Trying to pull the statue of Saddam down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by dirtydog
I can't believe anyone thinks this war was about liberating the Iraqi people.. although that is how it's currently being presented.

If it was about liberating Iraq, why all the crap about WMDs.. why did Blair say only a few months ago that Saddam could stay in power if he disarmed.. why didn't America invade to remove Saddam years ago, why wait till now?

When Saddam was doing the US's bidding, they didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people's plight, why the sudden concern?

Why does the US and Britain support other countries with equally bad human rights records, and even arm them - why aren't we invading those countries to liberate them?

Yes, anyone who thinks Bush cares about the Iraqi people or that we invaded to liberate them, is deluding themselves.
Click to expand...


I dont think anyone thinks its purely about liberating the Iraqi people its part of why the coalition went to war. You cannot possibly attribute the reasons to one issue.

Yet again your single track anti US mind weakens your argument.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by dirtydog
I can't believe anyone thinks this war was about liberating the Iraqi people.. although that is how it's currently being presented.

If it was about liberating Iraq, why all the crap about WMDs.. why did Blair say only a few months ago that Saddam could stay in power if he disarmed.. why didn't America invade to remove Saddam years ago, why wait till now?

When Saddam was doing the US's bidding, they didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people's plight, why the sudden concern?

Why does the US and Britain support other countries with equally bad human rights records, and even arm them - why aren't we invading those countries to liberate them?

Yes, anyone who thinks Bush cares about the Iraqi people or that we invaded to liberate them, is deluding themselves.
Click to expand...

Anti USA hatred, sir. You're looking for excuses to present your case. Look at the Iraqis. Are they smiling or solemn? Are they throwing flowers at our troops or grenades? I let history speak for itself. Iraq will emerge a prosperous nation as a result of this "illegal" war.
 
Jeeez you are cynical Dirtydog.

Once again, your hatred for the US is clouding your judgement and you are once again calling people naive for having an open mind.

IMO, you are the naive one, for believing that there is only ONE reason for this war, and that the US/UK care nothing for the Iraqi people etc etc. Oh, and for beleiving that everything you say is true, you dont put your opinion across, you try to make your opinion fact.
 
Originally posted by Chrisp7
I dont think anyone thinks its purely about liberating the Itaqi people its part of why the coalition went to war.
Click to expand...

If Iraq wasn't of strategic and economic interest to the US, the Iraqi people would still be suffering Saddam today, just as other people around the world are suffering under similar regimes as we speak. Most of us would never have heard of what goes on in Iraq, like most of us are unaware or only dimly aware of what goes on in numerous other countries with similar regimes.
 
Originally posted by MindYerBeak
Anti USA hatred, sir. You're looking for excuses to present your case. Look at the Iraqis. Are they smiling or solemn? Are they throwing flowers at our troops or grenades? I let history speak for itself. Iraq will emerge a prosperous nation as a result of this "illegal" war.
Click to expand...

How does the fact that the Iraqis are pleased to see the end of Saddam and welcome the US as liberators, disprove my argument about what the invasion was actually about?
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
If Iraq wasn't of strategic and economic interest to the US, the Iraqi people would still be suffering Saddam today, just as other people around the world are suffering under similar regimes as we speak. Most of us would never have heard of what goes on in Iraq, like most of us are unaware or only dimly aware of what goes on in numerous other countries with similar regimes.
Click to expand...

Complete rubbish, you said this about 3 weeks ago (last time you had an Anti USA rant), and were shown to be completely wrong.
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
If Iraq wasn't of strategic and economic interest to the US, the Iraqi people would still be suffering Saddam today, just as other people around the world are suffering under similar regimes as we speak. Most of us would never have heard of what goes on in Iraq, like most of us are unaware or only dimly aware of what goes on in numerous other countries with similar regimes.
Click to expand...

Who's to say Iraq is the last to feel our metal boot? Perhaps other countries have already been earmarked for freedom. It can't be denied that the Middle East is now a more stable and peaceful nation. If that benefits us also then so much the better, Why should we live in fear of the Middle East and their cowardly terrorists?
 
Maybe we should just be glad that tonight their are 1000's of people with more chance of happy future than there were last night.. I'm sure its not all gonna be a bed of roses but purely from the human angle its got to be a good thing..

Just out of intrestest in anybody knows, how many middle eastern countries are actually democratic, the only one I can think of is Israel ?

