Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?

  • News
  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the justification for the war in Iraq and the motivations behind it. While some argue that Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship and failure to disarm as per UN resolutions are reason enough for the war, others believe that it is driven by ulterior motives such as securing oil and projecting imperialistic might. The conversation also touches on the role of other world powers, particularly France, in the conflict and the potential consequences of the war.
  • #106
And why is the US the self-proclaimed champion of human rights and the liberator of all those needing liberation? A single party which accuses, judges and punishes. Wonderful. Democracy, did I hear?

When Iraqi people starve, they are aware of the sanctions imposed upon them by the West. With the wealth in the country, they could've lived lives of luxury under even the most oppresive and dictatorial regimes, amidst the highest level of corruption. The refugee camps set up by humanitarian agencies with capacities of several thousands lie empty.

Pakistan and India find each other threats to the security of their citizens. Both find each other armed with weapons of mass destruction. According to the logic of the American administration, both should go to war with each other. They should also then discuss the post-war setup of each country.

Many are under the impression that the Americans are guaranteeing Saudi and Kuwaiti freedom. I pity the lack of awareness of these individuals. And I am certain these people have either never set foot on Arab soil or have never been exposed to the opinion of the masses. The Arabs want the Americans gone. Period.

To say that this war is not about vested interests that harm the interests of other parties is laughable.

A comparison would not be a bad idea. North Korea claims to develop WMDs. Iraq does not. N. Korea gives no indication of destroying them. Iraq is, at least on the international political level, willing to compromise. N. Korea expels IAEA officials. Iraq allows them into it. N. Korea's dictator is vocal in his opposition of America and his intent to destory it in the case of intervention. The Iraqi government aims to negotiate.

Why is N. Korea then being deal with diplomatic kid gloves by this self-proclaimed liberator? The Koreans know. Find

Those who fought for American independence are American heroes. The Chechnyan, Kashmiri and Palestinian militants, however, are terrorists. How about America liberate these people? People who've been fighting for freedom for years upon years.

Ah but why would it? Oppose Russia, India and Israel? Sure it will promote negotiations between the parties concerned. Why then, not negotiate with Iraq?

Israel, infact, receives one-third of the total American aid.

No one here needs to be told of American double-standards. Somalia. Vietnam. Truckloads of examples from history.


And while we're upon history, we must not forget that during the Iran-Iraq war, WMDs were supplied to Iraq by the US. At one point in the war, the US was supplying weapons to BOTH Iran and Iraq. Working for world peace? Lick my boot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Originally posted by russ_watters
That REALLY doesn't appear to be the case.

I take it that that, is actually, a compliment!, well THANK YOU Mr. Watters, ummmmm, errrrrrr, Russ. (may I call you russ??)

Alias, apparently, according to you, this statement of yours is NOT sarcastic??

Originally posted by Alias

Oh please, great holder of the truth, enlighten us!

Followed by the usual; "Let's stick words into his mouth to prove ourselves as justified/right"


Originally posted by Alias

So Bush should have accepted the offer to debate Hussein? What a joke!

Let me get this straight...

Saddam is not a dictator.
Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.
99% of Iraqi people love Saddam.
Saddam doesn't brutalize his people.
Canada is "where it's at". (Oh, brother!)

This is what you would wish me to believe is sympathetic from you, PATHETIC, Yes! but 'Sympathetic', not on your life.

Do you really think people to be so guillible, what I seek in this is Justice, your President is attempting to do an Al Capone, or what people of that 'ilk' do, "Murder the last/only Witness" to the crimes that have taken place.

That DOES NOT make Saddam Hussein, NOT a criminal, himself, but as I remember American law, Due Proccess, the Right of an accused to speak on behalf of his own defence, and a lot more protections, that should soon be disappearing from the American Legal Landscape with the new security measures that "George" is going to need to impose, due to the increase in externally sponcered terrorism, that is to ensue his present couse of actions.

Your throwing it all to the wind.
 
  • #108
And as usual Mr.P, all talk, no solutions.

It took about 15 seconds of me wathcing film clips of Saddam's henchmen shooting people in the head for me to realize that some people only understand violence. So, it is no surprise that we have decided to speak to them in terms they will understand.
 
