|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JIFISH wrote: | Please. The US government knew what he was when we supported him. He didn't suddenly "turn bad." He was always a monster. And we were wrong for helping him.
My hope is this will somehow finally bring peace to that area.
My fear is that it will make matters worse.
Time will tell. |
| Quote: | UNESCO gave Saddam an award. There were also ambitious drives to build schools, roads, public housing, and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. There was admiration in the West during those years, for Saddam's accomplishments if not for his methods. After the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Saddam seemed to be the best hope for secular modernization in the region.
Tales of the Tyrant -- Atlantic Monthly Article Online |
| Quote: | Saddam was personally bestowed the highest United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) award for spreading literacy. Land reforms were strictly implemented, eliminating landlordism. The oil sector was nationalised, earning Iraq the enmity of the West. The revenues from the oil sector helped finance the ambitious programmes that the government had undertaken. Iraqis came to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the region. The Iraqi dinar was among the strongest currencies in the world. --
The rise and fall of Saddam |
Contrary to your statement, Saddam was actually recognized by the United Nations and by Western governments as a bright hope in the Middle East in the beginning. He won an award from the UN. However, he changed and later in his career, he was in violation of UN resolutions for Human Rights violations. In his early days, he was a photo opportunity.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
he_is_the_one
Star Player
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 1217
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | TACH wrote: | | Great,.. he's gone.. the world is a better place... |
is it?....
the video is up on break.com if anyone wishes to see it. |
Also on Google video.
_________________
That was Noiceeeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
20,000
Retired Number
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 29999
Location: Likely nowhere near you
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Angel, if anyone came on here or anywhere and said Saddam was not a ruthless evil killer and was not a horrendous person overall, then they would either be lying, trying to instigate trouble, or just an idiot. However, I have trouble believing your statement that the US wanted him out for those reasons. I think you are giving the US too much credit that they wanted to stop Saddam's actions. I love this country a lot, enough to have rescinded my citizenship elsewhere and become a naturalized citizen rather than just being born a US citizen, but even I can't be blinded by those hopeful, romantic thoughts about our government.
_________________
Courage doesn't always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying...'I will try again tomorrow.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | There's no doubt in my mind that sadam was an absolute tyrant and even though i dont agree with executions there must be some kinda justice for his victims, even if it's not all of them. However i fail to see how him dying will make that mess of a war they have over there any better. Is a dead saddam going to stop the iinsurgents from trying to turn the country into hell on earth and give the iraqi's the freedom and 'safety' that was a justification for this war after the whole WMD argument failed  and the most ironic thing about this is wasnt Sadam an ally of the americans before he attacked Kuwait? From what i understand they had no problem supplying him with arms etc when iran was public enemy #1... |
The US wanted to stop Saddam's actions, such as the genocide against the Kurds in Iraq. If Saddam remained alive, he might have been freed by a new government if there was a takeover after the US withdraws. The situation is not entirely stable there. Although there is technically an International force, the US troops are the key. Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of other Iraqi citizens. His execution prevents the chance of him re-surfacing to do the same things again. Saddam was no ordinary citizen. He wielded the power of a brutal government that terroized and raped it's own citizens. He presented much more danger than an ordinary private citizen. When it come down to his execution, it was the Iraqi government that acted.
Americans did not have full knowledge of Saddam's actions until after the fact. Some facts may not have been available until his trial this year. Although Iraq now has a form of democracy, it had not been an open society under Saddam. People lived under terror, fearing for their lives within a closed society. The International community did have test results from chain of custody samples to confirmed that chemical weapons had been used against the Kurds in 1988, but those results were not obtained until 1993. The US went into Iraq as part of an International force. The evidence of chemical weapons is evidence that he had WMD. He had used WMD against the Kurds. The lack of cooperation with International inspectors combined with their previous history of WMD use was enough to go into Iraq. The reasons for going in were more than WMD, but it was the reason used to go in. Genocide and human rights violations along with evidence of terrorist training bases and state sponsored terrorism were the real reasons for going into Iraq.
