Yet Another Iraq Thread
Mantrid
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Split from 'Bush Ads'</div> I think this is a bad idea, and fairly distasteful.
I doub the Emperor of Japan gained more respect from his people by showing the events transpiring at Hiroshima and Nagasaki over and over.
I am biased towards Bush, however. Mostly because:
1. He went to war using unverified intelligence (which was later proven to be false, and yet no one seems to care) to get rid of a leader that the United States put into power.
I also have this inkling that it had something to do with "rectifying" Daddy's shortcomings.
2. Okay, we're going in the right direction, starting to get rid of the deficit, and what does Dubbya do? Cut taxes! Yay, lets drive the country <i>further</i> into debt!
3. There are lots of better replacements for him. For example, a head of lettuce.
[Bad Pun] The lettuce would, of course, run as a Green Party canidate. [/Bad Pun]
I doub the Emperor of Japan gained more respect from his people by showing the events transpiring at Hiroshima and Nagasaki over and over.
I am biased towards Bush, however. Mostly because:
1. He went to war using unverified intelligence (which was later proven to be false, and yet no one seems to care) to get rid of a leader that the United States put into power.
I also have this inkling that it had something to do with "rectifying" Daddy's shortcomings.
2. Okay, we're going in the right direction, starting to get rid of the deficit, and what does Dubbya do? Cut taxes! Yay, lets drive the country <i>further</i> into debt!
3. There are lots of better replacements for him. For example, a head of lettuce.
[Bad Pun] The lettuce would, of course, run as a Green Party canidate. [/Bad Pun]
Comments
Small correction: you are biased <b>against</b> Bush.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>1. He went to war using unverified intelligence (which was later proven to be false, and yet no one seems to care) to get rid of a leader that the United States put into power.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sources from both America and Britain comfirmed the facts. If you were the president, would you wait for more information, when there was a chance that there really <b>were</b> weapons of mass destruction being readied for launch?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I also have this inkling that it had something to do with "rectifying" Daddy's shortcomings.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's plainly spiteful. But if you wish to address the qualifications of previous presidents, we can always start a new topic about it. Should we start with Clinton?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>2. Okay, we're going in the right direction, starting to get rid of the deficit, and what does Dubbya do? Cut taxes! Yay, lets drive the country further into debt!</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember, we are in a recession. His views were more for getting the economy back. That's the same reason why mortgage rates are so low! The government is trying to get spending up to bolster the economy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>3. There are lots of better replacements for him. For example, a head of lettuce.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That <b>R</b> by his name and Bible in his hand sure gets you angry, doesn't it? Stupid man and his convictions. Why doesn't he conform?!
Shush, its late and I'm tired <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sources from both America and Britain comfirmed the facts. If you were the president, would you wait for more information, when there was a chance that there really were weapons of mass destruction being readied for launch?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If these facts were "confirmed", why is it our intelligence agencies are now saying that they weren't that sure, and how come the implications of these facts (the weapons themselves) haven't been found, and why is there no evidence they were ever there?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's plainly spiteful. But if you wish to address the qualifications of previous presidents, we can always start a new topic about it. Should we start with Clinton?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it is. Its just my opinion, and I probably shouldn't have thrown it in there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember, we are in a recession. His views were more for getting the economy back. That's the same reason why mortgage rates are so low! The government is trying to get spending up to bolster the economy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe if the government had more money, they could better fund agencies to help stimulate the economy, like maybe finding more jobs for people (I find it disturbing that, under the Bush administration, we have a higher unemployment rate than Hoover did.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That R by his name<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
What?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and Bible in his hand<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, considering the Bible is a religous document, and should have little influence on history, and no influence on science, not to mention politics, he shouldn't let that affect his decisions too much.
He needs to govern based on the needs of the people, not by what he thinks is right and what a 1500 odd year old tome says.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->sure gets you angry, doesn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not so much angry, as annoyed. And is there a word for those times you put your face in your hand, shake it back and forth, and sigh as if to say 'What the hell <i>are</i> you thinking?'
