The War in Iraq Thread (post here)

[patrickjb53]

I think it's time to bring home all the troops from around the world and let Europe, Asia and the rest of the world figures it out. We need to invest heavily into 'Starwars' research. Quit pissing of the rest of the world. I think it's time they fight their own wars.

[KrazyHorse]

http://apolyton.net/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=332

[DuncanK]

You almost had a thumbs up until you said starwars

[DuncanK]

frogger,

that is a link to David Floyds profile.

?

[KrazyHorse]

Yes.

[DuncanK]

O kaaaaaaaaaay

[DuncanK]

Let me guess. DF is also a Star Wars fanatic.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ned


Jimmytrick, this may be true. But as many have observed here, the U.S. once backed Saddam when he was seen as a buffer against Iran. Even after the victory in the Gulf War, Bush left Saddam in power explaining that Saddam was a necessary evil because he provided a bulwark against a more radical and menacing Iran.

America's attitude toward Saddam began to change in 1989-90 when we learned about his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Also he began threatening the United States naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Apparently in discussions with Kuwait about their border dispute and finances, Kuwait had said that if Iraq were to invade, the United States would be soon be there to protect it. Shortly thereafter, Iraq "accidentally" shot a missile into a U.S. Navy destroyer on the patrol the Persian Gulf.

But as I said, after the Gulf War, Bush left Saddam in power because he was perceived as a necessary bulwark against Iran. At the same time, Bush and the United Nations insisted that Saddam agree to the disarmament of his weapons of mass distruction, in particular, his nuclear weapons development program.

Well, the disarmament of Saddam did not work because he refused to cooperate. At the same time, Saddam's support of terrorism against Israel increased. He now has apparently thrown in with al Qaeda. Correspondingly, the Iranians have become less of an immediate threat. Perhaps they are even operating with us in the war effort. I wouldn't be surprised.

But the deciding factor for our concern over Iraq has to be 9/11. We simply cannot have an enemy regime with WoMD out there who can give those weapons to an al Qaeda willing to use them.
.

Ned, you are one of the few posters here whose comments I normally find sensible.

People here tend to mix morality and geopolitics. This isn't practical. All nations commit moral outrages in the effort to protect its interests...unless they are in a position to have a Big Stick Carrying Daddy to look out after them.

Insofar as trying to do the right thing I'd say that America has more than a few instances in their past where it has taken risks for humanitarian issues. It's just that folks here who are foaming at the mouth anti-Bush anti-American won't acknowledge it.

Now that there is no Soviet sword hanging over NATO and many member nations have this warm and fuzzy feeling due to the formation of the EU, suddenly the US has a few less friends. Well, thats fine. They will come running back when their ass gets into a collective crack and then we will in a position to make them sweat before we bail them out again.

[faded glory]

Wonder how Israel feels about the impending war? For? Against?