Tell me again how Iraq was the wrong war?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

our intelligence never reported expected casualties among coalition forces from chem and bio attack that were anywhere near the expected casualties from seoul population in first hour of any conflict with north korea.

I never compared the amount of loss. I know it won't be the same. We started at the bottom rung of our enemies list.

i could answer you by saying well go into africa when theyve been under un sanction for a decade and shooting sam at our aircraft for decade.

Wait, this thread is about justification of the Iraq war because of the massacre of Iraqis. Not about UN sanctions or SAMs. If the massacring of a country's population by their government is to be used as reasons for war, THEN the countries I listed come into play.

you say "we dont care" about people of africa because we killing terrorist cell instead of invading country.

There was no 'we' in my statement. Terrorists are only one part of the equation. I clearly stated warlords/dictators as the problem.
-SW

[john9001]

amazing, the anti iraq war people always ask why we don't invade north korea,iran,syria, africa, etc , etc all at the same time , ...what, the iraq war is too small for you ?

 did you want a bigger war?  how can you be "anti-war" and want a bigger war?


blah blah blah ..too big , too small , too hot , too cold, too tall, too short, blah blah blah it's not iraq that you cry about, it's america...america too much blah blah, america not enough blah blah.


you just can't stand the fact that a country only 200 years old is better and has done more in only 200 years than your countrys have done in 2000 years

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by anonymous
yes you were. "Rhetorical question. Saddam's WMDs were reported as capable of taking out initial frontline coalition forces. We still went in."

you were comparing expected losses from iraqi special weapons to threat posed to seoul when i pointed out that situations were different.

Okay, we will be in this situation for a while if you keep insisting that's what I said.

North Korea's capabilities are/were well known. Cause to pause.

Saddam's capabilities were well known, to be later found out as not well known at all, and we went in.

I was only comparing the 'well known' intial losses in terms of expected loss. Not numbers, just the fact it existed.
-SW

[Gh0stFT]

Tell me again how Iraq was the wrong war?

...not wrong, it was stupid.
Its one thing to start a war, but a different Story to finish a war,
especialy a war based on speculations.

R
Gh0stFT

[anonymous]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Okay, we will be in this situation for a while if you keep insisting that's what I said.

North Korea's capabilities are/were well known. Cause to pause.

Saddam's capabilities were well known, to be later found out as not well known at all, and we went in.

I was only comparing the 'well known' intial losses in terms of expected loss. Not numbers, just the fact it existed.
-SW

if sadaam had the ability to destroy tel aviv with special weapon and special preemption could not remove that ability the decision to attack iraq would have been much harder. part of reasoning for iraq was hussein is someone if he get that capability he will use it as threat and be much bigger problem. report of bio and chem weapons bad but he only had ability to reliably hit coalition military force with these weapon. losses from these weapons against troop prepared for attack not great. these weapon not intended to kill combat troop prepared for this type attack. meant to be fired at supply hub air base staging area and force all activity in those area to be conducted in nbc gear and thus reduce effectiveness of supply and logistics. chem worked good against iran and kurd because they had no training and no countermeasure. im saying threat of special weapon against coalition troop was nowhere near simulated and predicted carnage of attack on north korea. look at africa we send same military force to africa that we have in iraq-to hit what? right now biggest trouble makers in africa are in form best handled by special operations. cuba could be invaded but the slaughter in iraq by sadaam hasnt been going on in cuba for some time. still people being tortured but nowhere near the numbers of iraq. and castro looking much rougher than hussein. you mention iran and syria but not that simple. leader of syria caught between his own extremist miliitary elements and not wanting to get rolled by us. iran could be next in line if they push for nuke and dont listen safe bet something will be done to them before they get a couple of nuke and way to deploy them. if this whole argument over "we went to iraq only to save iraqi some say" then this huge mistake i dont agree with that reasoning and you dont either. but if some dictator slaughtering his own people it does weigh into decision with us. we went to kosovo and helped in bosnia with other nation for those reasons alone. intervened in haiti for similar reason. if castro and one third of cubans were opressing killing terrorizing other two thirds of population i think its a safe bet cuba would be "handled" differently than it has. my call would be every civilized power should hammer a despot the minute he shows his face and his true colors. only way you going to call things down worldwide is to do that for fifty years straight. it has to be known by every "up and coming" hussein pol pot hitler that the second he starts with the brutality all of europe russia america uk going to kick his skull in before next tuesday. if that becomes a certainty over the course of fifty years of examples id say the world is better off. certainly not worse off.