  • #109
When I was told that a vast majority in the west took the word of the media, I refused to believe it. Now, I refuse not to believe it.

You saw Saddam's henchmen killing some people. Any context? No. Any evidence of originality? No.

I've seen American soldiers fill the old and the young with lead in Gitmo. I see Israeli soldiers rape and shoot innocent Palestinians. If, then, I were you, I'd go to war with both. Salute those who propose the war, shouldn't we?

This discussion is getting more juvenile by the post. Proposition of war can go out of the window. Few would will to bank upon wrecked arguments.
 
  • #110
And why is the US the self-proclaimed champion of human rights and the liberator of all those needing liberation? A single party which accuses, judges and punishes. Wonderful. Democracy, did I hear?

When Iraqi people starve, they are aware of the sanctions imposed upon them by the West. With the wealth in the country, they could've lived lives of luxury under even the most oppresive and dictatorial regimes,

So why haven't they?

Those who fought for American independence are American heroes. The Chechnyan, Kashmiri and Palestinian militants, however, are terrorists. How about America liberate these people? People who've been fighting for freedom for years upon years.

Good point!:smile:


Israel, infact, receives one-third of the total American aid.

No ****??

Hmmm.

A comparison would not be a bad idea. North Korea claims to develop WMDs. Iraq does not. N. Korea gives no indication of destroying them. Iraq is, at least on the international political level, willing to compromise. N. Korea expels IAEA officials. Iraq allows them into it. N. Korea's dictator is vocal in his opposition of America and his intent to destory it in the case of intervention. The Iraqi government aims to negotiate.

It has failed. The most pressing is the most present.

It's ironic that George Bush might have to kill another 250,000 to free the country of such an atrocity.

I pray he kills the right ones.

To say that this war is not about vested interests that harm the interests of other parties is laughable.

You talk too much.

Ah but why would it? Oppose Russia, India and Israel? Sure it will promote negotiations between the parties concerned. Why then, not negotiate with Iraq?

To speed your evolution?

And while we're upon history, we must not forget that during the Iran-Iraq war, WMDs were supplied to Iraq by the US. At one point in the war, the US was supplying weapons to BOTH Iran and Iraq. Working for world peace? Lick my boot.

2 points. So both of you mutherfukers hate us? Join the party.

As for labeling Iraq's Status as a nation, 'we' generally use the appropriate notion, it is a "Republic" (set up and administratively) to the best of anyone’s knowledge. It's internal affairs, and administration, is only our business 'insomuch as' we would, collectively, attempt to have the administration of law prevail, as that is how we ALL find Justice!...simple as that

Somebody give that dude a job!

You're very short-sighted Alias. And extremely bias to the extent that you would be dangerous, given enough power.

Your point.

Apparently you, Mr. Watter, do not follow that pathway, as you didn't know how I did it till I told you, and the only other manner that you would know, would be the method that "arises from within you", your statement, that I have quoted above

Look into my eges, you are becoming sleepy...

Lets see, the UN authiorized the allotment of 1 Billion dollars/per ninety days from oil revenues, @ 23 Million people, that works out to $43.48/per person/per ninety days, which works out to about $0.43 (cents!)per person/per day/per purchasing of the food/per transportation/per distribution/per person/per day!

Dollars/Days/People? You're a communist. And that's bad.

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy:

Every time I hear about a martyr, I think, there's one more crazy mutherfuker that I don't have to worry about.

PF rules.

Not bad in a country that has 112,000,000,000 barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia.

Capitalism rules. Get with it.:smile:

Lets see, in the last US election ~100 million people voted, out of a possible ~280 million people, less then 40%. Of that, less then half voted for George, as Gore is known to have won the "Popular" vote, just that the Electoral Colleges held "Legal" sway, so George got in on less then 20% of the US's population's expression of self.

Same same.

The following is plagerized...

You should support your boys, get them out off there, and back home, safe, where they belong...

Since clearly you do not care..."

(in my best valley girl imitation) ...as if!

... as you didn't know how I did it till I told you ...

Peasoup anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
So why haven't they?

Because the saviours of world peace and humanity have imposed upon these people sanctions. Read what you quote before you quote it.

Good point!

Definitely.

It has failed. The most pressing is the most present.

