Iraq War should be stopped

[Indian001]

Iraq war is a war of capture on iraq resources. It is made by imperialist power. People should be stand against imperialism which has already created two world war and should be stop war in iraq. Iraqee people is able to manage thierself.

[Trevortt]

Iraq war is a war of capture on iraq resources. It is made by imperialist power. People should be stand against imperialism which has already created two world war and should be stop war in iraq. Iraqee people is able to manage thierself.

Ofcourse they are lol.

If we pull our troops out now it will be in a worse case scenario now than it would have been with Saddam in power.

Have you seen have how the Iraq Army treat human beings, they treat them like animals and are sick in the head.

[TheLegalEagle]

I really hate these anti war protesters. They demand we pull out but they dont realise that pulling out is going to be worse than staying there.

Our troops have done a damned good job and one which many have died for. Our men have died to save a the Iraqis and then get insults thrown at them and told to leave.

[Machmer]

We shouldn't have went in really, but now that we are there just running away would be irresponsible.

[Battleborne]

Iraq war is a war of capture on iraq resources. It is made by imperialist power. People should be stand against imperialism which has already created two world war and should be stop war in iraq. Iraqee people is able to manage thierself.



All I can say is:'No way Jose'...this war should not be stopped until terrorism is defeated once and for all...this will not be another VN...Politicals and false outrage anti-war protestors screwing up what should have been total defeat...

'Yeah baby' Let the Cav do its job: aircav (http://www.hack1966.com/aircav.html)

[Spades]

I would have more respect if someone just flat out said that the Iraq War should be stopped because we shouldn't stop oppressors out there and make nice nice with them instead. Saying that this war is immoral or something is a fact I just cannot see.

[janahitwadi]

All I can say is:'No way Jose'...this war should not be stopped until terrorism is defeated once and for all.......
My apprehension is would terrorism be wiped out? Is centre of terrorist in Iraq? I have my own doubts.

[Pique]

I have never and never will support any kind of warfare, because it is always the same people who suffer, the ordinary people like me and you. Warfare is used when two side's cannot get what they wish from negotiation's, it has always been like that and it most likely will remain this way.

The Iraq war was forged through a set of lies and inaccurate information comfirmed and signed by two nation's, which claim to boast the most advance secret service sector's in the world.

I have spoken to a lot of Iraqi refugee's who have flown in from Iraq to settle in the United Kingdom and they are all of the opinion that the war on their country is worse than having Saddam in power and I can quite believe such a claim.

The entire operation has been a complete mess from start to finish, I didn't for one second believe Iraq had nuclear capabilities, because Iraq didn't even house an Airforce or a Naval base. The eight fighter jet's, Iraq had were shot down in 1990 when George Bush Snr decided to wage war on America's forgotten ally.

I feel the war was waged as a cover up of America's ineptitude to capture Osama Bin Laden, I also feel that Bush declared war for economic reason's. Since he came to power in late 2000, his nation's economy has fallen sharply, the $ has never looked so cheap next to the £, in fact I know a chap who went to Ohio and bought back a complete new, wardrobe of clothes and shoes for less than £250 pounds. Then, there is of course the legacy, every man, in whatever field of work or social circle wants to leave a legacy and what better legacy for George Dubya to gain than being the man who helped bring stability back to Iraq and bring down the Middle East's answer to a Josef Stalin look-a-like?

As I say the entire operation has been a farce from start to finish, the country is so unstable and the economy is in crisis, Iraq is only hope of regaining a minimal economy is through its oil field's, which guess what is under American control. I personally can't see a way out of this fiasco without more bloodshed and disaster.

Either the troops pull out and watch a power struggle as the one seen in Somalia or keep the troops where they are and spend the next x amount of years trying to keep the country from imploding into civil war. I hold little hope for the future of the world, warfare is becoming all the more common. Once China become a world superpower, then things will really kick off.

[Trevortt]

The entire operation has been a complete mess from start to finish, I didn't for one second believe Iraq had nuclear capabilities, because Iraq didn't even house an Airforce or a Naval base. The eight fighter jet's, Iraq had were shot down in 1990 when George Bush Snr decided to wage war on America's forgotten ally.Iraq may not have had an air force or a navy but they were allies with Iran & Saudi Arabia which CAN supply them with anything they need and i believe they are doing that as we speak, our soldiers are being killed off my hardware from Iran & Saudi Arabia.

Either the troops pull out and watch a power struggle as the one seen in Somalia or keep the troops where they are and spend the next x amount of years trying to keep the country from imploding into civil war.

Or the muslims in Iraq learn to grown up and understand that GOD is not real but a fantasy and blowing each other up will not giver you seven virgins. They need to come into the 21st Century.

[Pique]

What you say in your first paragraph is correct, Iraq could have been supplied and could be supplied with arms at the moment, but I think it's highly unlikely. For starter's Iran are not too welcoming of Iraq at any level and the last time I checked Saudia Arabia like Pakistan has a close relationship with ourselves.

Secondly, I believe no nation should bare arms and no nation should be allowed to use nuclear technology for any purpose's, the material is deadly, destructive and easily abused in anyone's hands. Unfortunately the UN's non-proliferation treaty of 1968 allow's, the UK, US, France, Russia and China to carry on building such capabilities and advanced technologies, because they possessed such capabilities before the treaty came into force.

The treaty was also a load of bile as Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan have never agreed to the treaty. I would like it if those countries who signed the treaty boycotted imports and exports to the nation's who were allowed to avoid the treaty and those who signed it.

Back on topic, the reason are soldier's are being killed is because they are a negativity toward's Iraqi people. Iraq do not want foreigner's ordering them around, ultering their life style's and then murdering them on their own motherland. It's much like the English people of England complaining about immigration, strain's on the health service etc.

The problem is not Islam in this context, Islam is like any other religion, it bring's people together and can bring good to the world and society, the problem is those who follow religion and misinterpretate the religion and twist it into their own interpretation of it. Ordinary Iraqi's who have lost friends and family to Allied soldier's are now fighting back, I can't say I blame them, if an army from a different continent and came to England and killed my family, friend's and ruined the country, I would probably pick up an AK-47 and fight against what I would deem as a opressive regime.

Support for the war is at an all time miminal, the more people have learnt about this farace of a conflict, the more people realise it was not warranted or needed and it has placed the UK worldwide credential's in a negative ray of light. If Britian had the foriegn policy of Sweden, then we would not have such extremism amongst our midst.

[Trevortt]

Secondly, I believe no nation should bare arms and no nation should be allowed to use nuclear technology for any purpose's, the material is deadly, destructive and easily abused in anyone's hands.So is just about every other substance on this planet, petrol can be used for motor vehicles means of transportation but then again can be used for petrol bombs.

Nuclear material can be used as a means of electricity but then can be used for a mass destruction bomb.

Sodium is used to help bake a cake but is also a vital ingredient in making bombs.

Banning the material won't make a difference they will find other substances to use as bomb making equipment.

[Pique]

Good point, but what material is worse than that of nuclear kind? What bomb can create the amount of damage the American's inflicted upon Nagasaki and Hiroshama?

[Laura]

Ofcourse they are lol.

If we pull our troops out now it will be in a worse case scenario now than it would have been with Saddam in power.

Have you seen have how the Iraq Army treat human beings, they treat them like animals and are sick in the head.

The Iraq war should never have been started in the first place, the entire exercise was based ENTIRELY on dubious "evidence", frankly I believe, much of it bare-faced lies spewed out by George W. Bush and the various hacks in his Administration, such as Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and of course the bare-faced lies were repeated to sickening degree by the Poodle Tony Blair.

A TON of innocent men, women and children are dead because of Bush and Blair, their reckless war-mongering and their downright lies.

Iraq wasn't a war of NECESSITY, it was 100% purely a war of CHOICE, Bush and his Poodle CHOSE to START a war, they had no intention of NOT starting a war....all of the "diplomatic" stuff was just pretend, from day one the Bush and Blair SOLE objective was to START a war by ANY means possible.

Now we have the utterly ridiculous situation, where it's a case of "we broke it, so we have to fix it"

Iraq is now in such a mess, in such total chaos and mayhem, that it's unfixable, we have NO business being there, we never had any business being there, "we've" violated a Sovereign Nation and turned it into a Hell on Earth, no wonder thousands of Iraqi's are leaving Iraq each week, who in their right mind would want to stay in Iraq, a place where there's minimal jobs, minimal hopes for the future and where one on a day to day basis has to worry about dodging the next suicide bomber.

It should be added, that prior to the Bush and Blair invasion, in the entire history of Iraq, there had never been ONE suicide bomber EVER.

The troops cannot remain indefinately, in fact, I'd say that the mere presence of troops is now CONTRIBUTING to Iraq's problems and are contributing to fuelling the violence, the troops are like a red flag to a bull.

There needs to be a phased withdrawal of the troops, by this time in 2008 90% of the troops need to be out of Iraq, maybe replaced by troops from other Arab nations.

It's the job of the Iraqi's to fix their own country, Iraq's problems can only be solved by Iraq....we cannot go about trying to FORCE Western-style Democracy on nations that have NO history of having anything in common with Western-style Democracy.

[Trevortt]

It should be added, that prior to the Bush and Blair invasion, in the entire history of Iraq, there had never been ONE suicide bomber EVER.There was no need of any suicide bombers, Saddam and his henchmen would carry out the atrocities instead, you tube is your friend. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IjpJYh-x-E)

The troops cannot remain indefinately, in fact, I'd say that the mere presence of troops is now CONTRIBUTING to Iraq's problems and are contributing to fuelling the violence, the troops are like a red flag to a bull.

There needs to be a phased withdrawal of the troops, by this time in 2008 90% of the troops need to be out of Iraq, maybe replaced by troops from other Arab nations.As stated before on various news sites, as soon as the Iraq Army is up for the job on policing the streets and bringing back law & order the troops will leave.

The Iraq war should never have been started in the first place, the entire exercise was based ENTIRELY on dubious "evidence", frankly I believe, much of it bare-faced lies spewed out by George W. Bush and the various hacks in his Administration, such as Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and of course the bare-faced lies were repeated to sickening degree by the Poodle Tony Blair.Maybe it was all a lie but were you prepared to believe the Iraq's over the US & UK?

A TON of innocent men, women and children are dead because of Bush and Blair, their reckless war-mongering and their downright liesAnd mass graves are still been found by the US/UK/Iraq forces that Saddam and the Baath Party created. How many more is there out there that have not yet being found and will they ever find them all? Iraq is a huge country.

[Spades]

The Iraq war should never have been started in the first place, the entire exercise was based ENTIRELY on dubious "evidence", frankly I believe, much of it bare-faced lies spewed out by George W. Bush and the various hacks in his Administration, such as Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and of course the bare-faced lies were repeated to sickening degree by the Poodle Tony Blair.

