Could someone explain the situation in Iraq more clearly to me:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Error
It's the same attitude people had about Afganistan prior to September of last year. Do not kid yourself. Just because he hasn't done anything we can prove yet doesn't mean he won't. Letting a 2 bit dictator who has ALREADY used chemical weapons against his OWN people obtain a working nuclear capability is just insane.

---

eh, some good points made, but know your facts.

1.Afghanistan had nothing to do with Sep 11th, all the alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as is bin Laden, and as far as the Taliban, just last June we gave them over 60 billion US dollars....hmmm.....

2. There are far more dangerous countries with "proven" nuclear capabilities than Iraq, China, North Korea, India, and last but not least Israel. To look past the hypocrisy of invading Iraq is idiotic at best.

3. Saddam Hussein did indeed try out chemical weapons on people in his country, they were not Iraqis, they were Kurds, a minority ethnic group in the Middle East, the US does not care about them either and our troops stood by while a group of Kurds was gunned down by Iraqi helicopters after the Gulf War had just ended...i saw the footage on Nightline last year.

as far a country trying out weapons on their own citizens the US is notorious for this...
go here...ABC news reports....

4. Dont forget who first gave Saddam Hussein his biological weapons...the US.

go here

Yeah, you are right, Al Quida were a bunch of Saudis. But they were holed up in the nation of Afganistan. To be honest I think the whole midde east needs to be cleaned out or excised from the rest of the world, there is just too much hate. But thats not possible right now, so we deal with it the best way we can. When somebody attacks you, you find the source of the problem and take it out, piece by piece. Taliban controled Afgahnistan -> Al Quida, then if you find more info leading to others who have helped attack you, say, IRAQ, then you move in and finish them off. Step by step.

"There are far more dangerous countries with "proven" nuclear capabilities than Iraq, China, North Korea, India, and last but not least Israel." Ok. I'm really not a fan of Israel, I never really have been, but they have the right to defend themselves. They don't usually start wars. So when nations around them such as Iran and Iraq, Syria, Egypt start preaching the good word of wiping the Israeli nation from the face of the earth what do you think they are going to do? Twiddle their thumbs and say ok, go ahead, destroy all that we are or ever will be? To even include Isreal in this list of supposed dangerous nations, I can't begin to fathom how twisted your sense of right and wrong is. Sorry, that sounds flamish, I don't mean it to be, but there it is.

All of the other nations you mentioned, not to mention other such nations with these weapons, like Pakistan, or Khazikstan, or Russia, haven't expressed the desire to attack the United States, and thus earn their attention. Or at least those currently leading those nations haven't expressed those desires. The United States lives in a world where they are the only major super power capable of projecting that power world wide. Thus they are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You know how the saying goes, you can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time? That's the United States right now. They can either sit there and not intervene, like they have with Rawanda and be condemed for not intervening, or they can go into such places at their own expense, like Bosnia, and still get critisized.

As for the US testing chemicals on their own people, well, there were alot of stupid decisions made back then, I wouldn't be surprised. It's reprehensible and not defensible. But I will say this, they weren't doing it to keep the population living in fear of the government, and had the population known about it some serious shit would have hit the fan.

As far as giving Sadaam his weapons, well, at the time he was an ally. At that time it was a very different situation, where controlling the oil supply in the mid east meant survival of your way of life. The freedoms we all enjoy right now weren't purchased by you. They were bought by the people who fought the cold war. Sadly now we must clean up the mess they made of that area.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Error
Al Quida, then if you find more info leading to others who have helped attack you, say, IRAQ, then you move in and finish them off. Step by step.

---

I dont see how saddam is related al qaida...?

I just wish Bush and the rest of the Goverenment would quit blowing smoke up my ass and be honest. Id be a-ok with him if he just said "Iraq is a bad bad place, we are going to get them. They will never fuck up world oil prices and drive all industerlized nations into the toilet as long as im here."

That's all I want, a little bit of honesty, not him trying to grab at air to connect everything thats happend together for the sake of making the history books read better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by IronPlant
I just wish Bush and the rest of the Goverenment would quit blowing smoke up my ass and be honest. Id be a-ok with him if he just said "Iraq is a bad bad place, we are going to get them. They will never fuck up world oil prices and drive all industerlized nations into the toilet as long as im here."

That's all I want, a little bit of honesty, not him trying to grab at air to connect everything thats happend together for the sake of making the history books read better.

---

secrets and lies, power and economic control is what the game is all about with the government. They'll tell you what they "think" you need to know and keep all the important info locked behind secret intellegence. What comes down to personal affairs doesn't concern our interest, even if it is our concern...

The government was never one for the people and that'll never change unless we have a revolution which I couldn't doubt would happen in the next 20-40 years should they keep doing things the way they are now.

"Could someone explain the situation in Iraq more clearly to me"

As clearly and logically as possible, I will explain.


President Bush, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate have deemed Iraq to be a threat to world peace and national security. Why?

You should have watched the President's speech on the 7th but you didn't, so I will explain. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. This breaks a UN resolution that Iraq agreed to. In a sense, this is breaking an international law. Iraq's regime has been deemed unfit to have these weapons according to the UN because the regime is dangerous. Iraq has used these weapons against not only Iran but it's own people, just because their beliefs are different.

Iraq is developing nuclear weapons. It has been revealed that at the time of the Gulf War, Iraq was 3-6 months away from developing a nuclear weapon. The war set them back but they haven't stopped. The problem with Iraq having a nuclear weapon is that it's regime is not safe; not trustable. I don't care if a country has nuclear weapons and in fact support them in developing them so long as it is not for in intention of harming other nations but with the intention of self defense (be it retaliation or deterrence). Iraq has attacked Kuwait, Iran, the Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others with ballistic missles or chemical weapons. What makes you think that they will refrain from using nukes?

Developing nuclear technology is also against the UN resolutions that Iraq agreed to.

Iraq kicked out inspectors. But the goal is not just inspectors. The goal is imspectors any time, anywhere. Iraq said that if inspectors went in that they could not check the presidential palaces; palaces which encompass 120 square miles with their properties.

Unfettered inspections were also a UN resolution that Iraq agreed to.

Iraq has broken one promise and resolution after another. The UN has proven to be utterly useless. Something needs to be done. China, North Korea and Iran are dangerous countries with nuclear arsenals but these countries are not routinely making threats, attacking their civilians or attacking neighbors (not counting the Korean War and the opression of Iran or China's people).

Iraq's regime is dangerous and must be gotten rid of. It supports terrorism. It is building weapons of mass destruction and weapons of chemical/biological matter for the sole intention of attack (Saddam's nuclear scientists are referred to as his Nuclear Holy Warriors). Iraq needs freedom. It's people are opressed and starving. Our sanctions have nothing to do with that; Iraq has the oil for food program which would work if Saddam wasn't stealing the money and using it for weapons.

This is why we're going in. We've got friends who need to be protected and we have a duty to protect ourselves, thus we must do it.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
"

You should have watched the President's speech on the 7th but you didn't, so I will explain. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. This breaks a UN resolution that Iraq agreed to. In a sense, this is breaking an international law. Iraq's regime has been deemed unfit to have these weapons according to the UN because the regime is dangerous. Iraq has used these weapons against not only Iran but it's own people, just because their beliefs are different.

---

Should'nt other countries that break international law be attacked?

Depends on how bad of a law they break; just like citizens breaking US laws. Nobody gets put to death for a speeding violation.

See? THAT's why he won the peace prize.... :P

... thank you, my Canadian friend!