It has not failed. It awaits an oppurtunity. Ask me of evidence if you refuse to take my word. And upon the context you said this in, Korea is definitely a greater threat at the present time.

You talk too much.

Bothers you, does it not, that all of it makes sense?


And, just to satisfy my curiosity, what exactly was your post aimed at? Defending your argument or wriggling out of this in a dignified manner? You failed to do either.

I choose to ignore your smart-as$ sarcastic one-liners. They are not arguments. They are the words of a cornered debator who will not concede to the truth.
 
  • #112
And, just to satisfy my curiosity, what exactly was your post aimed at? Defending your argument or wriggling out of this in a dignified manner? You failed to do either.

It was aimed at exposing your assumptions.

I choose to ignore your smart-as$ sarcastic one-liners. They are not arguments. They are the words of a cornered debator who will not concede to the truth.

My smartassed one liners are just as precise as your monotonous diatribe. Let truth be the qualitative judge.
 
  • #113
And, just to satisfy my curiosity, what exactly was your post aimed at? Defending your argument or wriggling out of this in a dignified manner? You failed to do either.

It was aimed at exposing your assumptions.

I choose to ignore your smart-as$ sarcastic one-liners. They are not arguments. They are the words of a cornered debator who will not concede to the truth.

My smartassed one liners are just as precise as your monotonous diatribe. Let truth be the qualitative judge.
 
  • #114
Aimed at exposing my assumptions? It failed.

The stress was not on one-liners. It was on the sarcastic content of them rather than any debate.

Two more off-the-topic remarks and I suppose the anti-war argument is blown away?

Refute all anti-war arguments, and I'll appreciate your utterly humorous replies.

Moreover, let me and you both not let this turn out to be a personal battle - propose your pro-war stance.
 
  • #115
well if sarcastic content wins an argument, one liners can be effective but there are more ways to go about it than that. so if that is going to be the way we play it, i think it is time i paraphrase South Park's very own Johnny Cochran with an argument that is sure to take the cake:

Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed society, some people would certainly want you to believe that this war is http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/5.leaftlet.front.jpg [Broken]?

that does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself; what does this have to do with this http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0303/leaflets/2.leaflet.front.jpg [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
Originally posted by Alias
And as usual Mr.P, all talk, no solutions.

And after I just read all of the rest you've posted there after, Alias, well, those words up there, sure and certainly do apply to you!

Have a nice lunch, pea-soup I hear your drinking, French or English?
 
  • #117
I take it that that, is actually, a compliment!, well THANK YOU Mr. Watters, ummmmm, errrrrrr, Russ. (may I call you russ??)
You can call me whatever you want. I really couldn't care less. It doesn't change your bias.
 
  • #118
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Thread.
 
  • #119
Originally posted by ProMetal
Aimed at exposing my assumptions? It failed.

Classic debate technique, when you have no facts to refute your opponent's argument, is to simply say that your opponent's argument is false. Anyone can do that. At least wit and sarcasm require some talent. I will concede that there was a shortage of rational debate on my part. However, this was surely a combination of a reaction to your bewildering reliance on supposition, and my extreme drunkeness.

Moreover, let me and you both not let this turn out to be a personal battle - propose your pro-war stance.

I will be glad to propose a pro-war stance for your analysis. I just need to do it in a different post. Thanks for waiting.
 
  • #120
Originally posted by russ_watters

It doesn't change your bias.

Once again, Thank you, as I have already indicated that My Bias is pro truth, and you admit that, you too see that I am still maintaining my bias, (seeking the tracks of the Truth) I Thank You, once again, for a second compliment. (Cheese your turning out to be a nice guy after all there Mr. Watters)
 
  • #121
...as I have already indicated that My Bias is pro truth...
Uh huh. Do you actually believe that? I'm speachless. It really appears you don't understand the difference between "fact" and "opinion."
 
Last edited:
  • #122
odd, i don't see him haveing trouble with that at all; however a lot of people lately do seem to have issues with such things.
 
  • #123
I will be glad to propose a pro-war stance for your analysis. I just need to do it in a different post. Thanks for waiting.

I believe that's an end to this thread, then? Except maybe for some twisting and turning of words and some understanding of the difference between opinions and facts.