Lol, well that is your belief but the lie that you are talking about having weapons of mass destruction isn't really a lie. They HAD WMD's just not of the nuclear kind (Three kinds: Nuclear, Biological, and chemical). They found a centrifuge BURIED and research they shouldnt have had.


A TON of innocent men, women and children are dead because of Bush and Blair, their reckless war-mongering and their downright lies.
Yes, but war isn't a controlled variable you know. If we were under attack by ANY country do you think they would/or even be able to not kill innocent civilians? It was THEIR government that went astray and innocents were tortured and so we put a stop to it at an unfortunate price. Its a choice of the lesser of Two evils.


Iraq wasn't a war of NECESSITY, it was 100% purely a war of CHOICE, Bush and his Poodle CHOSE to START a war, they had no intention of NOT starting a war....all of the "diplomatic" stuff was just pretend, from day one the Bush and Blair SOLE objective was to START a war by ANY means possible.
This belief is well, radical.... is the safest way I can put it. You sound like all the people who say cops are a******s.


Iraq is now in such a mess, in such total chaos and mayhem, that it's unfixable, we have NO business being there, we never had any business being there, "we've" violated a Sovereign Nation and turned it into a Hell on Earth, no wonder thousands of Iraqi's are leaving Iraq each week, who in their right mind would want to stay in Iraq, a place where there's minimal jobs, minimal hopes for the future and where one on a day to day basis has to worry about dodging the next suicide bomber.
Have you been keeping up with the reports from Iraq? We did not 'violate a soverign nation' and if all the Iraqi's said well now thats Saddam's out lets fight to make our country better and endure then it would be a lot easier. But then again the world only thinks of themselves.


The troops cannot remain indefinately, in fact, I'd say that the mere presence of troops is now CONTRIBUTING to Iraq's problems and are contributing to fuelling the violence, the troops are like a red flag to a bull.

Read the updates on Iraq situation, as it seems to be improving.


There needs to be a phased withdrawal of the troops, by this time in 2008 90% of the troops need to be out of Iraq, maybe replaced by troops from other Arab nations.
Sigh, I don't see this as a good solution.


It's the job of the Iraqi's to fix their own country, Iraq's problems can only be solved by Iraq....we cannot go about trying to FORCE Western-style Democracy on nations that have NO history of having anything in common with Western-style Democracy.
Should we instil another dictator? Because if we did then everyone would just get even more mad at us. Trust me that putting another dictator in would be SOOO much easier. Like you have NO idea. Just make sure he will play ball with the U.S and we would be good to go.

[Pique]

It's hilarious how the Tories are now lambasting the war and claiming it to be immoral and false when they, themselves supported the war at the start.

In fact the Tories only changed their stance on the war when it became unpopular with the wider electorate.

[Albion 69]

The Conservatives are not lambasting the War and claiming it to be immoral and false :confused:

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm)

Another accurate post :rolleyes:

[Albion 69]

Lol, well that is your belief but the lie that you are talking about having weapons of mass destruction isn't really a lie. They HAD WMD's just not of the nuclear kind (Three kinds: Nuclear, Biological, and chemical). They found a centrifuge BURIED and research they shouldnt have had.

What WMD ? The Iraq survey group (ISG) have spent years trying to find these weapons ... the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay
Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil."

Iraq Survey Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group)


Yes, but war isn't a controlled variable you know. If we were under attack by ANY country do you think they would/or even be able to not kill innocent civilians? It was THEIR government that went astray and innocents were tortured and so we put a stop to it at an unfortunate price. Its a choice of the lesser of Two evils.


When did Iraq attack the USA or the UK ? If you want to justify the War on humanitarian grounds when are we invading Sudan , Zimbabwe , North Korea oops no they have nukes ,China ermmm maybe not....there people can go hang..etc etc


This belief is well, radical.... is the safest way I can put it. You sound like all the people who say cops are a******s.

"Iraq wasn't a war of NECESSITY, it was 100% purely a war of CHOICE, Bush and his Poodle CHOSE to START a war"...in what way is Lauras statement untrue ?


Have you been keeping up with the reports from Iraq? We did not 'violate a sovereign nation' and if all the Iraqi's said well now thats Saddam's out lets fight to make our country better and endure then it would be a lot easier. But then again the world only thinks of themselves.

We invaded a sovereign nation that in anyones book is a violation.


Read the updates on Iraq situation, as it seems to be improving.


Updated at 10:40 p.m. EST, Jan. 1, 2008
At least 62 Iraqis were killed and 70 wounded in the latest attacks, which included a significant suicide bombing at a funeral in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government released their official casualty figures for 2007; the number of Iraqi deaths is up from last year. Also, an American soldier died of a non-combat-related injury at Qayyarah Airfield West yesterday.
In Baghdad, at least 30 people were killed and 38 wounded in Zayouna where a suicide bomber struck at a funeral being held for a former army officer who died in a bomb attack. Also, three dumped bodies were found in separate neighborhoods.
U.S. forces killed two people, possibly elderly, in Mosul. The soldiers claimed that the car had refused to slow down, but police said that the couple had been shot after a roadside bomb exploded near the Americans. In the al-Thawra neighborhood, a U.S. helicopter shot and wounded six civilians. Three dumped bodies were recovered. Also, a gunman was arrested.
The bodies of a Sunni policeman and four family members were found in Jalawla.
Gunmen in Tahwelah killed a Shi’ite man and his 16-year-old son.
Near Balad, clashes with gunmen left one policeman dead and six others wounded.
Three Iraqi soldiers were wounded during a roadside bombing in al-Zab.
An unidentified body was found on a highway near Fallujah. No casualties were reported after a roadside bombing.
In al-Rashad, a civilian was gunned down.
An Iraqi army soldier was killed in Ragat Haji Suheil. A roadside bomb injured a policeman transporting the body to the morgue.
A judge was freed in Kirkuk, and his attackers were arrested. In a village south of the city, gunmen killed three people.
Police arrested two men in Najaf as they attempted to kidnap a 19-year-old woman.
U.S. helicopters fired upon and killed nine suspects in Arab Jabour yesterday.

[Pique]

The Conservatives are not lambasting the War and claiming it to be immoral and false

BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron backs Blair on Iraq war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm)

Another accurate post

I forgot David Cameron was the only member of the Tory party, silly me, I must be stupid, I suppose those men sitting next to Cameron must be Soical Justice Party MPs. :cool:

[Albion 69]

I look forward to your long list of Shadow Cabinet members who have lambasted the war and claimed it is immoral and false :)

[Pique]

I look forward to your long list of Shadow Cabinet members who have lambasted the war and claimed it is immoral and false :)


Backbencher's, my Tory MP and views of Grass Roots Members.

Do your own research.

[Albion 69]

Backbencher's, my Tory MP and views of Grass Roots Members.

Do your own research.

Oh i see so when you said.....

It's hilarious how the Tories are now lambasting the war and claiming it to be immoral and false when they, themselves supported the war at the start.
In fact the Tories only changed their stance on the war when it became unpopular with the wider electorate.

.... you actually mean`t 'a couple of backbenchers and my MP ' instead of The Tories .

[Pique]

Are you Kelvin McKenzie in disguise?

[Albion 69]

lol no ....i don't know whether to be flattered or insulted !

i still think the 'Gotcha' headline was genius but his views on hillsborough were distasteful. :)

[TheLegalEagle]

My my ladies. Put the handbags down and can we please stop the bickering in every thread you post in?

[Albion 69]

But i got mine from Mrs T ! .....you are right we are getting in the way of all the other views/posts :rolleyes:

[Spades]

What WMD ? The Iraq survey group (ISG) have spent years trying to find these weapons ... the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay
Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil."
First off you are citing things from the beginning of the war when I know that they didn't find some of the things like scud missiles until at least a few months in. Secondly, he had 7 months before we invaded so it is VERY likely that he shipped off his weapons to someplace like Syria. In Gulf war 1 he flew most of what was left of his airforce into Iran to hide it from us and Iran use to be their enemies!


When did Iraq attack the USA or the UK ? If you want to justify the War on humanitarian grounds when are we invading Sudan , Zimbabwe , North Korea oops no they have nukes ,China ermmm maybe not....there people can go hang..etc etc
Read my post one of the paragraphs below


"Iraq wasn't a war of NECESSITY, it was 100% purely a war of CHOICE, Bush and his Poodle CHOSE to START a war"...in what way is Lauras statement untrue ?
The UN cited Saddam like 17 times for not living up to the agreements that were meant to be fulfilled at the end of the Gulf War 1. Like for instance not killing off kurds. So TECHNICALLY when someone doesn't fulfill their part of a contract then the contract becomes void and that makes the war oh so very legal. This is what happens when you lose an armed conflict and only pretend to want to make peace.


We invaded a sovereign nation that in anyones book is a violation.
Read above post. Hopefully it will clear things up.


Updated at 10:40 p.m. EST, Jan. 1, 2008
At least 62 Iraqis were killed and 70 wounded in the latest attacks, which included a significant suicide bombing at a funeral in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government released their official casualty figures for 2007; the number of Iraqi deaths is up from last year. Also, an American soldier died of a non-combat-related injury at Qayyarah Airfield West yesterday.
In Baghdad, at least 30 people were killed and 38 wounded in Zayouna where a suicide bomber struck at a funeral being held for a former army officer who died in a bomb attack. Also, three dumped bodies were found in separate neighborhoods./

Was Iraq that much better before this while Saddam was killing of innocents? What are you citing for the 'number of Iraqi deaths is up from last year." Because even from the far left media here I've heard that the surge seems to be improving. Maybe because it is being reported as improving the insurgents are trying to prevent us from thinking their is hope. Afterall if we realize that it isn't hopeless than they will have lost a major battle.

[Albion 69]

First off you are citing things from the beginning of the war when I know that they didn't find some of the things like scud missiles until at least a few months in. Secondly, he had 7 months before we invaded so it is VERY likely that he shipped off his weapons to someplace like Syria. In Gulf war 1 he flew most of what was left of his airforce into Iran to hide it from us and Iran use to be their enemies!

As of Jan 2008 no WMD stockpiles have been found in Iraq . The few planes left in Iraq's air force fled to Iran in an act of desperation to avoid total annihilation. Did Saddam order them there or did individual pilots make life and death decisions ? Saddam would never hand WMD to Iran his hated enemy for the obvious reason at some point they would of used it against him ! . Syria would be a more likely destination but it would be highly unlikely that the US would not notice any such movement through intelligence or satellites and once again Saddam didn`t strike me as the kind of man willing to give away his most prized toy (WMD).In his deluded mind he probably thought his regime could win. One other small point Saddam stayed in Iraq to the bitter end IF he still had WMD why didn`t he use it on the coalition forces ? He has used such weapons on both the Kurds and the Shias in the past and against IRAN .


The UN cited Saddam like 17 times for not living up to the agreements that were meant to be fulfilled at the end of the Gulf War 1. Like for instance not killing off Kurds. So TECHNICALLY when someone doesn't fulfill their part of a contract then the contract becomes void and that makes the war oh so very legal. This is what happens when you lose an armed conflict and only pretend to want to make peace.

Israel has ignored UN resolutions so TECHNICALLY we are justified in invading them ? Iraq was warned of "serious consequences" by the UN security council the US/UK pushed for another Resolution specifically authorising military action they did not get it .


Was Iraq that much better before this while Saddam was killing of innocents? What are you citing for the 'number of Iraqi deaths is up from last year." Because even from the far left media here I've heard that the surge seems to be improving. Maybe because it is being reported as improving the insurgents are trying to prevent us from thinking their is hope. Afterall if we realize that it isn't hopeless than they will have lost a major battle.

The situation has probably stabilised in Iraq to some degree i was just pointing out how grim it still is. The Brits have left Basra under the control of Iranian backed Militias no one bothers shooting blowing up our troops any more because the militias have got what they want .The police and army have been infiltrated by these groups .

[Mr.Smith86]

I personally like the fact that the guy who ignited this little debate has a link to a page called, "In defense of Stalin" :rolleyes:

But seriously for a moment,

It is made by imperialist power.

(1)What about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?

(2)Various armed interventions in sattelite states in Eastern Europe to put down democratic uprisings?

(3) Financing of proxy wars and arming of groups around the globe?

Yea... seems to be imperialist agression transcends left of right wing regimes into a commonality of any power structure.

People have mentioned to me that their are a lot of reds in India.

[Spades]

:(As of Jan 2008 no WMD stockpiles have been found in Iraq . The few planes left in Iraq's air force fled to Iran in an act of desperation to avoid total annihilation. Did Saddam order them there or did individual pilots make life and death decisions ? Saddam would never hand WMD to Iran his hated enemy for the obvious reason at some point they would of used it against him ! . Syria would be a more likely destination but it would be highly unlikely that the US would not notice any such movement through intelligence or satellites and once again Saddam didn`t strike me as the kind of man willing to give away his most prized toy (WMD).In his deluded mind he probably thought his regime could win. One other small point Saddam stayed in Iraq to the bitter end IF he still had WMD why didn`t he use it on the coalition forces ? He has used such weapons on both the Kurds and the Shias in the past and against IRAN .
WorldNetDaily: Saddam's WMD have been found (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213)

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1)


Israel has ignored UN resolutions so TECHNICALLY we are justified in invading them ? Iraq was warned of "serious consequences" by the UN security council the US/UK pushed for another Resolution specifically authorising military action they did not get it .

Sorry if i didn't make this clear enough. But Iraq had an ARMISTICE with the coalition forces which he broke and the Resolutions were there to cite him for his violations. There is a HUGE difference between an armistice and a UN resolution. We don't have any armistices that I know of with Israel. But your comment doesn't really sound that good of a defense anyway


The situation has probably stabilised in Iraq to some degree i was just pointing out how grim it still is. The Brits have left Basra under the control of Iranian backed Militias no one bothers shooting blowing up our troops any more because the militias have got what they want .The police and army have been infiltrated by these groups .

Yes its not where it was projected that it had to be granted but everything was horribly corrupted before and so that it might be less corrupted even slightly is an improvement.

[Albion 69]

:(
WorldNetDaily: Saddam's WMD have been found (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213)

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1)


A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."

That is what they claim they found...... where are the stockpiles of WMD ? In the run up to war the claims of what weapons Saddam had and were developing bears no relation to what was found. The US/UK at best misled there citizens at worst lied to them.The sites you provided can be countered by hundreds of others i include a few . Plus Tony Blair quote !

CNN.com - Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq - Oct 7, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm)

Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html)

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1321538,00.html)

Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man - Independent Online Edition > Americas (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article359755.ece)

"We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq. But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy." ...Tony Blair


Sorry if i didn't make this clear enough. But Iraq had an ARMISTICE with the coalition forces which he broke and the Resolutions were there to cite him for his violations. There is a HUGE difference between an armistice and a UN resolution. We don't have any armistices that I know of with Israel. But your comment doesn't really sound that good of a defense anyway

How did Saddam break the Armistice what conditions were broken ? If the US/UK thought the War was legal why did they try so hard to get a resolution specifically authorising military action ?

[Spades]

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."
limit."

That is what they claim they found...... where are the stockpiles of WMD ? In the run up to war the claims of what weapons Saddam had and were developing bears no relation to what was found. The US/UK at best misled there citizens at worst lied to them.The sites you provided can be countered by hundreds of others i include a few . Plus Tony Blair quote !


Yes, what was told misled people to believing that Saddam was more dangerous than he was. What is your point? He had Sarin nerv gas even if his chemical weapons were out-dated or the ones that were found. He wasn't suppose to have them. Furthermore, he did extremely terrible things that does not warrant him the right to be in a position of leading a country. Bush Made mistakes but why should the war be stopped.

"The ISG also published a list of people and groups to whom Saddam Hussein allegedly offered cheap oil in return for their support in trying to get UN sanctions lifted.

Many on the list - drawn from official Iraqi documents - are from Russia, France and China - countries which opposed the war in Iraq."

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.
He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

From your website, shows the true colors of some of the countries out there. One reason we shouldn't risk letting Saddam stay in power.

He also planned to get WMD's and evade sanctions. How far he got with the development of WMD's is something I doubt they know as well as they may lead you to believe. For example they found a centrifuge and research buried in the backyard of a scientist's home.




How did Saddam break the Armistice what conditions were broken ? If the US/UK thought the War was legal why did they try so hard to get a resolution specifically authorising military action ?

Because they would like the UN to back it? What is your point? Do you have one here? Read some of these websites.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1992/920312-219295.ht
Victor Davis Hanson on War in Iraq on National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200511180818.asp)

[Albion 69]

Yes, what was told misled people to believing that Saddam was more dangerous than he was. What is your point?

What is my point !.......Our Governments misled us on the case for going to War !!....are you happy about this ? Do we simply say oh well never mind i`m sure they won`t do it again .


Furthermore, he did extremely terrible things that does not warrant him the right to be in a position of leading a country. Bush Made mistakes but why should the war be stopped.

Yes he was a bad man... who we supported when it suited our needs.There are lots of bad leaders which country is next ? I am not in favour of pulling our troops out until the situation in Iraq is relatively stable and the Iraqis have a realistic chance of retaining some control/security .


From your website, shows the true colors of some of the countries out there. One reason we shouldn't risk letting Saddam stay in power.

He also planned to get WMD's and evade sanctions. How far he got with the development of WMD's is something I doubt they know as well as they may lead you to believe. For example they found a centrifuge and research buried in the backyard of a scientist's home.

The risk from Saddam was overplayed as we have already agreed there was no evidence of links to Al Qaeda where as now in Iraq the terrorists run free.
This war has made them stronger not weaker.


Because they would like the UN to back it? What is your point? Do you have one here? Read some of these websites.


My point is democracy's should not go around the world invading countries on inaccurate intelligence for no valid reason as this strengthens our enemies and weakens our allies . Are we any safer now than before the war ...No.
The trust in both our Governments is at an all time low ....Our enemies have used Iraq as a recruiting drive more Muslims have been radicalised our armed forces are overstretched this has caused problems in Afghanistan(where our real enemies are to be found).The financial cost of the war looks like pushing the US economy into recession , not to mention all those killed Military and civilian in Iraq .

[Spades]

What is my point !.......Our Governments misled us on the case for going to War !!....are you happy about this ? Do we simply say oh well never mind i`m sure they won`t do it again .
My argument never was about whether our government and their inability to clearly illustrate their knowledge. Maybe they were playing a worse-case scenario to the American people or maybe they actually knew that it was a Lie.

I agree that they should learn from this experience and if it was only a worse-case scenario ideology based on what they may believe that they illustrate it to the American public better. But I also understand that no president would want to be on the other-side of the coin and downplay the threat only to have it turn out to be true. Although, the evidence does show Saddam did intend to find ways around the sanctions and try to re-arm himself. The malicious intent was there.

This started out when you said the War was for Choice. I have stated that technically the first war was never over which negates the idea of necessity and choice.


Yes he was a bad man... who we supported when it suited our needs.There are lots of bad leaders which country is next ? I am not in favour of pulling our troops out until the situation in Iraq is relatively stable and the Iraqis have a realistic chance of retaining some control/security .
If we can take out leaders who commit acts of genocide then we should do it. Simple as that. But unfortunately, we are not always in the position to do this. For Iraq, we were.


The risk from Saddam was overplayed as we have already agreed there was no evidence of links to Al Qaeda where as now in Iraq the terrorists run free.
This war has made them stronger not weaker.
Yes, there was no link. But as for stronger not weaker, maybe. One could (For the US) that to the significance of 9/11 has happened to us yet.


My point is democracy's should not go around the world invading countries on inaccurate intelligence for no valid reason as this strengthens our enemies and weakens our allies . Are we any safer now than before the war ...No.
The trust in both our Governments is at an all time low ....Our enemies have used Iraq as a recruiting drive more Muslims have been radicalised our armed forces are overstretched this has caused problems in Afghanistan(where our real enemies are to be found).The financial cost of the war looks like pushing the US economy into recession , not to mention all those killed Military and civilian in Iraq .
Well inaccurate intelligence was a post-war finding and it could be argued that we are safer now. Our news media, even the left side has been reporting that the surge is showing signs of improving. Maybe we needed to weather the storm first before we saw the calm. The war has been costly for the US I know, and I have my own disagreements with how this war has been handled. War is costly and everyone seems to forget this. If a mild recession is all we got from this war than the US made out d*** good (Yes i know we lost soldiers and know that was a cost factor to, I am refering to only economically). The cost of this war is barely being felt by American citizens.

[Albion 69]

I think our views are to a certain extent influenced by the reasons each of our Government gave there citizens to justify invading Iraq.
Would i be right in saying WMD and Al Qaeda were mentioned by your Government but Regime change was also clearly stated as a goal ?
The Blair Government had only one card to play ...WMD... if regime change had been mentioned the Labour Party would never have voted to support the war. Because Blair was so reliant on this one argument the intelligence our Security Services gave him pre War had to be tweaked to suit the Governments need to convince the public . The Intelligence was vague and full of caveats by the time it was presented as proof of the threat Saddam posed they had been removed.

I admire your honesty and directness on assassinating Brutal Dictators although the unintended consequences that may flow from this would worry me. Also if its OK for us to do it ...etc.

As for are we in a worse position after Iraq than before it time will tell ...but i still think it was a big mistake that we will be paying for many years to come . Once again the differences between our Countries plays a part in our views the US has not been directly attacked since the War and it could be argued that fighting the Terrorists in Iraq keeps them from your door. Sadly in my country the War has helped to radicalise a minority of the Muslim population we have suffered a number of attacks from people who were born and bred here . This causes immense problems for our Security services (MI5) and for community relations .

[Spades]

Yea, the intelligence wasn't at all what it should have been and they also shouldn't have made that the crutch for the war. On the other hand My dad always told me and one of my Professors accidentally echoed that their is a law of unintended consequences (Not relating this to Iraq as much). Errors may sound perfectly obvious because we have hindisght to guide us but when the decision was made could they really have predicted that everything would fail so miserably and only now is showing signs of improving now. This is why taking out brutal dictators is such a difficult issue. I am sorry about the radicalization of some of the minority because we haven't felt that here nearly as much. Sadly, the US disregards how some of her actions may affect her allies.

[TheLegalEagle]

The Iraq war was as neccessary as it is for humans to consume food. We could not let some dictator with those kind of weapons be running a country even if the americans did aid him in getting the said weapons and supporting his rise to power.

Operation Iraqi freedom, although has killied many many civilians was a needed act in which the Iraqi people will be thankful for in the end.

As for the bio/chem/nuclear weapons, they were moved over the border to syria as Saddam knew we were coming because we gave him ample warning.

[Albion 69]

The Iraq war was inevitable because the US Government made it so .

They may well be but as you say it has been at a terrible cost .

You seem certain of this if you could provide your sources to the US/UK governments they would be eternally grateful .

[Pique]

The Iraq war was as neccessary as it is for humans to consume food. We could not let some dictator with those kind of weapons be running a country even if the americans did aid him in getting the said weapons and supporting his rise to power.

Operation Iraqi freedom, although has killied many many civilians was a needed act in which the Iraqi people will be thankful for in the end.

As for the bio/chem/nuclear weapons, they were moved over the border to syria as Saddam knew we were coming because we gave him ample warning.

The invasion of Iraq was not a neccesity, it was not inevitable it was continuum of two elements and these elements equate to George W. Bush's personal legacy (completing unfinished business started by his father) and George W. Bush's attempt at reviving the American Economy.

Saddam has never been found in possession of nuclear weaponry or the materials used to create nuclear weaponry and until I see a strong amount of evidence which is unanimously approved and cannot be controverted by anyone. The US, Britain and Germany supplied Iraq with weaponry in which Saddam used malignantly against his opposition most notably the Kurds. The US and Britain did not reprimand Iraq, the US and Britain did not utter a single word of defiance against Saddam after his actions against Kurds and Iran. Why was this if America is supposedly the beacon of the free world? Well I guess it is a case that as long as Iraq was allies with the United States and aslong as Iraq supplied the United States with intelligence of current affairs in the Middle East then there was no reason to defy Saddam or wage a conflict against him and Iraq.

Operation Iraqi Freedom? I feel this a grave misconception and I believe the Iraqi people were used a propaganda tool by George W. Bush and his cabinet of cronies to create support for the war on Iraq. To me America did not enter Iraq to free Iraq from Saddam, if Iraqi's had wanted rid of Saddam then I am sure the people of Iraq would have created a revolt to oust him from him his position. I feel George W. Bush sent US troops into Iraq to settle an old score, and to forcefully swindle Iraq of its oil fields to revive the collapsing American economy. I'd also go out on a limb here and state that George W. Bush thought at the time it would be cunning to wage a war on Iraq after America's failings in Afghanistan. I dare say George W. Bush would have had second thoughts on invading Iraq should he have forseen the level of annihilation that exists in Iraq.

Saddam moved his weaponry over to Syria did he? How do you know this and where is your concrete evidence which cannot be controverted to prove that Saddam had Iraq's nuclear material and weaponry transported to Syria? If this is the case why hasn't George W. Bush sent in US troops to seize these weapons? I'm guessing even he is not moronic enough to send US troops into a country where North Korea stores its weaponry. Even if Saddam had transported his entire selection of nuclear weaponry to Syria there is enough intelligence agencies in the globalised world to support this statement, unless there already is? The US gave Saddam a fourty eight hour pre-warning that coalition forces where going to invade Iraq, hardly enough time to transport his 'entire collection of weaponry' to neighbours Syria without being seen. Did he also transport his ammunition and array of guns, grenades, and missiles to Syria, too? Did Saddam also transport his airforce and naval forces to Syria, too, or it could it be that Saddam never had a naval fleet and the last of his eight fighter jets were dismantled and confiscated by America in the Kuwait-Iraq Gulf War in the early ninteen nineties?

How do you dispute the UN weapon inspectors findings, findings which were carried out on several occasions? Until there is concrete evidence which is set in stone and states that Iraq was breeding terrorism, Saddam was supportive of terrorism and that Iraq had nuclear weaponry in which there was a threat to the lives of neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, the US, Europe, and Britain then I will always be of the opinion that this war was waged for personal terms and I'll always believe that the war is immoral and abhorrently tragic.

[Spades]

The invasion of Iraq was not a neccesity, it was not inevitable it was continuum of two elements and these elements equate to George W. Bush's personal legacy (completing unfinished business started by his father) and George W. Bush's attempt at reviving the American Economy.
Stopping Genocide isn't a necessity? Secondly your last two accusations are compeletely unsupported. Just like mine about Saddam Possibly transporting his materials to Syria like he did with his airforce in the previous war but the difference is I thought i stated it was speculation or a chance (If I didn't then I am sorry).

Saddam moved his weaponry over to Syria did he? How do you know this and where is your concrete evidence which cannot be controverted to prove that Saddam had Iraq's nuclear material and weaponry transported to Syria? If this is the case why hasn't George W. Bush sent in US troops to seize these weapons? I'm guessing even he is not moronic enough to send US troops into a country where North Korea stores its weaponry. Even if Saddam had transported his entire selection of nuclear weaponry to Syria there is enough intelligence agencies in the globalised world to support this statement, unless there already is? The US gave Saddam a fourty eight hour pre-warning that coalition forces where going to invade Iraq, hardly enough time to transport his 'entire collection of weaponry' to neighbours Syria without being seen. Did he also transport his ammunition and array of guns, grenades, and missiles to Syria, too? Did Saddam also transport his airforce and naval forces to Syria, too, or it could it be that Saddam never had a naval fleet and the last of his eight fighter jets were dismantled and confiscated by America in the Kuwait-Iraq Gulf War in the early ninteen nineties?
Well First off, he had like seven months to move his stuff before we invaded. Thats plenty of time. So your not correct on that 'fourty-eight hour" speculation. Secondly, their was a centrifuge and research documents found buried in the back of a scientist yard. Not saying that this is proving a whole lot but Saddam wasn't suppose to have this in the first place.

Saddam was found with Sarin nerv gas which I thought was considered a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Did you know that Saddam was giving cheap oil in order to political persuade countries such as France to support lighter sanctions? Why/How could we just send troops in to seize the weapons? If Syria was harboring weapons do you think they'd just let us walk in a take them? Do you think the UN would? Don't make silly comments like that please.

[Pique]

Stopping Genocide isn't a necessity? Secondly your last two accusations are compeletely unsupported. Just like mine about Saddam Possibly transporting his materials to Syria like he did with his airforce in the previous war but the difference is I thought i stated it was speculation or a chance (If I didn't then I am sorry).

Well First off, he had like seven months to move his stuff before we invaded. Thats plenty of time. So your not correct on that 'fourty-eight hour" speculation. Secondly, their was a centrifuge and research documents found buried in the back of a scientist yard. Not saying that this is proving a whole lot but Saddam wasn't suppose to have this in the first place.

Saddam was found with Sarin nerv gas which I thought was considered a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Did you know that Saddam was giving cheap oil in order to political persuade countries such as France to support lighter sanctions? Why/How could we just send troops in to seize the weapons? If Syria was harboring weapons do you think they'd just let us walk in a take them? Do you think the UN would? Don't make silly comments like that please.

Saddam's acts of genocide occurred when America, Britain, Germany, Brazil, China and Russia and various other countries supplied Saddam with military equipment and biological and chemical weaponry to use against the Kurds and the Iranians. America has a habit of turning a blind eye when it is their vested interests and at the time Saddam was an ally and Saddam was America's gateway into Middle East affairs a claim that you have not denied which is surprising to say the least.

They are unsupported, but I am of the opinion these are the actual reasons America went to war with Iraq, maybe it was also down to religious reasons, too. He did not transport his airforce to Syria as far as I'm aware because when the US supplied Saddam with helicopters, Saddam wittered around with where to store these helicopters and Iran dismantled them in an airstrike. Now I could be wrong and Saddam did transport his weaponry and airforce to Syria, in which case I stand firmly corrected. However this does not explain why when American and Britain went to war with Iraq five years ago that Saddam's military force was inadequate which brings me onto my next question, if Saddam's military was as inadequate as shown then why would he have nuclear weaponry which could be seized from him in an instant. All it would take is for North Korea to send in their forces and they could have seized the entire collection with relative ease. Now Saddam was an incompetent in regards to his military, but I find it difficult to accept that some one could be as short-sighted to hold nuclear weaponry without having an iron steal military force to accompany the arrary of nuclear weaponry.

The US were monitoring Iraq for decades, but ultimately it was George W. Bush who presented Saddam with the ultimatum of surrending Iraq in forty eight hours or face an invasion, Saddam showed defiance in the face of adversity and this is how the Iraq invasion began. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that Iraq had nuclear, or chemical weaponry and there is no evidence to support the claims that Saddam had his weaponry transported to Syria. North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India are not supposed to have Nuclear weaponry, but they do. Pakistan and India have even tested nuclear weaponry before and nothing was said. Why is this?

Saddam was presented with nerv Gas by countries such as Britain, America, Russia and China to name a few. As I say Saddam would not have had these weapons had the elitist nations of the world had not been generous and handed an the insane man the weaponry in the first place. America has tried to persuade nations in a corrupt manner and America is generally corrupt Politically as most other nations in the world. Japan has been offering smaller nations aid in favourite of overturning the ban on commerical whaling. America usually has those answers covered, or do you? It has always been America's method to wade in and cause carnage and then discuss these issues later. America probably hasn't gone into Syria because of the immense destruction caused to Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, I'm sure America wouldn't want to anger North Korea and its allies China and I'm sure America doesn't wish for another stand off with Russia.

I hope the Iraq war makes Americans see past this 'leader of the free world' nonsense, because that is what it is nonsense, America's period of playing God with nations around the world is finally coming to an end. I have nothing else to say on this issue at the moment and will not discuss it further.

[Laura]

Stopping Genocide isn't a necessity? Secondly your last two accusations are compeletely unsupported. Just like mine about Saddam Possibly transporting his materials to Syria like he did with his airforce in the previous war but the difference is I thought i stated it was speculation or a chance (If I didn't then I am sorry).

