Jump to content

I`m Puzzled,can You Explain?


keekaa

Recommended Posts

When the russian army invaded afganistan,the people who fought and killed the russians were regarded as freedom fighters by the U.S. and supplied with weapons ect,

 

when the u.s.a. invaded afganistan and iraq the people who fight are regarded as terrorists,granted that afganistan may have a hand in 9/11 i have to conceed you may be on firm ground in afganistan.

 

But what did iraq do ? Isuppose it must be all the WMD that they threatened to use!!!!!. itSEEMS THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS SLOWLY DYING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Saddam killed millions in his war with Iran, three hundred thousand of his own people afterwards and then invaded Kuwait. Nasty chap. He never deserved the protection given him by other countries , for their own financial ends, nor from the US Democrats, for their own political ends. Bye, bye, Saddam. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afghanistan had a hand in 9/11, it wasn't a maybe thing they did.

 

As far as Iraq goes we KNOW he had Weapons of Mass destruction...For all of those saying he didn't what do you think he used to gas Iran and the Kurds with? Checmical weapons are banned weapons and considered weapons of mass destruction. The problem is they are easily destroyed or hidden or easy to remove.

 

He fought along war with Iran, using checmical and possibly even biological weapons on them, he gassed his own people (the Kurds), He invaded another country (Kuwait) and attempted to occupy them, he ordered the burning of countless oil wells, he has fired scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia...

 

Yeah he is a great guy and Bush is the bad man here. Why the rush to defend this man. This year, Iraqi children went to school with new schools and new books. The people over there are able to speak up and voice opinions, they are more free now then they have been and things will get better for them.

 

Saddam Huessain was a mad man, he had the motive and soon the means to be a very dangerous person in that area of the world and abroad, best to get rid of him now while we were able.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is full of mad men and bad men. The United states cannot attack and remove them all. As far as I know we never said we were attacking and removing bad/mad men. We were supposed to be make the world safer by removing WMD. Apparently that had already been done. It follows that we had no reason then and reframing the argument now does not justify our attack.

 

We were justified in attacking to destroy weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had them before. I think we are all in a greement there. It is less clear and increasingly likely that he did not have them at the time of the attack. More importantly it seems that he was willing to allow open access to his country to demonstrate that he had no WMD. So how can we justify attacking him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One interpretation of Ike's photo, is two Iraqi civilians going to their house after being bombed by the US to see if any of their wives or children are still alive .....!

 

Saddam gassed them

 

The US /UK bombed them

 

..........................Not really much different from the point of view of the survivors ...

 

Dead ....

 

Noticeable that the US are not even keeping count of the civilian deaths , Inconvenient I guess ...!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

The world is full of mad men and bad men. The United states cannot attack and remove them all. As far as I know we never said we were attacking and removing bad/mad men. We were supposed to be make the world safer by removing WMD.

The purpose of those wars was simple...stabilize the Middle East. Yes, oil had a play in it. The world needs a stable oil supply to exist.

 

The reconstruction of Afganistan and Iraq and the establishment of a democratic government will not be done overnight. How much money and how long did it take to stabilize Germany and Japan after WWII?

 

We can fight the terrorists with our trained military on their soil or have the war come to us once again. It seems like a pretty easy choice to make.

 

But pull out now and the terrorists win.

 

We are in this for the long haul. GWB was up front with that fact from day one.

 

Did that fact escape you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

What amazes me is that there are people who still think Saddam did not have WMD. Incredible! :mrsgreen:

WOMD.....nothing more than a political football. :angry:

 

All the leading democrats thought he had them. Saddam admitted to having them. The UN knew he had them.

 

But in the end the WOMD were just a reason to go in....the real purpose of the war, as I explained earlier, was to stabilize the region and the oil supplies.

 

We were able to wipe out a dictator, eliminate the murder and torture of the citizens of Afganistan and Iraq, eliminate terrorist training camps and reduce the probability of another 9-11 along the way. :P

 

What reasonable person can argue against that?

 

PS, remember, I said reasonable. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stabilize the Middle East? By attacking a government that was contained? By giving Iran another excuse to develop nuclear weapons? By tying up our military in Iraq? By further inflaming militant muslim sentiment? By using Iraq as bait to lure terrorists to kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? By aggrevating the Isreal - Palestine situation? By driving away former allies? By being liable for accusations of stealing middle eastern oil?