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Stupid man<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your sarcasm is my truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why doesn't he conform?!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conform to what, exactly?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If these facts were "confirmed", why is it our intelligence agencies are now saying that they weren't that sure, and how come the implications of these facts (the weapons themselves) haven't been found, and why is there no evidence they were ever there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the time the information was given to Bush, it was marked as "confirmed". It wasn't until after he began his attacks that it was suggested it wasn't entirely factual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe if the government had more money, they could better fund agencies to help stimulate the economy, like maybe finding more jobs for people (I find it disturbing that, under the Bush administration, we have a higher unemployment rate than Hoover did.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Might I mention once again that we are in a recession? When there is a recession, <b>there aren't as many jobs available.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because he's a republican, little to nothing he does can ever be good enough in the eyes of a democrat/liberal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, considering the Bible is a religous document, and should have little influence on history, and no influence on science, not to mention politics, he shouldn't let that affect his decisions too much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Politics and religion go hand in hand, regardless of the whining from the left otherwise. It's just surprising to you that somebody stands up for what he feels is right, rather than conforming to what everyone (read: you) want. He has a spine, and he uses it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He needs to govern based on the needs of the people, not by what he thinks is right and what a 1500 odd year old tome says.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once you explain exactly what "needs of the people" means, I can understand. That's a rather vague comment!
(Please excuse this balant example of thread-sniping, but I can't let this one pass...)
Let me get this straight... The Bush administration was basing its whole argumentation surrounding a <i>war</i> on intelligence papers, presented this information in front of allies and critics, amassed more and more data to prove its point, all this over the course of more than half a year, and you earnestly believe that some of the best inelligence agencies of the world did only realize that everything - <i>everything</i> - they had handed to the government over this immense period of time was faulty data once the war was over?
Do you really have such a low esteem of the CIA that you believe it can not even operate a calendar (that's everything that was necessary to prove that the 'Nigerian Scam' around the uranium was faked)? And yet you were willing to trust their discretion before the war?
Don't kid yourself.
Let me get this straight... The Bush administration was basing its whole argumentation surrounding a <i>war</i> on intelligence papers, presented this information in front of allies and critics, amassed more and more data to prove its point, all this over the course of more than half a year, and you earnestly believe that some of the best inelligence agencies of the world did only realize that everything - <i>everything</i> - they had handed to the government over this immense period of time was faulty data once the war was over?
Do you really have such a low esteem of the CIA that you believe it can not even operate a calendar (that's everything that was necessary to prove that the 'Nigerian Scam' around the uranium was faked)? And yet you were willing to trust their discretion before the war?
Don't kid yourself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Mar 5 2004, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Mar 5 2004, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At the time the information was given to Bush, it was marked as "confirmed". It wasn't until after he began his attacks that it was suggested it wasn't entirely factual. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to assume that I had an agenda against the US and its allies. I have none. In fact, I believe there <b>were</b> weapons in Iraq, and that they are now likely in Syria. But both the critics of the CIA and the CIA itself expressed their concern over the validity of the information while the search for WMDs were underway in Iraq, and none were being found. That was the point of the post I made: it was addressing a post Mantrid made against the information used to base an attack on Iraq. I was actually <b>defending</b> the motives of Bush's choice to attack Iraq.
Uhm, yeah. As far as I can see, that's also what Nemesis quoted you for. I didn't see him talking about you having an agenda against the US, quite the contrary actually.
I disagree with you then. I think there were WMDs in Iraq, and they have been moved to Syria. However, I don't care if there were any in the first place. Removing Sadaam was a good move.
Damn, sorry, I gotta get this sarcasm out of my system...
Seriously, in how far do you think has Husseins capture improved the situation for the people of Iraq? The country is at the edge of a civil war between fanatical Shiites and Sunnites, both of which commit terrorism along with the Ba'aths and the networks around Al Quaeda, most big cities are still not secured from marauders and criminal gangs, an economic or political recovery is not even beginning (see the way the US administration has to block elections to avoid a fundamentalistic regime), and the Coalition troops in there are living targets.
Hussein was a bad man, nobody doubts that, but was his proescution worth all this?
What do you think he should do?
