|
bebeinpa (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Don't forget that Russian, French, German and English Intelligence svc's all said that Hussein had WMD'S. This same critisizing occured after the first Gulf war when U.N. sanctions became (conveniently for propos) american sanctions ONLY. Thus we are accused of killing 500,000 Iraqi children to death when we never cut off food or medicine to them
Turkbot506 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I am a naughty? ho!I am single. vr
RimlandThesis (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Its not criminal. Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of what governments say, is the establishment of a 3rd American deterrent, in between its Pacific and European ones. Interestingly enough, this 3rd deterrent, which began in 1990 with the UN and International backing, is situated in Southern Eurasia. Wonder what this means?Cold War containment contniues...since there has been an acquisition of yet another American deterrent on the Eurasian land mass...wonder what that means?
hhn1000 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
What utter nonsense. Waste of time to debate with you. Removing Saddam certainly was a war aim. Saddam got around the sanctions with bribery. Look it up. Do some homework. Be honest.
AbtinX (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
No terrorism? you have groups in the US burning down rich peoples houses and blowing up recruitment stations, all the war and terror is going on where the US has stationed troops, why make it difficult when you are already in areas murdering? Removing Saddam wasn't even a war aim, disarming iraq was and surprise, there was nothing to disarm after ten years of murderous sanctions
AbtinX (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Im actually getting angry, do you know how many millions your government murdered in south east asia? if you came to my country I'd fight you to the last drop of my blood, and so will Iraq and our brothers in Afghanistan as Vietnam did in the past. We are tired of your belligerance, your imperialism. Allahoakbar
hhn1000 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I repeat. We achieved the goal of ridding the world of a rogue leader who'd used wmd in the past on his own people and threatened the region in 1991. His sons are dead. Other leaders understand now the West will act boldly against terrorism. Major sign of what's achieved: 7 years no attacks anywhere on American intersets: No embassies, etc.; beefed up US security; Western Eur.finally facing this threat, also & replaced Liberal leaders like Chirac & others;AQ Kahn network destroyed;
hhn1000 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
I don't agree. To leave now, which American Liberals want, would cause a blood bath in that country. Liberals did the same at the end of the Viet Nam war. We pulled out. Millions died.
hhn1000 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
No. I believe it was the fact that Saddam had failed to comply with more than a dozen UN demands to prove he had no weapons. The onus was on him. He failed. He was also considered a "rogue leader" who would willingly aid terrorists who want to harm the West. He's gone. The world is the better for it.
AbtinX (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
If you want to stabilize Iraq whatever that means now you have to realize a number of facts. One being that there is no Iraq, now that it has been demolished and it's social fabric torn apart by war. Two, you have also to realize that the US government has no means of stabilizing Iraq, three would be the obvious conclusion is to leave completely and try to do something with the rest of the UN. Whatever that something may be, you have failed utterly already, it can hardly get any worse |
