Author Topic: Tell me again how Iraq was the wrong war? (Read 2090 times)

-dead- · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2004, 02:38:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
apparently you dont remember them. or youre intentionally being naive. iraq was at war with iran who was sworn enemy of us. how dare we engage self declared enemy who stormed our embassy and took hostages by war-by-proxy. dont tell me you all of a sudden thing we should have attacked iran with us military forces and not aided iraq? in my opinion deliberately ignoring the way the world works and has always worked with regards to international relations so you can score political points in argument makes you look uneducated on the topics at hand.

Impassioned argument there, but it doesn't detract from my point - Saddam was a friend of the US while he was killing the Kurds.

You're merely attempting to justify that friendship with a genocidal maniac. And your statement prompts the question: why was Iran your sworn enemy? Why did they storm your embassy? Why was the US persona non grata in Iran? I recall something about the US installing and propping up a dictator there. But I'm sure that reprehensible act was justified, too.

So because of that justified friendship with a dictator, the US is then justified in propping up another corrupt dictator in Iraq, aiding him by giving him WMDs and the intelligence to use them, and covering up for his occasional attempts at genocide by holding the official view at the time that it was the Iranians that bombed Halabja, not Saddam.

No blame: all countries do despicable stuff in the name of National security/interest. But if you argue this you have to accept that you're really arguing the point that human rights and prevention of genocide are not really priorites for the US. So any improvement in human rights for Iraqis is merely collateral benefit: tragic, but unavoidable progress that sometimes happens in the heat of war.

Either that or you're being intentionally naive.

Dowding · « **Reply #31 on:** October 13, 2004, 02:39:23 PM »

Game, set and match.

Elfie · « **Reply #32 on:** October 13, 2004, 02:58:21 PM »

Dead, the US never gave Iraq any WMD's. There have been other threads that discussed that issue already.

*edit* The Halabja massacre is still hotly debated on who actually used the chemical weapons there. Each side claims to have proof. I guess each of us decides for ourselves who to believe on this issue.

anonymous · « **Reply #33 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:10:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Game, set and match.

i think you missed a fault or two.

anonymous · « **Reply #34 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:17:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -dead-
Impassioned argument there, but it doesn't detract from my point - Saddam was a friend of the US while he was killing the Kurds.

You're merely attempting to justify that friendship with a genocidal maniac. And your statement prompts the question: why was Iran your sworn enemy? Why did they storm your embassy? Why was the US persona non grata in Iran? I recall something about the US installing and propping up a dictator there. But I'm sure that reprehensible act was justified, too.

So because of that justified friendship with a dictator, the US is then justified in propping up another corrupt dictator in Iraq, aiding him by giving him WMDs and the intelligence to use them, and covering up for his occasional attempts at genocide by holding the official view at the time that it was the Iranians that bombed Halabja, not Saddam.

No blame: all countries do despicable stuff in the name of National security/interest. But if you argue this you have to accept that you're really arguing the point that human rights and prevention of genocide are not really priorites for the US. So any improvement in human rights for Iraqis is merely collateral benefit: tragic, but unavoidable progress that sometimes happens in the heat of war.

Either that or you're being intentionally naive.

friendship is a little strong as far as terminology goes. we helped him with military equipment. so did several other major nations all of whom didnt want to see "crazy iran" the number one power in the middle east and adjacent to the persian gulf and its oil fields. i dont see you mentioning anyone but the us here. that shows how little you know about the situation. you see a picture of current secdef on moveon.org and thats all you need to know before you march off to chant the party line. you say human rights is a collateral benefit then you are ignoring that us has sacrificed more for others human rights than any other nation. even if you were right and it was only collateral effect it doesnt make the super lefties who cant admit that world is better with hussein gone any less stupid. and so i have it clearly are you saying that the leaders of revolution to oust the shah were somehow more deserving to be leaders of iran than shahs regime was? if they were really a "peoples movement" then why were so many iranians so eager to flee to us in aftermath of revolution? i dont think your heros are all that heroic.

your comments about providing with iraq with "wmd" show youre cliffs notes views on world history.

Elfie · « **Reply #35 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:20:05 PM »

Boroda it appears that the administration attempted to intervene in the case of Akhmadov's request for asylum. Appeal was denied, so the Boston immigration court's ruling stands. In your post you sound like the US welcomed him with open arms. That doesnt appear to be the case from the link you gave us.

Nefarious · « **Reply #36 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:24:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
apparently you dont remember them. or youre intentionally being naive. iraq was at war with iran who was sworn enemy of us.

Sworn Enemy?

I wonder where they got those F-14s from?

I think our Diplomatic Goal for the Middle East then was to help them kill each other the quickest way possible.

Elfie · « **Reply #37 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:31:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nefarious
Sworn Enemy?

I wonder where they got those F-14s from?

I think our Diplomatic Goal for the Middle East then was to help them kill each other the quickest way possible.

Iran was sold F-14's during the Shah's regime. Although the Iran-Contra scandal showed that the US was still in fact supplying spare parts for those F-14's while at the same time supporting Iraq in that war.

anonymous · « **Reply #38 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:31:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nefarious
Sworn Enemy?

I wonder where they got those F-14s from?