 

Please explain how any of this stabilizes the middle east?

 

Decreasing the terrorist threat to the United sates! That is laughable. Fewer than 20 people in the US caused 9-11. 2 people destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma. I am sorry if you have people willing to blow themselves up for a cause you can eventually get 1 into the US through Mexico, or Canada, or subtrefuge. And you only need 1. Unless Iraq is a powerful magnet there will be 1.

 

I have said repeatedly that we can't leave but it is also true that we shouldn't be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

We will bring a democratic government to Afganistan and Iraq. The process is already underway. The Iraqi citizens appreciate what we have done. There have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11. Saddam and Osama are hiding in caves. It takes 8 weeks for a message from Osama to reach the press. Terrorists are fighting trained US military in Iraq vs US citizens in the US.

 

Impressive.

 

You still disagree? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And...he will be chosen again, because he does what needs to be done.

 

America just does as it pleases. It's that kind of arrogance that makes your country appear so vile in the eyes of so many.

 

I think you are better than that and to elect such a dangerous idiot, is not to your credit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

And...he will be chosen again, because he does what needs to be done.

 

America just does as it pleases. It's that kind of arrogance that makes your country appear so vile in the eyes of so many.

 

I think you are better than that and to elect such a dangerous idiot, is not to your credit.

We are the only world super power. With that comes enormous responsibility, including an obligation to ensure peace in the world. ;)

 

Do you really want us to become an isolationist nation? I doubt it. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not especially. It had been 50 years since there was a terorist attack in the united states that wasn't purely domestic in origin. Events that occur once every 50 years can't be evaluated for success in a 3 year span.

 

There is no evidence that we can bring and maintain a democratic government in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have not had a lot of luck in Haiti. Establishing a democracy is different than having a sustained democracy. A democracy that is completly opposed to the United States and its existence does not give me much comfort. Would a democracy in Palestine be an improvement? The polls there say 70% of the population favors suicide bombing as a means of achieving political goals. I don't see how a democratically elected government there will help the US or Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ensuring peace by attacking others? Maybe we should reduce crime by locking everybody in a prison. Perhaps we should ensure free trade by spreading defoliant over all non US lands and destroying the electrical supply in other countries.

 

You cannot have peace but causing everyone to fear and mistrust you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the only world super power. With that comes enormous responsibility, including an obligation to ensure peace in the world. ;)

 

Do you really want us to become an isolationist nation? I doubt it. :P

My point is this: you abused your (solitary) super-power status by ignoring the international comunity and going to war with Iraq.

 

Like I said, I think you are better than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Not especially. It had been 50 years since there was a terorist attack in the united states that wasn't purely domestic in origin. Events that occur once every 50 years can't be evaluated for success in a 3 year span.

 

There is no evidence that we can bring and maintain a democratic government in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Really?

 

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/afgh30_20030930.htm

 

http://www.time.com/time/2002/afghanistan/index2.html

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1024/p07s02-wosc.html

 

It will also come in Iraq.

 

We have not had a lot of luck in Haiti.

That was Clintons war. Exactly what did he do to bring about democracy?

 

Establishing a democracy is different than having a sustained democracy.

Germany and Japan prove otherwise.

 

Would a democracy in Palestine be an improvement?  

We are not talking about Palestine. We are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

BTW: I can see where this is going and I refuse to travel down that road. It was against my better judgement to jump into this thread knowing the direction it would eventually take and knowing I would not change anyones mind.

 

With that said I bid you all a goodnight. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Italy, Japan and Germany had democratic forms of government before WW-II. I think it is easier to restablish democracy than to establish democracy.

 

I agree that Afghanistan has a constitution and it proclaims democracy. So did the Soviet Union and so does Turkey. Surely you won't argue that the Soviet Union had a democracy. Turkey, since WWII has been ruled by the military even though there is an elected government.

 

The democracy in afghanistan has not had a national election test. According to news reports the Afghanistan government does not have much influence beyond the borders of the capital city. Don't misunderstand I think it is great progress and a positive step but to say they have a democracy makes as much sense as when Bush declared victory in Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...