Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 34

I agree with you LDS. We would have done nothing if we weren't directly affected. Then again, isn't that what you have been saying all along. That all countries really only act when it is in their personal direct interest?

Even if our motives were related to the fact we were attacked, in the end, the women have been "freed" so I am not so worried about what would we have done if we hadn't been attacked. The fact is, for these women, all that really matters right now is that they have been set free to some extent. I believe this is also the case for the majority of Iragis as well. They don't really care about WMDs. What they do care about it those thousands of people who were killed and buried in mass graves by Hussein. That will not happen to any more of them or their loved ones regardless of what our motivation was.

Edited: tenaheff on 24th Dec, 2003 - 5:59pm

Iraq War Post

This is such a delicate subject, and everyone has such strong opinions. I'm going to try to tread very lightly here.

I'm no fan of Imperialism, and I think it is wrong for the U.S. -- or any country -- to force their views/government/"liberty" on another country.

But where is the line drawn? Should the U.S. have invaded Afghanistan before 9/11 to force out the Taliban because of their oppressive rule? Should the U.S. have invaded Iraq before because of Hussein's murderous actions against his own people? Should the U.S. -- or any country -- invade *any other country* because of human rights violations? Who decides what is right and wrong in someone else's country?

So, it's not okay to invade in the name of the so-called War on Terrorism, but it's okay to invade because of human rights? I don't think any other nation would call it "helping" -- certainly not the government of the country being invaded. The people being oppressed may want an overthrow of their government, but is it right to have another country or the supposedly neutral U.N. go in and take over?

Yes, it's horrible that evil exists and persists in the world, but the definition of "evil" is not the same everywhere. Who defiines evil and atrocity? What right does the U.N. or anyone else have to just go in and change things in an independent nation?

Roz

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Tenaheff, I agree almost in all what you said in your last post and I do agree with some of what you say Farseer. The thing is there is such a fine line between who decides what that's is almost impossible really to see the whole picture. Actually I think we think more alike than we may think in this issue. While reading the posts of you all about what is really the rights for a country to invade others, it came to my mind Adolph Hitler and what he did in the Third Reich, how he sent to kill 6 million jews....and most of the world, gave their back, maybe because of the same reason 'this is not really our business' or who knows, just like in Iraq the world didn't know to what extent the evils of one person could be. I have mixed feelings about things like that. I see people suffering in the world, being killed, being slaves (few people realize that we are almost in the year 2004 and there are slaved still out there and I'm not talking in the general, but real slaves who are sold and all!!!) so I don't know if Im the best person to give my opinion in thus subject, why? well, my family always called me 'Amnesty' (they said that I am always defending people), but going back to the subject, like I said before, I'm glad they got rid of Saddam and the Taliban, I just cannot stand hypocresy and the naivety of believing that really we want to help this people, maybe it doesn't make a difference for most of you, after all, if we get rid of these guys is all that matters but it personally matters to me, I suppose is a matter of honesty and what do I honor most about people, integrity.

Page 34 Iraq War Post

Happy New Year to everyone! Hope this year will be better for each and everyone of us in particular, and to humankind in general.

Let there be more peace, understanding and prosperity, and less suffering (mankind and others) throughout the world.

I just watched the BBC news today, and one interesting piece that came out was the declassifying of some secret documents from the 1970's by the British govt.

And for those of you that still doubt the true intentions of the US where the mid-east is concerned, here's a little food for thought. And it is interesting that some of those players from that time are the same players in today's situation.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

Iraq War Post

Fireduck, I agree that there should be a more peaceful year, but it ain't going to happen, the world is only getting worse. In fact terrorism seems to be on the increase since the 'War on Terror' started.

I am surprised that nothing more has been heard on Saddam, they are keeping him secret? What about displaying him as a prisoner? Isn't that wrong as the US complained when the Iraqis did that with their troops? They could have at least cleaned up the man before they took pictures?

Offtopic but, All the best to you to Fireduck, you should visit the welcome board and tell us some of your resolutions for the new year in the 2004 thread. By the way, would you like me to change your name to Fireduck instead?

Post War Iraq

Well, I read the article but it is all speculation from what the UK "thought" "might" happen. It was their assessment, their projections, their opinions on the subject.

For instance:
"British government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do."

"It was thought that US airborne troops ...."

"The JIC believed that military action would take the form of an airborne operation, possibly using bases in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Iran (then a US ally) or Israel."

"The report speculates, again perhaps with inside knowledge,"

We all know the U.S. is highly dependent on oil for the economy to work. For the U.S. fed.gov to consider options to secure oil for the future is nothing new. But this report is all speculation, drawn up by the British government. It was certainly in their best interest to have a contingency plan in the event of military action -- any government would be wise to have plans of that nature. It doesn't mean there was a plan in effect by the U.S. to carry any of it out.

IMO
Roz

Post War Iraq - Page 34

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq. Since everyone seems to say that the US administration used WMDs as the primary justification for our entry into Iraq, I thought a few quotes might be in order. For more info, see the article:
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36429

Just in case you don't know, all of these people are in opposition to President Bush. If there were WMDs KNOWN to be in Iraq in 1998 by President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the leading Democrat Senators, and Iraq refused to provide any credible evidence that they were destroyed, why do so many criticize President Bush for doing something about it?

We live in a very small world. At one time, even just a few decades ago, it took a nation-state to actually wreak havoc on another nation-state. It also took time for a country to mobilize and instigate a war. Now, a few radicals can kill thousands using normal transportation. A country can mobilize in a matter of days to the extent that they can destroy much of an unsuspecting countries infrastructure, using conventional weaponry. At the same time, countries that are permanently ready, can respond in moments and stop such an attack (consider the attacks against Israel).

If, repeat if, Iraq had developed WMDs such as smallpox or a form of ebola, and we had known about it, and it was released in Miami, NY, Washington, LA, and other cities, such weapons would inevitably spread into other places such as Trinidad/Tobago, Chile, England, Australia, and even Qatar. Under such conditions, and with the added knowledge Kaddafi even had WMDs, wouldn't it be irresponsible for the US to NOT act?

With WMDs in the hands of rogue nations, nobody in the entire world is safe.

NightHawk

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 34

Nighthawlk, I don't think anybody here denies the existence of the WMDs in Iraq in 1998, now what we are discussing is about something you and other people said : that the main reason the US entered Iraq WAS NOT because of the WMDs, the quotes above and so many others confirm the fact that the USA reason to invade Iraq was because of the WMDs! now I do feel they're trying to downplayed it because no weapons were found, so what they can do?.