Saddam was the enemy of Iran, a U.S. enemy in the 1970s and beyond. Iraq fought a long war against Iran, a country that had held 52 American hostages in Tehran, Iran in the late 1970s. The U.S. did provide weapons to Iraq at the time prior to and during the Iran-Iraq War, which was during the early 1980's. Oil dollars from Iraq were also used by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein to purchase weapons from many sources, including the French, Russians and Germans. Iraq was an ally at the time. Rumors existed Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, but it wasn't proven at that time. The First Gulf War was 1990-1991. It wasn't until 1993, scientists were able to prove the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. They had to get samples out of the country. Human rights violations were not the only concern, but they were one of the major concerns in going into Iraq. The U.S. did target Saddam in the Second Gulf War, because there was scientific proof of human rights violations after the First Gulf War. |
So are you telling me the US went into Iraq to stop human rights violations? i have a really really hard time beleiving that was thier motive. I mean what about all the other tyrants everywhere else...Even if that was the case which i highly doubt it was, like the late Ford said 'you cant go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people when there isnt suffiecent proof that it's highly corelates to your national security. Above all else it's just not respnsible. You have waaaaaay to much faith in your govt 
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| encina1 wrote: | | Angel, if anyone came on here or anywhere and said Saddam was not a ruthless evil killer and was not a horrendous person overall, then they would either be lying, trying to instigate trouble, or just an idiot. However, I have trouble believing your statement that the US wanted him out for those reasons. I think you are giving the US too much credit that they wanted to stop Saddam's actions. I love this country a lot, enough to have rescinded my citizenship elsewhere and become a naturalized citizen rather than just being born a US citizen, but even I can't be blinded by those hopeful, romantic thoughts about our government. |
Excerpts from a speech given at the UN on September 12, 2002 are as follows:
| Quote: | We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.
The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. |
| Quote: | | Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. |
| Quote: | To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. |
| Quote: | | Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. |
| Quote: | | In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. |
September 12, 2002 Remarks to the UN General Assembly
It was a public speech given at the United Nations. It's a matter of public record. Our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were known in advance.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | encina1 wrote: | | Angel, if anyone came on here or anywhere and said Saddam was not a ruthless evil killer and was not a horrendous person overall, then they would either be lying, trying to instigate trouble, or just an idiot. However, I have trouble believing your statement that the US wanted him out for those reasons. I think you are giving the US too much credit that they wanted to stop Saddam's actions. I love this country a lot, enough to have rescinded my citizenship elsewhere and become a naturalized citizen rather than just being born a US citizen, but even I can't be blinded by those hopeful, romantic thoughts about our government. |
Excerpts from a speech given at the UN on September 12, 2002 are as follows:
| Quote: | We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.
The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. |
| Quote: | | Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. |
| Quote: | To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. |
| Quote: | | Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. |
| Quote: | | In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. |
September 12, 2002 Remarks to the UN General Assembly
It was a public speech given at the United Nations. It's a matter of public record. Our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were known in advance. |
Sorry, but I just see that as justification on America's part to illegally invade Iraq, and topple its government.
If that speech was serious in the goals that it sets out to obtain, then the United States should be planning the invasions of a LOT of countries that are argueabley in violation of civil rights, and in support terrorism...North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc.....the list can get quite lengthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | angel wrote: | | bballfan4life wrote: | | There's no doubt in my mind that sadam was an absolute tyrant and even though i dont agree with executions there must be some kinda justice for his victims, even if it's not all of them. However i fail to see how him dying will make that mess of a war they have over there any better. Is a dead saddam going to stop the iinsurgents from trying to turn the country into hell on earth and give the iraqi's the freedom and 'safety' that was a justification for this war after the whole WMD argument failed and the most ironic thing about this is wasnt Sadam an ally of the americans before he attacked Kuwait? From what i understand they had no problem supplying him with arms etc when iran was public enemy #1... |
The US wanted to stop Saddam's actions, such as the genocide against the Kurds in Iraq. If Saddam remained alive, he might have been freed by a new government if there was a takeover after the US withdraws. The situation is not entirely stable there. Although there is technically an International force, the US troops are the key. Saddam also killed hundreds of thousands of other Iraqi citizens. His execution prevents the chance of him re-surfacing to do the same things again. Saddam was no ordinary citizen. He wielded the power of a brutal government that terroized and raped it's own citizens. He presented much more danger than an ordinary private citizen. When it come down to his execution, it was the Iraqi government that acted.
