Author Topic: Iraq War (Read 1489 times)

Gixer · « **Reply #60 on:** January 16, 2005, 04:12:12 PM »

Nuke,

Ever asked yourself why Bush is so obsessed with Iraq and it's intent to build WMD"s in 13 or 20 years when Iran is already putting warheads in 4,000km range missiles. Why wasn't Iran invaded first or N Korea for that matter? I would of thought N Korea is much more of a threat. But then again hardly an easy target like Iraq.

Iraq wasn't invaded on Intent. It was invaded on being a danager to the world with thousands of tons of WMD's to be used within minutes. Which evidance for before the war was flimsy at best, so it's hardly suprising that it's all turned into BS.

The arguments of, the WMD"s are there we just haven't found them yet. Is very poor. Even Bush has given up on that one yet some of you still bleat it out.

~~....-Gixer~~

NUKE · « **Reply #61 on:** January 16, 2005, 04:17:55 PM »

I never once said the war was about WMD, even before the war.

The threat that they may have had WMD is one reason. The main reason was that we had to put a huge force over there just to get Saddam to allow inpsections. And the UN could not be trusted to enforce their own resolutions.

I'd rather make sure, get rid of Saddam and get the job over with now than wait or hope that the UN would make Saddam compliant.

We did the logical thing to do given all of the cirmumstances. We had to make sure Saddam was gone, since he obviously could never be trusted.

The UN failed here. The UN failed to enforce anything. I'm sorry about that.

NUKE · « **Reply #62 on:** January 16, 2005, 04:22:11 PM »

Gixer, Iran was not ever a problem. That's why. The UN did not make resolutions against Iran or NK and demand inpections.

Are you saying that the US should act against Iran or NK even though they have attacked no one?

Your logic makes no sense to me.

On one hand, you are pissed that the US acted against Iraq, after Iraq agreed to a cease-fire and failed to keep the terms, spent 13 years ignoring the UN resolutions, then on the other hand you are asking why we are obsessed with Iraq?????

Iraq was a 13 year ordeal, not an obession. The UN was "obsessed " with Iraq .

Iran and NK are not the same, in any way.

You weakened your own point comparing them.

Gixer · « **Reply #63 on:** January 16, 2005, 04:47:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, Iran was not ever a problem. That's why. The UN did not make resolutions against Iran or NK and demand inpections.

Are you saying that the US should act against Iran or NK even though they have attacked no one?

Your logic makes no sense to me.

On one hand, you are pissed that the US acted against Iraq, after Iraq agreed to a cease-fire and failed to keep the terms, spent 13 years ignoring the UN resolutions, then on the other hand you are asking why we are obsessed with Iraq?????

Iraq was a 13 year ordeal, not an obession. The UN was "obsessed " with Iraq .

Iran and NK are not the same, in any way.

You weakened your own point comparing them.

Other then Kuwait who did Iraq attack? US on 9/11 LMAO

Iraq was dead and burried as a regional threat let alone a global one even Powell and Rice are quoted as saying that before 9/11 so why the sudden change in poilicy? Simply Bush always had it in for Iraq and saw it as an excuse to tie Iraq into his war on terror.

Sadam had to go, but invading the country to do it is extreme and comletely the wrong war.

Meanwhile 1500 plus troops are dead, 10,000 or more wounded. God knows how many 10,000's of Iraqi's. The whole middle east in the region is a mess with no end in site and muslims around the world hate the US and West even more as OBL makes more videos and plans his next attack enjoying all his new populatirty and resources.

Now add to those figures and all the other problems US military moral, cost etc. Just how long is the US willing to hack it out in Iraq? 3,4,10 years? And for what? Democracy in Iraq? Please that kind of country has too many tribes and factions it's impossible for it to br ruled by democracy no matter how many lifes the US takes and billions it spends. At best the US will finally decide to cut it's losses and run like in Vietnam and it will have a quick civil war and a leader will rise like in Iran.

~~...-Gixer~~

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #64 on:** January 16, 2005, 04:55:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
Meanwhile 1500 plus troops are dead...

Just some historical perspective, Gen. Pickett lost that many in the first few hundred yards.

NUKE · « **Reply #65 on:** January 16, 2005, 05:05:09 PM »

Gixer, the point was to get rid of Saddam and erase any threat he posed to the Middle East and to us.

