NOW we attacked Iraq because Saddam WANTED...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Neserk, Jul 20, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #2
    I think the reason has always been the same, it's just we haven't been told that real reason yet - all we're getting is the excuses.
     
  2. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    :rolleyes: is about all I can muster up in response to this right now.


    Lethal
     
  3. Neserk thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #4
    I thought the contention was that Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction and was an IMMINENT threat.
     
  4. davecuse macrumors 6502

    davecuse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
    When do you all think the finalized version of the truth will come out about this war? 50 years? 100 years?
     
  5. Neserk thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    HAHA! Hopefully in 1 year! Wouldn't that be nice? I'm guessing realistically?? After both Bush's are 6 feet under: 50 years!
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    I believe the charge is now that Saddam was engaged in "weapons of mass destruction program activities". I think that was the wording Bush gave to the accusation in the SOTU anyway.

    Regardless; yes, the rationale is that merely thinking about WMD amounts to a reason enough for preemptive war. Remember all you Saddam-loving lefties out there, Saddam was a Really Bad Guy. And not in the typical 'he's our bad guy' kind of way. The really bad kind of guy that tortures his own citizens.

    Hey, isn't there something going on in the Sudan these days? Something the threat of a large international peacekeeping force might be able to alieviate maybe a little?

    I'm sorry, what was that part about how we invade countries to prevent human rights abuses again?
     
  7. davecuse macrumors 6502

    davecuse

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    Yes Saddam was and still is a bad guy, I don't object to him being out of power. I do however object to being lied to about why he needed to be taken down. If we had gone into Iraq under the pretenses that we were there strictly to help free Iraq rather than the fear/scare tactics of referencing 9/11 and WMD's I think that things would have ended up quite differently.

    The approach that was used to convince the American public that this war needed to happen created far more problems than it solved. It led to a situation where we were pushed to hate the Iraqi people that we should have been there to help. I just want to be told the truth so that I can formulate my own opinions, I think that is my right as a citizen.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    If we were just about any other nation our actions would certainly have resulted in economic sanctions.

    Even China would be called to task if it decided to invade, say, Indonesia.
     

Share This Page