"US will liberate Iraq", says Bush

[David Floyd]

The invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by a couple of factors:

1) Self Defense
2) Revenge
3) Justice

Oil had nothing to do with it.

Then explain why we went after Afghanistan (none of the hijackers were Afghani), and not Saudi Arabia (several of the hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabians helped fund the attacks, as they do many other terrorist attacks).

[Ted Striker]

Ah, cause that's where the central leadership and headquarters of Al Queda was.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia is also being dealt with polictically and economically.

I hate Bin Laden with a passion, but the man was/is brilliant. Those hijakers were chosen to be specifically from Saudi Arabia to try and cause a rift between the US and Saudi Arabia.

[Edan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Then explain why we went after Afghanistan (none of the hijackers were Afghani), and not Saudi Arabia (several of the hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabians helped fund the attacks, as they do many other terrorist attacks).

Because Afghanistan was where the terrorist training camps and the terrorist infrastructure (and Bin Laden and the other leaders) were. Saudi Arabia certainly has connections with terrorism, but they don't like Al Qaeda any more than we do, especially as Al Qaeda wan'ts to topple the government of Saudia Arabia and replace it with themselves. And while I don't like Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that because 15 individuals are party to a conspiracy, the entire country is. Should we invade Britain because of Richard Reid?

And if this was just about oil, we could invade SA and Kuwait quite easily, quite quickly and have a lot more oil.

[David Floyd]

And while I don't like Saudi Arabia, that doesn't mean that because 15 individuals are party to a conspiracy, the entire country is.

We certainly did a number on Afghanistan because of the actions of a few.

Not to mention Germany and Japan in WW2.

[Edan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
We certainly did a number on Afghanistan because of the actions of a few.

Those "few" happened to be the Taliban government, who refused to hand over Bin Laden.

Not to mention Germany and Japan in WW2.

There were certainly more than 15 people in the German and Japan governments and armies.

[David Floyd]

Those "few" happened to be the Taliban government, who refused to hand over Bin Laden.

So, if the US refuses to immediately and unconditionally extradite someone to, say, Canada, Canada should be able to come bomb us?

There were certainly more than 15 people in the German and Japan governments and armies.

Yes, but those in the German/Japanese militaries didn't have too much choice in the matter, now did they? And in any case, is 15 your limit on number of people involved? The people in the German/Japanese governments were certainly a large minority, yet millions of people were murdered by the US/Britain/Soviet Union because of them.

[Edan]

The 15 invlolved were not representatives of Saudi Arabia, they were representatives of Al Qaeda, who were tactitly operating under the Talibans approval.

The armies of Germany and Japan were most certainly operating under the orders of their respective governments.

[Dinner]

Why is it every child old enough to reach the key board feels they know everything about international relations and foreign policy?

Could it be that some people are over simplifing the situation so that it fits with in their narrow, bigoted views?

I'm out of this thread.

[David Floyd]

The armies of Germany and Japan were most certainly operating under the orders of their respective governments.

Yes, and people such as Paul Tibbets and Curtis LeMay were operating under the orders of their respective governments when they bombed civilians.

It seemed as if you were making the point that we shouldn't kill lots of innocent people because of the actions of a few. If that isn't your position, just say so.

But this is turning into a threadjack, we can take it elsewhere

[Edan]

And yes, if we were funding and harboring Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had just murdered 3000 Canadians in a terrorist attack, and we refused to cooperate or hand over Bin Laden, then yes, I would think Canada would be justified in trying to destroy the Al Qaeda infrastructure and get Bin Laden for themselves, even if it ment war with the US.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, whatever happens, I can only hope that the US military will take a massive beating. Hell, it'd be great if we actually LOST any war we start in Iraq, but that probably won't happen.

That way, perhaps we'll think twice before invading people or bombing them.

Traitor, I'd like to see you take a massive beating. Might make you think twice before you spout off your mouth.

[David Floyd]

And yes, if we were funding and harboring Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had just murdered 3000 people, and we refused to cooperate or hand over Bin Laden, then yes, I would think Canada would be justified in trying to destroy the Al Qaeda infrastructure and get Bin Laden for themselves, even if it ment war with the US.

You don't think negotiation and compromise might be a better solution?

jimmytrick,

Traitor,

That word means nothing to me, actually.

And you still haven't told me why it's OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqi soldiers and civilians but NOT OK for Iraqi soldiers to kill US soldiers. Hmmm?

[Edan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You don't think negotiation and compromise might be a better solution?

first of all, reread what I wrote. If the US refused to cooperate.

Second of all, there are times when cooperise and negotation are no longer an option. Should England and France, Checkoslovakia and Poland have negotiated with Germany after it's attacks? Should the US have negotiated with Japan after its?

And you still haven't told me why it's OK for US soldiers to kill Iraqi soldiers and civilians but NOT OK for Iraqi soldiers to kill US soldiers. Hmmm?

While I don't want to speak on behalf of him, I know I have less of a problem with Iraqi soldiers attacking and trying to kill US soldiers (using the rules of war, at any rate), than that you apparently derive pleasure in the prospect of their being succesful in killing US soldiers. I don't get any pleasure in seeing anyone killed, soldier or civilian, with the exception of Saddam.

[David Floyd]

Should England and France, Checkoslovakia and Poland have negotiated with Germany after it's attacks? Should the US have negotiated with Japan after its?

Most certainly, if at all possible.

I know I have less of a problem with Iraqi soldiers attacking and trying to kill US soldiers (using the rules of war, at any rate), than that you apparently derive pleasure in the prospect of their being succesful in killing US soldiers. I don't derive any pleasure in seeing anyone killed, soldier or civilian, with the excpetion of Saddam.

Neither do I. I don't find pleasure in the deaths of American soldiers. I would just RATHER the US lose than Iraq lose, simply because of our overconfidence and aggression against smaller countries, in the hopes of being dissuaded from future military action.

Oh, and your comment about "the rules of war"? Well, if the US can use fuel-air bombs, massive bunkers busters, even tactical nukes, then why can't Iraq use chemical weapons on US military targets?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I am growing more and more skeptical that a war will actually break out. The inspectors don't seem to be finding anything, and it's questionable whether UNSC approval can be gained. Without either of the two polls show support for a war at only 20%, which is just too low support. I think it is likely war will be averted.

Shi, Several months ago, in August or September I believe, we had a poll here on Apolyton on when the war in Iraq would begin. I objected at that time that the poll was flawed because it did not include an option for "never." I thought at the time that Bush would go to the UN, that the UN would be effective in sending the inspectors back into Iraq because of the threat to use force if this did not happen. The inspectors would then either demostrate that Iraq had no WoMD, or that the inspectors would be effective in disarming Iraq if they did. Everything went as I thought it would.

So long as Iraq continues to fully cooperate with the inspectors, I think there is no case for war. However, I may be wrong for I am not in full possession of the facts that have caused the five permanent members of the Security Council to express concern over Iraq's Dec. 8 report.

But going only on the facts as I know them now, war is improbable.