You say Iraq "only" attacked Kuwait???? Do you even realise the threat Iraq posed in doing that? By the way, they attacked Iran and Israel too.

The UN told Iraq to get out of Kuwait and guess what? They didn'y listen to the UN. They listened only after the US put forces there.....after GB 1 said "this agression will not stand"

Saddam kicked inspectors out and ignored the cease fire agreements. We had every right and every concern to take action against a known threat.

What plan would you have followed? Keep in mind that Saddam never, ever cooperated with the UN except when he was confonted with force. Are you saying that you would rather the US didn't put a force there and instead just relied on the UN to try to get inspectors back into Iraq?

And, once we got rid of Saddam and his threat, the secondary goal was to establish a democracy and a stable government. What's wrong with that?

Democracy was not the goal, getting rid of Saddam was the goal.

NUKE · « **Reply #66 on:** January 16, 2005, 05:10:53 PM »

hey Gixer, you say democracy will never work in Iraq? Then what would you have done if the UN had decided to allow use of force in Iraq?

Would you just take out Saddam, then leave? Maybe you would install a dictator or king? Maybe you would devide up Iraq into several countries? What would you suggest should have been done should force been authorized by the UN?

What better job could have been done? The US is at least giving the Iraqis a chance to be a democracy.....and that's a lot more than you seem to be willing to allow.

Give me some alternatives.

Maybe you are the one believing the propoganda you have been fed. You don't seem to have a realistic view of the subject. Give us your ideas as to what should have been done.

Gixer · « **Reply #67 on:** January 16, 2005, 05:42:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just some historical perspective, Gen. Pickett lost that many in the first few hundred yards.

I wonder if Bush uses a stupid statement like that when he's talking to some kids parents.

~~...-Gixer~~

Gixer · « **Reply #68 on:** January 16, 2005, 05:52:15 PM »

Nuke,

Sadam wasn't a threat that's the whole point though Bush's BS seems to of convinced you that he was. Powell and co are quoted as saying that he was contained and not a threat before 9/11.

Don't forget Sadam was being supported by the US during half his reign and during his war with Iran and time that he gassed those Kurds. You seem to have a very selective memory of the guy, his actions and what the US was doing at that time as well.

~~...-Gixer~~

NUKE · « **Reply #69 on:** January 16, 2005, 05:57:21 PM »

Gixer, I wanted Saddam delt with way before Bush took office. You seem to be on this kick that Bush "fooled" everyone into thinking Iraq was a threat.

You dont get it.

The US spent a lot of money and manpower to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Saddam never complied with the cease fire agreements and presented a known threat. He had banned weapons, he did not disclose the accounting of his WMD.

I'm glad you could trust Saddam, but only a fool would have trusted him.

We took out Saddam and made sure he could not be a threat. What exactly is the problem?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #70 on:** January 16, 2005, 06:13:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gixer
I wonder if Bush uses a stupid statement like that when he's talking to some kids parents.

[sarcasm]No, I'm sure he's as myopic as you are.[/sarcasm]

I was just showing that by historical standards, casualties are extremely light. There were times in Viet Nam where 1,500 was only a few weeks tally. If you wish to believe that the casualties are heavy, then don't learn from history.

Steve · « **Reply #71 on:** January 17, 2005, 02:53:01 AM »

Quote

I was at Colleville yesterday , I need seriously to buy a numeric camera to post pictures here.

I'd sure like to see those.

Skydancer · « **Reply #72 on:** January 17, 2005, 06:18:38 AM »

If youn are going to spend all that money on millitary hardware yiou got to do something with it.

Thats why The US govt keeps looking for a new war. Keep the industrial millitary complex happy.

Of course all those troops that are in Iraq could be very usefull in the Indian ocean right now!!!! I think that would be a much better use of their time!

Canaris · « **Reply #73 on:** January 17, 2005, 06:40:37 AM »

There was no need for us to go to war with Iraq.

1. Hussein was not causing any problems to the rest of the world.

2. If we wanted to go to the war so much, we should of waited for UN help instead of practically going in by ourselves with a few other allies.

3. If we had UN help the war would of been over a lot sooner and less lives would have been lost.

4. Now Bush has a big head and wants to go after all these other countries.

Canaris