etc.  Poland commited a token 500 troops, Australia 5,000, and other countries commited troops in the event of a biological or chemical attack.  Many of these countries in our "Coalition of the willing" are negligible at best, just another example of DC Spin doctoring....  However, violation of UN resolutions wasn't the premise that was offered to the world community for the war and now the Bush administration is under scrutiny from Congress and a full investigation is likely.  Tony Blair, though, is screwed.  He's catching a real pounding from the House of Commons, and public sentiment is quite against him currently.


[Edit]

Ch3zz3:
It cost you $0.02 to share your thoughts, yet you only get $0.01 for them.  You're losing money! So stop talking....

War was not sanctioned and warranted. Bush failed to get UN approval. The war was illegal, and patently so.

I'm glad that Hussien is out of power, he was a monster - that's not my concern. My concern is the hidden agenda of the US and the UK.

It's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that there were no WMD in Iraq. Even if there were, Iraq had absolutely no capacity to deploy them against US/UK/EU nations.

It's also patently obvious that Iraq has no links with terrorists, except the ones it used in it's war against Iran - and those were funded and trained by the CIA, so let's not even go there. Hussien has no links to fundamentalist Islam, to suggest that he does is absurd. As soon as he got into power he dedicated his *entire* secret police force to eradicating fundamentalist islam in Iraq. The war with Iran was largely because Iran's puppet dictator (set up by the CIA) was overthrown by an islamic fundamentalist.

It's also unlikely, IMO, that the war was about Oil. Iraq has demonstrated on several occasions it's willingness to cooperate with the west when it comes to selling Oil. The Oil For Food program is a good case in point.

Penultimately, this war was definitely not started for humanitarian reasons. The US has had a policy of not involving itsself in international affairs unless it's own interests are at stake since the 40s and so far as I know, that policy is still in place. There are countless crackpot dictators around the world that the US ignores entirely.

This, therefore, leaves me wondering what the war was actually about. There's something going on, you can be sure of that.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 12, 2003, 10:17 AMWar was not sanctioned and warranted. Bush failed to get UN approval. The war was illegal, and patently so.

Idiot.  The United States, or any country, doesn't need the UN approval to go to war.  "Illegal"?  What the hell is that?  It's against the law in what country for the United States to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq by force?  Maybe in Iraq it was illegal.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 12, 2003, 10:17 AMIt's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that there were no WMD in Iraq. Even if there were, Iraq had absolutely no capacity to deploy them against US/UK/EU nations.

How provincial can you be?  If Iraq cannot deliver WMD to UK and countries near you, it's not worth fighting for?

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 12, 2003, 10:17 AMThe war with Iran was largely because Iran's puppet dictator (set up by the CIA) was overthrown by an islamic fundamentalist.

Ranting can be fun, but in writing makes one look stupid.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 12, 2003, 10:17 AMPenultimately, this war was definitely not started for humanitarian reasons. The US has had a policy of not involving itsself in international affairs unless it's own interests are at stake since the 40s and so far as I know, that policy is still in place. There are countless crackpot dictators around the world that the US ignores entirely.

Name one environmental catastrophe anywhere in the world in the last 60 years that the United States has not been involved and sent aid or offered to send aid.  Anywhere in the world, any conditions, including Chernobyl, where doctors from the United States went and gave their lives to save people.  Possibly the UK comes close to being as helpful.

Quote from: Arta[vL] on June 12, 2003, 10:17 AMThis, therefore, leaves me wondering what the war was actually about. There's something going on, you can be sure of that.

Yes, it's called being involved and making choices.  If you're going to be involved you're going to get criticized.  If you can't be everywhere you first go the places that affect you the most.  Then with what's left and reasonable, you go where you can.  Occasionally, you go where you must.

It's all well and good to sit on your ass, do nothing, think you know everything, and criticize the actions of others.  It's quite another issue to get involved and do what you think is right for humanity.  Then you'll find out there are people with opposing opinions to yours, no matter which values you hold, or actions you take.

The elected government of the United States primarily responsibility is to the citizens of the United States.  They will do what they think is best for us.  If the citizens don't agree, we elect someone else.  If the world doesn't agree, well guess what?  Think we really care?  There are as many answers to that as there are people with opinions.

Grok

The United States is a lone super power. That makes it the world's police in a sense.  I will not disagree that the facts were fudged a bit, but an evil dictator is gone... Other than the fact that we got rid of an anti-west dictator I see no hidden agendas as of yet. The rest of the world is just mad because they had secret business relations with Saddam and we ruined that. So what!

On the topic of the war being illegal without having the UN's support. I think Grok's reply answered that question, but the UN would be nothing without the support of the US. It has no standing army so how can it back up anything it says? Simple, because countries like the US and UK put their troops on the line. Now I'm not saying there aren't a lot of other countries doing their part, but I think it's a waste of time. Like Bush said, the United States does not need anyone's permission to go to war. Take that how you will.

By the way, it is illegal to overthrow the United States government BY FORCE.  I find that to be comedy.  But that's what happened in Iraq, and if Iraq had similar laws, the United States broke them

If Bush or anyone with appropriate power KNOWINGLY misrepresented facts when delivered to the Congress (or to the International Community since it would be also directed to Congress indirectly) or attempted to aide in that misrepresentation is de facto in contempt of congress...