There are other sides to this, like removing dangerous regime from power. But Jesus man, thousands are dead due to a falsified agenda and you're citing left wing politics, what a horrible person you must be.
B@
More proof the War on Iraq was a lie?
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
B@
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Yea, I can see how that might be an issue in yet another 'The governments are a conspiracy' thread.
They may well have done so, however as with other regimes nepotist transfer of power often is a destabilising factor, one which Iran, and other militant-political groups such as Al Qaeda are well versed at taking advantage of. Also they are often accompanied by a significant increase in brutality and ambition in an attempt to consolidate their power, this would cause grave concern to Israel, Kuwait, Saudi and even Iran and Syria, thus destabilising the region further.
The general feeling amongst all Western and UN commanders and Analysts is that once the inspections had come to a close and the monitoring had subsided and/or finished that Saddam would have simply restarted the programs. It is not like he had not done so before.
He was also not only responsible for suppressing the Kurds, Shia populations borne the brunt of his ire as well, and they make up a significant proportion of the Iraqi population and that doesn't include the other minority groups such as Assyrians, Mandeans and Jews who were also targeted in his genocidal campaigns against the Kurds.
Saddam was not to be trusted, as borne out by past history. The truth is that it was easier to remove him than monitor and deal with him, if the Bush Administration had not been so incompetent and someone had removed Rumsfeld prior to the conflict then we wouldn't be having this discussion in all likelihood.
You may well be right, however we have Libya to look to now and see if they can create a viable democratic system in a country and culture that has never seen one. That may offer insight into whether Iraq can or will become a stable democratic state.
I am not so sure.
To be fair the US had an agenda to force Regime Change in Iraq since 1998. They even passed a law stating it as policy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Well, no, Gaddafi is being hunted down to be tried and I assume, executed, Blair is off "teaching" people, giving talks and still effecting the Labour party and politics in general when he really is guilty of war crimes.
IF you don't learn from the past, , yada yada yada, just wait for the next time we spend billions(trillions?) on another war that should never happen, where 10k's or 100k's of people are killed, mostly on the other side, for no motivation but money.
namby-pamby peace campaigners. I'm happy for our army to go in and prevent genocide, kill people, saving others, but am absolutely against invading countries for oil and self interest. Theres nothing namby pamby about being against murder, because for the most part what we've done in Iraq is murder.
Its by going into illegal wars, and sticking our noses where they don't belong that we CREATE hatred, we encourage terrorism and teach people that killing people, war, is best, easiest option, that doesn't make it the right option.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
THats not being fair, thats fine, I agree with that, we COULD have assasinated him, and his family, but we went to WAR and killed lots of other people who often were forced to fight, or merely fighting for their homes.
The problem is, this wasn't stated as the reason for war, had it been, many people would be fine with it, the US and UK didn't think regime change was a strong enough reason, so they lied, simple as that.
Good post but most people won't care m8, its the age of immorality.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
This was always just about the petrodollar and nothing else.
Saddam starts trading oil for food/euros, he loses his country and gets hanged.
Iran start going on about an oil bourse, suddenly they're worse than Hitler.
Iran quietens down about the oil bourse, all the bad noise stops.
Whoever has the balls to switch to trading their oil for anything other than US dollars, and a few nukes up their sleeve to ensure there's no "pre emptive WMD regime change/operation star spangled david hasselhoff/whatever", has the power to basically cripple the US economy, or at least did about 5 years ago.
Saddam starts trading oil for food/euros, he loses his country and gets hanged.
Iran start going on about an oil bourse, suddenly they're worse than Hitler.
Iran quietens down about the oil bourse, all the bad noise stops.
Whoever has the balls to switch to trading their oil for anything other than US dollars, and a few nukes up their sleeve to ensure there's no "pre emptive WMD regime change/operation star spangled david hasselhoff/whatever", has the power to basically cripple the US economy, or at least did about 5 years ago.
Last edited:
They do, but we had to have it in CAPS just in case
Regime change was the precise reason stated for war. The reasons why regime change was necessary is what people are arguing about. Too much emphasis is put on WMDs, by the administrations at the time and now the critics of their policies today, WMDs were not the only reason to remove Saddam, and that was what the war was about, removing Saddam Hussein not exclusively removing WMDs.
Saddam Hussein did not plan or participate in the attack on the World Trade Centre.
notsureifserious.jpg
How can you be so sure
How can you be so sure
Show us the evidence that suggests otherwise and I will gladly consider it.