Well First off, he had like seven months to move his stuff before we invaded. Thats plenty of time. So your not correct on that 'fourty-eight hour" speculation. Secondly, their was a centrifuge and research documents found buried in the back of a scientist yard. Not saying that this is proving a whole lot but Saddam wasn't suppose to have this in the first place.

Saddam was found with Sarin nerv gas which I thought was considered a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Did you know that Saddam was giving cheap oil in order to political persuade countries such as France to support lighter sanctions? Why/How could we just send troops in to seize the weapons? If Syria was harboring weapons do you think they'd just let us walk in a take them? Do you think the UN would? Don't make silly comments like that please.

Stopping Genocide isn't a necessity?

So why aren't we charging in and stopping the Genocide that's been occuring in the Darfur region of Sudan for several years?

Or do "we" ie. Britain and the United States just treat Genocides as Carte Blanche, where "we" pick and choose which Genocide to stop....of course in choosing it does help if a country has a TON of oil yes?

Oh if only Darfur could suddenly strike oil, Britain and the United States would soon go charging in to Sudan.

MORE people have died in Darfur than ever died in Iraq PRE-invasion, more people have died in Iraq POST-invasion though....so Bush and Blair have actually AIDED a Genocide haven't they?

It's a lie when Britain and America say that Genocide in Iraq was one of the daily-ever-changing excuses for invading Iraq....the truth is, the Bush Administration wanted to get it's hands on Iraq's OIL, and of course, that's one of the few things they've managed to do successfully in Iraq, is basically steal Iraq's oil, Iraq's oil DOESN'T belong to the Iraqi's anymore....it belongs to the American oil companies.

The second reason for the invasion of Iraq, after oil, was to pacify Israel's total paranoia....it's sad that American and British troops have had to die and continue to die to protect Israel's cowardly and bullying and neurotic backside....in an IDEAL world it's ISRAEL that should be invaded, Israel is the trouble-causer in the Middle East, Israel is THE nuisance and threat to stability.

The invasion of Iraq was and IS still pointless, a sheer waste of time, money and lives....instead of invading Iraq after Afghanistan, they should have invaded Pakistan, a nation that IS a REAL threat to Middle East stability and indeed the peace of the Western world.

But then I'm not surprised that Pakistan is left alone and treated with kid gloves, and a nation like Iraq that wasn't a threat to ANYONE got invaded and destroyed instead, I'm not surprised because Bush and Blair were never serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, it's all been smoke and mirrors, it's all been a facade, it's all been a lie.

[Spades]

Saddam's acts of genocide occurred when America, Britain, Germany, Brazil, China and Russia and various other countries supplied Saddam with military equipment and biological and chemical weaponry to use against the Kurds and the Iranians. America has a habit of turning a blind eye when it is their vested interests and at the time Saddam was an ally and Saddam was America's gateway into Middle East affairs a claim that you have not denied which is surprising to say the least.
Oh? What CHEMICAL weapons did we supply to Saddam during this time? I am asking out of curiousity even though you said you didn't want to debate it further. When did we supply it? I doubt we supplied them these weapons in order for them to use it the kurds.


They are unsupported, but I am of the opinion these are the actual reasons America went to war with Iraq, maybe it was also down to religious reasons, too. He did not transport his airforce to Syria as far as I'm aware because when the US supplied Saddam with helicopters, Saddam wittered around with where to store these helicopters and Iran dismantled them in an airstrike. Now I could be wrong and Saddam did transport his weaponry and airforce to Syria, in which case I stand firmly corrected. However this does not explain why when American and Britain went to war with Iraq five years ago that Saddam's military force was inadequate which brings me onto my next question, if Saddam's military was as inadequate as shown then why would he have nuclear weaponry which could be seized from him in an instant. All it would take is for North Korea to send in their forces and they could have seized the entire collection with relative ease. Now Saddam was an incompetent in regards to his military, but I find it difficult to accept that some one could be as short-sighted to hold nuclear weaponry without having an iron steal military force to accompany the arrary of nuclear weaponry.

Sorry, i mean Iran. Saddam's airforce about of 1/3 of it flew to Iran (reasons unknown) during the first gulf war.

During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left. Over 200 aircraft were destroyed on Iraqi airfields, and hardened laser-guided bombs devastated Iraq's hardened aircraft shelters. Eventually day-and-night air strikes destroyed or seriously damaged 375 shelters out of a total of 594.

Iraqi Air Force Equipment - Introduction (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm)


The US were monitoring Iraq for decades, but ultimately it was George W. Bush who presented Saddam with the ultimatum of surrending Iraq in forty eight hours or face an invasion, Saddam showed defiance in the face of adversity and this is how the Iraq invasion began. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that Iraq had nuclear, or chemical weaponry and there is no evidence to support the claims that Saddam had his weaponry transported to Syria. North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India are not supposed to have Nuclear weaponry, but they do. Pakistan and India have even tested nuclear weaponry before and nothing was said. Why is this?
Once you have the bomb its kind of like ehhh what can you do? Nothing. We've already stated that there were other reasons for going to war with Iraq. They had chemical btw but if that reason makes the war invalid to you than thats fine but just understand that I don't see it that way.


Saddam was presented with nerv Gas by countries such as Britain, America, Russia and China to name a few. As I say Saddam would not have had these weapons had the elitist nations of the world had not been generous and handed an the insane man the weaponry in the first place. America has tried to persuade nations in a corrupt manner and America is generally corrupt Politically as most other nations in the world. Japan has been offering smaller nations aid in favourite of overturning the ban on commerical whaling. America usually has those answers covered, or do you? It has always been America's method to wade in and cause carnage and then discuss these issues later. America probably hasn't gone into Syria because of the immense destruction caused to Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, I'm sure America wouldn't want to anger North Korea and its allies China and I'm sure America doesn't wish for another stand off with Russia.

I am talking about after Gulf War. Find me an article that says we handed Saddam these weapons after that war. Corrupt? Wait you want us to be the big sacrificers in the World so that everyone can live safe and free. Isn't that suppose to be more of a UN job? No we don't want to anger China because we won't win and excuse us all to he** if we are don't want to live under the threat of being nuked anymore by Russia.

I hope the Iraq war makes Americans see past this 'leader of the free world' nonsense, because that is what it is nonsense, America's period of playing God with nations around the world is finally coming to an end. I have nothing else to say on this issue at the moment and will not discuss it further.

Whatever. If you are not willinging to debate this topic then you should have just ignored me. Instead of playing the last-comment out routine. I am all for debating but to me this seems like bad manners.

[Spades]

So why aren't we charging in and stopping the Genocide that's been occuring in the Darfur region of Sudan for several years?


Several Reasons. We don't perceive them as an enemy.

Or do "we" ie. Britain and the United States just treat Genocides as Carte Blanche, where "we" pick and choose which Genocide to stop....of course in choosing it does help if a country has a TON of oil yes?
Why is it "we" that have to stop Genocides? Why isn't it other countries? Excuse us if "we" don't jump on every country. We should, but the public doesn't like to be the ones who have to bear the cost for everything. It ISN'T our job. Read all of the reasons that Congress passed for going to War with Iraq and THEN come back to me and address ALL the reasons. How has America benefited so much from this oil? I'd like to see it. Or are you in favor of Saddam siphoning off oil for food money for his own personal gain? Or feeding china/france cheap oil to lift sanctions? Yes, go yell at them for accepting bribery and get off America's back.


Oh if only Darfur could suddenly strike oil, Britain and the United States would soon go charging in to Sudan.
No we wouldn't and thats just speculating. I know this anti-america rhetoric won't be proved wrong on this forum but I am going to try anyway.


MORE people have died in Darfur than ever died in Iraq PRE-invasion, more people have died in Iraq POST-invasion though....so Bush and Blair have actually AIDED a Genocide haven't they?
Did you honestly think that going to war with a country would produce less deaths during the war? Did you honestly expect that?
Besides (I am speculating) but have the deaths in other countries were al queda is gone down? Its just that nobody looks at the outside factors.


It's a lie when Britain and America say that Genocide in Iraq was one of the daily-ever-changing excuses for invading Iraq....the truth is, the Bush Administration wanted to get it's hands on Iraq's OIL, and of course, that's one of the few things they've managed to do successfully in Iraq, is basically steal Iraq's oil, Iraq's oil DOESN'T belong to the Iraqi's anymore....it belongs to the American oil companies.
Sign, we went to war because after 9/11 (IN which alot of extra-americans lost their lives in car accidents due to the fear of not flying (about 880 in the first year) we decided to take a look around the world. Partially because we were angry/scared which motivated us to go to war with Iraq. There were good reasons to go war but we still wouldn't have with out 9/11. American public does not vote for war without some kind of stimulus (Don't claim conspiracy please because I won't listen).


The second reason for the invasion of Iraq, after oil, was to pacify Israel's total paranoia....it's sad that American and British troops have had to die and continue to die to protect Israel's cowardly and bullying and neurotic backside....in an IDEAL world it's ISRAEL that should be invaded, Israel is the trouble-causer in the Middle East, Israel is THE nuisance and threat to stability.



The invasion of Iraq was and IS still pointless, a sheer waste of time, money and lives....instead of invading Iraq after Afghanistan, they should have invaded Pakistan, a nation that IS a REAL threat to Middle East stability and indeed the peace of the Western world.



But then I'm not surprised that Pakistan is left alone and treated with kid gloves, and a nation like Iraq that wasn't a threat to ANYONE got invaded and destroyed instead, I'm not surprised because Bush and Blair were never serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, it's all been smoke and mirrors, it's all been a facade, it's all been a lie.

[Pique]

Oh? What CHEMICAL weapons did we supply to Saddam during this time? I am asking out of curiousity even though you said you didn't want to debate it further. When did we supply it? I doubt we supplied them these weapons in order for them to use it the kurds.


Sorry, i mean Iran. Saddam's airforce about of 1/3 of it flew to Iran (reasons unknown) during the first gulf war.

During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left. Over 200 aircraft were destroyed on Iraqi airfields, and hardened laser-guided bombs devastated Iraq's hardened aircraft shelters. Eventually day-and-night air strikes destroyed or seriously damaged 375 shelters out of a total of 594.

Iraqi Air Force Equipment - Introduction (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm)


Once you have the bomb its kind of like ehhh what can you do? Nothing. We've already stated that there were other reasons for going to war with Iraq. They had chemical btw but if that reason makes the war invalid to you than thats fine but just understand that I don't see it that way.



I am talking about after Gulf War. Find me an article that says we handed Saddam these weapons after that war. Corrupt? Wait you want us to be the big sacrificers in the World so that everyone can live safe and free. Isn't that suppose to be more of a UN job? No we don't want to anger China because we won't win and excuse us all to he** if we are don't want to live under the threat of being nuked anymore by Russia.


