Bluemoon Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Iraq was not an enemy of the state. It was an enemy of the Bush family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Have to disagree with some of ya - Iraq needed to be taken down. There are things going on that the public doesn't know nor should know. I think Lynyrd Skynyrd has a song like that... There are things going on that you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The Iraqi regime under Suddam was at least predictable and' date=' to a degree, manageable. Toppling his regime was not the highest priority at that time. Alqaida and their Taliban supporters were and still are the priority. JMO[/quote']There's some merit to that, I agree Taliban = death from afar by the US military. These guys that wanna give Saddam a fxcking Nobel Peace Prize like Arafat got are the ones that kill me. Did they want to let him continue killing tens of thousands and funnel hundreds of millions into international terrorism? Chamberlain had a similar opinion of Hitler, as long as he was not riled up he wouldn't kill any Brits. Anybody else was dead meat, but surely he wouldn't kill any Brits..... Saddam started killing WAY before he ever took power in 1979, in 1980 he attacked Iran. Nearly a million dead there. As a diversionary exercise, he tested some gas on the Kurds - killing thousands of women and children. That wasn't a military objective, it was a fxcking TEST to ensure the viability of the WMD's he planned to use elsewhere. Two years later he's in Kuwait and lobbing missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. Until we pounded him in 1991, he was killing, plundering, stealing for 12 years unopposed. Think he was gonna listen to the UN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Iraq was not an enemy of the state. It was an enemy of the Bush family. I guess that the fact that Iraq sits on one of the largest supplies of oil, isn't important for the WORLD oil market... I guess the fact that EVERY major intelligence agency in the world said that he had WMD didn't matter... I guess the fact that he had already invaded Kuwait (another of the WORLD's oil suppliers didn't matter... I guess the fact that Sadaam was allowing Sunni terrorists to hole up in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion didn't matter... I guess the fact that Sadaam had already used WMDs against the Kurds and the Iranians didn't matter... I guess the fact that Sadaam continued to shoot at our planes in the no-fly zone, after he surrendered in Gulf 1 didn't matter... I guess the fact that Sadaam wouldn't let the UN completely inspect his WMD capabilities and "stockpiles", even though he'd agreed to when he surrendered in Gulf 1 wasn't important... I guess that opportunity to try and build a US ally on the border with Iran, in the middle of the WORLDs oil supply wasn't worth the risk... I guess that trying to stop Sadaam's rape of women and little girls and torture of innocent Kurds and Shias wasn't a worthwhile cause... I guess that trying to shake up the Middle East which has been a festering wound on the world wasn't worth a try... I guess that it's much easier to judge the actions of the President, after the fact, with no responsibility of your own for the issues. Remember, EVERYONE thought he had WMDs, 75 US senators voted to allow Bush to use force, a majority of the house voted the same way and the UN voted for force if Sadaam didn't disarm. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, etc. all said Sadaam had to go and in fact the Democratic congress under the Democratic President Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq the law of the land. Darfur is a tragedy...Ruanda was a tragedy...Liberia, the Congo, Angola and other parts of Africa, all tragedies. We should have done something about all of those places, but NO American president has done anything about Africa except W. Bush has spent more money in Africa than any other man on earth to try to bring some relief to those poor people. None of the governments of Empire have tried to help in Africa, even though Britain, Belgium, France and other European countries are at least partially responsible for the troubles there. Even if you didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq, you probably should have been rooting for OUR success there instead of rooting against the EVIL Bush. If we do succeed in Iraq, and thanks to our soldiers, Marines, Air Force, Navy and special forces and the Brits, Poles and a few others we might, then we will have shifted the balance of power in the Middle East. Bush gambled his entire presidency on Iraq and in spite of all of you liberal revisionists he might still prove to be right. My .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Darfur is a tragedy...Ruanda was a tragedy...Liberia' date=' the Congo, Angola and other parts of Africa, all tragedies. We should have done something about all of those places, but NO American president has done anything about Africa except W. Bush has spent more money in Africa than any other man on earth to try to bring some relief to those poor people. None of the governments of Empire have tried to help in Africa, even though Britain, Belgium, France and other European countries are at least partially responsible for the troubles there. [/quote']Gosh, somebody should help those poor people in Africa... What we need is a unilateral, multi-national body of peace-keepers to go in there and monitor things. Keep the Red Cross from getting blown up and robbed. Keep new water wells from being taken over by warlords. Keep weapons pouring onto the continent from former Soviet-Bloc nations. keep tabs on the health of the population and seek medical assistance when required on a large scale Keep humanitarian aid flowing to those most in need. Most importantly - enforce order and keep the peace with overwhelming military might if need be. It could be supported by donations from around the world, with member countries equally sharing the burden. Staffing and weaponry could be handled by all who participate. Heck, the United States could pay the Lion's share and sacrifice the most good soldiers for the effort. We could call it.... Hmmmmm..... How about The League Of Nations! No, too old fashioned.... Need something more modern, more unified, more politically correct. I got it - The United Nations! Yes, what a brilliant organization it would be! Tell Obama we must make it so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.