HEADRAT
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by HEADRAT
Maybe we should just be glad that tonight their are 1000's of people with more chance of happy future than there were last night.. I'm sure its not all gonna be a bed of roses but from a purely from the human angle its got to be a good thing..

HEADRAT
Click to expand...

thumbs up to that!
icon14.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by dirtydog
Why does the US and Britain support other countries with equally bad human rights records, and even arm them - why aren't we invading those countries to liberate them?
Click to expand...
Oh yes, there's something like fourteen countries on the list. Let's invade them all - at the same time. Yeh - sure :rolleyes: This argument about why invade/liberate just one country is wearing pretty thin. And whilst some countries still have pretty awful human rights records, I think that people can now see that the former-Iraqi regime stood head and shoulders above the rest. They made the former police states of Eastern Europe appear like Disney theme parks. The Iraqi Regime was based upon the communist style of overbearing state repression with an injection of terror beyond what can be readily comprehended by most westerners.
 
Originally posted by 2blue4u
Oh yes, there's something like fourteen countries on the list. Let's invade them all - at the same time. Yeh - sure :rolleyes: This argument about why invade/liberate just one country is wearing pretty thin. And whilst some countries still have pretty awful human rights records, I think that people can now see that the former-Iraqi regime stood head and shoulders above the rest. They made the former police states of Eastern Europe appear like Disney theme parks. The Iraqi Regime was based upon the communist style of overbearing state repression with an injection of terror beyond what can be readily comprehended by most westerners.
Click to expand...

Soddem styled himself upon Stalin, hence the petrol ditches set alight (BaghdadGrad). He had a libary the size of Asia devoted entirely to Stalin.
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
If Iraq wasn't of strategic and economic interest to the US, the Iraqi people would still be suffering Saddam today, just as other people around the world are suffering under similar regimes as we speak. Most of us would never have heard of what goes on in Iraq, like most of us are unaware or only dimly aware of what goes on in numerous other countries with similar regimes.
Click to expand...

So is it not better that at least some people are liberated from suffering, than none at all? I will agree that the US taking action in some countries and not others is somewhat hypocritical, but if their action makes lives for people in these countries (those with economical or strategic importance) better, then isn't that a good thing anyway, regardless of any other motives?

I know this hasn't been the case everywhere the US has intervened, that they have made things better for the people (though a fair few cases of US-led intervention has improved things for those it seeks to help, in Bosnia, Kosovo, by the way what strategic importance was there for US intervention in Kosovo?, Kuwait, taken back for Saddam in 1991, Afghanistan, which is a more free country for those who choose to take advantage of it, and I feel in time it will improve).

I feel that for iraq, what will be brought about after this war has to be better than just letting them carry on under Saddam.
 
Yep, hopefully Syria will be next, then Iran maybe, while the troops are there 'n' all seems a shame to waste them... :D

Like said earlier, theres got to be some confusion in the hardline Islamic states where the 'infidel' is being welcomed with open arms....how do they explain that one....

ie.. The Great Satan is still evil!!! (But your neighbours dont seem to think so...)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by 2blue4u
Oh yes, there's something like fourteen countries on the list. Let's invade them all - at the same time. Yeh - sure :rolleyes: This argument about why invade/liberate just one country is wearing pretty thin. And whilst some countries still have pretty awful human rights records, I think that people can now see that the former-Iraqi regime stood head and shoulders above the rest. They made the former police states of Eastern Europe appear like Disney theme parks. The Iraqi Regime was based upon the communist style of overbearing state repression with an injection of terror beyond what can be readily comprehended by most westerners.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that liberating the Iraqis is bad, I am pointing out what I think are the clear motives for the invasion, and liberation was not number one, if it was anywhere on the list at all. There is overwhelming evidence to support my belief that the US doesn't care about suffering people if it's not in their interest. Just look at their track record. And ours.

When we spend billions to liberate other countries which have no oil or strategic / economic importance, I will eat my words.
 
Originally posted by Will
So is it not better that at least some people are liberated from suffering, than none at all? I will agree that the US taking action in some countries and not others is somewhat hypocritical, but if their action makes lives for people in these countries (those with economical or strategic importance) better, then isn't that a good thing anyway, regardless of any other motives?
Click to expand...

Yes, I can't argue with that.
 
Kosovo or Bosnia? Explain the strategic or economic importance of those two please...

East Timor? (UN led, with a lot of British help, or does such criticism only apply to the US in your eyes?)

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom