Possible smoking gun?

[Guest JMA]

Iran was the bigger threat at the time. Russia has also heavily stocked Iraq's military, much moreso than we ever did, so I fail to see what your point is.

I could care less about moral relativists or what they think. What I'm asking is why didn't we just let Iran and Iraq take out each other? That's all I'm asking, too.

[Guest DrTom]

At the time, we were reasonably friendly with Iraq, while Iran was the enemy in the area after the rise of Allaytolah Khomeni. I think we were hoping Iraq would take them out, which is why we helped arm them for the fight.

[Guest JMA]

At the time, we were reasonably friendly with Iraq, while Iran was the enemy in the area after the rise of Allaytolah Khomeni. I think we were hoping Iraq would take them out, which is why we helped arm them for the fight.

But we've always known Saddam was a dictator and evil man. Why were we EVER friendly with him before the war? Again, I think it would have been easier to let them take each other out.

[Guest SP-1]

That may have massively destabilized the region, though. Though I'm purely speculating, I'm not versed in that era at all.

[Guest DrTom]

But we've always known Saddam was a dictator and evil man. Why were we EVER friendly with him before the war? Again, I think it would have been easier to let them take each other out.

Sigh.

 

Keep shouting your moral superiority from the mountaintops, kid. Maybe one day, someone will hear you and actually give a shit.

[Guest JMA]

Sigh.

 

Keep shouting your moral superiority from the mountaintops, kid. Maybe one day, someone will hear you and actually give a shit.

Moral superiority? What? I'm not trying to act morally superior. Where did you get that? I'm just wondering why we didn't let two unscrupulous countries take each other out. But, I suppose it's easier to ignore that and talk about the mountains, or whatever...

[Guest BDC]

Because it's a matter of context.

 

You deal with the big threats. New big threats come up. You deal with them. We used Iraq to deal with Iran. Now we deal with Iraq.

 

As for why drones are a violation, let's load up one full of some nerve gas and let it fly around over, say, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any military base. Not only will it affect the targets, but whoever else is downwind.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Because it's a matter of context.

 

You deal with the big threats. New big threats come up. You deal with them. We used Iraq to deal with Iran. Now we deal with Iraq.

 

As for why drones are a violation, let's load up one full of some nerve gas and let it fly around over, say, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any military base. Not only will it affect the targets, but whoever else is downwind.

Well it shows that the US government is willing to work with thugs, tyrants, terrorists if it benefits us, instead of taking the "moral high ground" and just getting the hell out. Look, I am not saying it is ALL OUR FAULT for the current predicament(sp?) however, when you deal out weapons to these types of guys, how could you not expect it to come back and bite you in the ass down the road.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Ah, moral relativism... it's what happens when you have an administration whose vice president made buttloads of illegal money off of the country who we're now looking to eradicate...

 

(Halliburton, don't dispute it.)

 

 

(Okay, sorry, cheap shot)

[Guest SP-1]

Because it's a matter of context.

 

You deal with the big threats.  New big threats come up.  You deal with them.  We used Iraq to deal with Iran.  Now we deal with Iraq.

 

As for why drones are a violation, let's load up one full of some nerve gas and let it fly around over, say, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any military base.  Not only will it affect the targets, but whoever else is downwind.

Well it shows that the US government is willing to work with thugs, tyrants, terrorists if it benefits us, instead of taking the "moral high ground" and just getting the hell out. Look, I am not saying it is ALL OUR FAULT for the current predicament(sp?) however, when you deal out weapons to these types of guys, how could you not expect it to come back and bite you in the ass down the road.

Correction: PAST US Governments. You cannot hold the sins of a past administration against the present one. Every President assigns new people to major positions. It isn't Bush's fault that we once used those tactics. It IS his duty to clean up the mess left behind by those tactics that presents a threat to us now.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Because it's a matter of context.

 

You deal with the big threats.  New big threats come up.  You deal with them.  We used Iraq to deal with Iran.  Now we deal with Iraq.

