We should indict Saddam if he is guilty of 9/11 crimes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 21 2006, 10:56 AM) [snapback]306794[/snapback]</div>

Is that the only reason we are in Iraq? I don't think so, I think there are multiple reasons. Personally I think the best reason was that he was a genocidal dictator that on a daily basis was trying to shoot down our guys enforcing the UN declared 'No-Fly Zone' as well as trying to restart his WMD weapons program, wiping out huge chunks of the enviroment, supporting terrorism, and etc. and etc, and etc. Not to mention I believed he harbored some of the 9/11 planners.

Wildkow

 

He had nothing to do with 9/11, and he did not harbor any of the 9/11 planners.

Better question: Why did we go after Sadam instead of OBL, who was responsible for 9/11?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 21 2006, 11:19 PM) [snapback]307059[/snapback]</div>

You didn't go after either. You went after Iraq. Capturing either Saddam or Bin Laden is basically irrelevant to the USA, strategically speaking. Nice little propaganda coup, but a short-lived effect. And not going to stop "terrorism" anyway. But capturing an entire country in the Middle East, that's a totally different question. It increases the power and reach of the American empire.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Aug 21 2006, 03:24 PM) [snapback]307061[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. It is a part of their plan for Pax Americana as described in the 2000 PNAC and the 1992 DPG and was originally dreamed up back in the early 70's by yup, you guessed it, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 21 2006, 03:19 PM) [snapback]307059[/snapback]</div>

We did he escaped into Pakistan out of our reach.

Wildkow



Do you believe that the world is a better place without Saddam?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 21 2006, 10:50 PM) [snapback]307349[/snapback]</div>

Still waiting. . .cat got your tongue? :lol:


http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=2...=0&#entry307502

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 22 2006, 01:50 AM) [snapback]307349[/snapback]</div>

This question is always a disappointment to me in debates about the merits of this ridiculous war. It's a convenient fallback position since almost nothing else has gone very well in the war. It's such a minor factor though, considering all the other things that are happening in Iraq and elsewhere. If the only result of the war was that Saddam was deposed, that would be great and impossible to argue against. But in reality, Iraq is chaotic, and more people have more reasons to hate America and western/Judeo-Christian culture than before. The global goodwill after 9/11 seems to me to have been squandered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Aug 22 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]307545[/snapback]</div>

I feel the same way about this. Any time I've heard someone ask why it is we went into Iraq, this ends up being the answer. Saddam was a bad man, the reasons given don't matter.

Do I believe the world is a better place without Saddam? Absolutely. No brainer.

I also believe the world would be better without Kim Jong Il. Here's somone who freely admits he has WMDs and delights in thumbing his nose at us. By the "The world's better without xxxx" logic, we should be sending troops over there yesterday to get rid of him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 22 2006, 12:50 AM) [snapback]307349[/snapback]</div>

Sure, if we don't put the resources into finding him, he's out of reach.

No, actually, I don't. I believe that this war has absolutely put the U.S. in much greater danger in a number of ways:

We have destroyed our credibillity by making grandeous claims that did not turn out to be true, such as the existance of WMDs, the ease with which the war would be carried out, etc.

We have distanced many of our allies especially in Europe. How stupid is that?

We have weakened our defense. What is it now, 2,500 of our troops have died fighting this war. That's 2,500 of our best, completely unnecessarily dead now. Further, we cannot meet recruitment goals. What's going to happen if we get pulled into a war with a country that is a real threat?

And Iraq. I guess you really believe that the Iraqi's are better off now that under Sadam. Well 100 ppl are dying every day there, and there is no end in sight. It is not realistic to think that we are going to be able to bring this thing to a peaceful end. We simply don't have the troops that are needed to do that. So I just don't see this ending in a good way. I believe that democracy is no longer an option in Iraq.

And the rest of the Mid-East, and the world. Directly as a result of our actions in Iraq, we are inciting hatred against the U.S. and our allies. We are emboldening Iran against us, and certainly we have given more power to al Queda, since we have not gone after OBL in any meaningful way, and our actions in Iraq have brought more fighters to his cause.

You think the world is a better place? Please tell me how.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 22 2006, 01:50 AM) [snapback]307349[/snapback]</div>

I do believe that the world is a better place without Saddam. However, I also believe that the world would be a better place without Bush. But, I would never suggest that someone should invade the US to get rid of Bush.

Note that I am not equating Bush with Hussain (although I know there are people here who would do that). Just trying to make a point that invading a country because you don't like the leader has all sorts of problems.

And I'll remind you that the justification for the invasion of Iraq was not that Hussain was a bad guy, that he gassed his people, or that we were going in there for humanitarian reasons. Bush and his ilk presented this war on the principle that Iraq posed an imminent danger because of WMDs.

 

Another great book on the subject..