Whatever. If you are not willinging to debate this topic then you should have just ignored me. Instead of playing the last-comment out routine. I am all for debating but to me this seems like bad manners.

Ronald Reagan's administration was responsible for transporting of biological agents to Iraq, these included anthrax and bubonic plague and other substances capable of creating death and destruction. A letter written by David Satcher a former CDC Director to former senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr, states that the US Government of the time transported nearly two dozen viral and bacterial sample to Iraq scientists in 1985, this was the height of the Iran-Iraq conflict. These samples included as we already know anthrax, botulism, the bubonic plaque and other substances which I have not yet uncovered from the sources I have read and studied.

These substances were developed in Iraq and used on Kurds and Iranians, but was it solely America's fault? No, that is not what I have stated, Britain, Germany, China, Russia, Brazil and other nations. In 1960 the USSR and Iraq forged a treaty together which stated that USSR intelligence would aid Iraq in developing an atomic power station. Almost a decade later the USSR helped Iraq establish an atomic power station with other facilities. In the Mid 1970's, Saddam flew to Moscow to ask for the USSR to ask for help in creating an advanced atomic power station, the USSR advocated that if it were to aid Iraq in developing an advanced station with advanced facilities that the station would have to be regulated by the International Atomic Energy agency. Saddam refused in a rather abrupt manner and it was around this time when Saddam asked for co-operation from France, it was only after six months of France contemplating did France decide to not only develop an advanced atomic station without the advice and regulations from the International Atomic Engery Agency. France also sold Uranium to Iraq which seems to have gone unnoticed.

In the early 1970's Saddam designed a nuclear weapons programme and this programme was funded by a various private companies and governments throughout the seventies and eighties. German company Karl Kobe were responsible for helping Iraq develop laboratories, underground bunkers, an administrative buildings and other buildings disquised as a pesticide factory. France also built Iraq's nuclear reactor in the late 1970's. Brazilian companies, Italy and Switzerland all helped aid Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. The United States as earlier stated supplied with Iraq with viruses and the ones I forgot to mention where the substances which caused horrific injuries and scars to those who felt the wrath of the substance. For example, the United States supplied Iraq with the West Nile Virus, Brucella melitensis which damages human organs and Clostridium perfringens which causes gas gangrene. Some of these substances were tried and tested in Iraq's nuclear weapons programmes and some was used to aid Iraqi vaccine development, but ultimately these substances were used to punish Kurds and Iranians, even if the US failed to forsee Saddam using these materials in such a barbaric mannerism. So, no America didn't supply Iraq with the finished article of a nuclear/chemical weapons, but America along with the British who supplied Iraq with Mustard Gas also contributed to the death of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.

Most of Iraq's Air Force was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom during early 2003, and all remaining equipment was junked in the immediate aftermath of the war. None of the aircraft acquired during Saddam's time remained in service. - I've read the article and it completely rips my theory to shreds (Yes, I can admit when I'm inaccurate), but this section of the article highlights and supports my notion that Iraq's airforce was inadequate to fight against the US and British and other military forces which sit on the UN Security Council.

Most of Iraq's chemicals and weapons of mass destruction was confiscated from Saddam during the ninety nineties and the manner in which George W. Bush and Tony Blair overstated the threat of Iraq in supporting Global Terrorism and the fact Iraq could erect a weapon of mass destruction in just three quarters of an hour was pure deception which had an affect on how Iraq was perceived by the Global community. The UN weapon inspectors conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq and found no weapons of mass destruction and to this day these weapons have never been recovered, would I be cynical if I said I have never believed George W. Bush and Tony Blair?

My claim was one of falsity about the US supplying Iraq with chemical and biological weaponry, however America did supply Iraq with the materials used to create these weapons and the substances which was used to murder and torture thousands of Iranians and Kurds. I would like America to be able to use it's power in a more positive manner and sit down and discuss these matters and use action when there is no other alternative. America has always had a habit since the end of World War II of creating mass carnage, destruction and death and then discussing matters, as opposed to other way around. I don't dislike America, I believe America can bring about positive change to the world, but America can never hope to achieve this if all America continues to cause carnage. Richard Nixon wanted to annihilate Vietnam in the fifties/sixties when he had most of Vietnam napalm bombed and then of course Bill Clinton's decision to take on Somalia which failed and now Afghanistan and Iraq. Why can't America just be a positive force for change just at least once? The American foreign policy is highly aggressive and people have little else to do but to be reactionary against the machine. America is the nation that the world rages against and this could all change if you changed. Incidents such as 9/11 would not happen if America wasn't so assertive and aggressive in nature, but diplomatic and hardlined, but not to the point of pure aggression. You have just admitted in a discreet manner that America won't ever stand up to those who are on an equal level to it in terms of authority and military prowess.

I was highly ill-mannered and for this I apologise, I just tend to become infriuated when discussing America, not because I dislike the nation, but because the nation stands for everything that I am against. At times I can be pass very nonsensical remarks about America out of anger, but I'll make sure that this doesn't happen here, I promise. ;)

[Spades]

Ronald Reagan's administration was responsible for transporting of biological agents to Iraq, these included anthrax and bubonic plague and other substances capable of creating death and destruction. A letter written by David Satcher a former CDC Director to former senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr, states that the US Government of the time transported nearly two dozen viral and bacterial sample to Iraq scientists in 1985, this was the height of the Iran-Iraq conflict. These samples included as we already know anthrax, botulism, the bubonic plaque and other substances which I have not yet uncovered from the sources I have read and studied.

Well yes, but that was before-that fact evidence. What I mean is that once they were not allowed to have it they had the responsiblity to get rid of it and meet the demands. I am sure that we only had the intention of having them use it against the Iranian's.

Saddam refused in a rather abrupt manner and it was around this time when Saddam asked for co-operation from France, it was only after six months of France contemplating did France decide to not only develop an advanced atomic station without the advice and regulations from the International Atomic Engery Agency. France also sold Uranium to Iraq which seems to have gone unnoticed.
Interesting. Would you mind giving me a source because this is something I would definitely like to look into (Seriously). Maybe it was the cheap oil that Saddam was feeding them?

In the early 1970's Saddam designed a nuclear weapons programme and this programme was funded by a various private companies and governments throughout the seventies and eighties. German company Karl Kobe were responsible for helping Iraq develop laboratories, underground bunkers, an administrative buildings and other buildings disquised as a pesticide factory. France also built Iraq's nuclear reactor in the late 1970's. Brazilian companies, Italy and Switzerland all helped aid Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. The United States as earlier stated supplied with Iraq with viruses and the ones I forgot to mention where the substances which caused horrific injuries and scars to those who felt the wrath of the substance. For example, the United States supplied Iraq with the West Nile Virus, Brucella melitensis which damages human organs and Clostridium perfringens which causes gas gangrene. Some of these substances were tried and tested in Iraq's nuclear weapons programmes and some was used to aid Iraqi vaccine development, but ultimately these substances were used to punish Kurds and Iranians, even if the US failed to forsee Saddam using these materials in such a barbaric mannerism. So, no America didn't supply Iraq with the finished article of a nuclear/chemical weapons, but America along with the British who supplied Iraq with Mustard Gas also contributed to the death of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.
Yes, we played a factor which only gives us more responsiblity to have taken him out. I am not going to excuse the United States actions but I also do not fully know our reason for supplying Saddam with so much (vaccinations = positive?).

Most of Iraq's Air Force was destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom during early 2003, and all remaining equipment was junked in the immediate aftermath of the war. None of the aircraft acquired during Saddam's time remained in service. - I've read the article and it completely rips my theory to shreds (Yes, I can admit when I'm inaccurate), but this section of the article highlights and supports my notion that Iraq's airforce was inadequate to fight against the US and British and other military forces which sit on the UN Security Council.
Yes, but that was part of the reason why we went in I thought. My logic on this is if you know someone is a dangerous man that if given the opportunity to strike they would. Would you wait until that person can do the significant amount of damage or would you stop the threat before it ever came close? (Note: Our intelligence seems to always fail so I don't trust them a whole lot).


Most of Iraq's chemicals and weapons of mass destruction was confiscated from Saddam during the ninety nineties and the manner in which George W. Bush and Tony Blair overstated the threat of Iraq in supporting Global Terrorism and the fact Iraq could erect a weapon of mass destruction in just three quarters of an hour was pure deception which had an affect on how Iraq was perceived by the Global community. The UN weapon inspectors conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq and found no weapons of mass destruction and to this day these weapons have never been recovered, would I be cynical if I said I have never believed George W. Bush and Tony Blair?
No you wouldn't and most of what I said is how the War was justified and not on the credibility of those two guys. I do not know the entirety of all the information Bush/Blair had or their reasoning they used. The only reason I gave such a nice optimistic opinion of them is because the War had plenty of other reasons in my opinion.


My claim was one of falsity about the US supplying Iraq with chemical and biological weaponry, however America did supply Iraq with the materials used to create these weapons and the substances which was used to murder and torture thousands of Iranians and Kurds. I would like America to be able to use it's power in a more positive manner and sit down and discuss these matters and use action when there is no other alternative. America has always had a habit since the end of World War II of creating mass carnage, destruction and death and then discussing matters, as opposed to other way around. I don't dislike America, I believe America can bring about positive change to the world, but America can never hope to achieve this if all America continues to cause carnage. Richard Nixon wanted to annihilate Vietnam in the fifties/sixties when he had most of Vietnam napalm bombed and then of course Bill Clinton's decision to take on Somalia which failed and now Afghanistan and Iraq. Why can't America just be a positive force for change just at least once? The American foreign policy is highly aggressive and people have little else to do but to be reactionary against the machine. America is the nation that the world rages against and this could all change if you changed. Incidents such as 9/11 would not happen if America wasn't so assertive and aggressive in nature, but diplomatic and hardlined, but not to the point of pure aggression. You have just admitted in a discreet manner that America won't ever stand up to those who are on an equal level to it in terms of authority and military prowess.
Well half the time countries try to nationalize things they do not own which in my mind is stealing. Instead of trying to sit down and talk they believe they have the right which in turns results in some kind of action from us. (I think you have Nixon quite wrong by the way). He took office during the war and he did a lot of things for example opening relations with mainland China again. We stand up to other countries just as much as they stand up to us for the most part (probably more than they do). How can you point the finger at us when Europe does little but take Saddam's cheap oil as long as they keep quiet? We are a hegemony and not an Empire as most would likely to claim (But would be blatantly wrong). You will have to excuse me if i turn a questioning eye because it seems somewhat a double standard has been set for America.