I hate to play blowhard here, but if you look back at the archives, you'll notice that half of this forums population, including yours truly, could. I'd argue that jaded teenagers should have a little less information at their disposal than, say, State Department planners, so I'd argue that it's very likely that Bush knew of the very real possibility of such a scenario.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush wanted to get rid of a very powerful threat to the US, and then settle any disputes after the removal of their leader.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To put it into proportion: You're telling us that a dictator of an economically desolate third world country with a beaten army that proved to be little of a challenge and <i>no</i> kind of weaponry that could've reached US soil under any imaginable strategic scenario <i>whatsoever</i> - Blair and Bush didn't even claim such at the highest time of hysteria - posed a severe threat to the richest, militaristically most advanced country on Earth.
The Peoples Republic could be considered a threat to America, provided the political climate was worse. Russia could be a threat to America, although their army is in a desolate state. <i>Iraq</i>? Don't be ridiculous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those approving of the removal of Sadaam were hoping for a peaceful result, rather than this. Things didn't go the way Bush planned. I don't therefore consider the entire operation a loss, or something pointless. Men and women died to give the people of Iraq a chance at freedom, and to protect those who live in the US from a man who could potentially terrorize the nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll ignore the second part as I think I already adressed it, but in how far does the death of brave souls give this operation a sense? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's usually the other way round, isn't it? In how far does the death of innocents in a war that was very likely fruitless constitute an achievement?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know very well if Bush pulled everyone out of Iraq and let another dictator rise to power, every opponent to Bush would rant and rant and rant about that decision. But since he's finishing what he started, and people are dying for that, the rants continue.
What do you think he should do?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, he's in a horrible situation he got himself, seeing that there was no kind of immediate initial agression on the side of Hussein, into needlessly. If you ask me, this is not a redeeming quality, either.
What part of the Iraqi reaction did you predict? I expected the people to accept the freedom, which for the most part they have. I was hoping the guerilla factions would be removed by now, but I was unfortunately incorrect in that thinking.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>To put it into proportion: You're telling us that a dictator of an economically desolate third world country with a beaten army that proved to be little of a challenge and <i>no</i> kind of weaponry that could've reached US soil under any imaginable strategic scenario <i>whatsoever</i></b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... didn't a little country called Afghanistan blow up a set of buildings in New York? Their current economical standings does nothing to stop their hatred. Besides that, Sadaam did not cooperate with the weapons inspections! If that doesn't hint to the possibility that there are WMDs...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>- Blair and Bush didn't even claim such at the highest time of hysteria - posed a severe threat to the richest, militaristically most advanced country on Earth. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, 9/11. America is not "everything proof". Everyone was scared at being so horribly violated. And when Sadaam continued to bar entry for UN searches, we reacted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Peoples Republic could be considered a threat to America, provided the political climate was worse. Russia could be a threat to America, although their army is in a desolate state. <i>Iraq</i>? Don't be ridiculous.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the point of who is worse than who. We attacked Iraq. Would you prefer we launch a multi pronged attack on every country that has a motive to fire on us?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I'll ignore the second part as I think I already adressed it, but in how far does the death of brave souls give this operation a sense?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ooh, spin! I never said the dead gave it meaning. I said they died for a good reason: freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's usually the other way round, isn't it? In how far does the death of innocents in a war that was very likely fruitless constitute an achievement?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that sarcasm again?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I agree, he's in a horrible situation he got himself, seeing that there was no kind of immediate initial agression on the side of Hussein, into needlessly. If you ask me, this is not a redeeming quality, either.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think getting rid of a dictator that was killing his own people and storing WMDs to attack the US was a good enough reason to remove him from power. I salute those who have faught for the cause, and hope they can return home soon. And I'm proud to finally have a president in the office that has a backbone!
And you never answered my question - what do you think he should do?
dude. no. there was a highly suspicous wallet that pointed to terrorists working in afghanistan (and also seemed to survive the collision with the trade centre unscathed).
<b>that does not mean afghanistan was responsible for the attack.</b>
secondly, I dont think the 'possible hint of WMD' as you put it is any reason whatsoever for an invasion and (so far) 'troubled' occupation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I think getting rid of a dictator that was killing his own people and storing WMDs to attack the US was a good enough reason to remove him from power. I salute those who have faught for the cause, and hope they can return home soon. And I'm proud to finally have a president in the office that has a backbone!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
first off.
