sixtofive Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Surian has a good point there, There should be more people curious about who was letting the genocide go uninterupted. as far as the whole 45 minutes argument, I make no claims about that part being true, that was just plain wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Prior to the mid 90s. From 1991 onwards, UNSCOM destroyed s**t-loads of it, there is some evidence to suggest Saddam destroyed some more himself, and there is absolutely no evidence that any were still in Iraq when we went to war on the basis of WMD. Exactly The US Troops were able to strike strategic targets quickly and effectively enough that his ability to use any of these kinds of tactics were swiftly crushed. If the US had struck sites with vast stores of chemical weapons it would have spread the poisonous fumes into the atmosphere killing thousands. No fumes were spread, no chemical weapons were hit. The claim was that WMD could be deployed within 45 minutes. Are you trying to tell me that the coalition totally disabled this WMD programe which we were told was large, organised and very active within 45 minutes of the first shot being fired? The 45 minutes is probably the estimate of how much time it would take to fire off a loaded SCUD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 Surian has a good point there, There should be more people curious about who was letting the genocide go uninterupted. I can tell you. The very people who went to war - the US and UK. Back then, Saddam was the 'friendly face' in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I can tell you. The very people who went to war - the US and UK. Back then, Saddam was the 'friendly face' in the Middle East. I really think that he was just using the US to get weapons so he acted all allyish...No other country would become an ally, so he did... He played us and he played us well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Look, everyone knew even before we gave him those weapons that he was a murderer, however, we needed to get Iran and we couldn't do it directly so we funded another army to do it for us... Iraq. He wasn't "playing" us, we knew what he wanted and he knew what we wanted. He also knew that we wouldn't do anything to him if he gassed some of his own people because he was our golden boy in the Mid East. It's actually not just limited to Saddam either, we do this constantly and almost every president (regardless of political affiliation) has contributed to this in one way or another. Look at south america and parts of africa to see this. Sometimes it's even more insidious than just looking the other way, sometimes we actually fund militants to terrorise civilian targets in other countries where we want to push a political or economic change but are unable to do so due to a reluctant government or a democratically elected government (the people have to vote and we make sure they vote our way). To me, this kind of action boils down to terrorism by the US. I would also argue that some of the tactics used in Afghanistan and Iraq were terrorism also, specifically cutting the forign aid that was going into Afghanistan which killed untold thousands of civilians and did nothing to the already well supplied Al Queda and Taliban troops in the country. The US is the only country in the world that has been condemned by the world court for War Crimes and vetoed the order to halt it's activities. Israel has also had the world court condemn their actions but the US always vetos the orders. Doing things like this and then telling the US citizens that we are fighting terrorists just smacks of hypocracy (sp?). I'll tell you this much, if there is ever a Presidential candidate that actually aknowledges that we have done these things and tries to correct these problems I will vote for him in a heartbeat. The biggest problem that this country faces right now is our terrible forgin policy and our inability to admit to what we have done. Second to that is the utter ineptness of our media to report these things to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maquissar Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 By the way, didn't the US also give funds to Osama Bin Laden before he miracolously turned into a bloodthirsty terrorist? The truth is, alliances change swiftly. When the USSR existed, Saddam Hussein was useful and the Talibans were noble patriots fighting for the freedom of their country. Now, Russia is an ally and the Talibans and the Iraqi are dangerous terrorists. What's next? Will the US ally with North Korea and Lybia in 2014, and declare war on the dangerous Canadian terrorists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow_Diet Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 dangerous Canadian terrorists har har har har!! Ok, I have a LOT of Canadian friends, but I seriously couldn't imagine Canadian Terrorists, but I see your point. Allys change quickly and that's a serious fact. The main issue here isn't "Who's the bad guy," but "Is there/was there (at the time right before the attack) WMD in Iraq?"I think it boils down to the government justifiying something they know is illegal. Gowd, Canadian terrorist.... I could never imagine such a friendly country being so bad... *Shrug* We'll see, aye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 I can tell you. The very people who went to war - the US and UK. Back then, Saddam was the 'friendly face' in the Middle East. I really think that he was just using the US to get weapons so he acted all allyish...No other country would become an ally, so he did... He played us and he played us well... Actually, as surian pointed out, we knew back then that Saddam was a psychopathic dictator, it's just he could give us something we wanted - stability in the region and a buffer against the ruskies. Gowd, Canadian terrorist.... I could never imagine such a friendly country being so bad... *Shrug* We'll see, aye? Can you imagine it? They're so polite, they'd probably ask if it's OK to bomb you. :lol: (OK, that's blatent pandering to stereotypes. Sorry. ;) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 LOL... I love the canadians. And despite what people say, french canadians are really nice people as long as you at least TRY to speak french to them first. If you don't though... maybe picturing them as terrorists isn't so hard actually. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.