300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves

[Q Classic]

i don't agree with 1.













they're monstrous by any standards.

[Evil Knevil]

I personally think that Saddam provided much needed stability to a potentially dangerous, religiously hetrogenerous region. He was by far the best leader Iraq ever had.

Albeit after 1991 we should have either removed or reconciled the regime, 12 years of sanctions helped nobody even if containment(containment at what price?) was a worthy goal.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Is there anyone participating in this thread not holding the following opinons?

1- The Ba'athists were, and remain, utterly monstrous by any sane standards.

2- That we should have finished them in 1991.

3- That it's one less genocidal regime on the face of this planet.

I agree. But we should not have gone in at the cost to the American taxpayer, and not without world support. There are dozens of other brutal regimes in the world, dozens of other genocidal wars (especially in Africa) yet the US does nothing. The strongest motives behind the Bush administrations involvement in Iraq are most likely:

1. "he tried to kill my daddy"
2. oil
3. get rid of evidence the WE supplied Hussein with WMD and capabilities to make more

Don't give me that bull**** line that we were there to liberate people or stop a genocidal maniac. The US continues to support oppressive regimes (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and turn a blind eye to countless abuses of human rights across the world.

Saddam was bad, but we should have found another way and worked with the world community to get rid of him. Now we are entrenched in an increasingly bad urban guerilla conflict and the US's credibility is at the lowest it's probably ever been in recent history.

[Kuciwalker]

Have you ever, ever in your life stopped for a moment and thought "I wonder what the use of international law is"

I KNOW it is useless. I was responding to allegations that the war was illegal. Take it up with MOBIUS and Savatroll.

[Kuciwalker]

1. "he tried to kill my daddy"
2. oil
3. get rid of evidence the WE supplied Hussein with WMD and capabilities to make more

Don't give me that bull**** line that we were there to liberate people or stop a genocidal maniac. The US continues to support oppressive regimes (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and turn a blind eye to countless abuses of human rights across the world.

So Bush's motives were impure. SO WHAT? If he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, let him! Does the fact that his motives are impure somehow make the actions wrong?

[oedo]

Originally posted by skywalker

1. "he tried to kill my daddy"
2. oil
3. get rid of evidence the WE supplied Hussein with WMD and capabilities to make more

Don't give me that bull**** line that we were there to liberate people or stop a genocidal maniac. The US continues to support oppressive regimes (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and turn a blind eye to countless abuses of human rights across the world.

So Bush's motives were impure. SO WHAT? If he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, let him! Does the fact that his motives are impure somehow make the actions wrong?

yes.

happy birthday btw.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sava

Don't give me that bull**** line that we were there to liberate people or stop a genocidal maniac. The US continues to support oppressive regimes (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) and turn a blind eye to countless abuses of human rights across the world.

Why can there only be a single reason?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
It did not allow for an invasion, that's why a second resolution detailing invasion plans was suggested

Is that why the French told Washington, "Your interpretation [of 1441] is sufficent [to justify war]," and "you should rely on your interpretation?"

[Jaguar]

nm someone posted almost exactly what I did, so my post isn't necessary.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by oedo
yes.

happy birthday btw.

Thanks

back on topic, how does it make the action wrong? Corporations give money to charity not because they are full of nice people but because it gives them good publicity. Should we ban corporations from giving money to charity?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Is there anyone participating in this thread not holding the following opinons?

1- The Ba'athists were, and remain, utterly monstrous by any sane standards.

2- That we should have finished them in 1991.

3- That it's one less genocidal regime on the face of this planet.

Well if it were all about the little Bush installing a puppet regime in Iraq that is half way tolerable, for whatever rotten motives, I'd say fine.

The problem is that in the process, we get a monumental ****up that will breed islamist terrorists like rabbits and discredit democracy in the arab world for decades. Then there's the possivility it will leave Iraq with a regime that is a lot like Saddam or in civil war.

[David Floyd]

Laz, I disagree with your Point 2 - we shouldn't have finished them in 1991, because we shouldn't have even been at war in 1991.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Is there anyone participating in this thread not holding the following opinons?

1- The Ba'athists were, and remain, utterly monstrous by any sane standards.

2- That we should have finished them in 1991.

3- That it's one less genocidal regime on the face of this planet.

[Odin]

Sava, you took my lines!!! Anyone who thinks Shrubby is doing this on humanitatian grounds is naive and ignorant. What about Congo... oh wait, they don't have oil; what about Saudi Arabia... oh wait, that would make Big Oil loose money. Every time the UN tries to get some REAL work done the US vetoes, it's sickening. I wasn't against the war, I was against the ulterior motives of the Neo-cons and Haliburton.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyone who thinks Shrubby is doing this on humanitatian grounds is naive and ignorant.

Again, does it matter whether he does it on humanitarian grounds or he does is because he got up on the wrong side of the bed? As long as it is a good thing to do, the reason is irrelevent.