I'll eagerly await the response you've committed yourself to.
 
  • #124
Originally posted by Alias
I will concede that there was a shortage of rational debate on my part. However, this was surely a combination of a reaction to your bewildering reliance on supposition, and my extreme drunkeness.
LOL. I liked that. The best thing you've said all week.:wink:
 
  • #125
Originally posted by damgo
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Thread.

Mr. Damgo,
WE CAN"T AFFORD A SARCASM GAP!

Njorl
 
  • #126
Originally posted by ProMetal
I believe that's an end to this thread, then? Except maybe for some twisting and turning of words and some understanding of the difference between opinions and facts.

I'll eagerly await the response you've committed yourself to.

For some reason most Arab nations have failed miserably in governing themselves with civility. Many say it is because the west supports the opressive and dictatorial governments that exist in these countries. Maybe so. But please, tell me why most of these countries have crappy governments to start with. Maybe these governments are a reflection of their respective cultures or religions?

The reason for war in Iraq is very simple. We believe that Saddam Hussein posesses WMDs. His actions over the last 12 years indicate that there is a high probability that he will never willingly disarm himself of these weapons as was prescribed by the 1991 cease fire he agreed to. Saddam repeatedly demonstrates his dishonesty, so we simply can not trust him to be responsible in the possession or destruction of these weapons. We live in a dangerous world where many people will go to extraordinary means to inflict damage on the west. Should the types of weapons Saddam posesses (small pox for example) fall into the wrong hands, the results could not only be catastophic for the west, but also for most of the world. And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so.

Should the disarming of Saddam lead to a liberated Iraqi people with an opportunity to govern themselves with a modern democracy that might infect other Arab countries with similar aspirations, then hoorah! I don't really give a gosh darn!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
The reason for war in Iraq is very simple. We believe that Saddam Hussein posesses WMDs.

You believe Saddam posesses WMDs? Mr. Blix doesn't. If I am to take into account the responses regarding Mr. Blix in earlier posts, I understand that the weapon inspectors were not there for inspections - a statement that contradicts itself. The weapon inspectors were in Iraq for inspections, the reason why sites were 'inspected'. The fact that the US believes Iraq posesses WMDs does not ascertain that accusation. Under international pressure or not, the US agreed to 1441. And according to 1441, compliance and disarmement are issues that are to be dealt with and commented upon by the weapon inspectors, not by Powell in the UN.

Saddam repeatedly demonstrates his dishonesty, so we simply can not trust him to be responsible in the possession or destruction of these weapons. We live in a dangerous world where many people will go to extraordinary means to inflict damage on the west

Elimination of threats by military opposition, eh? I'll reiterate what I earlier stated. India and Pakistan are threats to each other - much bigger threats than Saddam Hussein is to the US. By your logic, both should eliminate each other as and when possible. And both would be justified in doing so. Ironic, isn't it, that the US and the UK called upon India and Pakistan to put an end to tensions after the commencement of the war on Iraq.

And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so.

Are you, by any chance, implying that not being capable of keeping the loss of life to a minimum is the reason more than half of the world is opposed to this? I believe not, for suicide when a debate has but started is naive.

Or are you telling me that the US has taken up this job because it is capable of doing it? I'm capable of sinking a dagger into the chest of a man who can do little to defend himself. I filed a case in the court a few months earlier, that the man is a threat to me. The court has, at least as yet, not declared the man a threat. I, however, along with a few friends, kill him. The justification I give to the members of the society is that I considered the man a threat, and was capable of carrying out this, therefore I did it.

If I expect my act to be declared justified, I better get my head out of the trash can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
Originally posted by ProMetal
You believe Saddam posesses WMDs? Mr. Blix doesn't. If I am to take into account the responses regarding Mr. Blix in earlier posts, I understand that the weapon inspectors were not there for inspections - a statement that contradicts itself. The weapon inspectors were in Iraq for inspections, the reason why sites were 'inspected'. The fact that the US believes Iraq posesses WMDs does not ascertain that accusation. Under international pressure or not, the US agreed to 1441. And according to 1441, compliance and disarmement are issues that are to be dealt with and commented upon by the weapon inspectors, not by Powell in the UN.

