Escalation of War In Iraq

[John Scott]

So, you think that they did it to remove a tyrant and no possibility of oil being involved?

You have any proof that we are stealing oil?

If they genuinely did it remove a tyrant then why is Mugabe still in power in Rwanda?

That's like asking, If they genuinely did it remove a tyrant then why is chicken so tasty? It makes no sense as a question.

And if you are comparing Robert Mugabe to Saddam Hussein there is no comparison. Robert Mugabe is a local bully, Saddam Hussein had much vaster resources and willingness to use them.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Saddam Hussein had much vaster resources and willingness to use them.

He had those scary WMD's, and ties with Bin Laden and el quada too, how can people not remember.

[G10]

Death is death, no matter how one looks on it.

If we look at the amount of people that have been killed and tortured under Mugabe, we may be surprised to see how high the figure is.

John dude, as for Saddams vast resources, you don't mean the WMD's do you?

Oil may be a strong word in this subject but I do believe that there are benefits such as contracts etc for the West on this occasion.

Ok I'll go do my homework and come back with some real figures.

[John Scott]

Death is death, no matter how one looks on it.

No, it's not.

John dude, as for Saddams vast resources, you don't mean the WMD's do you?

WHO THE **** MENTIONED WMD?

He had those scary WMD's, and ties with Bin Laden and el quada too, how can people not remember.

Again, WHO THE **** MENTIONED WMD's?

Did Saddam need WMD's to invade Kuwait? Did Ted Bundy need WMD's to kill people? Does Robert Mugabe have WMD's? When Japan slaughtered 200,000 Chinese in Nanking, did they use WMDs? Or did they cut them down one by one, mostly by bayonet?

The Liberal obsession with the word "WMD" has to be the most ****ing stupid fetish I've seen in ages.

Does he have WMD's? No? Then he must be harmless. LOL LOL LOL Yeah, baby, no WMD, you must acquit.

Pure genius there guys, pure genius. When the World Trade Centers fell, there were no WMD's, so that must have been a-okay. And when Saddam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, he had no WMD's, no I don't know what they were whining about. I mean, c'mon, who gives a rat's ass how many people he murders as long as he didn't have WMD's.

You people seriously ought to give the guy a Nobel ****ing peace prize, just for not having WMD's. Stupid ass argument, but what they hey.

Average IQ of somebody who mutters the words "WMD"? Any guesses?

[G10]

Ok, you got me, I should rephrase that sentence "Death by a tyranicall ruler is death by a tyranicall ruler, no matter how you look at it"

Whether you kill 200,000 people in another country or your own, it is still killing and needs to be stopped.

And when Saddam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, he had no WMD's, no I don't know what they were whining about. I mean, c'mon, who gives a rat's ass how many people he murders as long as he didn't have WMD's.

This was what I meant when I said death is death.

[John Scott]

Whether you kill 200,000 people in another country or your own, it is still killing and needs to be stopped.

So by your own statement you support the removal of Saddam, but at the same time think that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, and I find it a bit contradictory.

And, yes, I think all tyrants should be removed.

[G10]

Saddam should have been removed yes, but think people should be told the truth and not lied to when it comes to laying down lives (war)

I talk about wmd because it seems that our politicians felt that it was the only way to get people onside.

All tyrants should be stopped and it is a sad fact that lives will be lost in the process but be truthful to your people is what I say.

[John Scott]

I talk about wmd because it seems that our politicians felt that it was the only way to get people onside.

I don't think they made a big fuss about WMD. They mentioned it, but really didn't need to because of the overall support for removing Saddam.

Then, after the first three people died, and the pansies got their panties in a wad, the anti-war folks tried to convince people that the sole justification for the invasion was WMD's that did not exist.

Sorry to say it, but if WMD's are justification for invasion, we have to invade France.

[G10]

And Russia and the UK and pretty soon Iran

Wikipedia article - Doesn't this make The US and the UK leaders evil killing tyrants that also need to be dealt with?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by G10

Doesn't this make The US and the UK leaders evil killing tyrants that also need to be dealt with?

How so?

[G10]

The faulty evidence and shifting rationales became the focal point for critics of the war, who charge that the Bush Administration purposely fabricated evidence to justify an invasion it long planned to launch.

These claims of false or exaggerated evidence and rhetoric (Yellowcake forgery, Downing Street memo) have largely been substantiated.

Critics have further charged that, in the absence of evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, the invasion was a mistake, an assertion that 58% of Americans agreed with as of May 2007.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan echoed this assessment in September 2004 when he called the war illegal.

Counting all civilians, military, contractors, insurgents, and non-Iraqi civilians, at least 70,000; to as many as 655,000+ total excess deaths due to the war

So if the UK and US went to war on prefabricated information and even the UN calls it illegal, then maybe it was because if it wasn't, I think the UK would have gone tame on Kofi Annan for making such slanderous remarks.

I just feel that there was another agenda here and getting rid of Saddam fitted in with it. I may be wrong though, just my opinion.

[John Scott]

I just feel that there was another agenda here and getting rid of Saddam fitted in with it. I may be wrong though, just my opinion.

Well, if you're going to say oil, like you've already said, don't you think it would be nice if you explain how we've managed to steal oil from Iraq?

[G10]

Part of my thinking this is things like this article

The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972.

Then this one

Ok, maybe steal is a strong word. I'll go with lie to and sacrifice people. I may not be correct but it's just the way it seems to come across to me by what I see.

[chum112]

Originally Posted by G10

So, you think that they did it to remove a tyrant and no possibility of oil being involved?

If they genuinely did it remove a tyrant then why is Mugabe still in power in Zimbabwe?

Mugabe is still in power in Zimbabwe because of the American people. If the American people did the right thing and supported their president, George Bush would have continued on his quest to remove tyrant regimes around the world.

So people campaigning for anti-war, are actually campaigning to keep the tyrant leaders in power.

And thats why i hate anti-war protestors. Bush freed the Iraq's. The Iraqi's then started a war with themselves (their fault). The lack of confidence means tyrant leaders are still in power and killing their own people.

And people like you, have a role in that.

[Ferre]

"If you are not with us,...you are with the terrorists." - George Bush.

Nuff said.

[Maikunari]

Whatever the reasons for going to war were; removing Saddam, bringing democracy to Iraq, attempting to stabilize the middle east (all noble goals, no doubt), the fact is that former CIA director George Tenet has come out with a new book, In the Center of the Storm, in which he admits that the intel was doctored. Who would know better than him?

From this article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern:

He is unhappy about going down in history as "Slam-Dunk Tenet." But, George protests, his famous remark to President Bush on Dec. 21, 2002, was not meant to assure the president that available intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a "slam dunk." Rather he meant that the argument that Saddam Hussein had such weapons could be enhanced to slam-dunk status in order to sell war on Iraq.

Is it ethical to doctor intelligence to convince a populace to agree to a war, even if that war was started with noble intentions? How convoluted.

[Freelancer404]

^Since when did anyone trust American Military Intelligence?

[Adelaida]

Terrorist and tyrant №1 this is George Bush and him administration.