State of the World 2005 - Redefining Global Security

It basically backs what Dragonfly and Ichabod have said..

or if you just want to read in depth on Bush and the inner circle:

The Bush Agenda (Invading the World, One Economy at a Time)- Antonia Juhasz

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Aug 22 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]307555[/snapback]</div>

if clinton did not let him develop nuclear weapons it would have been much easier - no? And in terms of being a bad guy - he does not rise to the level that Saddam did nor does he have the same potential for spreading death and destruction as did Saddam.

obviously you are in favor of preventing Iran from going nuclear - getting rid of that mad man will be a lot better/easier now before he gets nukes.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 22 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]307566[/snapback]</div>

only one of the articles of war were wmds - which they did find by the way.

anyhow - if you really believe what you wrote you are part of the problem. you look at evil as good and good as evil. you are in fact a weapon of mass destruction by being in denial of reality. that is your right - the same right people used in 1937 - 1939. Churchill cried wolf for 5 years and nobody listened until it was too late. you facilitate their desire to kill - willingly or not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 22 2006, 12:02 PM) [snapback]307564[/snapback]</div>

another facilitator of evil. You view of America and the world is jaundiced. what about those french - sending a whole 200 troops to lebanon - what's your view of that, and the Middle East, and Israel?

 

If I didnt know any better I would guess you are military trained?

You used the word evil in relation to the middle east but none in relation to our current admin? What is your definition then of evil? Is it not evil when someone in power uses their pull to degrade the lives of his subjects for personal and political gain?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 21 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]307217[/snapback]</div>

you cannot stop terrorism - you can make it impotent by keeping it away from wmds (the reason we will have to stop iran from going nuclear), by preventing States from sponsoring it, and by alerting those that want to perform it that there is a price to pay.

or we can do it your way - let them arm, let them gain strength, let them act with impunity.

if your pax America is a democracy based system that treasures life, liberty, freedom, the rule of law - than that is ok by me.

your system - that favors homocide bombing, rewards those that kill others with 72 virgins, enslaves women, stifles the individuals right of choice, of a jury by his peers of his right to a free press and free thought - is perverse. that you favor them or defend them is wrong - you are part of the problem by seeing evil as good.

 

So it is view as good to go in and change another country's culture and way of life because it does not fit into our view of good? Now i'm starting to think you are more religious than before.

Building up a military force that can deal with threats is one thing but invading other countries for economic positioning and forcing our views on them is more "evil" than anything they are doing IMO (wuth exception of a select few. We are not over there for humanitarian reasons, dont kid yourself. We need this postion if we are to even have a glimmer of a chance at maintaining our position as a world leader once China and India have reached their economic high.

In some respects I almost can't wait to see the look on the faces of the "righteous Americans" when we are no longer #1 and subject to the manipulations of other countries like we have been doing to them this last century.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]307576[/snapback]</div>

Sigh. Why am I not surprised to get this from you? It's really not worth responding to except to say that there has been no compelling evidence of any WMDs on anywhere even starting to approach the level that was suggested as a justification for war. Regardless of what the "articles of war" were, the WMD issue was clearly pushed by the Whitehouse as the primary justification. And you just saying that they exist doesn't make them true. (BTW, I'm still waiting on ANY sort of evidence that torture was important in the thwarting of the London plane bombings. . . nothing? I thought not.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 22 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]307589[/snapback]</div>

If our view of good is what i stated before than yes. it is not acceptable to accept a totalitarian state that does not separate religion from State, that is not "free" but based on "fear" - especially if that country seeks wmd's or slaughters its own or other citizens - no!

you make statements you cannot defend - so dont make them.

interesting how india will rise as it adopts an American style of life and governance - no? China too. Both are being democratized.

as the number of democracies have spread over the past 200 years, the number of world wide conflicts has??

if you have your way and radical islam wins, you will sow what you have reaped. you are on that track now. and your support of them by your denial and your vision of evil as good only places our soldiers lives at greater risk and makes it that much more difficult to stop iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 01:08 PM) [snapback]307606[/snapback]</div>

I'll just point out that this is how a rabid left-winger (almost as far left as you are right) might describe the current US government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]307576[/snapback]</div>

Ah, yes. It's all Clinton's fault.

North Korea was mentioned along with Iraq & Iran as the three-headed monster known as "The Axis of Evil". My point was with the "the world is better without him" argument. If the primary response to "why are we in Iraq?" is "the world is better off without Saddam", then it sounds like we went there specifically to overthrow him. By that logic, we should have worked to oust Kim Jong Il at the same time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 22 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]307576[/snapback]</div>

I think it would have been more appropriate to ... what's the word I'm looking for? ... OH! I know ... ask me what I'm in favor of before saying I'm obviously in favor of something. What I'm obviously in favor of is no one having nuclear weapons. Not realistic, I know, but that's what I'm obviously in favor of.