Vote

[MonteZuma]

The US did support the UN! We supported the UN for twelve years, and in that time we could not get proof the weapons were dismantled. BTW, we DID find some samples of gas in Iraq, so Hussein hadn't got rid of all of it.

If weapons inspectors looked inside my kitchen cupboards and in my garage they would find samples of gas and probably a few biological hazards too. What was found did not consitute a threat to anybody. I concede that NOBODY knew for sure that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but the fact is the military and political pressure that had been applied on Iraq, the sanctions, and the weapons inspectors WERE working. Many people believed that. They were right. The US decided to ignore anyone who pushed that message. Bush wanted a war. Period.

 

Before we went in, Blitz was frequently given the run-around and Iraqis frequently threatened the lives of the UN inspectors. We had good reason to think Hussein had WMDs.

What good reason? Did you not listen to anything Blix said? Blix thought that the inspectors were making progress. He didn't want to leave. he wanted to keep doing his job.

 

This wasn't some idea cooked up by Bush - most foreign leaders as well as the US Congress was convinced Iraq had WMDs.

It was some idea cooked up by Bush and Blair. Didn't you see the 'evidence' that they presented as proof of the immediate threat? Anyone with half a brain knew at the time it was full of holes. It was a concoction. The fact is a lot of people weren't convinced about the dire, immediate threat that the US and UK government proclaimed based on evidence in some second rate PhD thesis and from a few dodgy photographs. Don't you remember the massive street protests? Everyone one of those tree hugging, bleeding heart hippies was right. The red-neck right just can't admit that they were wrong. Way wrong.

 

This list apparently included Kerry. When Kerry was presented the same intelligence that Bush saw - KERRY VOTED FOR ACTION IN IRAQ.

Yeah I know. Kerry is the best of a bad bunch. If I had my choice someone else would be the next US president. Unfortunately its only a 2 horse race.

 

The US is seen as dangerous and utilateral because the world media wants the US to seem dangerous and unilateral.

Most of the world gets their news from the BBC and CNN and similar services like FOX, NBC, etc. All of these news services are based in countries that support the war. People are making up their own mind on this. Most people I know understand geopolitics better than the average news writer or presenter. Blaming the media is wrong. The US government use and manipulate the media much more successfully than the disorganised dissenters.

 

If you disagree with me, tell me what the current situation is between France and Chirac? You can't - Chirac never makes the news. If he did, one could easily see why the US had to go around the UN.

Everyone knows the French are wierd (sorry French people, but even you know its true ). What makes you think that the US had to go around the UN? Where was the immediate threat to the US from Iraq?

 

The fact is the threat had already been contain before the invasion. There was no need to 'go around the UN'.

[MonteZuma]

The million dollar question. Some could still be hidden in Iraq under 100 feet of sand. There was plenty of time to ship them out of the country. -*BAD WORD*-, mabye he even made a last-minute-deal with some folks, and traded military forces for weapons? Who knows. Just because we haven't found anything does not mean they do not exist.

Or they could have been destroyed, as inspectors were told by the Iraqi defector in 1995 who ordered their destruction. Blair accidentally left that out of his weapons dossier.

 

Sorry, I still don't see how anyone can make the arguement that the world is more dangerious without Saddam as a leader. Removing a sadistic tyrant with a known itch to invade other countries maliciously surely was the complete wrong thing to do, it only makes things more dangerous!!

Saddam invaded 2 countries - Iran - with US blessing, and Kuwait - because he thought he had US blessing. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Iraq had absolutely no capability of invading or attacking anybody. So he wasn't dangerous to anybody - not even the Kurds. Now there is a power vacuum. That is where part of the danger lies. Furthermore, Bush and Blair have almost single-handedly destabilised almost every muslim country. Millions of citizens of muslim countries hate the US more than ever because of what they see as meddling in Islamic affairs (ie more righteous indignation and more terrorists!). The US has a huge perception problem. Some governments in Islamic countries will be influenced by this and the result might be negative for the west. Another way that the world has become more dangerous is that the authority of the UN has been threatened. The war on terror would be more effective if there was mutual respect and true global cooperation. And I haven't even mentioned the way that the US has trampled on human rights, and the long-term affect this might have on 'civilising' parts of the third world. The US really should lead by example. At the moment they are simply condoning attrocities.

 

Bin Laden on the other hand is a known terrorist. No rational person would regret his capture. Confusing Bin Laden with Saddam is exactly what your government wants you to do.

[Dr.Worthless]

Bin Laden on the other hand is a known terrorist. No rational person would regret his capture. Confusing Bin Laden with Saddam is exactly what your government wants you to do.

ROFL, so let me take a second to understand what you're trying to say. You would consider it a stretch to put Bin Laden and Saddam under the same catagory? We all know about Bin Laden, and Saddam openly supported terrorist suicide bombers, not to mention all the humanitarian offenses against him.

 

Really the core of the problem here is some people not viewing Saddam as a threat. Weapons or no weapons (at the time of invasion), I personally feel much better without the maniac in power. Share my opinion or not, make positive that if given the chance, Saddam would have ham-stringed the -*BAD WORD*- out of the US, doing whatever he could.

 

Or they could have been destroyed, as inspectors were told by the Iraqi defector in 1995 who ordered their destruction. Blair accidentally left that out of his weapons dossier.

 

Yeah I bet, Again.. Why in gods name would a man that has proven, in the past, not to give a flying -*BAD WORD*- about UN resolutions, care about one that had him destroy weapons?

 

I'm done with the thread, Its just goin in circles. You're obviously convinced Saddam was absolutly no threat to the US, or the world, so in your opinion he should still be in power. (If your opinion is different please correct me.)

[MonteZuma]

I'm done with the thread...

Great. In that case I get the last word.

 

The sooner Iraq is off the front pages, the sooner we might see some progress in the fight against terrorism. The US turned an international lame duck into a hotbed of terrorist activity. GWB claimed to be fighting terrorism, but instead he encouraged it.