[Thrawn]

Ya know anonymous, from the little I've read of your posts I think you might have something interesting to say from time to time.  But there is no way in heck I'm going to read a Wall-o-Lower-Case-Minimal-Punctuation-and-No-Paragraphing, like that one.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by anonymous
ouch. lazs2 with a perfectly timed counterpunch left hook to the jaw coming up off the left bob.

you mean left boob..

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

We're pretty much in agreement in the respect of a country getting the ability to destroy a neighboring country EDIT: and the intent, should they get the capability or are seeking it. Same with killing their own country's population. Although, for the latter, it would be better - as you mentioned - to get more country's on the same page with regards to that aspect (well, both really)

My whole problem with Iraq in regards to the will to destroy a neighbor should they get the weapons, is that we were led into this war with the statement that Iraq did indeed have that capability at the present. For the record, I was for the Iraq war concerning the information supplied that they did indeed have weapons capable of that nature. We were  decieved big time on that issue.

The original post I made about those other countries had to do with the recent rash of attempts to justify the Iraq war with the massacre of the country's inhabitants. If we are going to do one country for that, I think we should do them all... I'd prefer to not do any though because I have to weigh the American lives lost vs another populace unwilling to stand up for their lives. My opinion naturally.
-SW

[Silat]

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

Ummmm:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Elfie
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.

The 1994 Senate Banking Committee report, as well as a follow-up letter from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, verifying the U.S. transfer to Iraq of germs and bioagents such as anthrax, botulism toxin, gas gangrene, and other pathogens, including West Nile virus.

It's a matter of public record, lookup the report for yourself. I've seen the actual invoice, quite remarkable what one can purchase for a mere $2000 from the CDC.

As for Halabja, it was the Iranians who called in the UN and Humanitarian groups, they verified through eyewitness accounts who the perpetrators were.

Disinformation from the CIA was levied in an effort to help Reagan squash "The Prevention of Genocide Act" which was in the house at the time. It would be rather hard for Reagan to give Saddam more billions in loans, if it was reported that he was using WMD for the genocide of his own people.

So it goes, four months after Halabja Reagan did give Saddam another billion in loans. At this point trade between Iraq and the US was at an all time high.

The whole thing stinks....

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by SirLoin
It was wrong to go to war in Iraq.

How can any of you really just forget this kind of stuff and still sleep at night out of fear of being wrong?

[FUNKED1]

Amazing how people will argue with BTDT types about something they only know about from TV or a hippie website.

[Nash]

You think BTDT types are bad?

Try WDFS types... Or just watch the spittle fly when talking to an AVGTHF type.

The KJVGHFDTSDF types? Fahgetaboudit.

[Nash]

Wait! I think I got it.... "Been there done that?"

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe


My whole problem with Iraq in regards to the will to destroy a neighbor should they get the weapons, is that we were led into this war with the statement that Iraq did indeed have that capability at the present. For the record, I was for the Iraq war concerning the information supplied that they did indeed have weapons capable of that nature. We were  decieved big time on that issue.


-SW

Who were you deceived by?
And Please don't say Bush.

Fact of the matter is the majority of this Gov. Both Dems and Reps based on the information they had believed Saddam had WMDs

Were they mis informed? Faulty Intel? obviously now yes.
But Hindsight is always 20/20

I for one was in favor of the war also.
Im still in favor of the war because I believe it was the right thing to do.
Diplomacy after 10+ years was not working and we now know the sanctions were falling apart

Far as I'm concerned Genocide is a legit reason to go in also As the saying goes "all that's needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing"

So yea I would be in favor of going after countries that do similar atrocities
because its another sovereign country is not an excuse to allow the slaughter large portions of its population

Back to Iraq.
Far as I'm concerned Iraq conducted an act of war with the assassination attempt on Bush, Sr.
And for that reason alone I would have been in favor of going in

But there are other considerations
There is no question Saddam Even if he didn't have them, desired WMD's including Nuclear weapons.
It is now evident that the sanctions were falling apart and it was only a matter of time they would have been lifted altogether due to lack of support.
With the lifting of the sanctions which would undoubtedly include the cessation of the no fly Zone and withdrawal of our forces And would leave us with nothing more then a policy of containment and eventually a situation much like we currently have in North Korea.

 I personally would rather not see that mistake made again particularly in the case of someone who in the past has shown has no reservations whatsoever about using whatever weapons he has at his disposal including WMDs

Now I've heard several people ask "Well if you go after Saddam why not go after Iran and NK?"
There is a good reason for that.
NK and Iran hasn't shown a particular disposition to USING WMDs. Saddam has and without hesitation.

 There is also the possibility that diplomacy might work with either of the two where it became more then obvious that after 10+ years diplomacy with Saddam wasn't working

 So really for me it was a deal with him now or deal with him later situation.

I'd rather deal with him now