Oh the noble insurgency.

[burner69]

They couldn't be saved. Saddam created the situation that civies were going to die, either by him or by someone making war in order to ouste him. It's regrettable that civies had to die, but we didn't create the situation.

What do you mean they couldn't be saved? We extensively bombed the cities for days, we even fired a few rockets at Al Jazeera recently I believe. I've heard stories and seen video clips of some members of the coalition seemingly giving very little of a f**k about whether or not the people they are shooting are civvies or not.
Actually, the west did create the situation.
1) Whether or not the CIA was involved with Saddams rise to power is debateble. What is not debateable is that we sold him WMD and chemical weapons, even after he gassed 5000 of his own people.
2) The west created a situation where civvies were going to die. UN sanctions prevented water treatment chemicals being brought into Iraq, and then we bombed the civilian water supplies, resulting in the deaths of half a million innocents. We did that, not Saddam.

You do not conduct diplomacy with criminals. Do you have any idea how radical the idea is that you are putting forth. What do you suggest we do to appease them, entertaining the notion for a moment that appeasing murderers and lagitimizing their crimes is a viable course of action. This is truly sickening.

But we have done many times in the past. Saddam is but one example, so it's not that radical. The only reason we won't talk with the terrorists is because they want the west out of Iraq, they believe we are invading and intend to take over. How can be benefit from Iraq if we're being kicked out? No, instead our governments tell us they are pure evil, are simply jealous of us, and are never up for diplomacy. That is sickening.

 

[burner69]

But they want to exterminate the jewish race. Are you saying we should let them annihilate israel?

Not at all. But I doubt very many of those in Iraq are fighting primarily because of Israel. They'd be in Israel otherwise.

 

[seinfeldrules]

...iraq is one huge terrorist recruiting camp ...seriously I really think you've made the biggest blunder in american history by strolling into iraq ..one that will have reprecussions for americans for generations to come

I'd rather be attacked and fight back than be attacked attacked attacked with no response.

The west created a situation where civvies were going to die. UN sanctions prevented water treatment chemicals being brought into Iraq, and then we bombed the civilian water supplies, resulting in the deaths of half a million innocents. We did that, not Saddam.

Who created the situation that required sanctions? It wasnt the west. Furhtermore, its not like we were going to sit back and pretend Saddam never happened, it was either sanctions or more war.

 

[burner69]

I'd rather be attacked and fight back than be attacked attacked attacked with no response.


Who created the situation that required sanctions? It wasnt the west. Furhtermore, its not like we were going to sit back and pretend Saddam never happened, it was either sanctions or more war.

But we weren't attacked by Iraq. There is little or no evidence to support any of it. Sure many Iraqis hardly condoned 9/11, but what can you do?
Now you've got lot's of pissed off orphaned or widowed people who are more than happy to attack attack attack the west.

OK, I won't go into who's fault the situation was. We would be here all day; Was it the CIA's fault for supporting him, was it Saddams fault for being an evil sh*t etc.
But bombing civilian water supplies was the west, we did not need to do it, they had nothing to do with our conflict with Saddam, other than the fact they were living in the same country as him. You cannot defend the destruction of civilian water supplies, it is in direct breach of the geneva conventions of war, and just about every moral code of conduct that reasonable human beings possess.

 

[seinfeldrules]

But we weren't attacked by Iraq. There is little or no evidence to support any of it. Sure many Iraqis hardly condoned 9/11, but what can you do?

We believed Saddam had WMD. Post 9/11, a man with a proven aggresive past with an agenda against the US was unacceptable in that situation.

Now you've got lot's of pissed off orphaned or widowed people who are more than happy to attack attack attack the west.

We also have even more people, 58% at least, that are more than happy with the west because they finally have freedom and the ability to vote.

 

[burner69]

We believed Saddam had WMD. Post 9/11, a man with a proven aggresive past with an agenda against the US was unacceptable in that situation.

Hmmm, WMDs. The evidence. The reports. The weapons inspectors. It all stunk to high heaven.
And Saddam had an aggressive past, but not against attacking the US on their own soil. Many countries have WMDs, and dislike the west, just because 9/11 happened dosen't mean we can invade them in the name of peace.

We also have even more people, 58% at least, that are more than happy with the west because they finally have freedom and the ability to vote.

Even more people? You mean supporters of the west?
Yes, we do. But we still have lots of terrorists running around who are pretty p*ssed at the whole situation.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Hmmm, WMDs. The evidence. The reports. The weapons inspectors. It all stunk to high heaven.
And Saddam had an aggressive past, but not against attacking the US on their own soil. Many countries have WMDs, and dislike the west, just because 9/11 happened dosen't mean we can invade them in the name of peace.

He did attempt to whack old man GB in the 90s.

But we still have lots of terrorists running around who are pretty p*ssed at the whole situation.

And slowly but surely they are dying off. I think Ghostfox mentioned that theory, it makes just as much sense as the one you follow.

 

[MjM]

I find it funny that both sides fight terror with terror.


When will we learn.

 

[Brassm0nkey]

When will we learn.

When we stop being afraid, I suppose.

 

[MjM]

right on!


Also, i read, it seems that sexual tourture is widespread in this war on terror. But im sure the means justifies the end(do we even know where this is going)?!

;(

 

[Raziaar]

Not at all. But I doubt very many of those in Iraq are fighting primarily because of Israel. They'd be in Israel otherwise.

They sure do talk about Israel and the "Zionists" all the time for them not to be fighting because of Israel!

 

[burner69]

They sure do talk about Israel and the "Zionists" all the time for them not to be fighting because of Israel!

No doubt they hate the situation, and maybe some are fighting the US in Iraq purely because they support Israel, though I doubt it.

I mean, if I hated France and Germany supported France, if Germany invaded England I'd be fighting them because they were in my country, not because of my hatred of France... if that makes sense.

 

[Raziaar]

No doubt they hate the situation, and maybe some are fighting the US in Iraq purely because they support Israel, though I doubt it.

I mean, if I hated France and Germany supported France, if Germany invaded England I'd be fighting them because they were in my country, not because of my hatred of France... if that makes sense.

Support israel? HELL NO. These people *HATE* Israel and the Jews! Why would you think they support Israel?

 

[burner69]

Support israel? HELL NO. These people *HATE* Israel and the Jews! Why would you think they support Israel?

'They' meaning the US.

 

[Raziaar]

'They' meaning the US.

Ahh, sorry. Completely misunderstood your post.

 

[burner69]

Ahh, sorry. Completely misunderstood your post.

First the be wouldn't you