1441 mandates that Iraq disarm or provide proof of same. A number of proscribed weapons were found by the inspectors including the upgraded Al Samud II missiles that Iraq actually admitted were a violation. This demonstated the Regime's inability to TELL THE TRUTH even after 12 years of urging by the international community. Seriously man, what part of untrustworthy do you not understand?

Elimination of threats by military opposition, eh? I'll reiterate what I earlier stated. India and Pakistan are threats to each other - much bigger threats than Saddam Hussein is to the US. By your logic, both should eliminate each other as and when possible. And both would be justified in doing so. Ironic, isn't it, that the US and the UK called upon India and Pakistan to put an end to tensions after the commencement of the war on Iraq.

Their balance of power (both have nuclear weapons) will protect them unless their leaders become mentally unstable. Saddam is mentally unstable and there is no balance of power between the US and Iraq. Therefor we act preemptively.

Are you, by any chance, implying that not being capable of keeping the loss of life to a minimum is the reason more than half of the world is opposed to this? I believe not, for suicide when a debate has but started is naive.

I don't understand this. Would you please restate this?

Or are you telling me that the US has taken up this job because it is capable of doing it? I'm capable of sinking a dagger into the chest of a man who can do little to defend himself. I filed a case in the court a few months earlier, that the man is a threat to me. The court has, at least as yet, not declared the man a threat. I, however, along with a few friends, kill him. The justification I give to the members of the society is that I considered the man a threat, and was capable of carrying out this, therefore I did it.

Your analogy is inncorrect. You assume that the UN is a fair court respected in the world community as one that can enforce it's mandates. The UN has proven that it is a paper tiger with no more ability to enforce it's regulations than the debating society that it is.

If I expect my act to be declared justified, I better get my head out of the trash can.

I don't know what you mean here, but yes, I agree that it is better if your head is not in the trash can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #130
1441 mandates that Iraq disarm or provide proof of same. A number of proscribed weapons were found by the inspectors including the upgraded Al Samud II missiles that Iraq actually admitted were a violation. This demonstated the Regime's inability to TELL THE TRUTH even after 12 years of urging by the international community. Seriously man, what part of untrustworthy do you not understand?

Out of the two options given to Iraq, the first is to 'disarm'. If Iraq chooses this option, it is in effect complying with the resolution. This option comes into play only in the case where Iraq posesses these weapons. Disarmement is impossible without prior armement. (duh). If war was to waged upon the discovery of weapons, what was the point of giving Iraq the option of disarming? The resolution should have, in that case, asked Iraq to provide proof that it does not posess any prohibited weapons, and in the case that it failed to do so or weapons were found, Iraq would be attacked. If the US intended to attack upon the discovery of weapons, I don't see a reason behind their agreeing to 1441.


Their balance of power (both have nuclear weapons) will protect them unless their leaders become mentally unstable. Saddam is mentally unstable and there is no balance of power between the US and Iraq. Therefor we act preemptively.

Firstly, 'Saddam is mentally unstable' is a blanket statement, an unsubstantiated remark - a supposition, to put it in words more familiar. Liars and moustached men are not always mentally unstable.

Moreover, according to what you say, this tyrannical dictator who disrupts world peace and shakes off international law could exist in his utterly evil existence had he been able to match the military might of the USA?

And, by the way - a factual error. India is far more advanced than Pakistan militarily. It is in possession of more and better nukes, and militarily outclasses Pakistan. If the mere possession of nukes balances power, the US and Pakistan would be balanced in power. Would that mean that if Pakistan was a threat to the US, say on account of the religous parties that are now partially in power, it would be ignored and the security of the American people would not be guaranteed in the manner it is guaranteed now? I'm sure you President does not agree with you.


I don't understand this. Would you please restate this?

My interpretation to what you said, when you said, 'And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so' was that you are implying that the US has taken this up because it is capable, and those who oppose it do it because they are incapable.

You've dealt with my response to this interpretation, so it does not really matter. This was just to clarify. Moving on,


Your analogy is inncorrect. You assume that the UN is a fair court respected in the world community as one that can enforce it's mandates. The UN has proven that it is a paper tiger with no more ability to enforce it's regulations than the debating society that it is.

Two possibilities we have here.