I was highly ill-mannered and for this I apologise, I just tend to become infriuated when discussing America, not because I dislike the nation, but because the nation stands for everything that I am against. At times I can be pass very nonsensical remarks about America out of anger, but I'll make sure that this doesn't happen here, I promise. ;) :( everything? Really? I mean we are the worst on your list, even before China and Russia? I mean what do we stand for that you hate so much?

[Pique]

Well yes, but that was before-that fact evidence. What I mean is that once they were not allowed to have it they had the responsiblity to get rid of it and meet the demands. I am sure that we only had the intention of having them use it against the Iranian's.

You sold your ally (at the time) substances which in the wrong hands could prove fatal and it did prove fatal didn't it? The Iraq-Iran war lasted a decade, when America supplied Iraq with these substances, America indirectly contributed to modern age genocide of thousands of Iranians and Kurds. You supplied a man with mental difficulties fatal substances, and what for? A in-depth knowledge into the Middle East's affairs? Oil? Money? I'm reckon it was all three reasons. America would sell its soul to satan for money and oil. It's a tad too late to supply a dictator with substances and then demand he stops using them, what gives the US the right to make such demands? There's a case to be made that once America dealt the dirty deed, they washed their moral high ground approach down the river. As for the last comment, well that only backs up my claim doesn't it?


Interesting. Would you mind giving me a source because this is something I would definitely like to look into (Seriously). Maybe it was the cheap oil that Saddam was feeding them?

I have two sources, if you want anymore, you know where your local library and google search engine are, check there.

France Halts U.N. Debate On Monitors For Iraqi Arms - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E5DC1F31F936A25751C1A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

Here is the second article: French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium' (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/945516/posts?page=121) Good luck with your research.

You're spot on, France defended Iraq to the back teeth because he supplied them oil in return for military aid, why else do you think France refute action against Iraq and Germany for that matter?

Yes, we played a factor which only gives us more responsiblity to have taken him out. I am not going to excuse the United States actions but I also do not fully know our reason for supplying Saddam with so much (vaccinations = positive?).

Why did it solely fall to America to 'take out Saddam'? America was only one nation of the many that helped Saddam claim advanced technology, I'd imagine America arrogantly and ignorantly claims it is responsible for the entire mess, I know how America likes the attention. Vaccinations are a positive, but Saddam used a small percentage of the substances America sold him for vaccinations, he used the remaining substances to commit acts of genocide.


Yes, but that was part of the reason why we went in I thought. My logic on this is if you know someone is a dangerous man that if given the opportunity to strike they would. Would you wait until that person can do the significant amount of damage or would you stop the threat before it ever came close? (Note: Our intelligence seems to always fail so I don't trust them a whole lot).

I didn't realise America preyed on the vulnerable, strike why the iron is hot eh? Well, Saddam was not deemed a threat by any other nations apart from Britain and the United States. In fact it's Iran and the Taleban who are the main threats, not Iraq and Saddam. Iraq was a proud nation and now it lies in ruins battered and bruised with a very bleak future. I could also raise the point and I will because I feel it is valid that if Saddam was going to do any damage, he would have done so at the peak of his powers in the eighties. Saddam would often send his troops out to the deserts so they would die, because he did not want his nation to be seen as a threat, he was no threat to anyone else but himself. He was no, Hitler, Mao, or Stalin. He was not intellectually astute enough, he was certainly no Osama Bin Laden.


No you wouldn't and most of what I said is how the War was justified and not on the credibility of those two guys. I do not know the entirety of all the information Bush/Blair had or their reasoning they used. The only reason I gave such a nice optimistic opinion of them is because the War had plenty of other reasons in my opinion.

What are the personal beliefs you hold about the war? What justification can you forge about the war on Iraq? Can you explain the reasons behind the Iraq war, I'm slightly ignorant to these optimistic reasons.


Well half the time countries try to nationalize things they do not own which in my mind is stealing. Instead of trying to sit down and talk they believe they have the right which in turns results in some kind of action from us. (I think you have Nixon quite wrong by the way). He took office during the war and he did a lot of things for example opening relations with mainland China again. We stand up to other countries just as much as they stand up to us for the most part (probably more than they do). How can you point the finger at us when Europe does little but take Saddam's cheap oil as long as they keep quiet? We are a hegemony and not an Empire as most would likely to claim (But would be blatantly wrong). You will have to excuse me if i turn a questioning eye because it seems somewhat a double standard has been set for America.


America's entire history was built on stealing, stealing the Native American's resources, stealing their way of life from the Natives, so what gives America the right to go around accusing nations of stealing when every nation steals and will continue to do so? America continue to show doube standards and pure hypocrisy and you Americans sit there and wonder why no other nation in the world takes you seriously? You stand up to nations who are smaller than you and you bully them into conforming to the American Constitution. When a larger nation stood up to you, you hid behind your space age technology and your nuclear weaponry. At least admit your nation hasn't got a spinal cord, that's a great place to start and no, Britain is just as bad, always have been.

You are a hegemony and one the world is tired of and angry at, it's time America calmed down before your nation collapses and drags every other nation down with it. America should focus on itself and its own problems, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. When America is the perfect nation with the morals of ethics of granduer then it can point the finger at Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. Yes, America has set the standard for double standards and hypocrisy, after all America is the leader of the free world and has this do as we say, not as we do attitude, so what do you expect the world to do but follow America? If we don't, we risk being invaded and crushed in the most brutal fashion.


:( everything? Really? I mean we are the worst on your list, even before China and Russia? I mean what do we stand for that you hate so much?

You're entire constitution, you're way of life and your ignorance to your own faults, America is morally bankrupt and always has been, yet it throws mud at the fans of other nations with no regard to its own problems and faults and this makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. I have no worst list, but China and Russia do not play the moral high ground in international Politics, America does though.

America is not the world, you should listen to this song, it sends America a few home truths.

[Spades]

You sold your ally (at the time) substances which in the wrong hands could prove fatal and it did prove fatal didn't it? The Iraq-Iran war lasted a decade, when America supplied Iraq with these substances, America indirectly contributed to modern age genocide of thousands of Iranians and Kurds. You supplied a man with mental difficulties fatal substances, and what for? A in-depth knowledge into the Middle East's affairs? Oil? Money? I'm reckon it was all three reasons. America would sell its soul to satan for money and oil. It's a tad too late to supply a dictator with substances and then demand he stops using them, what gives the US the right to make such demands? There's a case to be made that once America dealt the dirty deed, they washed their moral high ground approach down the river. As for the last comment, well that only backs up my claim doesn't it?



Bush's involvement began in the early 1980s as part of the so-called "tilt" toward Iraq initiated
by then-President Ronald Reagan to prop up Hussein in his war with Iran. Hussein's survival was
seen as vital to U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and thwart Iran's bid
for dominance in the Middle East.

Many in the American government, including Presidents Bush and Reagan, also hoped that U.S. aid
would gradually cause Hussein to moderate his ways and even play a positive role in the Middle East
peace process.

"When the Iran-Iraq War ended and Iran was really flat on its back, there should have been some
immediate kind of repositioning of U.S. policy so you wouldn't give Saddam this signal that we were
backing him as the big shot in the region," said William B. Quandt, a Middle East expert at the
Brookings Institution.

You are partially right. Althought one batch out of the two batches we sent them of the biological (each or some of the) agents that we gave them went to developing vaccines. Which in my guess isn't a small part. Secondly, the theory goes that Bush (Senior) generally took the idea of Regan to far which the articles states for reasons that are unknown.




Why did it solely fall to America to 'take out Saddam'? America was only one nation of the many that helped Saddam claim advanced technology, I'd imagine America arrogantly and ignorantly claims it is responsible for the entire mess, I know how America likes the attention. Vaccinations are a positive, but Saddam used a small percentage of the substances America sold him for vaccinations, he used the remaining substances to commit acts of genocide.

..... Seriously, COME ON. You just claimed that several nations helped Saddam become who he was and America were the only ones(Which you said) to man-up clean up the mess. If anything you should at least respect us a little more for that instead of just bashing America to bash us.



I didn't realise America preyed on the vulnerable, strike why the iron is hot eh? Well, Saddam was not deemed a threat by any other nations apart from Britain and the United States. In fact it's Iran and the Taleban who are the main threats, not Iraq and Saddam. Iraq was a proud nation and now it lies in ruins battered and bruised with a very bleak future. I could also raise the point and I will because I feel it is valid that if Saddam was going to do any damage, he would have done so at the peak of his powers in the eighties. Saddam would often send his troops out to the deserts so they would die, because he did not want his nation to be seen as a threat, he was no threat to anyone else but himself. He was no, Hitler, Mao, or Stalin. He was not intellectually astute enough, he was certainly no Osama Bin Laden.
Yes, we were using Iraq to fight IRAN. Secondly, Saddam would use the power we gave him against us during a war with Iran? Yes because thats logical.




What are the personal beliefs you hold about the war? What justification can you forge about the war on Iraq? Can you explain the reasons behind the Iraq war, I'm slightly ignorant to these optimistic reasons.
My belief is that America needs to either learn that they should go all out in a war or not go in at all. Iraq had a bad dictator, genocide, and always was seeking to acquire military power. Furtheremore we had some more justification to go to war with them than a normal country who would fit the other requirements
Optimistic Reasons:
1) Iraq led the world to believe he had nuclear weapons so that Iran would not invade them. This happened to backfire.
2) There were OTHER reasons and justifications that we went to war and not just the WMD claim.
3) Saddam was seeking to lift sanctions to acquire more power. We can't exactly trust the world to go the moral high ground either because well they seem to like being paid off
4) Saddamn BROKE the armistice agreement which meant technically the war was still going on.



America's entire history was built on stealing, stealing the Native American's resources, stealing their way of life from the Natives, so what gives America the right to go around accusing nations of stealing when every nation steals and will continue to do so? America continue to show doube standards and pure hypocrisy and you Americans sit there and wonder why no other nation in the world takes you seriously? You stand up to nations who are smaller than you and you bully them into conforming to the American Constitution. When a larger nation stood up to you, you hid behind your space age technology and your nuclear weaponry. At least admit your nation hasn't got a spinal cord, that's a great place to start and no, Britain is just as bad, always have been. So is yours and a lot of Europes. We'd all be muslim right now if they were not held off at France. A lot of countries have their faults/wars and not saying its right but get over it. Who do we bully to form the American Constitution? Spinal cord? When we keep dictators in power you get mad but when we clean our 'mess' you claim its because we are attention whores. When we try to stand up to other countries you claim we ignorantly play the moral high ground, but if we don't then we don't have a spinal cord. You honestly are contradictory.