<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/05/iraq/main604261.shtml' target='_blank'>U.N.: Most Iraqi WMD Long Gone</a>
ignoring the part which says (may is far to general for my liking)
"residual munitions from the former Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program <b>may</b> be found in the future."
youv got a few straight out, no messing around quote from blix himself
"It's no secret that no weapons have been destroyed since 1994."
but anyway, what gets me about your last sentance was how you keep on about the fact Saddam had WMD with which he planned to attack the US.
thats just not true.
As far as I'm aware the WMD which could be fired were battlefield only weapons, and as such had no capacity to hit a target as distant as the US.
I dont know where you got the idea the US was under imminant threat (although I can hazzard a guess, *cough* terror warnings/ CNN etc.. *cough*)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I hate to play blowhard here, but if you look back at the archives, you'll notice that half of this forums population, including yours truly, could. I'd argue that jaded teenagers should have a little less information at their disposal than, say, State Department planners, so I'd argue that it's very likely that Bush knew of the very real possibility of such a scenario.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What part of the Iraqi reaction did you predict? I expected the people to accept the freedom, which for the most part they have. I was hoping the guerilla factions would be removed by now, but I was unfortunately incorrect in that thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, now you did it, you made me quote myself:
In the <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=26720&hl=iran&st=45' target='_blank'>War in Iraq</a> thread, I responded to MonsE (quote included):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for democracy and civil rights, if we ran the place like a US prison it would still be 100 times better than how it is now. And I certainly doubt we will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure 'you' aren't planning on running the place like a prison, the question is whether you'll be able to run the place at all.
Even in your favorite example, post-WW2 Germany, it took several years to get the country to its first democratic elections, the situation won't be much better here. Now imagine a multiple years lasting American military administration, which will, don't kid yourself, be viewed as occupation, in a country that's at least surrounded by countries harboring terrorists and with neighbours all too keen on expanding their own territory a little.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=52039&hl=iran&st=15' target='_blank'>'I R A N'</a>, I said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When looking at the current situation, we should keep in mind that the 'nation' Iraq is a product of the careless, ignorant decolonialization efforts of the European colonial powers after WW1 (wipe that smile off your face, Mons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->). The Iraq is in no way homogenous, it lacks any kind of uniting characteristic that would truly make the inhabitants regard themselves as Iraqis in the first place, and, even worse, the single factions have a long and colorfull tradition of hating and fighting each other:
<ul>
</li><li>Religiously, it's, as we all know, divided in Sunnites, Kurds Shiites, and a number of smaller minorities, such as Sufis. This divide became even deeper than it was due to historical influences by to the exposed role parts of the Sunnite minority played during Husseins reign.
</li><li>Economically, the Iraq encompasses areas that became relatively wealthy due to oil trade, and large regions inhabited by poor desert dwellers.
</li><li>Culturally, not few of the Iraqis could just as well regard themselves as Iranians, Syrians, or Saudi-Arabians.
</li><li>Politically, the Iraq has never experienced domestic administrations except for Hussein and the local tribeleaders of pre-colonial times. It has <i>no</i> non-authoritarian political tradition whatsoever.
One could argue that, cynical though it might sound, the only thing that kept this country together <i>was</i> Hussein and the mustard gas.
</li></ul>
Now, the Coalition marched into this hells kitchen and hoped to bring peace and democracy to it. Honestly, I doubt that the Iraq in its current form could truly reach either of the two in the best of all cases, as the petty conflicts between the factions would inevitably break out again, and historical experience shows that conflict-ridden regions tend to fall under authoritarian reigns.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now keep in mind that these predictions were made by a nineteen years old with the help of Google and a few old issues of the Spiegel.
Everything points to the likeliness that the Bush administration, which is outfitted with smarter analysts that have a better supply of information, was informed about this possibility. In other words, Bush made a decision that put thousands of lives at risk and continues to do so, in better knowledge.
He can have believed and hoped whatever he wanted, you just don't gamble on these odds. You <i>don't</i>.
