- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No, no they weren't. The differences are huge.
Just by length of time to grow offenses against humanity
No, no they weren't. The differences are huge.
When did the Iraqis ask us to invade and occupy their country? Who made you god to determine what another countries people want? The Shia and Kurds had more of a chance before we strengthened Saddam for 8 years. And yes, I have read Strategic Challenges for the 21st Century, completely. There is more proof in that report the war was about oil, then there was proof of Iraq being a threat to the US.
Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
neither can a liberal that supports poor performance without question
Just by length of time to grow offenses against humanity
No. Read what I linked for you. Read it carefully. Also, as noted already, Germany was actually capable if doing something. Saddam and Iraq were not.
I make no claim that the Iraqis asked for anything. Nor do I claim to determine what they want. I merely offer my view that they are better off. The Shia and Kurds never, ever, had a chance. I'm sure you can point out the passage(s) in "Strategic Challenges for the 21st Century" that call for war with Iraq over oil. Please share.
How are the Iraqis better off with hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, a million injured and maimed, another 5 million displaced, and their country blown apart, and a government as corrupt as the last.
I posted that section above.
I predict the Iraq war will in the future seen as just the US and Israel handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.....................
Probably, Iraq is not near as resistant to influence from Iran now as it was under Saddam. And his bluff of WMD was working to keep Iran at bay, until some in the US claimed they suddenly believed his bluffing was real. :roll:
How are the Iraqis better off with hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, a million injured and maimed, another 5 million displaced, and their country blown apart, and a government as corrupt as the last.
I posted that section above.
Here you go:
"The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."
Saddam Hussein also tortured and brutally murdered hundreds of thousands (and those are only those known about and able to be proven). It is believed that he killed many, many more though. I'll bet there are plenty of Iraqis who feel better off without him.
He also used water is a weapon to subjugate and control people by forcing them into the areas he better controlled. He was not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination.
Saddam Hussein also tortured and brutally murdered hundreds of thousands (and those are only those known about and able to be proven). It is believed that he killed many, many more though. I'll bet there are plenty of Iraqis who feel better off without him.
There are 4,300 GIs that don't feel better off without him. There are 600,000 (Lancet) Iraqis that don't feel better off without him. There are millions of refugees that don't feel better off without him. There are birth defects and increased cancers to make many living Iraqis not feel better off without him. We got the OIL.
Iraq is in a transitional period, and yes we all acknowledge the death toll from the wars, but that doesn't negate the fact that Saddam would have just kept killing and being the sneaky bastard that he was if he was allowed to keep on the way he was.
No. Read what I linked for you. Read it carefully. Also, as noted already, Germany was actually capable if doing something. Saddam and Iraq were not.
There are 4,300 GIs that don't feel better off without him. There are 600,000 (Lancet) Iraqis that don't feel better off without him. There are millions of refugees that don't feel better off without him. There are birth defects and increased cancers to make many living Iraqis not feel better off without him. We got the OIL.
Man for a so called Conseervative you sure eat up the left wing talking points...........sad...
"Originally Posted by DaveFagan
There are 4,300 GIs that don't feel better off without him. There are 600,000 (Lancet) Iraqis that don't feel better off without him. There are millions of refugees that don't feel better off without him. There are birth defects and increased cancers to make many living Iraqis not feel better off without him. We got the OIL."
Those are facts, not talking points.
Show me a legit sight that says we killed 600,000 Iraqis my left wiwng friend.
Saddam Hussein also tortured and brutally murdered hundreds of thousands (and those are only those known about and able to be proven). It is believed that he killed many, many more though. I'll bet there are plenty of Iraqis who feel better off without him.
Information when decision was made said they were, that is what anyone uses-most current intel available