You are a hegemony and one the world is tired of and angry at, it's time America calmed down before your nation collapses and drags every other nation down with it. America should focus on itself and its own problems, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. When America is the perfect nation with the morals of ethics of granduer then it can point the finger at Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. Yes, America has set the standard for double standards and hypocrisy, after all America is the leader of the free world and has this do as we say, not as we do attitude, so what do you expect the world to do but follow America? If we don't, we risk being invaded and crushed in the most brutal fashion.
The world needs to realize that America did a lot to become the hegemony. We rebuilt your economies and West Germany in order to achieve this. Do you not understand the concept of a hegemony. We have to give you incentives to play under our economic system otherwise we would lose our hegemony status (because you guys would not want to participate in it). But then again you fault us for playing the game as you all have played it instead of using East germany as a buffer zone and not doing anything for them.(Russia)
How do we threaten to invade in a brutal fashion? Give me examples.



You're entire constitution, you're way of life and your ignorance to your own faults, America is morally bankrupt and always has been, yet it throws mud at the fans of other nations with no regard to its own problems and faults and this makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. I have no worst list, but China and Russia do not play the moral high ground in international Politics, America does though.

America is not the world, you should listen to this song, it sends America a few home truths.
Yes, China and russia who significantly control the information flowing and have human's rights violations. Who seek to extend their reach of power and slaughter chechnyans. Or block Georgian exports on bogus claims which they have yet to validate. (Russia)

Or the fact we have send in some ships to block China from tawain annually.

Our constitution if you hate it so much makes me wonder what kind of person you are. What do you stand for? We play the moral high ground because we generally have morals. I am not saying we are the morally best country but we are pretty da** good. You are VERY general in your comments which makes me wonder if you hate us just to hate us.

[Pique]

Bush's involvement began in the early 1980s as part of the so-called "tilt" toward Iraq initiated
by then-President Ronald Reagan to prop up Hussein in his war with Iran. Hussein's survival was
seen as vital to U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and thwart Iran's bid
for dominance in the Middle East.

Many in the American government, including Presidents Bush and Reagan, also hoped that U.S. aid
would gradually cause Hussein to moderate his ways and even play a positive role in the Middle East
peace process.

"When the Iran-Iraq War ended and Iran was really flat on its back, there should have been some
immediate kind of repositioning of U.S. policy so you wouldn't give Saddam this signal that we were
backing him as the big shot in the region," said William B. Quandt, a Middle East expert at the
Brookings Institution.

So the causes of the rise in Islamic fundamentalism is because of US paranoia and US naivety? I'm sorry, but for a nation as powerful as the US is this is unforgivable. I also disagree with Quandt's opinion that the US should have changed their stance. It would be seen as a major double standard and would lose the US creditibility. The US should have followed the suit of Germany and Russia and done nothing. American crusades through the Middle East has made the Middle East untolerable and unstable, whilst breeding global terrorism. The US reacted too late to Saddam, and removed him at the worst possible time period - when Iraq was steady and stable.


You are partially right. Althought one batch out of the two batches we sent them of the biological (each or some of the) agents that we gave them went to developing vaccines. Which in my guess isn't a small part. Secondly, the theory goes that Bush (Senior) generally took the idea of Regan to far which the articles states for reasons that are unknown

It's small enough, enough for Saddam to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians. These materials should not have been sold during the middle of the Iraq-Iran war, then again all nations care about is forging alliegences which will benefit them and I guess Iraq benefitted the United States. It is irrelevant who took the matter 'too far', what matters is that the US through it's own flaws made a complete disarray in the Middle East with an issue which was about eighteen years old at the time of George W. Bush's decision to declare the invasion of Iraq.



..... Seriously, COME ON. You just claimed that several nations helped Saddam become who he was and America were the only ones(Which you said) to man-up clean up the mess. If anything you should at least respect us a little more for that instead of just bashing America to bash us.


Yes, there was several nations who helped Saddam, however it was the US who helped Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, it was the US who sold fatal substances naively to Iraq believing Saddam that the substances would be used to create vaccinations and whilst the US shouldered their responsibly the way in which the US has gone about "cleaning up their mess" has inflamed the instability and now Islamic fundamentalism could be more rife and it's rife, not in the US, but in the Middle East and Europe.



Yes, we were using Iraq to fight IRAN. Secondly, Saddam would use the power we gave him against us during a war with Iran? Yes because thats logical.


Now the US spin comes into force "we used Iraq", if this is the case then the US deserves everything it receives. If you play with fire and behave in a manner comparable with a playground bully then expect to be burnt.



My belief is that America needs to either learn that they should go all out in a war or not go in at all. Iraq had a bad dictator, genocide, and always was seeking to acquire military power. Furtheremore we had some more justification to go to war with them than a normal country who would fit the other requirements
Optimistic Reasons:
1) Iraq led the world to believe he had nuclear weapons so that Iran would not invade them. This happened to backfire.
2) There were OTHER reasons and justifications that we went to war and not just the WMD claim.
3) Saddam was seeking to lift sanctions to acquire more power. We can't exactly trust the world to go the moral high ground either because well they seem to like being paid off
4) Saddamn BROKE the armistice agreement which meant technically the war was still going on.


What reasons did the US have to go to war with Iraq and did the US have more of a right than say France or Germany who both assisted Iraq in becoming a military advanced nation state? Is it because US is highly arrogant and believes as it is a Superpower that it has a responsibility to police the world, is this the crux of the US?

All valid points except for the fact that the US ignored Saddam's crimes when Iraq could supply the US with intelligence and cheap fossil fuels. Could you elaborate on point #2, please?



So is yours and a lot of Europes. We'd all be muslim right now if they were not held off at France. A lot of countries have their faults/wars and not saying its right but get over it. Who do we bully to form the American Constitution? Spinal cord? When we keep dictators in power you get mad but when we clean our 'mess' you claim its because we are attention whores. When we try to stand up to other countries you claim we ignorantly play the moral high ground, but if we don't then we don't have a spinal cord. You honestly are contradictory.



A lot of countries do have their faults, in fact all nations do, but nations learn from their mistakes, the US doesn't, and this is the fundamental difference why the US stands out like a swallon thumb. I get angry when the US preaches to the world about how to behave and how the world should use the American model to create a great and stunning nation. The US' motto seem to be "do we say, and not as we do" and this upsets me greatly. This is why a small part of me wants to see the US struggle through recession, even if it effects me personally.



The world needs to realize that America did a lot to become the hegemony. We rebuilt your economies and West Germany in order to achieve this. Do you not understand the concept of a hegemony. We have to give you incentives to play under our economic system otherwise we would lose our hegemony status (because you guys would not want to participate in it). But then again you fault us for playing the game as you all have played it instead of using East germany as a buffer zone and not doing anything for them.(Russia)
How do we threaten to invade in a brutal fashion? Give me examples.


The US needs to realise that arrogantly informing the world that the US is model of humanity in sentence whilst committing atrocities in another sentence won't win them many allies. If you say so, and you did not help us whatsoever my friend, the US doesn't help anyone, the US will stratch nations backs if they are prepared to scratch America's in return. The World is fed up of the US though, I think the world would rather have China, or Russia playing the bully because it would make a nice change. The war on the Native Americans, there's your example.


Yes, China and russia who significantly control the information flowing and have human's rights violations. Who seek to extend their reach of power and slaughter chechnyans. Or block Georgian exports on bogus claims which they have yet to validate. (Russia)

Or the fact we have send in some ships to block China from tawain annually.

Our constitution if you hate it so much makes me wonder what kind of person you are. What do you stand for? We play the moral high ground because we generally have morals. I am not saying we are the morally best country but we are pretty da** good. You are VERY general in your comments which makes me wonder if you hate us just to hate us.

All nations control media, even the US so don't start, and all nations have their faults, but it's only America a morally bankrupt nation who plays the "we are a nice nation really" card. I stand for freedom, peace, love and tranquility, the US is the complete opposite. Now, I'm not claiming to hate the US and yes, the United States have bought positive change to the world, but ultimately it is outweighed by the US' hypocrisy and greed.

[Spades]

So the causes of the rise in Islamic fundamentalism is because of US paranoia and US naivety? I'm sorry, but for a nation as powerful as the US is this is unforgivable. I also disagree with Quandt's opinion that the US should have changed their stance. It would be seen as a major double standard and would lose the US creditibility. The US should have followed the suit of Germany and Russia and done nothing. American crusades through the Middle East has made the Middle East untolerable and unstable, whilst breeding global terrorism. The US reacted too late to Saddam, and removed him at the worst possible time period - when Iraq was steady and stable.
Do nothing? By nothing do you mean not stopping a brutal dictator that should have never been in power (but hindsight is easier to judge these things). As Winston Churchhill once said if able to strike at the enemy when the threat is minimal then one should do so. I'll look up the quote later

Stable? Where do you get this idea? Being afraid to speak out and being obedient out of fear is not stability. Yes, when we take over a government there are bound to be groups angry about it no matter what the reason. Especially, if their religion would promise them alot just to kill us.


It's small enough, enough for Saddam to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians. These materials should not have been sold during the middle of the Iraq-Iran war, then again all nations care about is forging alliegences which will benefit them and I guess Iraq benefitted the United States. It is irrelevant who took the matter 'too far', what matters is that the US through it's own flaws made a complete disarray in the Middle East with an issue which was about eighteen years old at the time of George W. Bush's decision to declare the invasion of Iraq.

The materials did good and bad. But do you honestly believe if we gave saddam just enough agents for vaccination that he wouldnt use them towards weapons instead? By giving him more agents he would then be able to make vaccinations. The issue never got 'old' and Bush was not around to make the decision to take out Saddam beforehand. Secondly, its better late than never. I think it is you that is playing the high and mighty card with countries who were taking bribes from saddam and not caring about the genocide. Hypocrisy maybe?


Yes, there was several nations who helped Saddam, however it was the US who helped Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, it was the US who sold fatal substances naively to Iraq believing Saddam that the substances would be used to create vaccinations and whilst the US shouldered their responsibly the way in which the US has gone about "cleaning up their mess" has inflamed the instability and now Islamic fundamentalism could be more rife and it's rife, not in the US, but in the Middle East and Europe.

Reasons for our involvment in that war were already given for helping Iraq. Furthermore, Iran is not and has never been our friend. They have and still are displaying reasons why they should not be trusted. So I find no fault in trying to fight them. The world can always make up their own reasons why they are justified in their violence (which terrorists often do I mean promising virgins come on). If they think intend to blame us because we don't agree with their opressive ways than thats just to bad.

Now the US spin comes into force "we used Iraq", if this is the case then the US deserves everything it receives. If you play with fire and behave in a manner comparable with a playground bully then expect to be burnt.

Play with fire? Maybe by ousting out a dictator(2003 war) and providing a beacon for fairness and equal rights (By supporting Iraq in the first place). Are meddling is just an excuse for them to stop any attempt in trying to give women an equal place in their society


What reasons did the US have to go to war with Iraq and did the US have more of a right than sa