War vs. Iraq - Ousting Saddam?

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, prior to that I don't invite either declaration by sinking German UBoats or putting an embargo on Japan.

David, Would you have been happy with the world that would have resulted had the U.S. not gotten involved?

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
And, as I said, you should trust us.

Ned

Yes, because we are such keepers of world peace, going off an attacking a country that has done nothing to us, isn't attacking its neighbors, and isn't committing genocide.

[Tom201]

And, as I said, you should trust us.

We better look at it ourselves bevor we trust a man like Bush

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tom201
We better look at it ourselves bevor we trust a man like Bush

We've already seen how well the Dutch look after the peace.

[chequita guevara]

Damn, DD, that was harsh.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned


David what would your opinion be on the War of Northern Aggression?

Ned

You mean the war the South started?

No it never should have happened. I do wonder what would have happened if the South had the sense not to start it.

[chequita guevara]

We'd still have slavery.

[Ethelred]

Not here in California.

I don't think the South could have kept it up THIS long. Maybe though considering how long it took for them to start letting everyone vote.

I think Lincoln might have a found a pretext to start the war even though he promised not too. He did after all also promise to do whatever it took to hold the Union together.



Personaly I hope Ned is wrong on this. It seems a really bad idea so far.

[Shi Huangdi]

Source regarding the WMD, Che? Iraq severely limited Weapons Inspectors while they were there and Saddam is not allowing their return.

Chegitz is correct however that no Kurdish state would come out of this deal. Any such offensive would be at extreme cost to Turkey and risk a destabilization, and so they probably would not agree without promises to be able to annex large parts of Northern Iraq. Even still, it is not clear Turkey would support the US in such a move due to extreme anti-Israel feeling.

IMO, in order for such an attack to both succeed and in order to replace Saddam with a sigificantly better leader, we would need to stop with our strong pro-Israel stance and start acting more on the behalf of the Palestinians.

[David Floyd]

David, Would you have been happy with the world that would have resulted had the U.S. not gotten involved?

Happy has nothing to do with right and wrong.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, because we are such keepers of world peace, going off an attacking a country that has done nothing to us, isn't attacking its neighbors, and isn't committing genocide.

but who has tried ad is cotinuing to try to get WoMD while being controlled by someone who is against the US (and is a dictator)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Happy has nothing to do with right and wrong.

states can do right and wrong also

both Japan and nazi germany were doing wrong

QE ****ing D

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not here in California.

I don't think the South could have kept it up THIS long. Maybe though considering how long it took for them to start letting everyone vote.

I think Lincoln might have a found a pretext to start the war even though he promised not too. He did after all also promise to do whatever it took to hold the Union together.



Personaly I hope Ned is wrong on this. It seems a really bad idea so far.

Actually, I'm just kidding on that War of Northern Aggression bit. That is what the Civil War is know as in the South.

However tragic the Civil War was to America, it was necessary to end slavery and truly unite American into one nation. Those who are against the war typically are in favor of the right of state to unilaterally succeed. This concept is what the made the our initial conferderacy weak.

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Source regarding the WMD, Che? Iraq severely limited Weapons Inspectors while they were there and Saddam is not allowing their return.

Scott Ritter, "former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are largely disarmed, the "Iraqi threat" is built on a framework of lies and President Bush has betrayed the American people."

[Tom201]

We've already seen how well the Dutch look after the peace.

A bit diffrent from others our officials took consequences... (and no - of course, the election this month has nothing to do with it )
Finally like it was discussed in the other thread - in reality it was the Frenchs fault