War is nver a credible venue unless one is attacked. Iraq proves it!!!

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Psychoblues, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Although the peoples of Afganistan never meant any war towards the US, their general populace accept us as an occupational force and understand that the Al Queda was our primary adversary and that the Taliban encouraged that adversarial relationship. Although we still have troops dying in Afganistan it is politely understood. Iraq, on the other hand, is not even comparable or understood.

    Iraq never had a Taliban or any organization of such religious zealotry that would compare to the Taliban. Iraq was and is a country that would rather do without all the political favoritisms of the US and be left to work out their territorial and religious differences amongst themselves. For most practical purposes, their territorial differences are small and in no way violent. Their religious differences are similar to the protestant/catholic skirmishes that develope right here in the USA. I know, I've been there.

    We don't hear much about the soldiers that we lose in Afganistan nowadays. We hear a lot about the Iraqi deployment KIA's and others. Iraq presents a trmendous economic advantage to the US while Afganistan is not yet so much of a potentially exploitable resourse of labor or mineral source of wealth. I wonder if the connection that I make is accurate?
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Saddam and regime needed to be removed from power. Force was necessary to achieve this goal. I think the connection you are trying to make is hogwash. Your entitled to your viewpoint though.
     
  3. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    OK, jimnyc, I can grasp your very simple analogy but can you explain the other 20 or 30 dictatorships within the last twenty or thirty years that also demostrated ill will towards western and in particular US interventionism where we made no effort to quell their threats yet allowed them to murder millions of their own (on edit: including a few of OUR OWN?)? I don't anticipate any comparative or credible answer from you.
     
  4. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    I'm not so sure about this "he needed to be removed from power" business. That's awful damn arrogant. So, if China decides that our government "needs to be removed," they can bomb us into oblivion? Just on a whim?
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    You know, I was fine up until this part and was prepared to continue the dialogue with you. You aren't worth my time.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    What happened in Iraq was certainly not on a whim. That was over a decade in failed negotiations and breeched reolutions. I would expect someone to step in against our government has they done the same.

    Call it arrogant if you like, but it worked. Saddam is history and the world is better off without his type around.

    So let's hear your opinion, should Saddam have remained in power? What steps should have been taken?
     
  7. jones
    Online

    jones Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Force should ALWAYS be used as last resort. Now that we are stuck in Iraq, it sure as hell has not been proven that we needed to goto war.
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I'd say that after 12 years of sanctions, breached resolutions, failed negotiations and Saddam's cat n mouse games - it's fair to say they tried every means possible to come to a peaceful resolution. Saddam dictated the outcome with his failure to cooperate as was indicated in prior resolutions.
     
  9. jones
    Online

    jones Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Very, veeery last resort.

    Pre-emptive war will always be unconstitutional. And it still HAS NOT been proven that we needed to goto war. Sure the negotiations failed but they worked in some respect, he didn't try to take over the world, just dictating his little country like many others, we just happen to pay attention to this state a bit more than others, wouldnt u think?
     
  10. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Was there someone else we have been in failed negotiations with for the past 12 years that has breached UN resolutions? And was this country responsible for oppression of their own people? And have they used WMD on their own people before? And was there proof that they were looking to acquire nukes? And have they fired scud missiles at their neighbors? Does this country have mass graves of the people killed at the hands of their leader?
     

Share This Page