Americans did not have full knowledge of Saddam's actions until after the fact. Some facts may not have been available until his trial this year. Although Iraq now has a form of democracy, it had not been an open society under Saddam. People lived under terror, fearing for their lives within a closed society. The International community did have test results from chain of custody samples to confirmed that chemical weapons had been used against the Kurds in 1988, but those results were not obtained until 1993. The US went into Iraq as part of an International force. The evidence of chemical weapons is evidence that he had WMD. He had used WMD against the Kurds. The lack of cooperation with International inspectors combined with their previous history of WMD use was enough to go into Iraq. The reasons for going in were more than WMD, but it was the reason used to go in. Genocide and human rights violations along with evidence of terrorist training bases and state sponsored terrorism were the real reasons for going into Iraq.
Saddam was the enemy of Iran, a U.S. enemy in the 1970s and beyond. Iraq fought a long war against Iran, a country that had held 52 American hostages in Tehran, Iran in the late 1970s. The U.S. did provide weapons to Iraq at the time prior to and during the Iran-Iraq War, which was during the early 1980's. Oil dollars from Iraq were also used by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein to purchase weapons from many sources, including the French, Russians and Germans. Iraq was an ally at the time. Rumors existed Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, but it wasn't proven at that time. The First Gulf War was 1990-1991. It wasn't until 1993, scientists were able to prove the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. They had to get samples out of the country. Human rights violations were not the only concern, but they were one of the major concerns in going into Iraq. The U.S. did target Saddam in the Second Gulf War, because there was scientific proof of human rights violations after the First Gulf War. |
So are you telling me the US went into Iraq to stop human rights violations? i have a really really hard time beleiving that was thier motive. I mean what about all the other tyrants everywhere else...Even if that was the case which i highly doubt it was, like the late Ford said 'you cant go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people when there isnt suffiecent proof that it's highly corelates to your national security. Above all else it's just not respnsible. You have waaaaaay to much faith in your govt |
Excerpts from a speech given at the UN on September 12, 2002 are as follows:
| Quote: | We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.
The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all. |
| Quote: | | Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. |
| Quote: | To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. |
| Quote: | | Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. |
| Quote: | | In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. |
September 12, 2002 Remarks to the UN General Assembly
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53962
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
yeah it's so much better now. hundreds of billions well spent.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
UN resolutions were repeatedly violated. The US joined with several other nations to invade Iraq. It was completely legal. The monster who was running Iraq had to be removed.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53962
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | UN resolutions were repeatedly violated. The US joined with several other nations to invade Iraq. It was completely legal. The monster who was running Iraq had to be removed. |
and you think the consequences of removing him were worth it? for one guy?
he was just executed. has that had any real positive impact on anything? it's worse there now.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
yeah it's so much better now. hundreds of billions well spent. |
| Quote: | and you think the consequences of removing him were worth it? for one guy?
he was just executed. has that had any real positive impact on anything? it's worse there now. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | UN resolutions were repeatedly violated. The US joined with several other nations to invade Iraq. It was completely legal. The monster who was running Iraq had to be removed. |
and you think the consequences of removing him were worth it? for one guy?
he was just executed. has that had any real positive impact on anything? it's worse there now. |
thank you! no one is questioning the legality of the invasion as much as the common sense aspectof it considering the way things are. The fact that it was in writing doesnt change what's happening on the ground now does it? You cant tell me almost 2000 dead and other things as a consequence is enough to get one man. Ideallogically maybe, but realistically no...
