Things going well in Iraq?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

What does that have to do with denying Saddam used WMD against his own people?

I don't think anyone really denies that. Saddam was a bad guy. It's pretty clear to me that he had no WMDs at the start of the war, though, for a simple reason. If he had 'em, he would have used 'em. He didn't, and there was no compelling reason (at least not one a lunatic like him would understand) for holding them back. Ergo, he didn't have 'em. I don't really think the jury's out on that one anymore in any case.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I've come across numerous blogs from people in Iraq, and I tend to read the for information sakes.

Oh you should have mentioned you get your news from blogs. That changes everything.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

simple.

To you, yes.

Its not so simple to a President that has to decide to support either Iraq, or Iran.

Ever heard of the the statement, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

What I get from your posts? For some reason you believe it was wrong for the US to invade Iraq, simply because they helped Saddam 15 years ago.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't think anyone really denies that. Saddam was a bad guy. It's pretty clear to me that he had no WMDs at the start of the war, though, for a simple reason. If he had 'em, he would have used 'em. He didn't, and there was no compelling reason (at least not one a lunatic like him would understand) for holding them back. Ergo, he didn't have 'em. I don't really think the jury's out on that one anymore in any case.

I'm not saying that he did have them when the US invaded, but rather, that he did possess WMD at one time.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh you should have mentioned you get your news from blogs. That changes everything.

I guess.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh you should have mentioned you get your news from blogs. That changes everything.

Oh god, I hope he doesn't stumble on this one, he'll believe the Oilers have the best team and talent in the universe!

http://www.mc79hockey.com/

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not saying that he did have them when the US invaded, but rather, that he did possess WMD at one time.

I read in other thread that the Germans were responsible for the most heinous of genocides, so maybe the US should have invaded Germany too!

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Azure

To you, yes.

Its not so simple to a President that has to decide to support either Iraq, or Iran.

Ever heard of the the statement, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

What I get from your posts? For some reason you believe it was wrong for the US to invade Iraq, simply because they helped Saddam 15 years ago.

So you are saying that one thing has nothing to do with the other?

you use the gassing as justification for taking Saddam out and that happened during the same time period.

As for the saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", hasn't that been the problem with American foreign policy for the last 50 years?

Obviously, you have your opinion - which has legitimacy and understandable points. However, I would hope that you can understand how a lot of the anti-american feelings in the middle east are directly caused by flawed US foreign policy in the region.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't think anyone really denies that. Saddam was a bad guy. It's pretty clear to me that he had no WMDs at the start of the war, though, for a simple reason. If he had 'em, he would have used 'em. He didn't, and there was no compelling reason (at least not one a lunatic like him would understand) for holding them back. Ergo, he didn't have 'em. I don't really think the jury's out on that one anymore in any case.

He had fighter jets aswell and didn't use them. Also he might have believed that the UN would come to his aid, or he sent them to Syria before the war. Not saying thats what happened but they are possibilities.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I read in other thread that the Germans were responsible for the most heinous of genocides, so maybe the US should have invaded Germany too!

They did and there was a change of government. Also, lets not forget Japan; the first nation to use suicide bombers in the modern era. Japan seems to have come around nicely. Change takes time; expecially when there is an outside government trying to sabotage the process.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not saying that he did have them when the US invaded, but rather, that he did possess WMD at one time.

but isn't that the reason for the invasion in the first place? How much support do you think the war would have had without WMD as part of the equation?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

but isn't that the reason for the invasion in the first place? How much support do you think the war would have had without WMD as part of the equation?

Very little. That is why I have also believed that the US did go into IRAQ under false pretences.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They did and there was a change of government. Also, lets not forget Japan; the first nation to use suicide bombers in the modern era. Japan seems to have come around nicely. Change takes time; expecially when there is an outside government trying to sabotage the process.

Good point. I think the Americans should get the hell out of the way and let the Iraqis find their own way. That might make the country actually come together one way or another.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Good point. I think the Americans should get the hell out of the way and let the Iraqis find their own way. That might make the country actually come together one way or another.

US still has bases in Germany and Japan.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Good point. I think the Americans should get the hell out of the way and let the Iraqis find their own way. That might make the country actually come together one way or another.

LOL The outside government I was refering to was Iran and possibly Syria. They seem to want civil war between the Shi'a and the Sunnis. The Shi'as were oppressed under Saddam by the Sunnis so there is a human tendency to settle the score. Iran is mostly Shi'a and would like to see Iraq with the same style of religious dictatorship as they have. It's been suggested that Iran has been funding the Al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq which in turn has been trying to fuel a civil war in order to undermine the government.

I want America out of Iraq but, I think it can't happen until the elected government there is strong enough to protect itself. When enough military and police are trained and equiped America should leave. Al-Qaida will find
it harder to recruite whenever there is no longer a western presence.

[Azure]

So you are saying that one thing has nothing to do with the other?

I'm saying you don't use one incident to justify your position on the other.

At the time, it seemed reasonable for the US to support Saddam.

Sure in hindsight, the move was brutal, but thats our priviledge to point out, as civilians.

you use the gassing as justification for taking Saddam out and that happened during the same time period.

Personally, I feel Saddam should have been taken out during the first Gulf War.

As for the saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", hasn't that been the problem with American foreign policy for the last 50 years?

To us, as mostly un-informed civilians, yes, certainly it is a problem.

To the US government, who has the stance to promote "its" interests, the situation is not so simple.

Obviously, you have your opinion - which has legitimacy and understandable points. However, I would hope that you can understand how a lot of the anti-american feelings in the middle east are directly caused by flawed US foreign policy in the region.

Heck yes, and I agree 100%.

But we can only do one thing; fix it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

but isn't that the reason for the invasion in the first place? How much support do you think the war would have had without WMD as part of the equation?

Probably none, which is why the arguement was used.

But a recent study did say that Britain would have been on-board WMD or not.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Azure

Heck yes, and I agree 100%.

But we can only do one thing; fix it.

On that, you and I are in complete agreement - but frankly, the situation is so complex and convoluted, with many different players in the mix, that I don't know how it'll get better.

Extremists on both sides are not willing to compromise and consequently any movement towards the middle will be met with opposition from those groups...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Probably none, which is why the arguement was used.

But a recent study did say that Britain would have been on-board WMD or not.

Oh yes, Britain, suffering delusions of grandeur by being reduced to the USA's lapdog.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

On that, you and I are in complete agreement - but frankly, the situation is so complex and convoluted, with many different players in the mix, that I don't know how it'll get better.

Extremists on both sides are not willing to compromise and consequently any movement towards the middle will be met with opposition from those groups...

Actually, "if" the US can suceed in Iraq, we may have taken the first step needed to solve the problem.

But you are right, the extremists on "both" sides are making this harder then it should be.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

But a recent study did say that Britain would have been on-board WMD or not.

Here's the picture where Bush and Blair made that statement too. Blair would be the more intelligent looking of the two (the one of the left).