1- The UN commands respect and is to be obeyed. In that case, my analogy stands.

2- The UN does not command respect and can be overlooked and its resolutions need not be necessarily complied with. In that case, let's look at history. The 91 attacks on Iraq were in compliance with UN resolutions. (Several UN resolutions were passed, placing trade embargos and demanding Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait by 15 January, 1991 or to prepare for war). The ceasefire agreement you talk about was signed under the UN. It was under the UN that Iraq ever agreed to destroy its WMDs, if it had any. It was under the UN that Iraq agreed to cease its nuclear weapon programs.

If the UN is that flawed a party, and no one is under an obligation to abide by it, Iraq is no exception. It can walk over resolutions the same way the US can walk over 1441. According to you, Iraq does not need to follow agreements regarding destruction of its WMDs.

Back to square one. And that's square imperialism.


Accept it. If this war is justified, we're entering the colonial era again. A France and a Germany can find so many threats around the world. And act unilaterally to eliminate these threats.

Reminds me of another deceased friend of ours. Adolf, was it?
 
  • #131
It is really much simpler than all of that, and I apologize for implying that it is not. Let me break it down for you.

The US is at war with terrorists.

Saddam and his regime are terrorists.

Simple enough?
 
  • #132
^^^ If it were true. Saddam is a bastard dictator, but he is no friend to al Qaeda or the type of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that threatens the US. Overthrowing Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime is, after all, a major goal of terrorist Islamist organizations.
 
  • #133
He terrorizes his own people. He's a terrorist.
 
  • #134
i think you are a terrorist in your own way Alias.
 
  • #135
Honestly, I don't quite know how to respond to an accusation like that. But I'll try to 'in kind'.

I think you're a big dummy??!?
 
  • #136
If it were true. Saddam is a bastard dictator, but he is no friend to al Qaeda or the type of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism that threatens the US.
Does this mean you didn't hear about the terrorist training camp camp they found in Northern Iraq?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-iraqi-militants_x.htm

And there is more to it than that, damgo. Shooting your own civilians in the back for fleeing a war zone and forcing civilans to fight under threat of death is also terrorism. These are recent examples. I'm sure you know of the less recent ones.
 
  • #137
Originally posted by Alias
He terrorizes his own people. He's a terrorist.
You want to know how many such terrorists we have in India ?

The Chief Ministers of Gujarat, Bihar and Tamil Nadu today are such terrorists. They have robbed, killed, bribed and deceived en masse for power and money. Come attack India next.
But you won't . We don't have oil, you see :wink:

- S.
 
  • #138
Originally posted by russ_watters
Does this mean you didn't hear about the terrorist training camp camp they found in Northern Iraq?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-iraqi-militants_x.htm
Er... actually that particular group is part of the Islamic guerillas against Saddam's 'infidel' rule. Notice:
there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained.

many of Ansar's 700 members have slipped out of Iraq and into Iran — putting them out of reach of coalition forces.
 
  • #139
Northern Iraq. The Ansar al-Islam camp was in PUK territory, de facto Kurdistan; Iraq hasn't had control of that area since 1991. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why we didn't take it out earlier -- the Kurds were certainly happy to see them gone, and we've had Special Forces in the region for a long while.

I'm assuming Alias meant terrorists in the traditional blowing-up-planes-and-building way, since (s?)he said "the US is at war with terrorists." Given some of the members of the Coalition of the Willing, it's clear the US is not at war with all brutal dictatorships.
 
  • #140
Russ, Alias, anyone, do you guys truly believe Saddam is in bed with Islamist terrorists? He's not; this isn't just a liberal/anti-war thing; those familiar with the region -- pro and anti-war alike -- know well that they hate each other, and always. The fundamentalists and terrorist groups have been trying to overthrow Saddam and the Ba'athists for years.

It's a classic example of the Big Lie... if you look closely, Bush and his top advisors never come outright and directly make the link. They just constantly insinuate it, make speeches as if it were true, and point out and play up every story which contains both the words "terrorists" and "Iraq." Makes me incredibly angry... I mean there are plenty of valid reasons to support this war; it's demeaning and disgusting that Bush&Co is instead pushing an utter lie on us.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
67K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
932
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Back
Top