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | UN resolutions were repeatedly violated. The US joined with several other nations to invade Iraq. It was completely legal. The monster who was running Iraq had to be removed. |
and you think the consequences of removing him were worth it? for one guy?
he was just executed. has that had any real positive impact on anything? it's worse there now. |
thank you! no one is questioning the legality of the invasion as much as the common sense aspectof it considering the way things are. The fact that it was in writing doesnt change what's happening on the ground now does it? You cant tell me almost 2000 dead and other things as a consequence is enough to get one man. Ideallogically maybe, but realistically no... |
To be fair...I was the one that questioned the legality of the invasion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates, we wouldn't just leave Saddam to do his own thing without closely monitoring him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | angel wrote: | | UN resolutions were repeatedly violated. The US joined with several other nations to invade Iraq. It was completely legal. The monster who was running Iraq had to be removed. |
and you think the consequences of removing him were worth it? for one guy?
he was just executed. has that had any real positive impact on anything? it's worse there now. |
thank you! no one is questioning the legality of the invasion as much as the common sense aspectof it considering the way things are. The fact that it was in writing doesnt change what's happening on the ground now does it? You cant tell me almost 2000 dead and other things as a consequence is enough to get one man. Ideallogically maybe, but realistically no... |
| TheRod wrote: |
Sorry, but I just see that as justification on America's part to illegally invade Iraq, and topple its government.
If that speech was serious in the goals that it sets out to obtain, then the United States should be planning the invasions of a LOT of countries that are argueabley in violation of civil rights, and in support terrorism...North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc.....the list can get quite lengthy. |
Somebody did question the legality. I do wish it didn't come to what it has.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bballfan4life
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
Location: Sitting on top of the world... with my laptop!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise...
_________________
"this game doesnt build character; it reveals it so be strong in body clear in mind and lofty in your ideals."
RIP Jayden Odom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53962
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
Yes Ma'am. That's exactly where I'm coming from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Montana
Star Player
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 2962
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Angel, please answer some questions:
1)If Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be "taken out," do you think that he was #1 on that list? The fact is, there are genocides taking place right now that dwarf Saddam's reign of terror. Should we take out those leaders too? Should we just sweep the globe of all the bad guys, or only the bad guys we have a special interest in? Is genocide something to be stopped only when we have a strategic interest in that region?
2)Do you feel the resources (American lives, fiscal capital, and international standing) used to "take Saddam out" were the best useage of such an undertaking, or do you think that we would have been best off making sure that Afganistan was truly stabilized, and the Taliban exterminated (because we seem to have taken our eyes of the ball on that one, and that is where the 9/11 plot hatched, not in Iraq)...
3)Politically motivated resolutions aside, are you really so naiive to believe that we were not completely aware of Saddam's methods of obtaining and maintaining power, dating back to the early 70's? He didn't "turn bad" and get evil all of the sudden. Assasination and brutal "disappearings" were part of his M.O. from the beginning, and it was no secret. Like LBJ said about a dictator once "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard." We were fine with Saddam and his methods, until we didn't need him as a hedge anymore. He wasn't some guy we thought was a good and decent fellow who turned to the dark side after the Iran-Iraq war.
I do not shed a tear for this piece of dirt. I shed tears for the Kurds who WE sold out to him time and time again (first by Pres. Ford in the mid-70's, and then by Bush the Elder in '91). I'm glad he's dead, but the war was not worth it (and this now seems to be this weeks justification of the war, one of many we have been sold for the last few years)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates. |
not to mention the genocide in darfur that doesn't seem to bother us much. and i think it is funny when we bring up "human rights violations" while our president praises the virtues of torturing our prisoners.
check out this quote from George H.W. Bush re: the decision not to take out sadaam during the gulf war.
"Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." |
Great quote; absolute truth too. I think I'll call it: "The Prophecy of Herbert Walker." Yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JIFISH
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 9315
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angel wrote: |
Contrary to your statement, Saddam was actually recognized by the United Nations and by Western governments as a bright hope in the Middle East in the beginning. He won an award from the UN. However, he changed and later in his career, he was in violation of UN resolutions for Human Rights violations. In his early days, he was a photo opportunity. |
You can rewrite history all you want for those too young to remember. I am 61 years old, so it won't work for me.