Also, I'm a little bewildered by your statement that the people of Iraq accepted freedom "for the bigger part" - to drive the point home, Paul Bremer is forced to postpone free elections because they'd give an inevitable rise to fundamentalist Shiites, the kind of people the US armed Hussein against some twenty years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>To put it into proportion: You're telling us that a dictator of an economically desolate third world country with a beaten army that proved to be little of a challenge and <i>no</i> kind of weaponry that could've reached US soil under any imaginable strategic scenario <i>whatsoever</i></b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... didn't a little country called Afghanistan blow up a set of buildings in New York? Their current economical standings does nothing to stop their hatred. Besides that, Sadaam did not cooperate with the weapons inspections! If that doesn't hint to the possibility that there are WMDs...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>- Blair and Bush didn't even claim such at the highest time of hysteria - posed a severe threat to the richest, militaristically most advanced country on Earth. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, 9/11. America is not "everything proof". Everyone was scared at being so horribly violated. And when Sadaam continued to bar entry for UN searches, we reacted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Melatonin already stated this, but Afghanistan, or more precisely, the Taliban, had no part in 9/11 - they were only attacked for harboring the <i>alleged</i> preparators and refusing to hand them over without of prove.
As for how "Sadaam did not cooperate with the weapons inspections", <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/28/sprj.irq.main/' target='_blank'>here's</a> a CNN story detailing the report of Hans Blix. Look beyond the headline, and you'll notice that they recieved access to any facility they wanted to see, that he applauds the Iraq on several points, and simply states that further reaching evidence has to be supplied in other sectors. If that's "not cooperating", I'd better never get into a police control because I'd be shot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Peoples Republic could be considered a threat to America, provided the political climate was worse. Russia could be a threat to America, although their army is in a desolate state. <i>Iraq</i>? Don't be ridiculous.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not the point of who is worse than who. We attacked Iraq. Would you prefer we launch a multi pronged attack on every country that has a motive to fire on us?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You clearly dodged my point, which was simply that there's very few countries that could be described as a threat to America, and that Iraq is not amongst them, as the way the 'official' part of Gulf War 2 went proved quite admirably.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I'll ignore the second part as I think I already adressed it, but in how far does the death of brave souls give this operation a sense?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ooh, spin! I never said the dead gave it meaning. I said they died for a good reason: freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's usually the other way round, isn't it? In how far does the death of innocents in a war that was very likely fruitless constitute an achievement?</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that sarcasm again?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's not sacrasm. You say they died for freedom - and that's why I called them 'brave souls'.
This does not justify the operation in any way, however, on the contrary: If you send idealists out to die in a fight that can't be won, you're committing - in my perception - one of the worst kinds of betrayal imaginable.
These people <i>thought</i> they died for a good reason - but seeing the result, they did not. The carelessness of the Bush government betrayed their ultimate sacrifice. Show me something more cynical.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I agree, he's in a horrible situation he got himself, seeing that there was no kind of immediate initial agression on the side of Hussein, into needlessly. If you ask me, this is not a redeeming quality, either.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think getting rid of a dictator that was killing his own people and storing WMDs to attack the US was a good enough reason to remove him from power. I salute those who have faught for the cause, and hope they can return home soon. And I'm proud to finally have a president in the office that has a backbone!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are completely ignoring my point: That the act of capturing said dictator is empty, is meaningless, because it did not lead to any kind of improvement in the situation of the Iraqi people, nor saved America or really any other country from an immediate threat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And you never answered my question - what do you think he should do?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In short? Pull out and submit the area to UN jurisdiction (the vetoing members of the Security Council refused to send in Blue Helmets as long as the US claimed surpreme command). The Coalition forces are regarded as aggressors - they can't bring peace in such an environment.
If they bombed your home city to dust, walked in, cut your power, removed your water and made you wait for hours, or even days, for a tank of petrol for your car, in order to push their ideology down over your heads, would <b><u>you</b></u> embrace theri "freedom".
What you need to consider is that while our democratic system is, in our eyes, superior, in their eyes democracy is what bombed afghanistan to dust, reduced Iraq to rubble, walks down the streets of Bagdad carrying rifles, bulletproof vests, and a superior attitude, keeps sending weapons to the Israely occupants and might very well walk go on bombing another country as soon as they get a reason to. It takes little thinking to figure out why they hate us, because we can't exactly claim to have been nice to them.