Tell me again why we are in Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SiliconAddict, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #1
    Because I'm really interested in if this is the "freedom" that we promised.....

    Not for the faint of heart


    They must feel so lucky that we are there to save the day.
     
  2. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #2
    To hear the Bushy's tell it they are.
    A stronger warning of the nature of the pics would be nice.
     
  3. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #3
    Reminds me of someone who was lecturing my use of anecdotal evidence :confused:

    http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
     
  4. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #4
    Somethign to do with WMD's
    http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    So, this proves that one man who we appointed president of a country is in favor of the US occupation.
     
  6. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #6
    yeah, why don't we ever hear this kind of 'good' news...i mean, even though the iraqi people did not actually elect Ghazi al-Yawar...i'm sure if he says the people of iraq love us, it must be true.

    katchow
     
  7. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #7
    actually that little article is almost to silly to comment on...though the sad thing is must have made good sense to somebody or it wouldn't have been posted...
     
  8. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #8
     
  9. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #9
    " Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags."

    Am I missing something, is Perricos saying the U.N. was helping move these components out of Iraq or were they deemed unusable.
     
  10. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #10
    Perhaps the UN stamped them during the first time period of inspections, never got around to removing the stuff prior to them being kicked out and the stuff still had those old stamps on them? I hope the UN wasn't helping Saddam hide his WMD's, but then maybe the same people who were involved in the Food for Oil fiasco were?
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    All i can say is we are getting closer to 200 billion dollars of our American Tax Payer money- 200 billion! Osama is still roaming the desert, There were no WMDs, and our boys are getting killed everyday for a country of religeous fanatics. If that doesnt = Kick George out of Office i dont know what does.
     
  12. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #12
    You would think the inspectors would have mentioned it?
    Helping to hide the stuff? That's a pretty big stretch don't you think?
    Lets wait, lot's of "developing" stories fizzle out.
     
  13. mda01aqt macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    #13
    Do you know what i find funny, how before the war, the american public was saying that the UN had no backbone, therefore couldnt deal with Iraq. This was cos the UN was waiting for evidence. Now the US public are wondering why they didnt wait for evidence before risking the lives of the future generation of the country as well as $Bn's of dollars which could have redistributed for health and education reforms.

    Hope the stern followers of bush have learnt their lesson.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Dream on! :rolleyes:
     
  15. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #15
    Don't be to hard on the public, they have to believe the people they elected know more than they do about matters of security, etc. and have to have faith that they will do the right thing.
    It's the ones that can never admit a mistake that get me mad.
     
  16. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #16
    yeah like the head of the UN requiring all investigations into the UN food scandal keep silent about any evidence without first passing it by him for approval the very dude being investigated.

    OK I know someone is going to ask me what dude etc.
    I pulled my own quote from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=70515&highlight=investigation
    And I still havn't read about it on the internet. In fact I havn't heard anything new about this and in my mind this should be numero uno in priority. One way or the other this should be a major news item. How come more hasn't been reported about his letters and his attempted cover up?
     
  17. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #17
    This?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/opinion/14SAFI.html
     
  18. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #18
    ok now I'm confused
    course we are talking different cells here maybe some are friendly to the red cross and get their help in Palestine while others hate the red cross in Iraq?
     
  19. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #19
    Yeah it's a complicated place, which begs the question, why did the Bushys think it would be easy. Forget all the changing rational, what the hell were they thinking and why do some people still think it was a good move.
     
  20. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #20
    Because either 1. Saddam was hidding WMD's and would most likely use it against our ally, Israel in the near future, or potentially use it to blackmail us to not interfere with his conquest of the middle east. Or 2. Saddam had no WMD's but wanted his neighbors to think he had them and used us to that end while making us look like fools. Trying to make it look like he was getting away with something.

    Either case we had no choice but to go in. The first is self explanatory, the second is we couldn't risk other countries thinking it might be wise to do the same.
     
  21. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #21
    Ha!
     
  22. screener macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    #22
    1. WHAT?
    2. WHAT?

    WHAT.?
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #23
    There is some truth to what you are saying, Sly...I do not beleive that Iraq would have attacked Isreal, mind you, but the rest of your argument is valid.
    If Saddam had waited until he had Nuclear Weapons to invade Kuwait, he would most likely be in possession of it, and most likely Saudi Oil fields also. He may have also bluffed for strategic reasons, stringing along the West...there is some evidence for that.

    The validity of your argument ends with your last paragraph. We did not have to go in, even if what was said above proved true. Even if Iraq had succeeded in becoming a Regional Power by possession of WMD, that poses little direct threat to the US, providing we didn't intervene in the Region...we had dealt with and supported Saddam previously, and would most likely have continued for oil supplies, as we have done with both Iraq previously, and with Saudi Arabia currently. Iraq would probably not have attacked Isreal, as it was a secular ME State, like Syria...Even if we had decided that "we needed to go in", it could have been done in a more efficient way...with better planning and support of other neighboring countries, who would have a vested interest in a potentially dangerous regional hegemony. For whatever reason, probably stubborn ideology, we have indeed solved one problem - a potentially dangerous regional power, but have substituted a even more dangerous situation, in its' place...by our incompetent, arrogant and inflexible handling of post-Saddam Iraq.
     
  24. Voltron macrumors newbie

    Voltron

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    #24
    It took 6 years after we won WWII before Nazi Terrorist stopped being a major problem for us in Germany. What is going on in Iraq is typical not extraordinary. The only difference is we have the press over there reporting every little bitty detail of it.
     
  25. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #25
    Ah Voltron/Slyhunter. I'm sorry. Only Rumsfeld and Bush (and Reagan before them) get to repeat lies so often that they come to believe that they are true. Where are you getting this nonsense that you spew? Try reading legitimate studies from real researchers, not blogs by right-wing ranters, and a whole new world--one based in reality--will open up before you.


    "U.S. officials anticipated and planned to deal with significant residual German resistance following the surrender of its armed forces. Yet no resistance of consequence emerged then or at any time thereafter, much as in Haiti during Operation Uphold Democracy (see Chapter Five). The large number of U.S. and allied military forces in West Germany and the establishment of a strong constabulary force preempted most resistance. Indeed, the constabulary force was specifically created to respond to incidents of civil unrest, conduct mounted and dismounted police patrols, interdict smuggling operations, and aid in intelligence gathering."

    http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/

    "The army-type occupation was comprehensive and showed the Germans that they were defeated and their country occupied. This type of occupation was presumably capable of squelching incipient resistance since none was evident."

    http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/ch18.htm
     

Share This Page