 

As for why drones are a violation, let's load up one full of some nerve gas and let it fly around over, say, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any military base.  Not only will it affect the targets, but whoever else is downwind.

Well it shows that the US government is willing to work with thugs, tyrants, terrorists if it benefits us, instead of taking the "moral high ground" and just getting the hell out. Look, I am not saying it is ALL OUR FAULT for the current predicament(sp?) however, when you deal out weapons to these types of guys, how could you not expect it to come back and bite you in the ass down the road.

Correction: PAST US Governments. You cannot hold the sins of a past administration against the present one. Every President assigns new people to major positions. It isn't Bush's fault that we once used those tactics. It IS his duty to clean up the mess left behind by those tactics that presents a threat to us now.

Umm, are you suggesting, Rumsfield is new to the government and/or his position? Or that Bush didn't just re-install a shitload of people that have been involved in PAST administrations? President Bush is just one person. I didn't say I blamed Bush entirely. I said our government. It is silly to think that Dubya has washed his hands clean of the way our government works.

[Guest SP-1]

I don't think he has washed his hands clean, but how long ago was the Iran conflict? I ask honestly because I don't know off the top of my head at 4:45 AM.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well the Iran conflict was around the same time the "gassing of the kurds" took place. So if Bush and co. is gonna use the "gassing of the kurds" as an argument for war, then the left should be given an equal oppurtunity to bring up the past in outrage at our own governments actions.

[Guest SP-1]

Was the same man in charge of Iraq when the Kurds were gassed?

[Guest NoCalMike]

The same conservative administration was in charge.

[Guest SP-1]

No, I'm asking was Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq during the Kurds-Gassing incident?

[Guest NoCalMike]

No, I'm asking was Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq during the Kurds-Gassing incident?

Oh, yes he was.

[Guest SP-1]

And who made the final decisions for the US at the time? Not the administration, the top man himself.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Reagan.

[Guest SP-1]

Then I fails to see how our actions then can be tied to our actions now other than we may be trying to clean up a mess we helped make and do the right thing to take out an aggressive enemy leader for our own security and the subsequent security of the region.

 

Reagan and Bush are two different men making what appear to be different decisions.

[Guest NoCalMike]

What security are we looking out for though? Iraq has never attacked us, doesn't have the means to, has not threatened, has not been exposed to having ANY links to 9/11. Where was this notion of "our security" suddenly drummed up?

[Guest Tim]

Because in today's globalised world, particularly in the volatile Middle East, the security of nations like Kuwait is inherently tied up with that of powerful nations, like the US.

[Guest SP-1]

Because of the evidence that Saddam has allowed terrorist cells to operate in Iraq. Which IS a threat to us. Evidence that he's hiding chemical and biological weaponry, perhaps trying to develop nukes. That he's refused to comply with UN resolutions for 12 years running. You do shit like that if you're planning to keep to yourself and be happy go lucky.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

God, I was no-sold like a bitch.

[Guest Brian]

Haven't they only proved he has the weaponry and not the product that it has to be filled with, as in the warheads are unarmed?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

He's also in material breach of 1441.

[Guest nikowwf]

Few Points

 

#1 - Why is he building delivery mechanisms for chemical weapons he doesn't have?

#2 - The delivery mechanisms are also banned if they go over a certain distance.

#3 - Hans Blix is supposed to present all relevant evidence to the counsel for discussion. It seems as if he thinks inspections are the best solution, so questionable things are being left out so he can inspect more. This is NOT his choice and, in my opinion is a serious breech of the trust placed in him.

#4 - The argument of AMERICAN SUPPORTED IRAQ BEFORE is irrelevant. Seriously, if this is 100% our fault, then it seems to me to be MORE important that we take him out rather than less.

 

I hate ancillary arguments. The main argument should be IS IRAQ A DANGER TO US NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, and HOW DO WE DEAL WITH IT? Everything else, party affiliation, the feelings of the rest of the world, how stupid we think Bush is, etc. is not relevant. Its ancillary discussion....yet its becoming the main argument of a lot of people.