I think our Diplomatic Goal for the Middle East then was to help them kill each other the quickest way possible.

the f14s were given to govt of shah. sworn enemy of us was iranian revolutionary leaders. they inherited military equipment of shahs iranian military. and goal was to keep oil source as secure and stable as possible.

midnight Target · « **Reply #39 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:39:18 PM »

Amazing how they left out the fact that those bodies were likely buried in '88 or '89.

vorticon · « **Reply #40 on:** October 13, 2004, 03:49:06 PM »

blasted flip floppers.

one minute there insisting that people accept there mistakes and move to correct them.

the next minute there b*ing about saddam and how we were "friends" with them 20 years ago, and using it as ammo against the current war.

anonymous · « **Reply #41 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:01:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Amazing how they left out the fact that those bodies were likely buried in '88 or '89.

that could be true. and plenty more in those years who got buried by family not in mass grave. but also same guy responsible should have been removed way sooner. cant and wont blame clinton for not dropping the hammer in mid 90s always more than cic responsible for making that kind of call. i just hope that next time situation like that comes up we and others pull the trigger sooner than later.

DoctorYO · « **Reply #42 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:04:10 PM »

Quote

Face it, Bush was either dishonest or incompetent by insisting Iraq was a threat to the US.

i have to concur with this statement.. if the real reason for this war was to get rid of Saddam why not just have open discussion with the world that he has to go.. Explain your reasons and your case in open forum and garner the respect and admiration that comes with such..

We do the exact opposite.. we shun the world and preump a war under false pretences undermining our credibility and our response for future world conflict..

As MZ said either lies or incompetence; I will let the american public choose which is worse...

And note that while the end at one time may justify the means, my personal opinion on Iraq is that its a cluster ****. Do your history as soon as we leave get ready for 4 way battle royal between sunni, shia, Kurds, and others (christians)...

My money is on the kurds.. place your bets..

Utter incompetence across the board. No stability in the power vacuum, hypocrisy and freaking savage treatment of the arab world.. Lets not forget nuclear prolif.. wtf......

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1013/p06s01-woiq.html

Some may say who cares.. If your fighting a so called global war on terror you need friends who are willing to help you both logistically and intelligence wise.. forming pyramids of naked flesh and mass doesn't earn their respect.. Also consider that most of these terrorists are Arab you would think that garnering Arab support would be key in undermining this wasabi extremism..

Our current admin is doing the exact opposite.. make your own deductions as to why..

The truth on Iraq is trickling out one report at a time and the current admin has its work cut out for it if it thinks they can continue to try the hide the facts in the information age / Internet..

heres a small taste ..

http://www.sftt.org you can read about the general who pads his hooch up with sandbags/barriers while his troops are sucking mortar shrapnel on a daily basis.. Then threatens anyone with critical infomation of his command with carreer stagnation "Army of one" hits pretty close to his character..

Weak leadership is a direct reflection all the way up the chain of command.. all the way to the top.. And accountability is key for a stong America. Not he said, she said..

DoctorYo

anonymous · « **Reply #43 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:22:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoctorYO
http://www.sftt.org you can read about the general who pads his hooch up with sandbags/barriers while his troops are sucking mortar shrapnel on a daily basis.. Then threatens anyone with critical infomation of his command with carreer stagnation "Army of one" hits pretty close to his character..

Weak leadership is a direct reflection all the way up the chain of command.. all the way to the top.. And accountability is key for a stong America. Not he said, she said..

DoctorYo

sure theres bad leaders in military. in combat unit they exception not the norm. been getting better all the time as far as ratios go since afghanistan. and sftt has some good stuff and some bs just like everyplace else. you say weak leadership up chain of command i say you dont know what youre talking about.

anonymous · « **Reply #44 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:23:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoctorYO
i have to concur with this statement.. if the real reason for this war was to get rid of Saddam why not just have open discussion with the world that he has to go.. Explain your reasons and your case in open forum and garner the respect and admiration that comes with such..

We do the exact opposite.. we shun the world and preump a war under false pretences undermining our credibility and our response for future world conflict..

As MZ said either lies or incompetence; I will let the american public choose which is worse...

And note that while the end at one time may justify the means, my personal opinion on Iraq is that its a cluster ****. Do your history as soon as we leave get ready for 4 way battle royal between sunni, shia, Kurds, and others (christians)...

My money is on the kurds.. place your bets..

Utter incompetence across the board. No stability in the power vacuum, hypocrisy and freaking savage treatment of the arab world.. Lets not forget nuclear prolif.. wtf......

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1013/p06s01-woiq.html

Some may say who cares.. If your fighting a so called global war on terror you need friends who are willing to help you both logistically and intelligence wise.. forming pyramids of naked flesh and mass doesn't earn their respect.. Also consider that most of these terrorists are Arab you would think that garnering Arab support would be key in undermining this wasabi extremism..

Our current admin is doing the exact opposite.. make your own deductions as to why..

The truth on Iraq is trickling out one report at a time and the current admin has its work cut out for it if it thinks they can continue to try the hide the facts in the information age / Internet..

heres a small taste ..

http://www.sftt.org you can read about the general who pads his hooch up with sandbags/barriers while his troops are sucking mortar shrapnel on a daily basis.. Then threatens anyone with critical infomation of his command with carreer stagnation "Army of one" hits pretty close to his character..

Weak leadership is a direct reflection all the way up the chain of command.. all the way to the top.. And accountability is key for a stong America. Not he said, she said..

DoctorYo

youre not really up on current events much are you? iraqis going after arab foreigner insurgent in iraq and labeling them terrorist. i say your predictions are way off.