All you have to do is look at Afghanistan, they're no closer to true democracy than Iran. Yes, they're supposed to have elections soon, but only the capital city of Kabul is actually under control, the rest is run by the Taliban - that's right, the same Taliban they pledged to kick out a few years ago.Originally posted by Boss Hog
The person they're putting in Iraq now will most likely not be much better. You can cry that they're not putting anyone in, that there's some sort of democratic process going on, but the US has already tried to block certain groups from getting involved in an Iraqi government, because they have their own favourites. So, so much for a democracy.
Originally posted by Boss Hog
That's a completely simplistic approach to the bigger picture.
Originally posted by twist
so i guess all the calcination mahines saddam purchased were just figments of everyone's imagination. I sure am glad they figured out a way to dig up the entire desert.
ya all you people who really believe saddam had NOTHING... like zero... zilch... and all the plants had been emptied looooooong before the us thought of coming over... and the whole WMD thing was just some hoax so we could invade Iraq...
you're all fucking retards who are no better than the people you accuse of being retards for believeing that there were mass stockpiles.
like hello? McSheep? pull your heads out of your asses.
the administration invented the immediacy because they knew it might be a long time before another administration had the power or backing to oust saddam. Ya they candy coated it a bit. But as late as 2001 saddam had organized and made operational a number of large calcination plants (4 i think) that would have been capable of producing a low grade but effective nuclear materiel within a year. When inspectors came to oversee the shuitting down of those plants... they were completely empty. You really think all the shit in saddams palaces was handed out to the people? That's like the nazi gold treasure right there ladies and gents.Originally posted by OTIS
The question is not whether he had any weapons, or was seeking to acquire them, it was whether he posed an immediate threat to the United States, specifically enough to withdraw inspectors and invade. One of the best indicators of this, which was ignored, was whether he posed a threat to his immediate neighbors, most of which he's had conflict in. None of which, including Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iran considered him an immediate threat. Then you can go to the former UN Chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and ask his assessment, which I've provided a link to above. The point being, the reasons to go to war were invented. If an administration can justify waging war on a specific target for invented reasons, it sets a horrible precedent for future conflicts, including those that may not be US instigated.
Originally posted by twist
the administration invented the immediacy because they knew it might be a long time before another administration had the power or backing to oust sadam.
A more appropriate analogy for Saddam Hussein in 2003 would be a muzzled dog locked in a cage. Only this muzzled dog was sitting on burried treasure and the only way to get to the treasure was to kill the dog.Originally posted by twist
ok there's a black mamba snake in my backyard and my two year old is in the front. The snake is not an immediate threat... should i leave it be... or remove it?
Originally posted by twist
the administration invented the immediacy because they knew it might be a long time before another administration had the power or backing to oust saddam. Ya they candy coated it a bit. But as late as 2001 saddam had organized and made operational a number of large calcination plants (4 i think) that would have been capable of producing a low grade but effective nuclear materiel within a year. When inspectors came to oversee the shuitting down of those plants... they were completely empty. You really think all the shit in saddams palaces was handed out to the people? That's like the nazi gold treasure right there ladies and gents.
ok there's a black mamba snake in my backyard and my two year old is in the front. The snake is not an immediate threat... shou;ld i leave it be... or remove it? maybe it would have just gone on it's merry way... but given saddams track record... i don't fucking think so. Saddam's been dealing with dodging weapons inspectors for almost two decades... you really think that once it was clear America was coming... he didn't cover his tracks? like cmon people you can't really be that stupid.
Saddam managed to build a massive nuclear reactor and only announced it a month or so before it was completed. And where did he put it? right smack dab in the middle of downtown. gee that's funny... why would anyone do that? So it could not be destroyed by an airstrike. Why would you do something like that unless you were making something that would need to be detroyed by an airstrike? Free nuclear energy for the people? well ge willickers what about the billions of barrels of oil... isn't that enough energy?
like i said a lot of people on here need to get over themselves and either go join fucking greenpeace or accept the fact that Bush is not satan and america is not this capitalist war machine hell bent on world domination under the iron boot of the citizen soldier.
yes that was on purpose lovey cakes. as in he's been actively trying to produce nuclear weapons since 1981... and it took some fucking unheard of piloting (smart bombs were for space invaders in 81.) You really think he just kind of... gave up in the last year or so? like i said... Head... Ass.Originally posted by OTIS
Dude, you just gave me a link the 1981 Israeli bombing of Saddam's nuclear reactor. HILARIOUS. Even after that, Saddam & Iraq was taken off the US list of terrorist states so the US could funnel weapons to him to fight Iran. Since 1991, 95% capability and weapons were accounted for, and according to those MOST QUALIFIED to comment, he was incapable of threatening his neighbors by 1998 let alone the US. Inspectors left in 1998 NOT because Saddam ousted them, but because Clinton withdrew them to bomb Iraq.
On the lead up to GW 02 there was an inspections team in there doing it's job to disarm Iraq, so don't act like nothing was being done about your â€˜snake in the backyardâ€™, or that invasion was the only answer. At the Azcores summit, on the eve of the UN vote, it was decided by Blair, Bush and Aznar that invasion would occur even if Saddam & company left Iraq, yet you still try to argue that weapons were the prime motivator. The inspectors were doing their job, they were getting things done, but too bad they were just a guise to bring a sense of immediacy to a non-immediate situation. Deployment of troops to the region began even before UNSCRi1441. It was obvious they had no intention of letting Iraq out of their control, and they werenâ€™t going to let inspections or even facts get in the way.
And dude, the whole Ted Nugent animosity act is tired. Drop it.
haha... you talk about Otis having his head up his ass... You make it sounds as though war is always about having the balls, or being a man, or other macho shit like that. It's about doing what's smart and what's right, and invading Iraq was neither.Originally posted by twist
It was about fucking time and if the left wing moderate thumb-suckers had allowed bush senior to remove saddam the first time when it was justified we wouldn't be having this conversation.
war is never about having the balls. and never should be. although it does require them. war is never smart and never right. A true warrior finds a way to win his battles with no force. Do yourself a favour Chron... get over youself and yoiur belief that i am some sort of war monger. and next time instead of wasting your time looking for an irrelevant bush quote.. Google TOYOTOMI HIDEYOSHI. Learn about him and you will learn what my ideal leader of a nation should be. The best defense is a good offense. Remove the threat before it becomes a threat and make it your friend. I don't think we should occupy iraq and i never said otherwise. Much of the current situation is fucked. But the end result is satisfactory... and ultimately necessary. The only reason we are an occupying force is cause the moiderates would have had a fucking field day if we just went in and then got the fuck out of dodge. Which is essentially what was forced in the first Gulf War. I want leaders with balls Reagan was my favourite president cuz he stood the fuck up and said "I DON'T FUCKING THINK SO."Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
haha... you talk about Otis having his head up his ass... You make it sounds as though war is always about having the balls, or being a man, or other macho shit like that. It's about doing what's smart and what's right, and invading Iraq was neither.
I could deconstruct all of your arguments (or baseless emotional right-wing ranting to be more precise), but I'll stick with just this one because I really should try and get some work done this afternoon.
You know what, I'm not even going to make an argument myself, I'm just going to quote George Bush Senior himself:
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
A World Transformed, 1998