Hussein became vice president of Iraq when his Baath party overthrew the government by military coup. Before that, he had secured his place in the party by his participation in a failed assassination attempt of Iraq's president. He became president of Iraq in 1979 by forcing his own Baath party president to resign in order to advance his own powers.
When he first addressed his congress as president, he began by reading off a list of 66 men in that congress that he declared to be enemies of the state, and had them removed and jailed. 22 were later executed.
In order to receive military aid from the U.S., Reagan had to remove Iraq's name from a list of state's sponsoring terrorism in 1983. Not because Iraq had changed its stance on terrorism, but because Hussein, like the west, was opposed to radical Shia Islam in general, and to Ayatollah Khomeini in particular.
But he was already a dictator who had seized power through a military coup. He was a thug. He just happened to be OUR thug, at least until he decided to invade Kuwait (which he only did because he misunderstood our own envoy and thought we would look the other way, just as we'd looked the other way during all his other human rights abuses between 1980 and 1990).
_________________
I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question - Richard Feynman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | angel wrote: |
Again, it's a matter of public record what our intentions and reasoning for going into Iraq were. It was publically stated in advance. Saddam was clearly a monster, who had to be taken out. |
This I'm in agreement with. My only issue is that he should have been taken out 15 years ago in the first gulf war... I guess we just have a different point of view on history. It's also a little premature to discuss the Iraq War because we really can't put it into a proper context for lack of sources, and classified information. This discussion would be more productive 10-15 years from now. |
I believe part of the problem is that we didn't have scientific evidence to prove chemical weapons had been used to commit genocide on the Kurds in 1988 until after the First Gulf War. That evidence would not come until 1993, which is after the first Gulf War. It is the nature of a dictatorship that information is difficult to obtain. I think the Senior Bush thought they might be able to get the job done by bombings without getting into a costly ground war. An airstrike aimed at Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been very effective in obliterating terrorist activities in that country. We haven't heard much from Gaddafi after that airstrike in 1986. When you see the cost of a ground war today, it is understandable why a quicker, easier and less costly approach was tried first. It made sense to try everything short of a ground war first. How popular would a ground war have been if airstrikes had not been tried? The agreements and violations by Saddam created a basis for invading Iraq. Did we really want a ground war if we could avoid it? These guys in the Middle East have been fighting for how long? It was a costly decision I wish didn't have to be made. I don't think we were ready to go in Iraq until after 9-11. In first Gulf War we had significant support from some of the Arab countries. Would they have supported an invasion of Iraq? They wanted Saddam neutered, but they didn't really want a more permanent US presence in Iraq. The US wanted International concensus and a quick and clean solution if possible. That didn't happen. |
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was essentially broken up into three distinct sections. Saddam lost a lot of his power grip over his country, losing the northern territory to Kurdish usurpers, and the south to the Shi'a majority. In order to re-consolidate his grip over the country Saddam assigned his son Qusay to the task of systematically murdering the Shi'a. It was genocide. The United States was aware of this, and did nothing about it until a few years after 9/11. That's the hipocracy that angers me the most. The united states claims that human rights violations was a driving force that initiated the Iraq war...well...where was this driving force 10 years ago, when the Shi'a and Kurds needed it most? America is not naieve...I'm certain that intelligence agents provided detailed reports on Saddam, his agenda, and his atrocities following the first gulf war, if not prior to that. That's the way that this country operates, we wouldn't just leave Saddam to do his own thing without closely monitoring him. |
I understand your frustration. The US government is not monolithic. There was another administration prior to the current one, who also had an opportunity to act. That administration took over after the one that fought the Gulf War. The administration changed less than a year prior to 9-11. For a while we were preoccupied with our own security. It took a while to go through the process of rallying the other nations to join the move into Iraq. The speech at the UN was building the case against Saddam. The action did come.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Franchise Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 14226
Location: city of angels
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bballfan4life wrote: | | Well it's always open for debate when 2 powerful nations attack another on thier own devices without a proper UN approved backing, shouldnt be a suprise... |
This wasn't about two nations. It was an International force going into Iraq, because UN resolutions were violated. We had our own interests, but we didn't go in alone.
_________________
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.~~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
